RE: Crunch vs. Fluff — Does It Change Expectations of How a Game Should Play?

[innerdude]

RE: Crunch vs. Fluff — Does It Change Expectations of How a Game Should Play?

The one question that didn't get answered in the other Crunch vs. Fluff thread before it devolved into Edition Warring, was this:

Does it make a difference for us as players and GMs to know if a rule system is focused on the primacy of the mechanics, or on fitting the mechanics to the fluff?

Some I'm sure might say that they'd always prefer the mechanics to supersede fluff. Make the rules consistent, and let the GMs sort out how it all "fits" into the worlds.

Others might prefer the mechanics to not necessarily be totally controlled by the fluff, but at least inspired by it.

For example, having read through the Runequest Deluxe core rulebook, it felt that creating a cohesive sense of the world of Glorantha was what inspired the mechanics, rather than the other way around. Ars Magica 2nd ed. (though I haven't read through the entire thing yet) feels much the same--the world, and its general setup and mileu obviously inspired the mechanics, rather than the other way around.

4e, as we talked about in the other thread, is fairly clear in its intent to put the mechanics first, and let the fluff follow.

Someone in the other thread also mentioned that they felt even GURPS posits a sense of "fluff" that its rules support, but I'm of the opinion that the mechanics take primacy over the fluff. Sure, GURPS has no qualms about claiming that it supports nearly any type of campaign, but the range of variance in campaigns seem more constrained by the mechanical elements than the reverse.

Anyway, I realize, of course, that it's possible to have both. What I'm asking is when push comes to shove, when a designer has to make the choice of, "Well, I want the world to look and feel like X, but the better mechanical choice is Y," which one would you want them to choose?

I think the reason I'm so curious is that I've recently begun in earnest breaking down game mechanics and their inherent probabilities, because I want to try and correlate mechanics to gamestyle and "feel."

And I keep coming up against this idea, this binary, that at its core, the choice has to ultimately rest in one or the other. Either you have to throw the mechanics out there, and consequences on the world be damned, or you put the "world" out there, and try to shoehorn the best mechanical solution out of it you can (and hopefully you can do both, but there's always going to be compromises. Always. There's no perfect system. If there was, we'd all be playing it).

I think in some regard this goes back to the idea that the world/milieu/fluff also constrain on some level the choices available to the players. A game is nothing, if not presenting a series of choices to the players, then living with the consequences. An RPG that focuses primarily on politics and intrigue will necessarily focus on a different set of "world options" than one focused on, well, killing things and taking their stuff.

The other question is, which choice produces the types of games you prefer and why?

Or is it better to choose mechanical primacy for some gameplay elements--like combat--and use more "fluff" inspiration for other resolution mechanics? Can you split combat from non-combat in the same game, with different focuses?

Ultimately I'm curious, because I think exploring those ideas might provide opportunities for me to be a better GM in the future.

As always, your thoughts, Wise EnWorlders.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The games you listed are interesting choices. I happen to like all of them--for different reasons. But as someone who generally prefers mechanics first, then fluff layered on top, I'll make a couple of observations:

I doubt very many people are absolutists about this. We talk that way for discussion. But what most of us want is one side or the other to break ties. Most of the time, we'd like for the whole thing to just work as mechanics and fluff.

What I usually want is iterative design. For me, it is start with mechanics. Then if the fluff is "good enough", done. If not, revisit the mechanics. That is, the problem in the fluff is not a sign that fluff should "win" but that your mechanics aren't done. I'm sure a lot of people that prefer fluff first feel similar about mechanics so bad that they just aren't getting the job done. That doesn't mean the mechanics should just change to something that works. It does probably mean that your fluff has got some serious holes in it. Revisit the design where it matters, and you only have to break ties at the margins.

Finally, I want to know where a game stands. I like MRQ II in part because the designers are very upfront where their preferences are. (I could do without some of the MRQ II fans laughably gratuitious and insecure jabs at game systems expressed from different preferences, but the the MRQ II designers haven't encouraged that.) If there is some rule that simply doesn't work for me, I know why it is there and what it is trying to do.

I wouldn't like 4E as much if the designers claimed it was a sim paradise, and I wouldn't like MRQ II as much if the designers claimed it was a mechanical rigorous game foremost.

 

[CotV]

I think the reason I'm so curious is that I've recently begun in earnest breaking down game mechanics and their inherent probabilities, because I want to try and correlate mechanics to gamestyle and "feel."

Wow that is a killer idea and I would love to see what info you come up with!

Everyone is different but for P&P RPG's I prefer for the fluff side to out weight the crunch side from the view point of design. When I have a bug to play a game with great mechanics where strategy, tactics and the knowledge and execution of a great rule set are key to an enjoyable playing experience I turn more to video games (mass effect, street fighter) or table top war games (40k, Warlord). When playing a P&P style RPG I am much more interested in the creativity of the setting and freedom of personal actions and creation. I have consistently enjoyed simpler games that allowed creative freedom and dialog with the GM more enjoyable than thick rule sets that constantly required study and referencing of information to achieve my characters goals.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I generally like games where the mechanics are designed toward the flavor or an overall feel.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Crunch and Fluff are like Yin and Yang, they must be balanced with each other!

Okay, they don't have to really. You can focus on one or the other if you like.

One example of a "fluff" first RPG would be the upcoming Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG. Goodman basically read a bunch of books called Appendix N and said to himself, "how can I make a game that reflects the awesomeness of what I just read?" The result is quite interesting to say the least!

Edit: I just remember that this article I found is perfect reading material for this topic! HERE

 

[Jimlock]

I like it the way White Wolf does it (or did it - haven't played in a few years...)

 

[FireLance]

To me, "Which came first?" is not the issue.

The important question is, "How well do they work together?"

Ideally, you wouldn't be able to tell which came first because it just doesn't matter.

 

[Traveller From Afar]

I need a sense of realism in my games, if characters can leap out of a plane and routinely dust themselves off and head to the pub after smacking down on a city street, that's a problem. The mechanics need to reflect believable reality to really engage me, and in my experience systems focused on one particular style of play neglect other elements of reality to achieve that. One example would be combat in WoD - wobbly at best, in a world where you have vampires and werewolves as the main characters.

Now if you have a good, well balanced system which has a ruleset aimed at a particular look and feel laid on top of that, that can work. So there's no reason fluff need suffer at the hands of mechanics or vice-versa.

 

[Stormonu]

I agree that there should be a balance of the two. Fluff with associated mechanics that won't come up in a game are waste. Mechanics that are at odds with or create incongruities with the fluff are simply harmful. But when you have mechanics that match the worldview and they are relevant enough for the characters to use them, then you have a system that works.

 

[Bluenose]

If two different sets of rules give the same result in play, then the 'fluff' they are trying to evoke can be the same. That seems like a logical conclusion, and conversely two sets of rules which give different results of the mechanical interaction would presumably imply different setting/genres should be derived from them.

That doesn't mean the game will feel the same. Game A may give the same results as Game B, but it doesn't have to arrive at those results in the same manner. The play experience will be different, even if the results of play are the same.

So, which comes first? The intended play-style comes first. If you want highly detailed resolution of actions, doing thing step-by-step with lots of dice-rolling and characters with very closely defined skill sets, then you design a set with high levels of crunch. If you aren't worried about how a result is arrived at, but rather what the result is and how it affects the world/characters, then you can have simple mechanics for quick resolution of situations and characters with broader and less-defined abilities. After that, you can either start designing towards a particular setting/genre. But I don't believe anyone develops mechanics first without having an idea of the style of game that's going to be played, and I think there are enough games out without any settings associated with the rules that I don't believe anyone can legitimately claim you have to have the setting first before you think about mechanics at all.