The terms 'fluff' and 'crunch'

[Gez]

OK, I want to propose a new definition of fluff and crunch.

Here's the sophism behind my new definition.

The SRD contains all the core D&D rules, except for character generation and progression, and for a few PI items.

For everything that's in, only the crunch was kept. Fluff, like what a goblin looks like, was omitted.

Therefore, everything that's open content is crunch, and everything that's not in fluff.

The Tome of Horrors is a big crunchy book, as is Unearthed Arcana, but Complete Warrior is just a load of fluff.

 

[Raven Crowking]

We are obviously useing a diffrent meaning for rules. I don't disagree with it, but it is so broad that I don't see how I can possibly use the word. When I discuss rules with people, I'm talking about rules that are written in the rulebook. To argue about implied rules, house rules, and DM ruleing is pointless. Not only are they subjective, they're a matter of taste. Not opinion, taste. And there's just no accounting for taste.

Edit: Raven, can I use your defination of rules for a future thread? I have an idea...

Sure.

I don't think that the rules of any rpg setting ever are, or ever have been, merely what is written in the rulebook. We could get into a large discussion on the nature of language over this, but I doubt that it is necessary to convey the point. The core rules, the SRD, or even the older rulesets that attempted to ban creating more rules have the value of providing a strong starting point, and a large subset of rules which are going to be relatively consistent from game to game. This is a good thing.

Add to this that most of the "implied rules" are common sense. "If I drop my sword it will fall" is an obvious implied rule. So obvious, in fact, that the core rules rely upon the existence of the rule without needing to codify it in most cases. Sure, we need to know what damage falling can cause. We do not need the game designers to tell us that objects fall.

You would hardly expect a player to argue that his sword will not drop when released because it is not explicit in the rules.

The rules, imho, are the mechanics of the game world. They are the bones, because they give the world structure. The rules act as a map, allowing the DM and players to determine what happens as a result of their choices. In a similar way, physics acts as a map of the real world, allowing us to model and predict what will happen in a great variety of real situations. Both game rules and real-world physics contain random elements.

Everything else is meat, giving the world flavor and motion; or connective tissue (if we extend the analogy) bridging rules and description. Although the structure and properties of a statue can be modelled in physics, its asthetic value cannot be, nor can its communicative purpose.

To paraphrase Einstein: "Crunch without fluff is lame, fluff without crunch is blind."

BTW, in the example where a wound exposes bone, may I point out that there are no rules to cover the statement, "There is a clicking noise to the right, scrabbling over the stones toward you." Instead, that is a descriptive statement that conveys to the players the effects of a successful Listen check.

Likewise, "The wound exposes bone," within the context given, was a descriptive statement that conveys to the players that the NPC was low on hp, and was probably going to die soon. Frankly, such descriptive statements are better than "he's down to 3 hp," which is very concrete, but unlikely to be known to the players or their characters. We have already been told that, in this case, there were no mechanical (i.e., rules) differences applied.

Are you really trying to argue that description of combat results is contrary to the rules? That it requires additional rules?


RC

 

[fusangite]

Go Raven go! I think you're in the home stretch here.

 

[hong]

I don't think that the rules of any rpg setting ever are, or ever have been, merely what is written in the rulebook.

A true, but useless, statement. Do you work in Microsoft Tech Support or something?

Likewise, "The wound exposes bone," within the context given, was a descriptive statement that conveys to the players that the NPC was low on hp, and was probably going to die soon. Frankly, such descriptive statements are better than "he's down to 3 hp," which is very concrete, but unlikely to be known to the players or their characters.

Eh. In some situations excess verbiage is good, in others you just want to cut to the chase.

Are you really trying to argue that description of combat results is contrary to the rules? That it requires additional rules?

No, the description of combat results is _outside the scope of the rules_. Unless, that is, you want to define "rules" to mean exactly what you want them to mean.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, the description of combat results is _outside the scope of the rules_. Unless, that is, you want to define "rules" to mean exactly what you want them to mean.

So, basically, you don't need specific rules to convey description? And, if I understand you, you're saying that the DM can certainly describe game situations in whatever way he/she deems appropriate? And, I imagine, you agree that the description is intended to convey the situation as the PCs would understand it, rather than as a statement of the rules involved?

If so, I believe that a reasonable person could easily conclude that there are rules that underlay the description (low on hp), even through the description (wounded to the bone) does not convey the game mechanics exactly. Thus, a statement such as "you can't do that because there are no rules for that" is patently false. The rules (low on hp) are there; the exact nature of the description, as you seem to agree, is outside their scope.

In other words:

He is correct in stating that there are no rules that determine how he describes specific situations, however his description (wounds exposing bone) is specifically intended to convey a game rules state (really low on hp), amply demonstrating that his belief that "there are no rules for that" is a false one. In a real-world analogy, his description is art, the rules situation that underlies it is physics. One is "subjective," the other "objective."

As far as the definition of the term "rules" goes, I believe that I have amply defined exactly what I mean, and that the meaning, while clarified, has not changed from post to post. In other words, no flip-flopping, Little Fish. And, as you agree that "I don't think that the rules of any rpg setting ever are, or ever have been, merely what is written in the rulebook," one has to wonder exactly why you bring it up.

I suspect that, like your statement that "In some situations excess verbiage is good, in others you just want to cut to the chase," this is an attempt to erect a straw man. We've danced that dance before. However, since the only substantial things you said here agree with me, I suppose I ought to thank you for your support.

Thanks.



RC

 

[hong]

So, basically, you don't need specific rules to convey description?

Just as you don't need specific fluff for it either. Unless you like to define "fluff" in the Microsoft Tech Support-approved way as well, I guess.

And, if I understand you, you're saying that the DM can certainly describe game situations in whatever way he/she deems appropriate? And, I imagine, you agree that the description is intended to convey the situation as the PCs would understand it, rather than as a statement of the rules involved?

So?

If so, I believe that a reasonable person could easily conclude that there are rules that underlay the description (low on hp), even through the description (wounded to the bone) does not convey the game mechanics exactly. Thus, a statement such as "you can't do that because there are no rules for that" is patently false. The rules (low on hp) are there; the exact nature of the description, as you seem to agree, is outside their scope.

Do stop arguing with yourself, because foosie does this better than you, and I doubt he'd like people stealing his schtick.

1. Hint: fanboy2k never said "you can't do that because there are no rules for that".

2. None of this has any relevance to fluff v crunch, as most normal people understand the terms.

As far as the definition of the term "rules" goes, I believe that I have amply defined exactly what I mean,

... which is exactly what you want them to mean,

and that the meaning, while clarified, has not changed from post to post.

... thus proving that consistently being in la-la land is better than being inconsistently in la-la land, I guess. Or something.

In other words, no flip-flopping, Little Fish.

Nobody ever said you were flip-flopping, humpty my boy, only that you might possibly be living in a world where the colour of the sky is a fetching combination of puce and green.

And, as you agree that "I don't think that the rules of any rpg setting ever are, or ever have been, merely what is written in the rulebook," one has to wonder exactly why you bring it up.

Because the unwritten rules essentially boil down to common sense, and bringing these things into the discussion is pointless, unless perhaps you like arguing with yourself.

I suspect that, like your statement that "In some situations excess verbiage is good, in others you just want to cut to the chase," this is an attempt to erect a straw man.

Sure, sure, humpty my boy.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just as you don't need specific fluff for it either. Unless you like to define "fluff" in the Microsoft Tech Support-approved way as well, I guess.

Hong,

Dropped by your D&D site today, following the link in your sig. Very well done. Amazing, actually, that on one hand you can produce something like your version of Ultima, and on the other hand you are unable to discuss a point rationally.

Clearly, you haven't read through the thread, or you haven't understood the points in question, or (as I think far more likely) you are simply arguing with yourself. After all, it's not as though your posts have contributed anything to the subject at hand. At least, not in this thread so far. As I have said, we've danced this dance before. Frankly, apart from a talent for trolling, you don't seem to be very good at it.

I prefer to discuss a question with a degree of civility. It helps to actually have a point. If it is necessary to drag a moderator in here to do so, then that's what I'll do.



RC

 

[Psion]

2. It denigrates fluff at the expense of crunch. Yes, I see this as being an advantage.

That, in itself, is the problem. I am 100% on board with the notion that much of what is called fluff is worth denigrating. My problem is that this distinction is imprecise; not everything that is not hard rules material is useless prattle and flavor text. Setting details that you can build adventure premises from, etc., have much substance and aren't fluff, but aren't rules.

 

[Psion]

D&D is crap for simulation,

Only if you misaprehend what simulationism is... which reading too much Edwards will do to you.

D&D is crap for simulation if you try to simulate things that it wasn't meant to simulate. But for a simulationist game, D&D is very much into the "rules as enforcement of game world reality vice facilitates a novelization" effect that IMO defines simulationism. You just have to respect the SCOPE of the simulation. The D&D rules aren't Aria by any stretch.

 

[fanboy2000]

Raven, you're defination of rules is so broad that it is useless in this discussion. You are also arguing against claims that I never made.

As Hong has already pointed out, I never said "you can't do that because there are no rules for that." I was presenting an example of where I did something that the rules did not let you do to contrast with fusangite's dislike of doing things there are no rules for.

Examples of Fluff and why it isn't as useful as crunch:
Elves are short and slim, standing about 4-1/2 to 5-1/2 feet tall and typilcally weighing 95 to 135 lbs.
I'm creating a world, let's call it Earth-2, and in this world Elves are 5-1/2 to 6-1/2 feet tall, weighting 150 to 275 lbs. This falls well within the range of medium, and changes nothing in the rules. In fact, I can do nothing but change the physical description and keep the rules (medium, changes to ability scores, etc...) and have a whole new playable race from a world building perspective. This is a nifty little trick I got from the only 2e book I've always wanted, but never got, Creative Campaigning.

...so dwarves, gnomes, and halfings very rarely become monks.
The above quote has no bearing on the rules. In Earth-2 I create a gnome culture that has many monasteries, and thus, many monks. And of course, if a player in a Greyhawk game wants to play a gnome monk, I don't stop her. I don't say "that's too unlikely, play something more gnome like." I also don't have a table that gives the presentige chance that they grew-up in a monastery, they just play a gnome monk.

Lidda the togue can walk quickly up to a door, put her ear to it, and hear the troglodyte priest on the other side casting a spell on his pet crocodile. If Jozan the cleric were to try the same thing, he'd probably make so much noise that the troglodyte would hear him.
This is an excellent description of skills in use, but it has no effect on the rules. Of course, we know that it dosen't have to be like that. Lidda could fail her skill check, but Jozan could make it. Jozan could have many cross-class ranks in Move Silently and Listen, and wear armor with a a low armor check penalty or no armor at all. The quote illustrates a typical situation, but not the only one posible under the rules.

Split treasure evenly among the characters who participated.
Good advice. As a DM, however, I just present the tresure to the group. What the group does with it after that is up to them. My only job after tresure is presented, is to keep track of any special abilities an item has that the group is unaware of yet. I've seen groups go into bookkeeping mode when tresure is presented, and I've seen groups grab and run what ever they wanted with no care as to what anything was valued. Whatever the group finds fun.

This giant resembles a mammoth dwarf with coal-black skin, flaming red hair, and a prognathous jaw that reveals dirty ivory teeth.
Nice description. I often use the descriptions in the MM when deescribing an encounter to my party. However, as with the elf example above, there are an infinate number of descriptions I can attach to the Fire Giant stats.

In eons past, the mind flayers enslaved entire races, including the forerunner os the githyanki.
In Earth-2, I can say that mind flayers don't exist, and that the Githyanki were never enslaved. No rules need change.

Of course it is easy to point out that lots of fulff exists that is much closer tied to the rules. Gods, for example are a curious combination of fluff and crunch.There are rules for deity portfolios, but they have no real in-game effect. Domains have a concrete effect on the game, but aren't useful for describing worshipers who aren't clerics or adventures. Plane statistics, too, alter the implied rules of the game, but thier effect on more concrete rules varies from plane to plane and DM to DM. Also, within my examples, one can point out that if I make Elves 7 feet tall and 500 lbs then I've entered the realm of Large size creature and that does have a game effect.

My point is that fluff is far more maluable than rules are. It is often posible to make minor, small, and sometimes even large changes to fluff without changing one rule or peice of physics in the universe the DM has created. In fact, changing fluff is such a common part of world building that many DMs use the same ruleset but play in very diffrent worlds with a diffrent feeling.