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: 2124348" data-attributes="member: 18280">Doug,Am I correct then in understanding that an individual character's stat block, because it is not  the game world work of a game company, is no longer to be considered "crunch"?Because, if you are supporting a definition of fluff/crunch that is independent of what is or is not rules or descriptive text, then we have gone rather far from the way the terms are generally used, imho.  Not only that, but we have gone rather far from the way you were using the terms when you determined that an individual character's stat bar was clearly crunch.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing, mind you.  If the terms only apply when examing published material created by a certain subset of people, then how can the average player or DM feel slighted?  Of course, this is not the way those terms are generally used.  Even as we were discussing the terminology, and you were feeling around to find a way to define crunch/fluff, you had a hard time being consistent as to what was fluff or crunch in the example questions I gave you (longer post on this earlier).  You did not, however, find it difficult to apply the terms to the questions, even though they were not the pulished work of a game designer.  Indeed, you were willing to posit that certain types of things that only occur in games (assuming that "individual character stat block" includes PCs) are crunch.This, perhaps, may point to the insidious nature of the terminology.  You may mean for them to express "a belief about what in rpgs is best produced by games companies and what is best produced by ourselves - the end users," but this is not the common usage.  Indeed, it was a usage you said you'd "forgotten up 'til now."(I went back, and you had said in an earlier post, "The point of the 'fluff/crunch' terminology is to describe the contents of published gaming material NOT individual games."  So you were more consistent than you credited yourself with!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> )Tetsujin28 responded to my statement, "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." with "Always the first, often the second."  This, to my mind at least, suggests that Tetsujin28, at least, feels confident applying the terminology to individual games.Joshua Dyal claimed that these terms "are actually relatively well-known, understood and accepted and therefore useful to gamers at large," and he's a pretty smart guy.  After all, he earlier said "The only problem is that it's occasionally unclear what someone considers fluff vs. crunch in some cases," which is clearly true.  After all, this thread sparked considerable debate as to what "crunch" and "fluff" mean.I think Breakdaddy put it best when he said "These terms are not my favorites. They can be interpreted ten different ways by ten different people, even though I think everyone has at least some idea as to what they mean."Or maybe this lack of clarity about the terms fluff/crunch demonstrates that they are pretty lousy terminology.I will grant, based upon the definition that you and Fanboy2000 seem to be using (that crunch/fluff applies only to professionally published game materials, but maybe not the rather crunchy core rules, or maybe so, depending, with crunch being the rules and fluff being the flavor text, game fiction, ecology & geography, etc., with the exception that not all rules are crunch but we're pretty certain that the text parts are all or mostly fluff......  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> ) that "meat and bones" would certainly not replace "fluff and crunch" on a one-to-one basis.  They simply mean different things.  Also, one can talk about flaccid and flabby meat in a product (might even be amusing, as in, "This product could use some Viagra"), but "useful fluff" is an oxymoron.Well, sure, but my definition also renders the meat more important than your fluff does.  And my definition assumes an organic relationship between the two, where they rely upon each other to have any real meaning.Of course, I do agree with you that my flavor text is going to be superior to most of what has come out in various books in recent years.  But I have borrowed flavor text, and ideas from flavor text, from various sources over the years, and even if it isn't necessarily what I am looking for, the opportunity to examine the ideas of others is worthwhile.  I make my own rules, too, but that doesn't mean that I don't use existing rules where they suit my needs.I recently wrote an article, located here (<a href="http://www.enworld.org/article.php?a=121" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/article.php?a=121</a>) on using faeries in D&D.  While there is some "crunch" most of it is "fluff" by your terminology.  But is it really "something of little substance or consequence, especially light or superficial entertainment; or inflated or padded material"?  Or is it "evocative and inspiring"?You had asked, "Do you have a problem with the 'fluff' and 'crunch' terminology? And if so, why?"Here is my answer:Yes, I have problems with the fluff/crunch terminology, even though I do not find it offensive.  The problems that I have can be ennumerated as follows:1.  They are without clear definition.  One does not always know what one means when using these terminologies.  Is a PC's stat block crunch?  Is a description of an NPC being wounded to the bone fluff?  Are rough statements on the odds of encountering a particular type of creature in a given area either fluff or crunch?  Without a clear definition, none of these questions can be answered.  Even claiming that the material has to be in a published rpg book does not answer what qualifies as crunch and fluff if we do not mean rules and flavor text, and we cannot define what we mean.2.  In real life, people do not use these terms only to apply to published material.3.  "Useful fluff" is an oxymoron, yet "useful flavor text" is not, even within a published rpg book.  Which is to say, since the terminology is used prejudicially and fairly universally, you will eventually hear about Gloranthan fluff.  Heck, if new Glorantha books were being published right now (and if they are, let me know), pretty soon I imagine we'd have a thread here on which the term would be bandied about.4.  The first three reasons suggest that the terms are not useful, or are derogatory in a (possibly) unintentional and confusing manner.  In addition to this lack of usefulness, I am aware that some find them offensive.</blockquote>

Verification