The terms 'fluff' and 'crunch'

[fusangite]

There are three problems with the fluff/crunch terminology:

1. It suggests that "fluff" is less necessary to the game that "crunch."
2. It suggests that these two things are discreet, separate things between which there is a clear boundary and that no mutual dependency exists between the two.
3. It suggests that the structure of the game comes from the crunch not the fluff, when, in fact I've seen as many games change their "crunch" mid-stream as their "fluff' midstream.
4. It suggests that "fluff" is less substantial than "crunch."

I reject all four of these ideas.

I think Raven Crowking has it right. "Meat" and "bones" is a much better term. It suggests mutual necessity, interdependence, problematic category boundaries (look at that cartilege!) and the fact that both contribute to the ultimate structure of the game.

 

[hong]

There are three problems with the fluff/crunch terminology:

1. It suggests that "fluff" is less necessary to the game that "crunch."
2. It suggests that these two things are discreet, separate things between which there is a clear boundary and that no mutual dependency exists between the two.
3. It suggests that the structure of the game comes from the crunch not the fluff, when, in fact I've seen as many games change their "crunch" mid-stream as their "fluff' midstream.
4. It suggests that "fluff" is less substantial than "crunch."

5. Our chief weapon is surprise! Surprise and fear... I'll come in again!

Perhaps you need to be less suggestible.

 

[Mystery Man]

I wonder if someone who wasn't familiar with rpg terminology wouldn't come in and think this was the stupidest converstation ever.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I wonder if someone who wasn't familiar with rpg terminology wouldn't come in and think this was the stupidest converstation ever.

I'm hoping to win the coveted Stupidest Thread Ever award.

 

[fanboy2000]

There are three problems with the fluff/crunch terminology:

Four, technically, but who's counting?

1. It suggests that "fluff" is less necessary to the game that "crunch."

Games need rules. Crunch is more necessary to D&D than fluff. I often use rules and throw out the fluff attached to them.

2. It suggests that these two things are discreet, separate things between which there is a clear boundary and that no mutual dependency exists between the two.

No it dosen't. Anyone who's spent any time with the English language should know tha most word definitions are written in Jell-O.

3. It suggests that the structure of the game comes from the crunch not the fluff, when, in fact I've seen as many games change their "crunch" mid-stream as their "fluff' midstream.

The structure of a game does come from it rules! How you can claim otherwise astonishes me. Are you perhaps useing a diffrent deffination of game than I am?

Also, I don't see how changing the rules or the fluff make has anything to do with the previous statement.

4. It suggests that "fluff" is less substantial than "crunch."

Fluff is less substantial than crunch. Remember D&D is a game last I checked, games needed rules. I alter fluff far more than I alter rules. I'll simply not use a feat, PrC, spell, etc rather than alter it. Fluff I'll mine for a phrase here, a group there, a city there, and maybe that bad guy on page 35. Changing fluff is much eaiser than changing crunch.

 

[caudor]

I'm hoping to win the coveted Stupidest Thread Ever award.

Well OK, I now proclaim this to be the Stupidest Thread Evarrrr. [Presents the award]

Actually, the terms fluff and crunch somehow reminds me of breakfast cereals. You can't beat the crunch because the crunch always gives you away. (I suspect only folks in the US probably have heard that phrase before).

 

[Doug McCrae]

1. It suggests that "fluff" is less necessary to the game that "crunch."
4. It suggests that "fluff" is less substantial than "crunch."

As I mentioned in a previous post, one could equally see 'crunch' as suggestive of negative qualities and 'fluff' suggestive of positives. You've chosen to focus purely on fluff-as-negative.

2. It suggests that these two things are discreet, separate things between which there is a clear boundary and that no mutual dependency exists between the two.

Everything's connected with everything, however tenuously. That doesn't mean we can't have separate terms for those things. For instance, there's a connection between space and time which is not revealed by the terminology but that doesn't make it bad terminology.

The point of the 'fluff/crunch' terminology is to describe the contents of published gaming material NOT individual games. Feats, classes, PrCs, monsters, magic items, spells = crunch. Background, history, geography, culture, organisations = fluff. Seems pretty easy and straight forward to me. The fact that a PrC is dependent on an organisation doesn't mean one can't draw a useful distinction between the two sections in the book. After all you could use the PrC without the organisation. Or vice versa.

I think Raven Crowking has it right. "Meat" and "bones" is a much better term. It suggests mutual necessity, interdependence, problematic category boundaries (look at that cartilege!) and the fact that both contribute to the ultimate structure of the game.

There's a huge drawback to meat/bones versus fluff/crunch. The latter is the accepted terminology. Hardly anyone knows what the former means. This pretty much trumps whatever advantages it may have. And I don't think it has any.

 

[MonsterMash]

Well it doesn't really get to me, but I prefer to refer to Rules and Flavour/Description.

 

[fusangite]

There's a huge drawback to meat/bones versus fluff/crunch. The latter is the accepted terminology. Hardly anyone knows what the former means. This pretty much trumps whatever advantages it may have. And I don't think it has any.

Okay Doug. Congratulations! This thread has won the award. If you believe that the current terminology should be chosen over any more precise or descriptive term on the ground that we're already using it, what was the point of starting the thread?

Also, for that matter, if people thought this way, how could we have got to the world of 3E. We'd still be saying things like the 1E Player's Handbook (paraphrase follows): "Of course, a high armor class like -10 is always preferable to a high armor class like 10."

As I mentioned in a previous post, one could equally see 'crunch' as suggestive of negative qualities and 'fluff' suggestive of positives. You've chosen to focus purely on fluff-as-negative.

I'm not opposing the term "fluff" on the grounds that it is "negative"; I'm opposing it on the grounds that it's non-descriptive. It's not that I think that being insubstantial and unattached is always bad; I just think that the things you call "fluff" are mistakenly viewed as such by some RPG players and that this terminology reinforces this incorrect view.

Everything's connected with everything, however tenuously. That doesn't mean we can't have separate terms for those things.

So let's develop category boundaries that help us understand these interrelations better instead of category boundaries that make it harder to have a rational discussion.

Fluff is less substantial than crunch. Remember D&D is a game last I checked, games needed rules. I alter fluff far more than I alter rules. I'll simply not use a feat, PrC, spell, etc rather than alter it. Fluff I'll mine for a phrase here, a group there, a city there, and maybe that bad guy on page 35. Changing fluff is much eaiser than changing crunch.

Yes but in your schema here, the crunch is conditional upon the fluff so how is the substantial contingent upon the insubstantial?

 

[fanboy2000]

Yes but in your schema here, the crunch is conditional upon the fluff so how is the substantial contingent upon the insubstantial?

Huh? "The crunch is conditional upon the fluff?" I think you gorssly misunderstood me. I did not say that I create rules material to mach my fluff. I create background and setting material to go well with the rulesystem that I have. Just the opposite. The quote you used was supposed to illustrate that; I can't see how you got a diffrent interpretation.

And I deffinatly don't see how you got "substantial contingent upon the insubstantial" from my post.