RE: Crunchiness

[rounser]

As to FRCS -- I don't own it, but I've looked through it often enough. Sure, it's got some crunchy stuff, but doesn't it mostly have fluffy stuff?

I'll get to the FRCS in a minute, but first...

I think you're using the "fluff" term in a way that perhaps doesn't apply here (with it's derogatory connotations), and that you actually mean "soft", non-rules material. As far as RPGs go, something which is (in the best scenario) nice to read but difficult to use is "fluff", but not all non-fluff is "crunchy".

GW wargamers use the word "fluff" for all the flavour text that doesn't affect the game, but in RPGs the narrative of an NPC or encounter description isn't "fluff" just because it isn't rules. If it's of above average usefulness to your game, or directly applicable to your game, IMO it isn't fluff even if it's not rulesy ("crunchy").

Different organizations, what they're agendas are, what the different areas are and the like? I suppose FRCS is about as crunchy as a campaign setting can get, but by their very nature, a campaign setting has to have a high ratio of "fluffy bits" to "crunchy bits."

Yeah, it's mostly non-crunchy stuff, but the genericity of FR in general means that most of those "soft" ideas are portable anyway, if you file off the serial numbers.

A while ago Steve Miller pointed out that most D&D worlds are generic enough that you can mix a homebrew from a palette of, say, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, Mystara and Birthright material and (with a bit of alteration) no-one will notice.

I agree with the idea that D&D settings tend to have enough in common with each other that portability of "soft" material is probably a lot easier than most people assume. It's not as obvious as lifting a feat, but a lot of "soft" ideas will do fine in a completely different context.

 

[chatdemon]

IMO, 'crunchy', like '1st edition feel' and 'balance' are meaningless. They are empty phrases thrown around a lot, but can anyone provide a hard definition that people agree on? The answer is generally no, and for me at least, if you're going to use these terms, or others like them, in your hype for your product, the product better be damned good, because I'm prone to pass it by in favor of something with a bit more honest promotion attached to it.

 

[Suzerain]

***

 

[rounser]

They are empty phrases thrown around a lot, but can anyone provide a hard definition that people agree on?

An expression that lacks a hard definition isn't necessarily an "empty phrase". The language is full of them. For instance, different faculties of universities use the term "postmodern" to mean different things, but I usually have a good idea of what someone means when they use the term. It implies an idea or set of ideas around a common theme, and that is enough to generate meaning even if I don't know specifically what they meant.

"1st ed feel" implies a set of connotations around a theme, even if the specifics differ from person to person - just because not everyone agrees upon the specifics doesn't mean that a general understanding of what to expect isn't reached.