Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Saeviomagy" data-source="post: 1405263" data-attributes="member: 5890">So, basically you're whinging about the word fluff because you feel it has a negative connotation.If the general public has the same feeling of a negative connotation, then why on earth would they want to apply it to a good thing?Oh, wait. Maybe they MEAN the negative connotation.I myself have never heard the word fluff applied to world setting material - that's usually called &quot;setting&quot;. Mostly I hear it applied to the sort of stuff that's in those silly descriptions of classes (the ones that try to pidgeonhole classes into tiny little corners instead of trusting the player to work out what the class does?).You know the sort of material. The ones which SOUND like they may be world setting stuff, but actually aren't? The ones which, while they do sound kinda interesting, don't really have an effect on the game, except perhaps giving people odd ideas about what the class (or whatever) actually is?Likewise I've never heard the phrase crunch applied to any sort of core mechanic. Mostly crunch is used to apply to interesting little add on rules which, while they may be useful, are by no means essential.Neither term applies to &quot;stuff that is currently being used in my campaign verbatim&quot;.So I think dragon had it spot on - they're full of things which are nice, are either mechanical or non-mechanical in nature, but ultimately are not likely to see usage in a game as-is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Saeviomagy, post: 1405263, member: 5890"] So, basically you're whinging about the word fluff because you feel it has a negative connotation. If the general public has the same feeling of a negative connotation, then why on earth would they want to apply it to a good thing? Oh, wait. Maybe they MEAN the negative connotation. I myself have never heard the word fluff applied to world setting material - that's usually called "setting". Mostly I hear it applied to the sort of stuff that's in those silly descriptions of classes (the ones that try to pidgeonhole classes into tiny little corners instead of trusting the player to work out what the class does?). You know the sort of material. The ones which SOUND like they may be world setting stuff, but actually aren't? The ones which, while they do sound kinda interesting, don't really have an effect on the game, except perhaps giving people odd ideas about what the class (or whatever) actually is? Likewise I've never heard the phrase crunch applied to any sort of core mechanic. Mostly crunch is used to apply to interesting little add on rules which, while they may be useful, are by no means essential. Neither term applies to "stuff that is currently being used in my campaign verbatim". So I think dragon had it spot on - they're full of things which are nice, are either mechanical or non-mechanical in nature, but ultimately are not likely to see usage in a game as-is. [/QUOTE]

Verification