The terms 'fluff' and 'crunch'

[fanboy2000]

Oddly enough, I'd use that (or a very similar) description for crunch. It has no life whatsoever, while fluff at least attempts to put some life into the words on the book.

This dosen't suprise me. I agree that crunch has no life on the page, but crunch is the first thing I turn to when I put a game together. I decide these things in order, Races, Base Classes, PrCs, options from Unearthed Arcana, feats, and spells. I find that thouse crunchy rules give the players a clearer picture of the game than anything else. A world that has Warforged is diffrent than one without.

I'm curious, does anyone use Warforged, Changlings, or Shifters outside of Eberron? If so, how much of the backgound information do you use? Did you get it from MMIII or ECS? I think these answers will tell us more about the relationship between fluff and crunch than all debating so far.

 

[diaglo]

Hong "trust me, I'm a statistician" Ooi

the book i used in my stat course i took in high school was titled: How to lie with Statistics.

 

[hong]

the book i used in my stat course i took in high school was titled: How to lie with Statistics.

Darrell Huff? A classic.


Hong "would I lie to you?" Ooi

 

[diaglo]

Darrell Huff? A classic.


Hong "would I lie to you?" Ooi

published 1954.

 

[fusangite]

So much to respond to...

I can play that game too; I think your position is equally, if not quite demonstrably, more absurd. You're making a case that context "bleeds" from one use to another of the same word. I'm saying that not only do I not buy that, but that fluff does not have any inherent derogatory connotations, as you describe.

1. I never asserted that "fluff" has inherently derogatory connotations. I said that "fluff" has a meaning that indicates lack of substance. There are some situations in which lack of substance is a good or neutral thing; in those situations, "fluff" is not derogatory. However, in situations wherein lack of substance is a bad thing, "fluff" becomes derogatory. I think this is, again, pretty basic in our ideas of language.

If I'm talking about a football outfit and I call it "well-padded," I'm complimenting the outfit. If I'm talking about a woman I met on a blind date and I call her "well-padded," I'm not complimenting her. I'm saying something pejorative. This doesn't make "well-padded" inherently derogatory but we can rely on the fact that if one is discussing a potential sexual partner, leaving aside those of us with fat fetishes, "well-padded" is always bad.

2. The term "fluff" is really not old enough to have developed a completely independent definition for gaming situations that is disassociated from its more general meaning. It's been in use for, what, ten years? Leaving aside ebonic slang, how many words can you think of that have developed a new usage context in the past decade whose meaning in this new context is thoroughly or even partially disassociated from the term's more general meaning?

I'm sorry but I don't think most people approach "fluff" in gaming discourse as though it's an unrelated homonym of this word "fluff" that means, according to dictionary.com:

Something of little substance or consequence, especially:
Light or superficial entertainment: The movie was just another bit of fluff from Hollywood.
Inflated or padded material: The report was mostly fluff, with little new information.

Well, it would be. My position is that the minority isn't significant, so it's a moot point. I've seen crunch and fluff talked about incessantly for years on half a dozen rpg message boards, and with the exception of these kinds of threads which self-select for those with a gripe, nobody has ever had a problem with the terms.

I don't think that's evidence in the way you're reading it. All we know is that what these people are discussing is important and relevant enough to them that they're not interested in turning the discussion into a lengthy digression about terminology. For instance, if I were involved in such a discussion, I would use the terms even though I don't like them because they are the tools that are readily to hand.

The rules are not the physics of the world. The rules are to facilitate gameplay.

I wouldn't play RPGs if these things were mutually exclusive. A good set of rules represents the physical laws of the universe in a way that facilitates game play. In fact, I would argue, if your rules don't represent the physical laws of the game world to a certain degree, they cannot facilitate game play because there would be no sense of simulation.

RPGs in general, and D&D in particular, appeal to me precisely because they do not model the real world.

Agreed. They model the physics of the fantasy world in which you are playing, to an okay degree. After all, if the physics of the game world and the real world matched, there would be no magic, etc.

It's interesting that everyone is acting as if fluff and crunch (or meat and bones or pludge and chunder or whatever) are truly dichotomous and discrete. I'm not sure this is really so.

When the MM says that goblins are usually CE, is that fluff or crunch? Is the description of good fluff or crunch? Is the fact that chain mail is metal fluff or crunch?

Thanks hurfultater. I was making this point a few pages back but it got lost in the shuffle.

Some NPCs IMC, especially powerful spellcasters, are impossible to model accurately strictly using the D&D RAW without major changes, so I approximate a rough class & level for them.

That's a criticism I have of D&D. And I am often appalled when in both published setting materials and regular campaigns, GMs and writers describe NPCs and events that cannot be modeled in the rules. My latest complaint is that my GM my current D&D campaign had an NPC permanently mutilated in a way that the hit points and healing mechanics don't allow. So, when I run D&D, I try to have as few situations as possible where what is going on can't be modeled in the rules. For the campaign I'm currently running, I'm using self-designed system to avoid that problem. But when I run D&D, I try to make sure the setting is consistent with the rules; doing so helps everybody's suspension of disbelief.

Sorry Hong, the idea you were actually _agreeing with me_ was too much for my little brain to handle.

You're arguing with me on the cross-gender character thread too so expect the same thing there imminently.

 

[hong]

I'm sorry but I don't think most people approach "fluff" in gaming discourse as though it's an unrelated homonym of this word "fluff"

Prove it.

I don't think that's evidence in the way you're reading it. All we know is that what these people are discussing is important and relevant enough to them that they're not interested in turning the discussion into a lengthy digression about terminology.

This discussion is getting needlessly messianic.

That's a criticism I have of D&D. And I am often appalled when in both published setting materials and regular campaigns, GMs and writers describe NPCs and events that cannot be modeled in the rules.

 

[S'mon]

And I am often appalled when in both published setting materials and regular campaigns, GMs and writers describe NPCs and events that cannot be modeled in the rules. My latest complaint is that my GM my current D&D campaign had an NPC permanently mutilated in a way that the hit points and healing mechanics don't allow. So, when I run D&D, I try to have as few situations as possible where what is going on can't be modeled in the rules. For the campaign I'm currently running, I'm using self-designed system to avoid that problem. But when I run D&D, I try to make sure the setting is consistent with the rules; doing so helps everybody's suspension of disbelief.... ...You're arguing with me on the cross-gender character thread too so expect the same thing there imminently.

Actually I thought I was agreeing with you on this thread (until now)

I guess you're a hardcore simulationist. D&D is crap for simulation, Gygax said so himself at the front of 1e DMG. D&D is designed very much as a gamist system, for challenging the players, not for simulating the world. Personally I think it's ridiculous for any player to expect that because there are no rules for permanent maiming that that event _cannot occur_ within the game! :\ - & of course I have no problem with NPCs & events that cannot be 'modeled' under the rules; if you as GM need rules you can always make more, but you only need rules, if at all, for what events occur to & directly around the PCs, not for everything in the game-universe. I guess you wouldn't allow a D&D PC whose backstory involved losing an eye in a hunting accident, because there are no rules for that?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Game Rules & Physics

Honestly, I would have thought that the relationship between game rules and physics was fairly obvious. The game rules are the "rules of the universe," determining what is possible and what is not. When a new case occurs (i.e., new rules are added), it amounts to a new discovery in the physics of the game setting.

Of course, the new rules may be nothing more than the formulization of what is already experienced. For example, we have had an experience of gravity as a species long before either Newton or Einstein formulated rules that defined what we could expect of gravity. Pre-Newtonian ideas of how gravity worked actually seem very similar to the arbitrary way in which flavor-based (as opposed to rules-based) rulings work in an rpg.

As with physics, new rules either mesh with the existing ones, or they cause a paradigm shift (i.e., potentially a new edition of the game system, or a "half edition" like D&D 3.5 or the Players/DM Option series in 2nd Edition). If the rules fail to provide the means to simulate certain types of injuries, I can certainly create workable rules to do so without resorting to rewriting the entire game. At the same time, I prefer a rules set that argues a consistent set of rules for PCs and NPCs alike.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, your position is the one Doug takes: that the sole virtue in the terms is the fact that they are already in use.

Essentially. That's the primary virtue of any word.

At the risk of sounding contrary, that isn't exactly true.

The primary virtue of any word is that it be understood to correctly describe whatever the word relates to, be it action, object, or descriptive quality. This applies both in a denotative (strict definition) and connotative (related meaning) sense.

Clearly, the terms "fluff" and "crunch" are perfectly fine in a denotative sense. And, equally clearly, any attempt to popularize new terms must confront the problem of losing current terms with clear denotation. If the current terms were replaced with, say, "meat" and "bones," there could well be a reasonable objection that the replacement terms cause a lack of understanding in those unfamiliar with them. If the current terms were replaced with "flavor" and "rules," however, this objection would be essentially meaningless. Indeed, the current terms replaced "flavor text" and "rules" themselves.

You're making a case that context "bleeds" from one use to another of the same word. I'm saying that not only do I not buy that, but that fluff does not have any inherent derogatory connotations, as you describe.

This is, actually, quite a bit of what causes connotation in words. "Dragon" and "Worm" might mean the same things in certain contexts (denotation), but the words have incredibly different associated meanings (connotation).

Again, if the current terms were replaced with "meat" and "bones", one might easily make a strong argument that "meat" is given an inherent value that "bones" are not. Generally, we consume meat while discarding bones. In fact, I suggested these terms specifically because I knew that these connotative weights existed. It is an intentional attempt to redress a current imbalance in product.

I would certainly contend that the terms "fluff" and "crunch" came into common usage for a similar reason. Specifically, there were a number of flavor-rich, rules-light products produced in the days of 2nd Ed, both for AD&D and other games.

(I imagine that one could claim that this shift in emphasis started with the Dragonlance campaign setting in 1st Ed, but it culminated in the way TSR treated the Forgotten Realms in 2nd Ed. If you wanted a flavor-rich world, FR was unprecedented. If you were looking for books that had lots of new stats and rules, you were left wondering why they got left out.)

"Why are we getting all of this fluff? Where are the crunchy bits?" people were asking. And, to be honest, there was so much fluff compared to the crunch that few people were complaining about the terminology. And, I feel quite certain, it was intended right from the beginning that "fluff" was derogatory, implying "Something of little substance or consequence, especially light or superficial entertainment (The movie was just another bit of fluff from Hollywood) or inflated or padded material (The report was mostly fluff, with little new information)."

(Definition from dictionary.com, with some minor editing for ease of reading.)

This is the way the term is used by a very large segment of the population. This is the meaning that was adopted by gamers as a reaction to a massive flavor bias in published gaming material. Clearly, any reasoning based on the idea that the term "fluff" is not intended to be derogatory has failed in its base assumptions.



RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

From time to time the GM of games I'm in changes the rules. For instance our GM ruled you couldn't trip with an attack of opportunity. At no point did I feel the rules of the universe had changed, merely the rules of the game.

Once one accepts that the game rules only very imperfectly model the universe in which the game takes place, and need the occasional helping hand in the interests of plausibility, this makes sense.