The terms 'fluff' and 'crunch'

[Faraer]

Do we agree that we don't *need* these terms? 'Rules' and 'background' (or lore, or setting or world information, or content) work fine. But some people call world information fluff because they like the sound of it, or find these terms have useful shades of meaning, or hear others using them. So the question is, does this jargon aid understanding and communication more than it distorts and confuses? Does it tend towards or away from truth? (Those who don't think words are an important subject of discussion are mistaken, and should discuss things they do want to discuss, rather than insult the rest of us.) In general, I don't see how the objections fusangite and I have raised can be dismissed, but I'm not sure what would persuade those who they haven't convinced.

I like them. Every part of an RPG book seems to easily fit into one of the two categories, and they're terms everybody recognizes.

Everybody? 'Fluff' is jargon restricted to a few internet RPG communities, within which -- as we've seen on this thread and others -- they're interpreted with a wide range of meanings. Neither is everything clearly one or the other: spells and magic items are both world objects and rules objects.

But imaginary worlds are flimsy, feathery, ephemeral, insubstantial, inconsequential and while not quite effortlessly changeable are still pretty amenable to it. They are castles in the air. Fantasies. Changeable with literally a thought.

That isn't the intent of most people who use the term. 'Fluff' has an established meaning in terms of the written word: it refers to vague, disposable prose as opposed to valuable content. It means 'padding' -- there's no getting away from the fact that it's derogatory, and often meant to be so. And rules are equally insubstantial and imaginary, so it's not a descriptive distinction in that sense.

Words do effect discourse, but the history behind the word and the connotations from its daily use outweigh the linguistic roots.

I'm not talking linguistic roots, but the usual uses of the word -- from 'fluffy' to describe prose styles to 'ball of fluff'.

Perhaps you need to be less suggestible.

Hong, people are vastly suggestible, including you and me. Suggesting otherwise is like the people who claim advertising (or propaganda) doesn't affect them.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Meat and Bones

Meat and Bones.

Bones, because it offers the structure. Muscles can do very little without some form of structural system that allows them to act. Without bones, nothing happens.

Meat, though, is the stuff that you eat (barring vegetarians, off course... ). It's the stuff that's actually nutritious. When choosing a cut of meat, you may select it on the basis of the bones (i.e., a T-Bone steak, or the d20 game system) but it is the flavorful meat that you actually consume....again, barring vegetarians, the dog, and fairy tale giants (who might make bread from the bones).


RC

 

[jasper]

I hate both if you don't know what they mean it confusing until you do. Especially since words exist which are clearer.
Rules and Flavor text.

 

[DungeonMaster]

If you're being derogatory towards flavor text you call it "fluff".
I prefer "clunk" over "crunch" because to be honest a lot of 3E "crunch" is clunky to the extreme.
Fluff and clunk.

 

[fanboy2000]

Do we agree that we don't *need* these terms? 'Rules' and 'background' (or lore, or setting or world information, or content) work fine.

They are useful. For one thing, is a feat really a rule? Feats were designed to be moduler, use what you like and discard the rest. Rules can be designed liked that, but feats really aren't rules as the word is traditionaly used. And for another thing, is a location really fluff? Sure, it can have fluff elemtnets. But a city map really isn't fluff, heck it isn't even background information. A map just dosen't add flavor to a location, it often is the flavor.

Everyone in this thread has made the mistake of thinking that there are only two things an RPG book contains. In reality, this isn't so.

It means 'padding' -- there's no getting away from the fact that it's derogatory, and often meant to be so.

Translation: "I'm not going to back this up, so I'm claiming it's an inescapable fact."

Unfortunately for you, there are many examples of people embracing derogitory terms for positve use. Yankee being one of them. Fanboy being another.

In general, I don't see how the objections fusangite and I have raised can be dismissed, but I'm not sure what would persuade those who they haven't convinced.

Well, there are a couple of things. I'd find the argument more satifatory if you acknowledge that people do use the term neutrally. Another is recognition that any substiute terms need to be more percise and acknowledge that RPG books do not divide neatly into two catogories.

Let me give you an extreem example:
City State of the Invincible Overlord Has it all, fluff, crunch, and in-between. In fact, most of the book is in-between. Chapter One is fluff, as many introductions are. Chapter Two is crunch, actual meaty (to barrow from other posters) rules. Useful rules, like social levels. Then they have these wierd tables in there that help you randomly generate weather, street enounters (not necessarily combat encounters) and other things. Fluff? Fluff with random tables? Rules? How do you describe that? Not with one word, I'll wager. Then comes the heart of the book, every single location in the city numbered and detailed. Every description is a Bond Martini (shaken, not stirred) or fluff and crunch that creats something that neither is by itself.

 

[tetsujin28]

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

I don't. Fluff = that stuff I don't read. Crunch = that stuff I actually use.

 

[tetsujin28]

The term 'crunch' implies difficulty or heavy going. That's hardly a good thing, surely? Fluff OTOH implies softness, ease, comfort, which I'd say are positive qualities.

Those things that are difficult are rewarding

 

[fusangite]

Unfortunately for you, there are many examples of people embracing derogitory terms for positve use. Yankee being one of them. Fanboy being another.

So, it's your position that the best terminology we can come up with for discussing published setting materials is one that insults some of the people in the discussion? Sorry but I think we can do better. I think we can come up with terminology that is descriptive and not insulting to anyone.

One isn't always in the mood to "claim" and subvert whatever derogatory term is thrown at them. Surely we have large enough vocabularies and cognitive capacities to settle on terminology that isn't pejorative.

Well, there are a couple of things. I'd find the argument more satifatory if you acknowledge that people do use the term neutrally.

Some people do. Some people don't. Why not have terminology that is more descriptive and less controversial. What is the special thing that "fluff" expresses as a term for which no other word will do? You appear to be attached to it for some reason.

Is the only reason people are attached to the term the fact that it is already in use or does it, in fact, indicate something? If it's just an empty term, why is it important to keep it? If it is an especially expressive or precise term, let us know what is being expressed by "fluff" that couldn't be expressed as effectively with another term?

 

[hong]

In general, I don't see how the objections fusangite and I have raised can be dismissed, but I'm not sure what would persuade those who they haven't convinced.

More tinfoil hats, obviously.

Hong, people are vastly suggestible, including you and me. Suggesting otherwise is like the people who claim advertising (or propaganda) doesn't affect them.

I suggest this:

 

[fanboy2000]

So, it's your position that the best terminology we can come up with for discussing published setting materials is one that insults some of the people in the discussion?

1. People choose what to be insulted by. I have no control over that choice, so I don't worry to much about a minority of people who chose to be insulted by terminology that dosen't actually say any thing about them. If the term were racial, I'd feel diffrently for reasons that I can't bring up here. I bring it up only to illustrate that I'm not an unfeeling jerk.

I think we can come up with terminology that is descriptive and not insulting to anyone.

Ironicly, one of the sugestions you endorsed has the potential to insult animal rights people. Think about this very carefuly, do you realy want to play the game of "I must not offend anyone?" Because it's a game you are sure to loose.

I don't have any particular attachment to be to the terms fluff and crunch, I just find it strange and illogical that anyone would find the terms offensive. It seems to me the people who dislike the term the most feel that it use is somehow an attack on a their style of play. What's illogical is that term dosen't describe a style of play, it describes a type of information in an RPG book, it's a classifcation of information. The only one's I can see being offended by the terms use are RPG designers and devlopers, and they've embrased the terms. I know Skip Williams used the term regularly, and Sean K. Reynolds used the term to defend the fluff heavy book, The Silver Marches and encourage people to buy it. So if the people who write the stuff for a living find the term usefull, why be insulted?