The terms 'fluff' and 'crunch'

[fanboy2000]

I just assumed that Doug's definition was the one we were working with

Sort of. While I agree with Doug, you should notice that I posted before him and thus couldn't posibly use his exact wording.

That said...

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.

Yes, it does seem to be the generaly excepted meaning: runch=all rules and fluff=all non-rules. Of course, as Psion pointed out, there are some gray areas. In all honesty, I'm not sure what the core rules have do with it. You seem to be adding something to the conversation that I don't see. It does appear that you are arguing with yourself.

Why would you use a prestige class designed for one setting/organization in a place for which it wasn't designed?

You know, I'm not entirly sure how to respond to this. I think I'll quote the designers themselves on this one:

The Thayan Knight represents a classic fantasy archetype--the warrior-henchmen of a powerful wizardly cabal. Most D&D campaign settings have cultures or organizations similer to the Red Wizards of Thay so even if you do not play in the Forgotten Realms setting, you should have no difficulty customizing the Thayan Knight to your own game setting.

Why not just generate a setting-appropriate PrC yourself?

I buy RPG books so I don't have design PrCs. It is ten times eaiser for me to write new fluff than it is to write new crunch. Fluff dosen't have to be balanced, crunch does.

 

[Gez]

(Apologies to Moochava over at RPG.net whose post I am about to blatantly rip off)


I propose the following replacements to both these and other overused gaming terms:

Fluff --> Pludge. "This game positively oozes with setting-pludge."

Crunch --> Chunder. "The rules offer nice, meaty wedges of chunder that stick in my teeth."

OK, so, before, when speaking about a background sourcebook, people would say "this book is a fluffer's wet dream!" and now they'll say "this book packs pludge like nobody else!"

Seems OK, IMHO.

--Gez "Won't even try with chunder" Ooi

 

[Gnarlo]

I definitely think "Gamers Who Argue About Fluff/Crunch As Terminology" is giving "Furries" heavy competition for it's level in the Geek Hierarchy

 

[fusangite]

You do realise that too much arguing with yourself will make you go blind, of course.

Really? I could have sworn you were arguing with me, what with your insulting and negative responses to whatever I post on this thread (or on virtually any thread I start posting to on a Sunday). But now that I think about it, you're just attempting to insult me, and not doing a very good job. Looking at how you respond to my posts it's pretty clear that what you're doing doesn't rise to the level of what most people would call argument.

Argument, after all, involves people taking positions and advancing them through some kind of rational discourse. All you're doing is quoting sentence fragments, rather ineffectively I might add, in order to call me names. There is only one actual position I can detect you taking:

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.

So, your position is that certain kinds of gaming terminology should evolve over time but other kinds should not, that gaming terminology everyone uses should, of course, adapt and change over time whereas gaming terminology only some people use should not. You explain that this is a reasonable position for you to take by showing us a picture of a bottle of beer.

Hong, I understand that you don't like me. But perhaps you could redirect your efforts on this thread (or, in an ideal world, on ENWorld generally) to actually engaging in rational discourse about the things on which you disagree with me.

 

[fusangite]

Doug and Fanboy,

I think what's underlying a lot of this apparent disagreement is that we have significantly different playing styles. My problem with the fluff/crunch terminology is that it assumes your playing style. In my view, we should strive for terminology that is compatible with as many playing styles as possible. The relationship between setting and mechanics in worlds I design is, I would guess, quite different from the relationship between setting and mechanics is worlds you design.

My problem is that the terminology assumes the relationship that exists in your games and essentially invalidates the relationship that exists in mine. I would like if we could move to terminology sufficiently universal to describe the relationship between mechanical and non-mechanical information about a world regardless of the DM's world building style.

If people who design worlds the way you do want to talk about these things, I'm sure that the current terminology is sufficient. But for the apparent majority of people who have posted to this thread, it's not.

What I don't hear from you guys is why terminology that is descriptive of some approaches to world building and not others should be applied across the board.

 

[hong]

Really? I could have sworn you were arguing with me,

Well, foosie, I'm trying to, I'm wanting to, I'm begging to, but unfortunately, you really seem to prefer arguing with yourself. Who am I to say no?

what with your insulting and negative responses to whatever I post on this thread (or on virtually any thread I start posting to on a Sunday).

It's always Sunday, somewhere in the world!

But now that I think about it, you're just attempting to insult me, and not doing a very good job.

Yes, yes. Next you'll be saying you're just replying for the benefit of the lurkers.

Looking at how you respond to my posts it's pretty clear that what you're doing doesn't rise to the level of what most people would call argument.

But see, foosie, you need to stop arguing with yourself first before you can comprehend those around you. Mote in thine eye and all that.

Argument, after all, involves people taking positions and advancing them through some kind of rational discourse. All you're doing is quoting sentence fragments, rather ineffectively I might add, in order to call me names.

And to think I went to all that trouble to point out that I was not calling you stupid. Oy vey.

There is only one actual position I can detect you taking:

Very good. Of course, this would have been obvious to everyone else from the start, but some people seem unable to comprehend simple truths without the use of self-imposed polysyllabism. Stop it, or you'll go blind.

So, your position is that certain kinds of gaming terminology should evolve over time but other kinds should not, that gaming terminology everyone uses should, of course, adapt and change over time whereas gaming terminology only some people use should not.

Hey, go right ahead and use whatever terminology you want for the purpose of arguing with yourself. It's a free world, after all.

You explain that this is a reasonable position for you to take by showing us

No, foosie, you are not allowed to use the royal pronoun, no matter how much you like arguing with yourself.

a picture of a bottle of beer.

It's a very flexible picture, I find. It conveys all sorts of messages.

Hong, I understand that you don't like me. But perhaps you could redirect your efforts on this thread (or, in an ideal world, on ENWorld generally) to actually engaging in rational discourse about the things on which you disagree with me.

I am always rational. It's everyone else who's irrational.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Hong, stop it now please.

Regards,

 

[fusangite]

Hong,

In your most recent post, you take the following positions:
1. That I'm not engaging with other people's arguments and am, instead, "arguing with myself."
2. That it's arrogant for me to claim that everyone reading this thread has seen your beer picture when it's only been posted for my benefit.
3. That I use too many big words.

So help me out here. Try to explain what the substance of your disagreement with me is without directly quoting one of my posts (just the way I've done here). I've taken the position that fluff and crunch are not good terms for discussing published setting material and that there are other, better sets of terminology for doing this. You have taken the position that I am wrong. In what way am I wrong? What is the actual substance of your disagreement with me?

EDIT: Thanks for stepping in, Plane Sailing. I'll refrain from rising to the bait further.

 

[Desdichado]

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?

Really? The mechanics might be just what you need with (or even without) pretty minor tweaks, even if you're tossing the organization it was initially designed for.

Also, many gamers are not good at, or simply not interested in, designing mechanics.

 

[Desdichado]

In my view, we should strive for terminology that is compatible with as many playing styles as possible.

There's probably an inverse quality of terms relationship to some extent between the two goals of making the terms specifically conform to a play style and compatible with as many playing styles as possible. In which case, you should probably default to a play style that is also default. I've seen enough of your posts about your play style to think that it's, if not genuinely unique, at least extremely unusual. Making terms that conform to your playstyle would likely make them next to useless for almost everybody else.