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

[BryonD]

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.

I don't think I have ever thought about it in those terms. But that is well put.

 

[rounser]

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.

That's an assumption on your part of how the people opposing your opinion of "fluff" are going to behave, and it's quite a presumptious, objectionable one. All that's being suggested here is to use a term that doesn't have a negative connotation before it's meaning is even explained.

As I said, you're suggesting that this reasonable stance will extend to an unreasonable, absurd extreme, by assuming that if they're given an inch they'll never be satisfied and will keep complaining about whatever term is used, so don't give them an inch. That's reductio ad absurdum. And to further serve your argument you also fail to distinguish between "this word has negative connotations" and "I prefer crunch so whatever is opposite to that has negative connotations", as if they're exactly the same thing. They're not.

Because the exact meaning of that term is that you DON'T have to stop and define the term.

I'll take that as agreement that a term other than "fluff" needs to be used, so we don't have to redefine it to purge it of negative connotations.

Your argument is pure fluff, whereas mine is full of flavor. You won't be bothered by that description, I hope.

 

[BryonD]

Edit:

Never mind

 

[BryonD]

Hey Mouseferatu,

I apologize for side-trekking your thread into this silliness with rounser.

 

[Ferox4]

OH my kingdom for the precious :rolleyes emoticon right now................ why have you forsaken me in my time of need?

 

[Col]

EDIT: Fixed a bit of the novel praise section, because I'd worded it, well, poorly (no snooty atitude intended in the original post!)


Hi all.

I think we need to claim the word fluff, and make it our own. Sure, it may take a few decades, but eventually people would associate the word fluff (at least when used in a roleplaying context-- and there's always context <not always intended context, but if you're using the word fluff with a description of a roleplaying product (scary thought, roleplaying hair gel , or in a conversation involving other terms that can be grouped in a 'roleplaying' context, most people will read it in that context>) with setting, as opposed to seeing it in a negative light.
Or we could just use flavour.
But I dig the chance to subvert a word

A weird first post, but neh...

Oh, by the by, if Mouseferatu's still reading this thread, way to rock on "Gehenna: The Final Night" novel. Not how I'm use to running Vampire (these days), but something a way of playing I'd definately like to try out. And it tied a big history up with a sense of expert fun, had a more kicking tempo then "The Last Battle" (in the context of how I understood the novels) and I dug the characters. WW would be the loser if you're not writing any more fiction in the new WoD.

 

[WizarDru]

To side-track this thread a little further:


the term fluff, as it applies to RPGs, is older than 3e. SKR's recent usage may have propped up "crunch", but fluff has been in use in different contexts for considerably longer. A quick google will show you some examples.

Here, for example is the Rec.Games.FRP.DND Faq, circa 1995, referring to fluff and munchkinism, and clearly making reference to it being most about stories and in-game fiction within the context of that newsgroup. The same entry was present in the 1991 FAQ, too.

Here's a post in rec.games.frp.announce that also references Fluff, both in reference to stories and when discussing a Forgotten Realms Net Book. Fluff use there may be for more than stories, and seems to imply setting information, as well. That's from 1993.

This post, from 2000 by Justin Bacon, shows how fluff had moved on to refer to non-mechanical terms in r.g.f.dnd, and note the general derogatory tone when referring to same...although in this context, I think he's lashing out more at TSR's releasal of poor materials than 'fluff' itself.

For amusement's sake: here's a post from comp.lang.c++.moderated from 1999. He mentions fluff and D&D (not OUR D&D, mind you) and note how the non-gamer uses the term.

And here, from 1990, is a person discussing how White Dwarf has gone downhill from it's glory days, due to WFRP.

I'm not saying that I have a problem with the word fluff, as it's context with the use of crunch has certainly changed over time, which is what language does. It lives. But I'm just pointing out that it's had a long usage, and not a very positively connotated one, at that.

 

[WizarDru]

Now, in case you were wondering about "Crunch"....well, that's been in use a long time, too, but again, not exactly as we're discussing here. Unlike 'fluff', 'crunch' has a mixed heritage. It's originals in most RPG discussions appear, via google, to stem out of 'crunching numbers'...clearly referencing numbers and mechanics. It's use is entirely neutral, usually just referring to the act of using the numbers, with no inherent positive/negative connotation, unless you consider the act of number-crunching itself to be unpleasant.

For example: This post from 1990 clearly uses number-crunch as a neutral term, as something a DM might do to get some stats.

Here in 1996, we see the trend continues, with crunch only being in refernce to numbers-crunching...'here the numbers just won't crunch'. Again, a neutral reference.

Jump to 2000, and we see the discussion of 'crunchy' and 'crunchiness' as clear references to having mechanics and 'fiddly bits', and that being crunchy means having more mechanics. NOTE: he also refers to fluff as narrative material. If this isn't a smoking gun that the terms go back some time, I don't know what is. Here the terms fluff and crunch are both being used in the context we've discussed, and D&D 3e isn't out yet, at that point in 2000.

Ain't Google Grand?

 

[Vigilance]

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

100% correct. Flavor text and crunch are terms for different things, but not necessarily mutually exclusive things.

So when I am asked "give me the flavor text for Blood and Fists" I know what is being asked for, the little stories about the Hanmei at the start of each chapter. The "fluff", which in this example would be the histories of the various real world martial arts styles and weapon descriptions, would already be done at that point.

So the fluff is integral to the product, and the flavor text is the last thing done, because while it enhances the product, it is a fairly seperate entitity.

And again, attempting to argue someone into using a different term just doesnt work. Ask any programmer who's tried to champion "cracker" for the last ten years.

Chuck

 

[jgbrowning]

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.

100% agree.

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.

Not quite what I ment. It's much easier for me to come up with good, interesting, useable ideas than to try and manipulate mechanics to create something new. It's like when they're doing show cars, the first thing they do is brainstorm and then they look at their ideas and determine what is, and isn't, possible given the current mechanics. For me, writing mechanics is easier than writing fluff, but not nearly as enjoyable.

That's why I think fluff is more manipulatable than mechanics during the writing, but mechanics are more manipulatable after writing. To me fluff is what happens while cruch is how it happens.

However, I think writing good mechanics is just as hard as writing good fluff. But thinking about it a bit more, writing good mechanics may perhaps be harder because a certain amount of fluff is necessary for a really good mechanic.

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.)

Again, agree 100%.

joe b.