The terms 'fluff' and 'crunch'

[Plane Sailing]

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

Yes, I think it devalues one in the favour of the other. There have been some huge posts examining this in detail in the past

My personal preference is to refer to 'crunch' and 'context' to distinguish between rules and setting information. I like alliteration.

 

[hong]

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."

Well, foosie, it seems obvious that sometimes you need jargon, and at other times, you don't. Or maybe it's not obvious to some.

I'm not opposing the term "fluff" on the grounds that it is "negative";

No, two of the three five four things you listed were just negative, that's all.

I'm opposing it on the grounds that it's non-descriptive.

Oh, good.

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.

Clearly then, these RPG players are stupid. It's a good thing you said you didn't share their view, because I wouldn't want to call you stupid.

 

[Ant]

I don't hate them as much as I hate the disturbing trend of using MMORPG terminology.

Hey, I like WoW as much as the next guy but encounters are not mobs, enhancement spells are not buffs and paladins are not pallys.

Argh!

 

[hong]

I don't hate them as much as I hate the disturbing trend of using MMORPG terminology.

Hey, I like WoW as much as the next guy but encounters are not mobs, enhancement spells are not buffs and paladins are not pallys.

Argh!

Sorry, the WoW thread is here: --> WOW

 

[Ant]

Sorry, the WoW thread is here: --> WOW

True, though my post was a generic complaint about poor terminology for pen and paper RPGs. I used WoW as an example only.

To the topic at hand, for some reason when I hear 'fluff' and 'crunch' I just get hungry. Like a lot of modern terminology, I find them derisive yet ever-so-catchy. And ... err ... tasty, in this instance.

 

[fusangite]

Clearly then, these RPG players are stupid. It's a good thing you said you didn't share their view, because I wouldn't want to call you stupid.

Hong, contrary to your view, as evidenced by the style of your post, disagreeing with someone and calling them stupid are not the same thing. As I said in a previous post on this very thread, the terminology used in D&D has changed over the past 30 years; some of these changes took place because we found that we could refine the terms we used and make them more precise.

Well, foosie, it seems obvious that sometimes you need jargon, and at other times, you don't. Or maybe it's not obvious to some.

Well that would be why I suggested that Raven Crowking's alternative jargon would be preferable to the current jargon. You see, nobody is actually disagreeing about that.

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.

I think this must be where I became confused.

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.

I just assumed that Doug's definition was the one we were working with. You seem to be saying that crunch=all rules and fluff=all non-rules whereas Doug is stating that these terms only apply to published setting materials and not to the core rules of the game. I was going with Doug's definition here and therefore stating that the prestige classes, feats, monsters, magic items and spells introduced in setting material are contingent upon the backstory, cultures and geography that the setting introduces.

You guys should determine whether we're going with your parameters or Doug's parameters for the term.

After all you could use the PrC without the organisation. Or vice versa.

I can't imagine doing so in my style of gaming. Why would you use a prestige class designed for one setting/organization in a place for which it wasn't designed? Why not just generate a setting-appropriate PrC yourself?

 

[Breakdaddy]

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. I require beer.

 

[MonsterMash]

I require beer.

At least that's something I hope everyone can agree with.

Cheers!

 

[hong]

Hong, contrary to your view, as evidenced by the style of your post, disagreeing with someone and calling them stupid are not the same thing.

That's very nice, foosie. You do realise that too much arguing with yourself will make you go blind, of course.

As I said in a previous post on this very thread, the terminology used in D&D has changed over the past 30 years; some of these changes took place because we found that we could refine the terms we used and make them more precise.

The difference, foosie, is that changing the jargon in the rules themselves facilitates playing the game, something that all people agree is a worthwhile pursuit. Changing the jargon in discussion about the rules facilitates arguing about the game, something that not all people agree is a worthwhile pursuit. After all, the more arguing one does, the less time there is for the truly important things in life, such as

... or downloading pornography off teh intarweb, whichever is more to one's taste.

Well that would be why I suggested that Raven Crowking's alternative jargon would be preferable to the current jargon.

Yes, but that's because you enjoy arguing with yourself, foosie.

I think this must be where I became confused.

Yes, that tends to happen a lot.

I can't imagine doing so

Yes, that tends to happen a lot too.

 

[JoeCrow]

Well, I think I'll just use "pludge" and "chunder" from now on.

Y'know, to avoid confusion. I'm all about avoiding confusion.