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

[Reynard]

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

This is an important note. Mechanics create a tone or feel to the game that is independent of the fluff, and where your run into "crunch" and "fluff" not lining up, it is really "tone" and "fluff" not lining up. it's like trying to run a traditional murder myster in D&D with 9th level PCs -- those characters' abilities (crucnh) don't line up with the way a traditional murder mystery plays out (fluff). This isn't to say you can't do murder mysteries for 9th level D&D characters, just that you have to adjust either the fluff (it is no longer a traditional murder mystery) or the crunch (divinations don't work in the the old mansion) to make it work. And that's okay -- those kinds of challenges, when overcome, make for better gaming in general, IMO.

As it relates to the broader idea: game mechanics should support the intent of the game, either the intent of its designer(s) or the intent of those utilizing it for play. Intent is often expressed through the fluff. If these things don't reconcile and there doesn't seem to be a reasonable fix, chances are you have the wrong combination of crunch and fluff.

 

[Umbran]

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?

Are you asking individually, or in aggregate?

I think that there'll be a tendency for people to play the game however it is written. Note I say written, rather than designed. If the rulebooks present the system as foremost, the mass of gamers will tend to play it that way. If the rulebooks present the world as foremost, we'll tend to play the game that way.

I think individuals, however, make their own choices, and those simply average out to the above behavior. I, personally, will play a game as it is written to start with. But, if I stick with the game for significant time, the author's intent takes a distant back seat to what I feel I can do with the system with my group. I will examine the rules and fluff, change parts of each, throw out other parts of each, and so on, until I think the result will do what I want done.

When I get into that, though, I start with a game that's close to what I want in the first place. I don't choose any D&D version if what I'm looking to do is gritty hard sci-fi, for example.

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 really, really don't think it is digital. I think there's a spectrum of blending. Mixtures - where both the rules and the fluff are finagled to fit each other - are possible. I daresay that the blended form really is the predominant way RPGs are designed, at least implicitly. Sometimes, you have a bit of fluff you really like, so you create a mechanic to suit it, and then thinking about that mechanic feeds back into adjusting the fluff, in an iterative process.

I

 

[howandwhy99]

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?

I think that's going to be by individual. Yes, the design intent matters to me for any game I am interested in. But, if I can think of something else to do with it, I'll do that too or even instead.

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?

If the game designed to hardcore gamers, then the mechanical choice. If it's about selling how the world looks and feels, then the other choice. If you can do both, sell pre-orders.

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

I prefer puzzle games that simulate reality, so while this definitely includes the hardcore gaming behaviors (You know, like collecting resources or points, calculating odds, reading the other players, thinking two, five, ten, even twenty steps ahead), it also focuses on enlightening artistry and action.

Think of it like music. The tempo, melody, notes, pitch, and quality of the performance are only half the story. We also want mood, meaningful lyrics, interesting sounds, a way in if we keep listening (a hook, I guess), and emotions conveyed.

It's just not all about one or the other. I prefer both.

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?

Combat is not equivalent to mechanics, so no, I use "mechanics" for everything in my games and attempt to remove, or better yet "mechanize", every element of the game.

Perhaps you could better describe your understanding of the difference between fluff and mechanics? For a puzzle game, mine are all hidden behind a screen, so no resolution mechanics at all.

 

[pemerton]

I like a game that has mechanics that will produce the fiction that the game promises. So if, for example, the game promises dramatic and heroic combat, I want mechanics that produce that. If, in fact, the action resolution mechanics produce grim and gritty combat, that's a problem.

I also have a high tolerance for mechanics that are involved, complex and have a high searach-and-handling time. But I prefer, when doing that searching and handling, that the mechanics still have me engaged with the fictional elements that should matter. So combat mechanics for a fantasy RPG that make me think hard about weapons, armour, the nature of magic in play, and so on, are fine for me. But I don't want to have to do a lot of abstract calculation that isn't anchored in the fiction.

The notion of "fluff first" I'm not sure about, but if it means that the GM is given a responsibility for overruling the character build mechanics, or the action resolution mechancis, in order to ensure that a certain sort of fiction is produced, I'm not a big fan. Redesign the mechanics in question so that no overruling is required!