No more "fluff"!!! [A rant and a request]

[Psion]

And to be honest, even though my latest has zero, zilch, nada crunch in it, I still have a negative bias to to the term "fluff." I think that has more to do with a english major background than anything else. I find myself trying not to discribe my book (EDIT: sorry, I mean A Magical Society: Ecology and Culture, not MMS:WE) as %100 fluff for that reason. I think there is an underlying negativity there and I'd rather not have to work around that.

It's at this point that I want to reemphasize (drive home, whatever) a point that I made earlier.

If there is a underlying negativity to "non-mechanical text" in general in the community, it is probably not due to a word. It is probably due to the fact that too many of your peers have been lazy and sloppy writing it.

From my writer's perspective fluff is more manipulatible (new word!) than crunch.

Let's simplify what you are saying here:

Fluff (you used the term, so I'll follow suit. ) is easier than write than mechanics. It takes no playtesting, no analyzing for interaction or rules adherence.

So, some of your peers take the lazy way out and don't try to make their flavor text functional and interesting (or in many cases, I suspect it has nothing to do with effort. Rather, many authors get drawn into RPGs who are good at mechanics but just aren't that seasoned at authorship.)

 

[BryonD]

And...given a moments thought, you must understand that the language helps control how people think. One of the tools of propaganda is to use the language as a means of changing or influencing people's opinions with the perjorative and negative, no doubt an objective of those who chose the terms "fluff" and "crunch" - and you seem to want to hold onto that.

PLEASE talk about propoganda

All I want is terms that are clearly understood. As I already stated, non-mechanical elements have less overall market support. Eventually any term used to describe non-mechanical material will come under assault as being a means of devaluing the material.

 

[rounser]

Ok, so when people say they LIKE fluff what do you think they are saying they like?

I'm an advocate of "fluff", but I don't like the term. It implies negative connotations to it which it neither deserves, nor adequately describe it. It sets any argument off with "crunch" on the front foot, because that has no negative connotations.

I have already established that the use of the term fluff does not equate to filler. Simply restating the false claim does not make a functional rebuttal.

The word "fluff" implies filler by default. Your words can't change what the english language says the word means by default, and even if people come to understand that it has no negative connotations in time, those connotations still pop up subconciously, even now, to me. In the meantime, they make assumptions that crunch is bettah. And for someone who accuses Mouseferatu of caring too much about this issue, you seem to be hanging onto it in a hypocritical manner, almost as if you have an agenda that you like the word and it's negative implications - otherwise, why would you care it were changed?

 

[rounser]

PLEASE talk about propoganda

We are...laughably trivial propaganda, but propaganda nonetheless. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that the folks who came up with the terms were pro-"crunch", anti-"fluff" and chose words which supported thinking in that vein.

All I want is terms that are clearly understood.

I doubt that - if that were the case you'd probably agree on the neutral ones such as "flavor" as being a useful replacement.

As I already stated, non-mechanical elements have less overall market support. Eventually any term used to describe non-mechanical material will come under assault as being a means of devaluing the material.

Reductio ad absurdum. All that I've seen people suggesting is a neutral term as a replacement for a term with clear negative connotations, and here you're trying to paint them as unreasonable, never satisfied, so stick with the status quo!

 

[BryonD]

I'm an advocate of "fluff", but I don't like the term. It implies negative connotations to it which it neither deserves, nor adequately describe it. It sets any argument off with "crunch" on the front foot, because that has no negative connotations.

The word "fluff" implies filler by default. Your words can't change what the english language says the word means by default, and even if people come to understand that it has no negative connotations in time, those connotations still pop up subconciously, even now, to me. In the meantime, they make assumptions that crunch is bettah. And for someone who accuses Mouseferatu of caring too much about this issue, you seem to be hanging onto it in a hypocritical manner, almost as if you have an agenda that you like the word and it's negative implications - otherwise, why would you care it were changed?

Thats real clever. Frame the arguement where I can agree with you by responding or agree with you by not responding.

We are not at DEFAULT. There is CONTEXT.

I make ZERO assumptions that crunch is better. Without the fluff, the crunch I use would be worthless. I'd say that makes fluff very valuable.

As I have stated before, it won't be changed so caring is irrellevant.

But you petty flames aside, I do not feel slightly hypocritical for defending established use of language.

 

[BryonD]

We are...laughably trivial propaganda, but propaganda nonetheless. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise that the folks who came up with the terms were pro-"crunch", anti-"fluff" and chose words which supported thinking in that vein.

Ummm the claim has been offered up here that SKR either started the use, or at least made it popular. Sean has clearly been an advocate of fluff. So you are wrong. Again.

I doubt that - if that were the case you'd probably agree on the neutral ones such as "flavor" as being a useful replacement.

Reductio ad absurdum. All that I've seen people suggesting is a neutral term as a replacement for a term with clear negative connotations, and here you're trying to paint them as unreasonable, never satisfied, so stick with the status quo!

More strawman argument. You forced assumption of why I prefer one term proves your error. I prefer we used the term because it is established and understood.

 

[NewJeffCT]

So... no more "fluff." The two differing aspects of RPG books are now "crunch" and "flavor." Who's with me?

Sounds good to me. We've always called it "flavor text"... and, I hate rule books loaded down with "crunch". With a one-year old daughter and a busy job, I barely have enough time to read the core PHB, DMG and the MM, let alone anything else. I don't need to learn more rules in more books and worry about if some rule, skill, feat, spell or prestige class is balanced and how it should be put in to play. At least with books loaded down with flavor text, it will give me ideas.

 

[rounser]

Thats real clever. Frame the arguement where I can agree with you by responding or agree with you by not responding.

You've already done it to Mouseferatu, so I don't see why you can't take it yourself.

We are not at DEFAULT. There is CONTEXT.

There is no context when people are just discussing it and nobody stops to define the terms. Plus, as I mentioned before, the word continues to have negative connotations even after you redefine it otherwise. Maybe not in your mind, but in mine, and as I'd assume from the contributions to this thread, some other people's as well.

I make ZERO assumptions that crunch is better. Without the fluff, the crunch I use would be worthless. I'd say that makes fluff very valuable.

What you've said there sounds a lot more plausible and less slightly ridiculous ("I'd say that makes fluff very valuable") when you replace "fluff" with a neutral term, like "flavor" or "atmosphere" or "story elements". Ironic that your own sentence should point that out.

As I have stated before, it won't be changed so caring is irrellevant.

Yes, our resistance is futile, we will be assimilated, so you claim victory on those terms.

But you petty flames aside, I do not feel slightly hypocritical for defending established use of language.

Who would have thought one's own medicine would taste so bitter?

More strawman argument. You forced assumption of why I prefer one term proves your error. I prefer we used the term because it is established and understood.

You can't trump an accusation of "reductio ad absurdum", where I point out just where you've done it, by calling that a straw man argument. New tools are needed; that one's blunt.

 

[Psion]

We've always called it "flavor text"... and, I hate rule books loaded down with "crunch".

Ah, but some might find "flavor text" imprecise as well. To me, "flavor text" is different than "fluff."

To me, flavor text is that two pages or so of in-character text at the beginning of a book, or the half a page at the beginning of a chapter, or (especially popular in Planescape) little snippets and quotes dropped in the margins and sidebars. Fluff is the (hopefully) functional but non mechanical text, like (say) the bits about how Gnolls treat their prisoners in the Slayers Guide to the same, or the History part of a campaign setting book.

 

[BryonD]

It appears you have managed to completely miss numerous points.

There is more market demand for crunch than fluff.
No matter what term is used for fluff that term will eventually be used by some as a reason for not enjoying or not buying a given product. Some people who prefer fluff will claim that the term contributes to that lack of sales.

There is no context when people are just discussing it and nobody stops to define the terms.

Umm.... boggle

Now THAT is oxymoronic. Do you just not understand the concept of gathering a defintion by context? Because the exact meaning of that term is that you DON'T have to stop and define the term. Your own sentence is a contradiction of itself.