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="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2115097" data-attributes="member: 18280">At the risk of sounding contrary, that isn't exactly true.The primary virtue of any word is that it be understood to correctly describe whatever the word relates to, be it action, object, or descriptive quality.  This applies both in a denotative (strict definition) and connotative (related meaning) sense.Clearly, the terms "fluff" and "crunch" are perfectly fine in a denotative sense.  And, equally clearly, any attempt to popularize new terms must confront the problem of losing current terms with clear denotation.  If the current terms were replaced with, say, "meat" and "bones," there could well be a reasonable objection that the replacement terms cause a lack of understanding in those unfamiliar with them.  If the current terms were replaced with "flavor" and "rules," however, this objection would be essentially meaningless.  Indeed, the current terms replaced "flavor text" and "rules" themselves.This is, actually, quite a bit of what causes connotation in words.  "Dragon" and "Worm" might mean the same things in certain contexts (denotation), but the words have incredibly different associated meanings (connotation).Again, if the current terms were replaced with "meat" and "bones", one might easily make a strong argument that "meat" is given an inherent value that "bones" are not.  Generally, we consume meat while discarding bones.  In fact, I suggested these terms specifically because I knew that these connotative weights existed.  It is an intentional attempt to redress a current imbalance in product.I would certainly contend that the terms "fluff" and "crunch" came into common usage for a similar reason.  Specifically, there were a number of flavor-rich, rules-light products produced in the days of 2nd Ed, both for AD&D and other games.  (I imagine that one could claim that this shift in emphasis started with the Dragonlance campaign setting in 1st Ed, but it culminated in the way TSR treated the Forgotten Realms in 2nd Ed.  If you wanted a flavor-rich world, FR was unprecedented.  If you were looking for books that had lots of new stats and rules, you were left wondering why they got left out.)  "Why are we getting all of this fluff?  Where are the crunchy bits?" people were asking.  And, to be honest, there was so much fluff compared to the crunch that few people were complaining about the terminology.  And, I feel quite certain, it was intended right from the beginning that "fluff" was derogatory, implying "Something of little substance or consequence, especially light or superficial entertainment (The movie was just another bit of fluff from Hollywood) or inflated or padded material (The report was mostly fluff, with little new information)."(Definition from dictionary.com, with some minor editing for ease of reading.)This is the way the term is used by a very large segment of the population.  This is the meaning that was adopted by gamers as a reaction to a massive flavor bias in published gaming material.  Clearly, any reasoning based on the idea that the term "fluff" is not intended to be derogatory has failed in its base assumptions.RC</blockquote>

Verification