The terms 'fluff' and 'crunch'

[Raven Crowking]

Raven ...However, from the fictional perspective of the PC, he is no longer able to do something he was able to do yesterday. That is, fundamentally, a shift in the way the world works. This would be true whether or not the change was actually "noticed" by anyone in that setting...
So the change is true to us third persons/gods/players playing a game but the pc forgets what he did last episode. After all we playing a game not writing "the lives and resurrections the Jasper the Wimp." Or at least some of are.

Obviously.

Don't mistake a refutation of an argument (i.e., a refutation of the general statement that game rules are not analogous to physics within the context of the game world) as an argument that the original analogy (game rules as analogous to game world physics) is worth obsessing over in actual game play.

Some statements ("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.") require a level of dissection to component parts to determine whether or not they apply to the question at hand.

Language is inherently inexact. The statement, "At no point did I feel the rules of the universe had changed, merely the rules of the game" refutes the statement "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." only if one accepts one of two basic assumptions:

(1) The viewpoint of the player is essentially the same as the viewpoint of a fictional character in the game, or

(2) The universe of the player is essentially the same as the fictional universe of a fictional character in the game.​

Clearly, we have little worry that most of us accept (2) as a reasonable assumption. No one really believes (I hope) that the World of Greyhawk is a real place, or that they might find a portal to the Forgotten Realms ala Elminster. All that remains is to examine assumption (1).

I contend that this:

"First off, I hope you can concede that there is a difference between the perspective of the player, and the fictional perspective of the character which that player controls. From the player's perspective, the rules of the game have changed. No one is suggesting that real-world physics change because of this. However, from the fictional perspective of the PC, he is no longer able to do something he was able to do yesterday. That is, fundamentally, a shift in the way the world works. This would be true whether or not the change was actually "noticed" by anyone in that setting."​

represents a fairly reasonable examination of that assumption.

I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with "the lives and resurrections the Jasper the Wimp," unless you are trying to claim that a carefully structured campaign setting with strong flavor text (i.e., lots of meat on dem bones) somehow leads to wimpy, easily killed characters who get brought back to life a lot?


RC

 

[jasper]

no the wimp clause it to people who get out of sorts if rules, megagame issues causes issues with "the story" with the story being more important than game play. Aka we can't kill the npc because it the dm's favorite and a big plot hook when we get to tenth level.

 

[woodelf]

Wow. I am truly in awe. You took something that was clearly labled as an exception and made it sound like a rule.

I mean did you contiously decide to ignore the phrase "although there can be minor conversion difficulties?" The words although and minor are key. They label the example that follows as an exception to his experance and perceptions. See, sometimes people hold and opinion on a subject that dosen't fit all posible circumstances, so they acknowledge exceptions to otherwise standard opinions. Exceptions are quite common in real life. In fact, it is so rare that one rule holds true in all circumstances, exceptions are necessary in order to maintain a sane mind.

Maybe my position is misunderstood: I'm claiming that changes to setting are not wholly independent of changes to rules, and vice versa. The only argument that counters that is one wherein there are no exceptions. Conceding an exception supports my argument. I never claimed that there is an exact one-to-one correspondence between the rules and the setting, or that you could never change one without changing the other. I apologize if my wording was ambiguous on this matter. My point is that there is a relationship between the "fluff" and "crunch", in that one defines the other (which defines which becomes a chicken-and-egg problem, since while the setting may be defined by the rules, the rules are generally designed to model the setting). So, i didn't miss the "minor" and "although"--because they're irrelevant to my point. Minor or major doesn't matter, exception or general rule doesn't matter. The point is that there is *some* relationship between the physics of the fictional world and the game mechanics, as evidenced by the fact that you cannot always change the latter without changing the former, and vice versa.

To use an example from this thread, you can describe decreasing hit points of a foe in any number of ways with no mechanical changes, because that is an element that the rules do not explicitly define. But at some point, you have to change one when you change the other, or suffer some serious dissonance. To use a fairly ridiculous example: if you changed the description of elves to be "10-12 feet tall, heavyset and powerfully-muscled, though clumsy, and with rolls of fat and grotesque, afflicted skin" but made no changes to the rules (i.e., still defined them as Medium (the same size as a 6' human), with the existing ability score adjustments, etc.), most would think a mistake had been made.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm sure you can imagine all sorts of world. All sorts of arrangements of nations, politics and cultures and so forth; organisations of humans, humanoids and monsters; BBEGs of all sorts of flavours.

All using the exact same rules.

One has to distinguish between the rules and the things (places, peoples, creatures, objects) that are subject to those rules.

Okay, Doug, perhaps we're not using the same terminology. Let's look at it this way -- which ones of the following are rules and which are flavor text? Of the ones which are flavor text, which ones are fluff? Of the ones which are rules, which ones are crunch? Why?

Secondly, which of these, if it is not rules, implies the existence of special rules?

Please assume that all statements are true for the campaign world in question.


(1) The statement: "This world contains a civilisation of lawful good orcs."

(2) The statement: "This world contains a land of islands floating in the air."

(3) The statement: "This world is a desert with no oceans."

(4) The stat block for one of the lawful good orcs.

(5) An encounter table for one of the floating islands.

(6) The statement: "Entry into the Wizard’s Tower is forbidden upon pain of death."

(7) The statement: "Ghost ships and long-necked monsters have been reported on the lake, as well as occasional merfolk and faerie creatures."

(8) The statement: "Characters may be of any class in the Player’s Handbook or Psionics Handbook. Players with access to Oriental Adventures can also choose to play a shaman."

(9) The statement: "Druids are extremely rare among dwarves and the goblinoid races."

(10) The statement: "The domains Brigit is associated with are Fire, Luck, and Protection."



RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't find "A person shouldn't be offended because certain text in a rpg book is deemed to be of less worth" to be a sufficient answer to the problem. We are not just talking about "certain text in a rpg book." We are talking about something that, for most people, comprises over half of their experience of, and enjoyment of, role-playing games.

Would it be equally reasonable for a person to be offended by the term 'Best Forgotten Realms' then?

I happen to really like Greyhawk, Birthright, Eberron and Spelljammer but I don't take personal offense when someone disses them. I only take personal offense when someone disses me. That seems like pretty reasonable behaviour in my view.

 

[Raven Crowking]

no the wimp clause it to people who get out of sorts if rules, megagame issues causes issues with "the story" with the story being more important than game play. Aka we can't kill the npc because it the dm's favorite and a big plot hook when we get to tenth level.

If the DM is just starting, I would consider it bad form to not recognize the effort put into plot hooks, while at the same time trying to help the DM get a better handle on running a better game.

I would consider it bad form if anyone, player or DM, is using either the rules or the story specifically to damage or destroy the game for others.

I assume that you are not claiming that people who game together amiacably are therefore wimps? If not, I think you probably could have picked a better term.

RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

(1) Fluff with a hint of crunch (the alignment)
(2) Fluff
(3) Fluff
(4) Crunch
(5) Tricky
(6) Fluff
(7) Fluff
(8) Feels more crunchy than fluffy
(9) Feels more fluffy than crunchy
(10) Crunch

 

[Raven Crowking]

Would it be equally reasonable for a person to be offended by the term 'Best Forgotten Realms' then?

If we were going to be technical, it isn't "reasonable" for a person to be offended when someone "disses them" either. After all, another person's subjective opinion cannot affect whatever objective value a person or object has. However, we both know that people don't really behave this way.

In general, subjective preferences are not based upon reason (however much we may claim otherwise), although I would accept that some things may objectively contain more artistic value than others. A dismissive comment may not cause offense, but a demonstrably effective attack might. And, if the current WotC books are an indication, the term "fluff" has been a demonstrably effective attack on the meat of role-playing games.

Again, I personally don't find the terms "fluff" and "crunch" offensive. I don't like them, though. Moreover, I recognize that a "significant minority" (as fusangite put it) find the terms offensive. "Best-Forgotten Realms" is a particularly low-offense term (except, perhaps, to Ed Greenwood). It hasn't had a whole lot of effect on those who enjoy the products.

We can all easily think of high-offense terms that we wouldn't use in polite company.

"Fluff" is somewhere on the low-offense side of in-between.


RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

(2) One of your reasons for using that term is to be derogatory toward an object (in this case a facet of game materials and play)

I believe the original fluff/crunch terminology arose purely to discuss game materials and not play. It would help to make it less personal if their use were restricted in this way. Of course people will use words however they wish.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Okay, Doug, perhaps we're not using the same terminology. Let's look at it this way -- which ones of the following are rules and which are flavor text? Of the ones which are flavor text, which ones are fluff? Of the ones which are rules, which ones are crunch? Why?

Actually 'rules' doesn't mean quite the same thing as 'crunch', does it? An individual character's stat block is clearly crunch. But it's arguable whether it counts as rules. As I was using the term rules above I was thinking much more along the lines of what's in the PHB, DMG and MM. And how those rules could be used to support many different campaign worlds. But I would never claim to be particularly consistent myself (which does, I admit, make discourse tricky).

Maybe this lack of clarity around the term 'rules' demonstrates that fluff/crunch is better terminology.