The terms 'fluff' and 'crunch'

[Raven Crowking]

I do place more value on crunch. Fluff I can come up with any day of the week, but I don't have the time to come up with loads of cool rules.

Tetsujin,

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.

I am a frequent rules tinkerer, so I am happy to come up with loads of cool rules. And, I am a published fiction writer, so I am happy to come up with loads of cool flavor text & world background. This obviously colors the way I think.

RC

 

[fusangite]

I don't know what they do at the Forge, which eschew "crunchy" games like the plague, but then again, they're largely too pretentious to be caught dead using such colloquial terms anyway.

The Forge's theory is essentially this: the rules should allow people to act directly on "story," thereby decentring the role of the GM by making everyone co-storytellers, which is weird when you read the control freak style discourse that characterizes the site. Any discussion that examines a term on the Forge usually starts with a 2000 word definition written in an academic style by the thread starter or by the academic he wishes to fellate at the time.

The Forge could not handle a discussion of "crunch" and "fluff" without one of its leading lights posting a lengthy essay in abstruse poststructuralist academic jargon laying out the parameters of the debate.

However, it seems to me that those who support the current terminology on this thread are at the other extreme -- you're hiding behind the inherent subjectivity of language in order to dismiss any objection to the terms. Yes, language is subjective but some language is more malleable and subjectively defined than other language.

So, I will reiterate my challenge. I have given a number of examples in which "fluff" is used in a pejorative or dismissive way in the real world outside of gaming. Nobody has countered with an example of how crunch is used in this way; they have simply asserted that it is because language is inherently subjective.

 

[Desdichado]

However, it seems to me that those who support the current terminology on this thread are at the other extreme -- you're hiding behind the inherent subjectivity of language in order to dismiss any objection to the terms. Yes, language is subjective but some language is more malleable and subjectively defined than other language.

If you believe that, then you've missed the point. Which is, that the terms are actually relatively well-known, understood and accepted and therefore useful to gamers at large, despite your objections which, IMO, take the most extreme, unlikely and uncommon examples you can find and then prop them up as if they were the norm.

So, I will reiterate my challenge. I have given a number of examples in which "fluff" is used in a pejorative or dismissive way in the real world outside of gaming. Nobody has countered with an example of how crunch is used in this way; they have simply asserted that it is because language is inherently subjective.

Now, if only you could find examples in which it is used in a pejorative or dismissive way within the world of gaming, you might actually have a point worth countering.

 

[fusangite]

The evidence on this thread alone to say nothing of the combined evidence of years of Internet discussion of RPGs should quite clearly demonstrate that that implication is not ubiquitously perceived, though. In other words, it's a subjective interpretation based on prior experiences or preconcieved notions.

Why would ubiquity be your standard? Surely a term becomes problematic when a significant minority has a difficulty with it. To suggest that the term isn't problematic because we lack an overwhelming consensus that there is something wrong with it sort of flies in the face of most ideas of what constitutes functional discourse.

On this thread, 11 posters have indicated that there is no problem with the current terminology; 15 posters have indicated that there is a problem. Furthermore, 2 (fanboy2000 and tetsujin28) of the 11 posters who support the current terminology have indicated that they support it in part because it indicates that "crunch" is more important/relevant than "fluff."

Now you can make the argument that the thread's title is selecting in favour of posters who are likely to have a problem with the terms but even so, I think that it's pretty hard to read from the "evidence on this thread alone" that current terminology is serving us well.

 

[diaglo]

i understand what the gamer is saying when he says fluff or crunch. doesn't mean i accept it.

just as much as people know what i mean when i say 3.11ed for Workgroups or 2000ed

 

[S'mon]

Personally I agree that fluff has pejorative connotations and that the fluff/crunch dichotomy seems to have been developed by those who prefer crunch. The inherent superiority of crunch over fluff is an easy conclusion to draw from the way WoTC materials emphasise rules over flavour text - their material is largely lacking in flavour, and this approach is often _praised_ by the acolytes of crunch. Personally I prefer (EDIT) fluff to crunch*, I like to acquire rules mastery (and I think I have w 3e now, after 4.5 years of GMing) in a system, at which point I can do my own crunch just fine, thank you. Whereas flavour, or fluff, is the stuff that actually inspires me to want to GM or play.
Just because fluff has IMO pejorative origins doesn't mean I would seek to prevent use of the term, however. I'll merely expostulate the superiority of fluff over crunch within my own teleological narrative.

*The fact that I initially wrote "crunch to fluff" may itself be indicative of the connotations these words have upon the disengaged brain.

 

[Desdichado]

Why would ubiquity be your standard? Surely a term becomes problematic when a significant minority has a difficulty with it. To suggest that the term isn't problematic because we lack an overwhelming consensus that there is something wrong with it sort of flies in the face of most ideas of what constitutes functional discourse.

If you believe that, then you've missed the point. Which is, that the terms are actually relatively well-known, understood and accepted and therefore useful to gamers at large, despite your objections which, IMO, take the most extreme, unlikely and uncommon examples you can find and then prop them up as if they were the norm.

It only flies in the face of functional discourse in regards to this thread. Other than that, crunch and fluff are extremely useful terms for functional discourse, at least on any online RPG community to which I've ever paid any attention. My dislike and therefore ignorance of The Forge notwithstanding.

Now you can make the argument that the thread's title is selecting in favour of posters who are likely to have a problem with the terms but even so, I think that it's pretty hard to read from the "evidence on this thread alone" that current terminology is serving us well.

You are aware, right, that I never made any such claim? I said that the evidence on this thread alone was enough to support the idea that fluff=derogatory is not universally accepted. Other than that, I think the evidence in this thread isn't very convincing of anything else, for the self-selecting you mentioned earlier. But again, I never tried to press the evidence of this thread into supporting what you claim that I did.

 

[fusangite]

If you believe that, then you've missed the point. Which is, that the terms are actually relatively well-known, understood and accepted and therefore useful to gamers at large, despite your objections which, IMO, take the most extreme, unlikely and uncommon examples you can find and then prop them up as if they were the norm.

So, your position is the one Doug takes: that the sole virtue in the terms is the fact that they are already in use.

Now, if only you could find examples in which it is used in a pejorative or dismissive way within the world of gaming, you might actually have a point worth countering.

This is an absurd assertion. I take the position that "fluff" is more likely to be viewed in a pejorative way than "crunch" is; I base this in large part on what the words mean when they are deployed in other contexts within the English language. That's pretty normal -- the definitions and associations of a term are the place from which it derives meaning. You're articulating the ludicrous position that what "fluff" means in every other context in no way informs what it means here. Of course what a term means in real life has a profound, indeed preponderant effect on what it means in a gaming context. Your argument that it is unreasonable, bordering on ridiculous to think that what "fluff" means when deployed in any other context is irrelevant to what it means in this context flies in the face of how language works.

Fluff is insubstantial in every other situation in which it is deployed. What is so special about gaming discourse that this word sheds all previously held meaning and transforms into some kind of terminological empty vessel?

It only flies in the face of functional discourse in regards to this thread. Other than that, crunch and fluff are extremely useful terms for functional discourse, at least on any online RPG community to which I've ever paid any attention

This thread asked whether we had a problem with the term. Your position is that it is widely used. Is it not possible for a widely used term to be problematic? Problematic terms are often widely used. Terms like "nature," for instance are widely used and foster stupid and unhelpful discourse. So, I just don't buy the idea that common usage, by itself, is sufficient to justify a term as a good one.

Also, I think there is a basically false assumption on your part that because people are using terminology that they are satisfied with it and do not find it problematic. I think that if better terms were popularized, people might well abandon the current terminology.

I said that the evidence on this thread alone was enough to support the idea that fluff=derogatory is not universally accepted.

Well my point still stands then. A mere two thirds (now 18/27) of posters here think it is. I never made the case that it was universally believed that "fluff" was derogatory; this was a strawman you erected. Again, why should there need to be an overwhelming consensus that this is the case? Surely a significant minority thinking so is enough to make discourse problematic.

 

[Desdichado]

So, your position is the one Doug takes: that the sole virtue in the terms is the fact that they are already in use.

Essentially. That's the primary virtue of any word.

Of course what a term means in real life has a profound, indeed preponderant effect on what it means in a gaming context. Your argument that it is unreasonable, bordering on ridiculous to think that what "fluff" means when deployed in any other context is irrelevant to what it means in this context flies in the face of how language works.

I can play that game too; I think your position is equally, if not quite demonstrably, more absurd. You're making a case that context "bleeds" from one use to another of the same word. I'm saying that not only do I not buy that, but that fluff does not have any inherent derogatory connotations, as you describe.

Perhaps it does if you are really into literature, I suppose, but that's a small enough outlier that I think it can be comfortably ignored.

Is it not possible for a widely used term to be problematic? Problematic terms are often widely used. Terms like "nature," for instance are widely used and foster stupid and unhelpful discourse. So, I just don't buy the idea that common usage, by itself, is sufficient to justify a term as a good one.

Only if you have an "extra special" definition of the word that is not commonly used, but you are holding up as the way it should. Your usage of the word physics in every homebrew discusson, for instance, is problematic, but that's only because you insist on using the word in an unconventional (and arguably incorrect) way, not a problem inherent in the word itself.

I completely disregard the idea that a word that has a common usage is problematic just because you don't like it, and you want a more specific term. You're always free to use a more specific term, but as shorthand, the common usage words are incredibly convenient.

Also, I think there is a basically false assumption on your part that because people are using terminology that they are satisfied with it and do not find it problematic. I think that if better terms were popularized, people might well abandon the current terminology.

Nothing's holding you back, here. If you have better terms, start using them, and use them every chance you get. If they truly are better, they'll catch on.

Well my point still stands then. A mere two thirds (now 18/27) of posters here think it is.

You have an odd idea of what "still standing" means. You yourself state that the thread is self-selecting so the data is essentially useless for purposes of that point. I agreed and said that I never tried to make that point, I was making a completely unrelated one that you haven't really addressed. And now you say that based on the data in this thread, your point still stands?

I never made the case that it was universally believed that "fluff" was derogatory; this was a strawman you erected.

I don't quite know how to take this, as your position has been all along that fluff was a categorically derogatory term, and now you're saying that you never claimed that everyone understands fluff as categorically derogatory? If I'm making a strawman, that's only because your argument is a moving target -- it wasn't a strawman when I stated it.

Again, why should there need to be an overwhelming consensus that this is the case? Surely a significant minority thinking so is enough to make discourse problematic.

Well, it would be. My position is that the minority isn't significant, so it's a moot point. I've seen crunch and fluff talked about incessantly for years on half a dozen rpg message boards, and with the exception of these kinds of threads which self-select for those with a gripe, nobody has ever had a problem with the terms. That, naturally, leads me to believe that the terms are actually quite useful and satisfactory for discussion for almost everyone involved, and only those with a chip on their shoulder for one reason or another has a problem with it. Since that's true of pretty much any term in the English (or any other language) I don't really agree that there's any need to improve the situation.

 

[Driddle]

I guess if I had to pick one, I'm more of a fluffer than a cruncher.

... What?