The terms 'fluff' and 'crunch'

[woodelf]

BTW Woodelf I do agree that rules affect the flavour of the game, which is one reason I'd use different rules for different sorts of game even within the same fantasy gameworld. To me saying that rules are the physics of the world implies that the rules are immutable, whereas in fact the rules are highly malleable. The physics of the world I generally take to be an overarching constant (eg gravity, electromagnetism, nature of spirits), with a partial exception for the physics of magic, which IMC can change over time and differ from place to place.

Quick counter-point: if you run the same world with, say, D&D3E, and then Storyteller, how badly a fall hurts would change drastically, and it could be argued that gravity *has* changed, from a game-mechanical POV, at least.

 

[fanboy2000]

Quick counter-point: if you run the same world with, say, D&D3E, and then Storyteller, how badly a fall hurts would change drastically, and it could be argued that gravity *has* changed, from a game-mechanical POV, at least.

But 1. Gravity still exists, and 2. Falling still hurts. Those things don't change. You could change those things, but you won't be playing in the same world. OTOH, you could change to a world where those things don't exisit and use the same two rulesets.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Actually, as a point of clarity, I argued that the rules allow you to do exactly what you did, and the claim that "you can't do that because there are no rules for that" is wrong. I didn't argue that it was your point.

What I did argue related to your statements was that the claim that you "had done something that the rules did not let you do" (or words to that effect) was incorrect. The rules do not prevent you from describing the results of rules application (low hp) however you desire. Because you didn't change the mechanics to match your description, you did exactly what the current rules allow.

Hong's attempt to refute the statement on the basis of whose previous statement it did or did not apply to should not be taken as evidence of anything. Go back and check the posts, if you like.

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.

Obviously, this depends upon what you mean by "ruleset" and what you mean by "fluff". For example, changing the height of elves means that you cannot use the Height/Weight tables provided in the Core Rules. Is this a change to fluff or crunch? Is this a change to the ruleset?

To me, this would be a change in the rules.

The description of a monster is a matter of taste, and falls under what most people would call "fluff" -- assuming that changes to description do not change stat blocks. Once you change stat blocks, we are back in the realm of "crunch" and rulesets. Some of the information about monsters, such as where they are found, are probably considered "fluff" as well.

As a person living in that world, though, understanding where monsters live, being able to tell what they are, and knowing how likely they are to be (say) monks probably wouldn't seem like "fluff" at all. Because knowing these things affects a player's ability to succeed in the game, I question whether a player would necessarily consider that information "fluff." If the player did consider it "fluff," I would also be interested in why. Was it because the DM put together a world where it was impossible to predict things anyway? Was it because the player hadn't put together the simple correlation between ability to predict what one is likely to encounter and the ability to plan for/survive those encounters?

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.

I am certain that we can well imagine a group who splits treasure evenly among the characters who participated simply because it's "part of the rules." Others say, "It's stupid to consider that a rule, and it isn't the DM's job." If you use it as a rule, it is part of the ruleset of the game...simply because it is used as a rule. If you do not use it, it may be good advice, but it isn't a rule.

This decision changes the rules of the game.

It doesn't change the rules so much that you say, "Now they are playing another game." Nor do you look at two human skeletons and say, "One is human, and the other is not, because they are not exactly the same." Many variations of bone structure, both great and small, can be made while still leaving a demonstrably human skeleton. But these skeletons are not identical. Likewise, many changes can be made to the ruleset while still leaving a game which is demonstrably D&D. But these rulesets are not identical.

The discussion at hand, initially whether or not the terms "fluff" and "crunch" are offensive, requires one to examine what is meant by "fluff" and "crunch," and to make some kind of determination as to what is meant by related terms, such as "rules" and "flavor text." Or at least this is a requirement if one hopes to achieve any growth of perspective on the subject.

At least one secondary claim which has arisen, that "fluff" and "crunch" are the best descriptors available for the matter at hand, again requires exactly that form of examination if one wants to discover the relative truth value of the claim.

As far as physics go, you could certainly claim that some "fluff" alters other sciences, such as psychology or zoology. From a real-world standpoint, though, these sciences are inseparably tied into physics.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

But 1. Gravity still exists, and 2. Falling still hurts. Those things don't change. You could change those things, but you won't be playing in the same world. OTOH, you could change to a world where those things don't exisit and use the same two rulesets.

So, falling damage is not part of the ruleset?


RC

 

[fanboy2000]

You're right, we need to discuss definations.

We are using subtly diffrent definations of fluff. You seem to be defining fluff as a kind of information and leave it at that. You conceed that monster descriptions are something that others consider fluff, for example.

I agree with your defination, but mine is a kind of information found in an RPG book. For example, a monster's description is only fluff when it appears in an RPG book. The description a DM uses in-game isn't fluff.

If you look through the posts of people who use the word fluff and what it is their describing, I think you'll find that people are spicificly talking about the content of an RPG book, not what was said or done in an actual game-session.

By contrast, crunch specifically refers to rules printed in RPG books. Not house rules or implied rules, or physics, but rules in published RPG books.

Again, if you look through the posts, I think you will find that people use crunch to evaluate the contents of a book, not to describe the an actual game session.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The original use of fluff/crunch wasn't even to talk about the core rule books (which are very crunch heavy anyway so there's not much point) but rather campaign setting books such as those for Forgotten Realms. One would normally expect these to be among the most fluff heavy rpg books but most of them contained a lot of feats, PrCs, spells, monsters and magic items as opposed to history, geography - world description - making them very crunch heavy. Which seems to be what readers want, though I suspect most posters on ENWorld feel differently.

This greater desire amongst the readership for feats, PrCs and so forth is what is brought out by the fluff/crunch terminology.

Raven Crowking, while your definition of rules to mean something like 'every method by which game events are decided' is fair enough I don't think it's what most people mean when they talk about the rules of Dungeons & Dragons. Personally when I talk about the rules I'm referring principally to what's in the PHB and to a slighter lesser degree the DMG and MM. Weirdly I do think of the MM as being less 'rulesy', than the PHB. Strictly speaking I suppose the SRD should really be the prime rule set but I just don't happen to use it as I find it harder to access in electronic form.

It's somewhat paradoxical that you, with a definition of rules that renders them more important should promote terminology that slightly undermines rules at the expense of flavour text, while I with a narrower definition am doing the opposite.

In some ways I myself would find the term 'fluff' a little irksome if it were used to refer to marvellous work like Glorantha. It never is though. Let's face it stuff like the 53rd Forgotten Realms book is basically trash.

 

[fanboy2000]

You're right Doug. Fluff and crunch are terms usually for non-core books. Your post is definitely supported by SKR's story that I linked to earlier.

 

[Doug McCrae]

For me possibly the major selling point (which I'd forgotten up 'til now) of 'fluff/crunch' is that it expresses a belief about what in rpgs is best produced by games companies and what is best produced by ourselves - the end users.

Games companies are good at doing crunch, bad at doing fluff. On the other hand most gamers are pretty bad at coming up with balanced feats, PrCs, spells, etc. I certainly am. I find it difficult and time consuming. So much so that I never do it any more. However I find creating worlds, geography, nations, cultures, organisations and so on to be both easy and enjoyable.

It's peculiar that games companies' fluff is worse than the adventures and situations we produce ourselves. I remember noticing this about 15 years ago in a 2nd ed campaign that used a mixture of published and homegrown scenarios. The published ones (even those that had received excellent reviews) were a complete pile of waz. Whereas those the GM did were really good. Maybe it's because the stuff Gregor created was so much better suited to his GMing and our playing styles.

It's important to note that 'crunch/fluff' does not denigrate the game world work of individual GMs and players. It just denigrates (rightfully in my view) the game world work of games companies.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's important to note that 'crunch/fluff' does not denigrate the game world work of individual GMs and players. It just denigrates (rightfully in my view) the game world work of games companies.

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).

Doug,

Am I correct then in understanding that an individual character's stat block, because it is not the game world work of a game company, is no longer to be considered "crunch"?

Because, if you are supporting a definition of fluff/crunch that is independent of what is or is not rules or descriptive text, then we have gone rather far from the way the terms are generally used, imho. Not only that, but we have gone rather far from the way you were using the terms when you determined that an individual character's stat bar was clearly crunch.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, mind you. If the terms only apply when examing published material created by a certain subset of people, then how can the average player or DM feel slighted?

Of course, this is not the way those terms are generally used. Even as we were discussing the terminology, and you were feeling around to find a way to define crunch/fluff, you had a hard time being consistent as to what was fluff or crunch in the example questions I gave you (longer post on this earlier). You did not, however, find it difficult to apply the terms to the questions, even though they were not the pulished work of a game designer. Indeed, you were willing to posit that certain types of things that only occur in games (assuming that "individual character stat block" includes PCs) are crunch.

This, perhaps, may point to the insidious nature of the terminology. You may mean for them to express "a belief about what in rpgs is best produced by games companies and what is best produced by ourselves - the end users," but this is not the common usage. Indeed, it was a usage you said you'd "forgotten up 'til now."

(I went back, and you had said in an earlier post, "The point of the 'fluff/crunch' terminology is to describe the contents of published gaming material NOT individual games." So you were more consistent than you credited yourself with! )

Tetsujin28 responded to my statement, "I do hope your realize that there is a difference between placing a greater value on crunch when making a purchasing decision and placing a greater value on crunch when playing the game. I am not sure that one implies the other." with "Always the first, often the second." This, to my mind at least, suggests that Tetsujin28, at least, feels confident applying the terminology to individual games.

Joshua Dyal claimed that these terms "are actually relatively well-known, understood and accepted and therefore useful to gamers at large," and he's a pretty smart guy. After all, he earlier said "The only problem is that it's occasionally unclear what someone considers fluff vs. crunch in some cases," which is clearly true. After all, this thread sparked considerable debate as to what "crunch" and "fluff" mean.

I think Breakdaddy put it best when he said "These terms are not my favorites. They can be interpreted ten different ways by ten different people, even though I think everyone has at least some idea as to what they mean."

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

Or maybe this lack of clarity about the terms fluff/crunch demonstrates that they are pretty lousy terminology.

I will grant, based upon the definition that you and Fanboy2000 seem to be using (that crunch/fluff applies only to professionally published game materials, but maybe not the rather crunchy core rules, or maybe so, depending, with crunch being the rules and fluff being the flavor text, game fiction, ecology & geography, etc., with the exception that not all rules are crunch but we're pretty certain that the text parts are all or mostly fluff...... ) that "meat and bones" would certainly not replace "fluff and crunch" on a one-to-one basis. They simply mean different things. Also, one can talk about flaccid and flabby meat in a product (might even be amusing, as in, "This product could use some Viagra"), but "useful fluff" is an oxymoron.

It's somewhat paradoxical that you, with a definition of rules that renders them more important should promote terminology that slightly undermines rules at the expense of flavour text, while I with a narrower definition am doing the opposite.

Well, sure, but my definition also renders the meat more important than your fluff does. And my definition assumes an organic relationship between the two, where they rely upon each other to have any real meaning.

Of course, I do agree with you that my flavor text is going to be superior to most of what has come out in various books in recent years. But I have borrowed flavor text, and ideas from flavor text, from various sources over the years, and even if it isn't necessarily what I am looking for, the opportunity to examine the ideas of others is worthwhile. I make my own rules, too, but that doesn't mean that I don't use existing rules where they suit my needs.

I recently wrote an article, located here (http://www.enworld.org/article.php?a=121) on using faeries in D&D. While there is some "crunch" most of it is "fluff" by your terminology. But is it really "something of little substance or consequence, especially light or superficial entertainment; or inflated or padded material"? Or is it "evocative and inspiring"?

You had asked, "Do you have a problem with the 'fluff' and 'crunch' terminology? And if so, why?"

Here is my answer:

Yes, I have problems with the fluff/crunch terminology, even though I do not find it offensive. The problems that I have can be ennumerated as follows:

1. They are without clear definition. One does not always know what one means when using these terminologies. Is a PC's stat block crunch? Is a description of an NPC being wounded to the bone fluff? Are rough statements on the odds of encountering a particular type of creature in a given area either fluff or crunch? Without a clear definition, none of these questions can be answered. Even claiming that the material has to be in a published rpg book does not answer what qualifies as crunch and fluff if we do not mean rules and flavor text, and we cannot define what we mean.

2. In real life, people do not use these terms only to apply to published material.

3. "Useful fluff" is an oxymoron, yet "useful flavor text" is not, even within a published rpg book. Which is to say, since the terminology is used prejudicially and fairly universally, you will eventually hear about Gloranthan fluff. Heck, if new Glorantha books were being published right now (and if they are, let me know), pretty soon I imagine we'd have a thread here on which the term would be bandied about.

4. The first three reasons suggest that the terms are not useful, or are derogatory in a (possibly) unintentional and confusing manner. In addition to this lack of usefulness, I am aware that some find them offensive.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But 1. Gravity still exists, and 2. Falling still hurts. Those things don't change. You could change those things, but you won't be playing in the same world. OTOH, you could change to a world where those things don't exisit and use the same two rulesets.

In other words, if you change the fact that falling hurts, you are plaing in a different world, but if you change the degree to which falling hurts, you are not? At what point in the spectrum between "falling 10 ft instantly kills you" and "falling 100 ft causes minimal (1 hp) damage" have you switched worlds? And, if you haven't switched at all, why does removing the damage of that 1 hp (i.e., moving to no damage) make such a difference compared to the oodles of other damage already removed from the system?

In real life, physics allows, given sufficient observation and understanding of the rules of physics (which are often not laws, and can change to allow for better modelling of real-world occurances) one should be able to extrapolate from one's knowledge of the current state of things what is both (1) possible and (2) likely to happen. Moreover, if observation does not match prediction, physics assumes that you can theoretically determine at which point either your observation or your understanding failed.

If you cannot think of any way in which the rules of an rpg model real-life physics, well, I doubt I can make it any clearer.



RC