Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Doug McCrae" data-source="post: 2124212" data-attributes="member: 21169">For me possibly the major selling point (which I'd forgotten up 'til now) of 'fluff/crunch' is that it expresses a belief about what in rpgs is best produced by games companies and what is best produced by ourselves - the end users.Games companies are good at doing crunch, bad at doing fluff. On the other hand most gamers are pretty bad at coming up with balanced feats, PrCs, spells, etc. I certainly am. I find it difficult and time consuming. So much so that I never do it any more. However I find creating worlds, geography, nations, cultures, organisations and so on to be both easy and enjoyable.It's peculiar that games companies' fluff is worse than the adventures and situations we produce ourselves. I remember noticing this about 15 years ago in a 2nd ed campaign that used a mixture of published and homegrown scenarios. The published ones (even those that had received excellent reviews) were a complete pile of waz. Whereas those the GM did were really good. Maybe it's because the stuff Gregor created was so much better suited to his GMing and our playing styles.It's important to note that 'crunch/fluff' does not denigrate the game world work of individual GMs and players. It just denigrates (rightfully in my view) the game world work of games companies.</blockquote>