Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 377987" data-attributes="member: 1106">Your comparison is a bit flawed in terms of types of fluff, though...Games Workshop players don't use their fluff at all, it's just there for getting pumped up about your army, atmospheric purposes and, if you're lucky, storytelling purposes for skirmish wargame-cum-RPGs like Necromunda.  Mostly it's like supporting a footy team - the game goes on without it, but it enhances the experience enough to miss it when it's gone.D&D players use fluff in-game significantly more in the form of adventures, NPCs, metaplots and setting material.  My rule of thumb is that the higher level this fluff gets, the more theoretical it's application to the game becomes.  As jasamcarl coined it, such "intellectual masturbation for DMs" fluff is the kind of fluff that gives D&D fluff a bad reputation, and is exactly the kind of fluff that Games Workshop provides for 40K, for the most part.  Perhaps the nearest equivalent to Dungeon adventures style fluff are those Necromunda scenarios in Citadel Journal, which are directly applicable to your game.I've said it before - the crunch/fluff way of viewing things is broke because all crunch aint equal and all fluff aint equal, and it's kind of disturbing that (apparently) significant D&D business decisions at WotC are being made on such a flawed rule of thumb.</blockquote>