Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 5614218" data-attributes="member: 85870">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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> 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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification