Short Background: After a few sessions of 4th Edition D&D, my group stopped gaming until we decided to go the OSR route. We are happier for it. So, I never read more than the 4e PHB and no official D&D product since.
I remember the long and often tedious debates on crunch vs. fluff on ENWorld many years ago. I also remember people telling me certain later editions were objectively superior to previous editions. I really don't want to get into the debate. What I do wonder is, what is your opinion of where D&D is in general in regards to fluff vs. crunch? Let's say 3e was 80% Crunch vs. 20% Fluff when we include settings, supplements, splat books, etc.. Where was 4e? Where is 5e? Do you think the pendulum is swinging back the other direction? In regards to OSR in general, I get the feeling there is a greater focus on fluff. We see lots of setting material and even some games, whose mechanics aren't massively different, seem more focused on setting than rules. What are your impressions?
My impression: You are a glutton for punishment asking these questions. LOL
Edit - I'll try to give my opinion later tonight after my commute and nightly rituals.
From what little I have seen of 5e, neither the crunch nor the fluff are to my taste. Remember that 0D&D was almost all crunch as first published.
I do think the pendulum is swinging back towards fluff rather than crunch. Setting and description seem to be gaining some ascendence of endless pages of mechanics.
Ive made no attempt to conceal just how much I HATE 5e's fluff text. Though most of it is confined to the Monster Manual which is page after page of not just fluff, but probably 75% or more useless wasted fluff. I just ignore it all and focus on the actual game stats and mechanics. Its rather pathetic that older editions got across more useful data in a freaking paragraph than the 5e MM does with sometimes whole pages of prose.
The PHB has a little in the race and class section. but its nowhere near as bad as the MM. Overall useful.
The DMG is near pure data aside from some fluffing of that big outer planes chapter. But even there its at least a little descriptive and useful.
YMMV of course.
The Adventurers Guide to the Forgotten Realms is like 90% prose. Not even fluff. Its travelogues and accounts. Short stories. Its not till the back of the book you get some game mechanics. Od sau overall though the prose gets across the feel of the setting. But its often so information starved that you can walk away after reading it and have gained nearly no new knowledge other than maybee some shifts in the political makeup of areas.
D&D is un-necessary abstracted crunch in most editions. People love it though.
Are "fluff" and "crunch" mutually exclusive categories? Anything I consider to be any good contains both. Anything that is strictly one or the other I consider crap.
Quote from: Lunamancer;915521Are "fluff" and "crunch" mutually exclusive categories? Anything I consider to be any good contains both. Anything that is strictly one or the other I consider crap.
I think that depends on what you like. I think Pundit, for example, based on his comments about designing settings, likes fluff and crunch that are integrated. The crunch rules are based on, work with, reinforce, and depend on the fluff, and vice versa. Lots of people like this.
I don't want different rules for wild west and fantasy and modern and sci-fi. So I like fluff and crunch as mutually exclusive. The closest I get to mixing them is what magic/psionic spells exist. (In my homebrew, in the basic rules, I have 5 spells.)
YMMV
PS - Commas rule!
I think there's a problem with trying to label games based on how much space the rule books devote to crunch vs. fluff. You need to know what kind of fluff and what kind of crunch. There are three levels of fluff (no game effect, game effect without mechanical effect, and tied to mechanical effect,) and multiple degrees of crunch (based on how many steps there are to the crunch and how much synergy there is between different subsystems.)
For example, OD&D is a fairly low-degree crunch, even if it devotes a substantial amount of space to crunch. And there's practically no synergy effects. But it seems high crunch if all you are doing is counting paragraphs to figure out percentage of crunch.
5E is the mechanically the least complex edition of D&D since 2E. I'd suggest it's even lighter than 1E AD&D rules as written.
I disagree with the premise that crunch and fluff are mutually exclusive. The AD&D DMG is chock full of mechanics and sub-systems. It's also full of miscellaneous setting stuff like gem types, herbs, and tables of craftsmen. It has more of both than B/X D&D.
Quote from: Lunamancer;915521Are "fluff" and "crunch" mutually exclusive categories? Anything I consider to be any good contains both. Anything that is strictly one or the other I consider crap.
As I intended the question, they are not mutually exclusive. As a for instance: a new campaign setting book comes out and it contains feats, skill and classes based on geography, locales, and new rules for weather and say ship to ship combat.
I see the trend towards lighter, fewer rules in general and the money being made by the fluff department.
A pet peeve of mine however is the practice of slowly leaking out fluff a bit at a time. (aka. FFG Star Wars is terrible about this)
Wherein months may go by before a supplement is offered covering a key part of the game setting. As a GM there is a good chance I have already generated info about the subject of the supplement and now have an official but alternate version conflicting. I know, I know, make it your own but its annoying.
5e, 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e - from Fluffiest to Crunchiest.
To WHAT degree... well to me, most DM's make what they want out of it depending on their tastes. Time matters too. I wouldn't play 1e/2e today the same way I played it back then (I'd make it lighter in many respects). Same is true of 3e. That's a reflection of as much of where I'm at today as a GM as it is of the system.
Quote from: rgrove0172;915555A pet peeve of mine however is the practice of slowly leaking out fluff a bit at a time. (aka. FFG Star Wars is terrible about this)
Wherein months may go by before a supplement is offered covering a key part of the game setting. As a GM there is a good chance I have already generated info about the subject of the supplement and now have an official but alternate version conflicting. I know, I know, make it your own but its annoying.
I would agree with you in premise - only FFG has been cranking out books for it's Star Wars line. Dunno about you - but I've got two full shelves of their product all of which is seeing good use. The only company leaking shit out slowly in this model is Wizards of the Coast.
Quote from: tenbones;9155765e, 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e - from Fluffiest to Crunchiest.
To WHAT degree... well to me, most DM's make what they want out of it depending on their tastes. Time matters too. I wouldn't play 1e/2e today the same way I played it back then (I'd make it lighter in many respects). Same is true of 3e. That's a reflection of as much of where I'm at today as a GM as it is of the system.
Yeah, we all change. When my current group started, I was a much busier man, going back to school for a second career after deciding what I wanted to do when I grew up. And, since no one else wanted to GM, I took the job, but promised only published adventures. Everyone was game. As a kid and all the way through my first round of university, I was all about homebrewing. Now, I can go either way. I like published settings. I like to mine them for ideas. When my current group gets ready for something new, I think I'll run BECMI in The Scarred Lands sand box.
Quote from: Harlock;915544As I intended the question, they are not mutually exclusive. As a for instance: a new campaign setting book comes out and it contains feats, skill and classes based on geography, locales, and new rules for weather and say ship to ship combat.
Ehh... that's not really getting at the heart of what I said. I realize any given book can have both crunch parts and fluff parts. You make that clear when you talk about 3E, for example, being 80% crunch and 20% fluff. I'm not talking about the book. I'm talking about the parts themselves. What I like to see is at least 85% crunch and at least 85% fluff. It adds up to more than 100% because at least 70% of what's in there is simultaneously crunch and fluff.
An example of something that is both, perhaps not the best example, but an example nonetheless, would be sit-mod guidelines. If certain situations happen to arise, whether directly due to the specifics of an action taken by a PC or NPC as described by the controlling player, or just flows organically from the ongoing narrative, then these modifiers happen to apply. So a sit-mod might be "firing at a target that is moving rapidly/erratically, -3 to hit"--if that is what's happening in the game, the GM applies the modifier. I consider this both because it's connecting the narrative fluff to the mechanics crunch.
This is as opposed to the player announcing, "I'm taking the evasive maneuvers action (or using the evasive maneuvers feat)"
So abstract, 1-minute combat rounds where the system only produces bottom-line results, where players/GMs are free to describe the action as they see fit because it doesn't really alter the mechanics, is pretty fluffy. A GM who offers a bonus to the standard mechanics as a reward for especially good description is still a fluff-system--even though the fluff in some sense has mechanical effect, the mechanical effect does not distinguish the content of the fluff. In fact, the mechanical effect merely encourages more fluff.
A more detailed combat system, filled with game-defined options like "smash attack", "sweep", "hold-at-bay", etc is crunchy. These options are selected without necessarily deferring to the narrative at all and require no descriptive element. Some groups can certainly add a bit of flare, as long as it doesn't cross any lines. Nor does it have any mechanical effect. What both fluff and crunch have in common is a disconnect between narrative and mechanics.
A combat system that fits both might have players narrate what their characters are doing and the GM adjudicates the results. The game system supports this by providing solid guidelines (like the aforementioned sit-mods) and also explain character abilities in such a way that it's possible to extrapolate in unusual circumstances why those abilities may be enhanced or hindered. So a character with a +2 magical defense bonus due to supernatural speed might become a +4 bonus when the character is under the influence of a haste, +1 when under the influence of a slow, even if the ability doesn't specifically stipulate that. It follows logically from the ability's definition. This is as opposed to a +2 defense bonus with no specific cause and thus no specific basis to vary according to circumstance.
Quote from: tenbones;915577I would agree with you in premise - only FFG has been cranking out books for it's Star Wars line. Dunno about you - but I've got two full shelves of their product all of which is seeing good use. The only company leaking shit out slowly in this model is Wizards of the Coast.
How are they on Starship Combat, are there any notes on using RPG Pilot stats in the various FFG mini starship games?
Quote from: Tod13;915532I think that depends on what you like. I think Pundit, for example, based on his comments about designing settings, likes fluff and crunch that are integrated. The crunch rules are based on, work with, reinforce, and depend on the fluff, and vice versa. Lots of people like this.
There are certainly examples of this being done well and examples of this being done poorly. Many setting elements do lead themselves to qualitative crunch. For example, World of Greyhawk has two moons and spends a paragraph or two explaining how that affects lycanthropes. It doesn't involve mechanics per se, and it's entirely about the fluff of two moons, but the effects are so specific as to give it a good crunch. Contrast this with, say, the World of Krynn where (IIRC) there are precise mechanical effects on spellcasters. That comes out awesome if you love it, heavy-handed if you don't like it.
QuoteI don't want different rules for wild west and fantasy and modern and sci-fi. So I like fluff and crunch as mutually exclusive. The closest I get to mixing them is what magic/psionic spells exist. (In my homebrew, in the basic rules, I have 5 spells.)
I'm not sure why there would necessarily need to be a whole different rule set for different settings. There is plenty that re-skins very well without losing anything. On the other hand, there are things that don't re-skin without loss of flavor. Like say a man-eating wolf with 2+1 HD that bites for 1d6 damage vs a flesh-eating ghoul with 2+1 HD that claws for 1d6 damage. It's tempting to port the mechanics from one to the other because the game stats are so identical, and merely re-skin the encounter with different description and narrative. But for me, because they are very different creatures in a narrative sense, I expect them to fight differently mechanically. The wolf can lock its jaws on the victim, segueing into "grappling" rules that differ from "striking" rules, whereas the ghoul has no fear and can come out with a second claw attack, but cannot lock in the victim the way the wolf can, and are vulnerable to sunlight and holy water.
QuotePS - Commas rule!
Word to the wise--commentary on another's grammar is always bad form. It's just even worse when you are incorrect.
Quote from: rgrove0172;915555A pet peeve of mine however is the practice of slowly leaking out fluff a bit at a time. (aka. FFG Star Wars is terrible about this)
Wherein months may go by before a supplement is offered covering a key part of the game setting. As a GM there is a good chance I have already generated info about the subject of the supplement and now have an official but alternate version conflicting. I know, I know, make it your own but its annoying.
Thats FFGs shtick. They are notorious for acquiring and reprinting older board games and then breaking them into smaller parts and parcelling them out. And/or overglitzing them with minis that jack the cost.
They do the same with other stuff. Though the Star Wars RPG is a big offender as theres rules chunks omitted from the core. Nothing vital far as I know. But it can be vexing and the costs can escalate.
I cashed out on star wars after a couple of sessions. $200 or so in stuff. Managed to unload pretty well on ebay.
Quote from: rgrove0172;915631I cashed out on star wars after a couple of sessions. $200 or so in stuff. Managed to unload pretty well on ebay.
Cool.
Quote from: rgrove0172;915631I cashed out on star wars after a couple of sessions. $200 or so in stuff. Managed to unload pretty well on ebay.
Edge of Empire
95$ for the core game, GM book and an extra set of their funky dice.
230$ for the rules supplements.
Force & Destiny
95$ for the core game, GM book and an extra set of their funky dice.
130$ for the rules supplements.
And theres an Age of Rebellion series too???
Though from all I've been frequently re-assured. The game is fine with just one of the cores. Not sure about the GM book. Others seem to disagree. But like with 5e. You can Amazon it for less. Though not as big of savings as 5e.
A Star Wars RPG is one game where Id expect alot of info on all the worlds and races.
Quote from: Lunamancer;915602I'm not sure why there would necessarily need to be a whole different rule set for different settings. But for me, because they are very different creatures in a narrative sense, I expect them to fight differently mechanically.
I wanted something super light. I didn't want one set of rules for how a crossbow works and one set of rules for how a firearm works. Some rule sets make these do damage differently (applying or not applying armor) or apply melee disadvantage to the crossbow but not the handgun. While that might be more "realistic" to some, I don't want to have to remember the differences. And for "realistic" to be useful to me, you start having to look at the type of armor, the type of bullet, and pretty soon you're playing Phoenix Command. So I don't go there.
As for different creatures, with similar stats, fighting in different ways. That's fine. But, anyone can "grapple" if they are capable of grappling. You don't need separate rules for grappling in a fantasy game and a science fiction game, or separate grappling rules for different critters. Or, on a different tact, I don't want different social skill use rules in fantasy and science fiction, even if the rule changes fit the setting better.
That's why I like my crunch and fluff separate. Give me all the rules. Then give me the setting, the fluff, that we use the rules within.
Quote from: Lunamancer;915602Word to the wise--commentary on another's grammar is always bad form. It's just even worse when you are incorrect.
Who said anything about other people's grammar? I, after looking at my post, was commenting about my, possibly over zealous, use of commas, like in this sentence. :D And I still think commas rule! ;)
Quote from: Tod13;915693I wanted something super light. I didn't want one set of rules for how a crossbow works and one set of rules for how a firearm works. Some rule sets make these do damage differently (applying or not applying armor) or apply melee disadvantage to the crossbow but not the handgun.
Seems like you're talking more about poor execution. I play a rules-lite RPG that uses an armor absorb system but "crits" ignore armor. So forget crossbow vs firearm. Crossbow vs Crossbow sometimes armor applies, sometimes it doesn't. It doesn't require additional rules or mechanics. And it's still really lite. Compared to the various ways different systems handles crits, I consider this one extremely simple and elegant. Now if alternate-reality version of this RPG had armor-bypassing hits reserved for firearms rather than crits, well, it's done so without adding new mechanics, more rules, or increasing complexity.
QuoteWho said anything about other people's grammar? I, after looking at my post, was commenting about my, possibly over zealous, use of commas, like in this sentence. :D And I still think commas rule! ;)
My mistake. Withdrawn.
The OSR was more focused on Crunch for most of its history up till the 3rd wave; however, there was a lot of fluff contained within that crunch in terms of "implied setting".
Quote from: RPGPundit;916314The OSR was more focused on Crunch for most of its history up till the 3rd wave; however, there was a lot of fluff contained within that crunch in terms of "implied setting".
Written implied setting or implied implied setting?
Quote from: RPGPundit;916314The OSR was more focused on Crunch for most of its history up till the 3rd wave; however, there was a lot of fluff contained within that crunch in terms of "implied setting".
This made me think a little. First, I have no idea what the waves are. But then, more useful to this thread possibly (maybe I mean germane rather than useful) :p, I realized something about setting or "fluff".
In all the groups I've played, pretty much the only thing we cared about setting (by which I mean the culture rather than what the town/spacestation/whatever looks like) was whether non-humans (or humans or AIs) were accepted as "people". And usually we just said "yes, they are" or came up with a backstory for why our group got along and was mixed. Other than that, setting was just part of the module or adventure we were playing. But we also tended to gloss over things like carrying weeks of food and scores of torches.
This was true of several incarnations of D&D, Traveller (Classic and Megatraveller), Runemaster and Spacemaster, and more recently BareBones Fantasy. (And many others which I won't bother to type or try to remember.) This is spread over 40 years of playing. Not sure what that means, if anything.
And, to answer Omega's question, I figure by "implied setting" it means stuff like, if there are readily available magical items in shops for adventurers to purchase, then there is some sort of magical item industry and a population dedicated to that. This also implies magic is relatively common and "safe-ish", rather than rare and hideously dangerous.
Quote from: CRKrueger;915600How are they on Starship Combat, are there any notes on using RPG Pilot stats in the various FFG mini starship games?
Starship combat in the RPG has nothing to do with the Mini-game UNFORTUNATELY. I wonder what was going through their minds when they thought that not having the minis-game plug in - even as an alternate starship-combat system wouldn't be an obvious winner? Oh well.
In terms of play, Starship combat in the RPG works pretty analogous to PC-combat but if you're a pilot with Talents - you'll get a lot more options, naturally. After a couple of go-rounds of starship combat it runs fairly smoothly. I think it was the starship combat that sold my players. If you have a decent sized ship there's plenty for *everyone* in the group to do if they have some basic skills like Gunnery, Computers, or Piloting. One of the nice things they cooked into the core mechanics was Assist-rules, and there are things that technical PC's can do while in combat - running sensors, repairs, spoofing enemy ship sensors, etc. that does a great job of keeping the tension for everyone high.
Because, you know... no one can hear you scream in space... when you fuck up. heh
Quote from: Omega;915642Though from all I've been frequently re-assured. The game is fine with just one of the cores. Not sure about the GM book.
This would be a general "No" imo. Though the main books do reprint the core rules, and there are SOME crossover between the Edge and the Age of Rebellion books, the Force and Destiny core book and its "classes" are distinct for Force users.
Edge and Age books you *could* hand-wave some stuff, but you'd be missing out on several distinct "classes" that each book delivers on. Edge is for bounty-hunters/scoundrel/freebooters types, Age is for military folks. They both have analogs that correspond to one another, and in a FEW cases they're identical. But in most cases the Talent trees are different. But if you wanted to use the Mercenary Soldier from Edge to represent the Soldier from Age... I don't think anyone would/should complain. You could probably buy the class-packs separately. Also - they do the annoying bit of spreading out the supplemental necessities across ALL of their lines. So if you want all the races and gear, you're essentially going to have to get the other books.
Having said that - I find the quality of the FFG books to be astoundingly good in both production quality and usability.
Either way - Force and Destiny, if you intend on doing actual Jedi/Sith is pretty much a must-buy. BUT Edge and Age do have Force abilities that can be quite powerful in their respective books. The assumption of such characters are that they're either not trained or washouts.
Quote from: Omega;915642A Star Wars RPG is one game where Id expect alot of info on all the worlds and races.
While not up to the WEG's vast amount - FFG's respective body of work is remarkably well covered. I still fill in whatever gaps I have with WEG's books for reference, but I could easily do without. Of course... as always, FFG's books are pricey (even if you go Amazon). The value will depend on how much you like the game, obviously. So the starter set is always recommended.
Quote from: Tod13;916359And, to answer Omega's question, I figure by "implied setting" it means stuff like, if there are readily available magical items in shops for adventurers to purchase, then there is some sort of magical item industry and a population dedicated to that. This also implies magic is relatively common and "safe-ish", rather than rare and hideously dangerous.
If thats some of the later OSR's implied setting then they kinda missed the mark by a few planets...
Quote from: Omega;916548If thats some of the later OSR's implied setting then they kinda missed the mark by a few planets...
Sorry, I'm not saying that is specifically what is in the later OSR books--as I said, I have no idea what the "waves" are. I'm saying that is an example of an implied setting. Remember, I don't know what the waves are, so I can't comment on them. But this seemed a good example. :cool:
Quote from: RPGPundit;916314The OSR was more focused on Crunch for most of its history up till the 3rd wave; however, there was a lot of fluff contained within that crunch in terms of "implied setting".
Yup that's the way it should be. Intertwine crunch and fluff as much as possibe to rub out the stuoid dichotomy.
Quote from: Omega;916316Written implied setting or implied implied setting?
Both, but more of the former.
Quote from: Tod13;916568Sorry, I'm not saying that is specifically what is in the later OSR books--as I said, I have no idea what the "waves" are. I'm saying that is an example of an implied setting. Remember, I don't know what the waves are, so I can't comment on them. But this seemed a good example. :cool:
1st wave: publishing "clones" of old rule-sets and old-school style adventure modules.
2nd wave: publishing new rule-sets within OSR boundaries (stuff like LotFP and DCC).
3rd wave: publishing setting-based books with OSR-rulesets or rule-mods (stuff like Red Tide, Arrows of Indra, Yoon-Suin, Dark Albion, etc).
So, crunch/fluff from my perspective (and I'm more frequently playing 40k than anything) requires me to ask something important...
Does the 'fluff' have some representation by 'crunch'? For example, the 'fluff' for the Deathwatch describes them as a highly-adaptable, pragmatic (by Imperium standards), and versatile fighting force. Throwing in a handful of 'fluff stories' about how they do this is fine and good, especially since in the 'crunch' the army has the ability to change their mission objectives on the fly during the game. It reflects this 'fluff' mechanically.
A bad example of fluff/crunch is individuals like Marneus Calgar of the Ultramarines- he is described as a 'tactical genius' but all the crunch has to show for it is that he can choose his Warlord Trait and a combat doctrine. His true strength is that he's insanely good in melee combat, but that's about all he's good for- and truthfully, the points would be better spent on a generic Captain and having more units on the table (especially when 'D' weapons are in nearly every list, your melee hot-shit guy might not get too far). He's genuinely got nothing to show for 'tactical genius', he's more like the biggest bruiser on the block with slightly more foresight than an Ork warboss.
Quote from: RPGPundit;9172031st wave: publishing "clones" of old rule-sets and old-school style adventure modules.
2nd wave: publishing new rule-sets within OSR boundaries (stuff like LotFP and DCC).
3rd wave: publishing setting-based books with OSR-rulesets or rule-mods (stuff like Red Tide, Arrows of Indra, Yoon-Suin, Dark Albion, etc).
Thanks. *hat tip* (And I really do wear a hat.) :p I wonder how much of the 3rd Wave was driven by stuff like Fate/Fate Core where all the books seem setting books and every setting seemed to get converted to it.
Crunch is the Physics Engine for the setting. It is how things are accomplished for the players, a medium for how things will happen.
Therefor, the expectations it creates are implicit in the way the world is supposed to operate, and how things happen and have happened. Otherwise, the description of the world and the history...Which is Fluff. I say 'supposed to work', because GM's very, very often create System/Setting/Game mismatches.
There is no pendulum. They are not endpoints on a continuum. You don't get more crunch by reducing fluff. They are the primary ingredients to a game, along with the gamestyle, the players, and, according to Kyle, and I am not arguing, the snacks.
Crunch supports Fluff, or does not.
Vreeg's First Rule of Setting Design.
"Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system."
3rd Corrollary
"The rules are the physics engine of the setting, Crunch models Fluff. As rules are the interface between the setting and the player's actions, Houseruling is a constant process of creating a rule for a setting-specific event to formalize it. This is a process to be welcomed and enjoyed, as it only comes from the expansion of the players into the setting. Talk to them about it and formalize it with them if you have any doubts."
From here (http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/60581028/Vreegs%20Rules%20of%20Setting%20and%20Game%20Design).
Quote from: Tod13;917215Thanks. *hat tip* (And I really do wear a hat.) :p I wonder how much of the 3rd Wave was driven by stuff like Fate/Fate Core where all the books seem setting books and every setting seemed to get converted to it.
I don't think that pushed it at all. I think it was a natural next step in the OSR.
Quote from: Tod13;917215Thanks. *hat tip* (And I really do wear a hat.) :p I wonder how much of the 3rd Wave was driven by stuff like Fate/Fate Core where all the books seem setting books and every setting seemed to get converted to it.
Quote from: RPGPundit;918056I don't think that pushed it at all. I think it was a natural next step in the OSR.
Agreed. There are some OSR-type people who like and try to play every game, but I think there's a higher percentage of narrow-interest roleplayers in the OSR than in the general population of gamers who post to forums. For some people (like me,) Fate is just a name.
What happens with just about any RPG system with a devoted fan base is that it gets adapted to other genres. If the fan base is very small, the adaptations will have limited distribution. A larger fan base may support a couple self-published products. It's happened over and over with multiple games, so why would Fate, a fairly recent game, be the driving force? Isn't Fate just copying the Hero System, or BRP?