Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 2113041" data-attributes="member: 7240">So, your position is the one Doug takes: that the sole virtue in the terms is the fact that they are already in use.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?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. 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.</blockquote>

Verification