Hey that's cool.

Really, my whole point here is that as a terminology, the terms of fluff and crunch just create more confusion than anything else. Then that the simple fact of putting "here's fluff" and "here's crunch" doesn't make sense, because each support one another.

I MUCH prefer when people say "I like the world's background" or "I have a problem with that feat's description" or "These rules just don't work for me" rather than "Love the fluff", "this fluff sucks", or "this crunch is broken."

OMG! People must type a few more characters to be understood! End of the world!!!

These terms are bad shorthands. They suck ass.

Quote from: Benoist;413213Hey that's cool.

Really, my whole point here is that as a terminology, the terms of fluff and crunch just create more confusion than anything else. Then that the simple fact of putting "here's fluff" and "here's crunch" doesn't make sense, because each support one another.

I MUCH prefer when people say "I like the world's background" or "I have a problem with that feat's description" or "These rules just don't work for me" rather than "Love the fluff", "this fluff sucks", or "this crunch is broken."

OMG! People must type a few more characters to be understood! End of the world!!!

These terms are bad shorthands. They suck ass.

Many are.  Terms and words are actually part of a social contract we undertake when we try to be understood.  You polylinguals actually more socially contracted than the rest of us.

So your consious rebellion as to the unconsiously made social contract could actually be construed in many ways.  

Instead, we'll just label you an enlightened iconoclast, so we can all be on the same page.

"With great power comes great responsibility."

Quote from: LordVreeg;413227Instead, we'll just label you an enlightened iconoclast, so we can all be on the same page.

Really? I was thinking something more like "Cranky Curmudgeon" myself...



-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;413234Really? I was thinking something more like "Cranky Curmudgeon" myself...



-clash

Isn't that a pleonasm?

Quote from: Benoist;413235Isn't that a pleonasm?

It's a free gift from the Department of Redundancy Department! Just use your PIN number at your local ATM machine!

Actually, I read it as "As curmudgeons go, this bastard is cranky!" rather than as a pleonasm.

So, as a fellow cranky curmudgeon, let us recite the cranky curmudgeon oath together: "You kids get off my lawn!"

-clash

Quote from: flyingmice;413238Actually, I read it as "As curmudgeons go, this bastard is cranky!" rather than as a pleonasm.

That's what my wife said as well. :teehee:

Oh. And you kids get the fuck off my lawn, now!

:rotfl:

Quote from: Benoist;413196Look: yes, each iteration of the D&D game has an implied setting. Yes, this implied setting *IS* different from The Known World, Greyhawk, FR whatever (the particulars could be discussed, regarding AD&D and Greyhawk for instance, but yes, the basic point is that the setting implied by the D&D rules is distinct from whatever campaign setting is later plugged to it).

Whether you can play a game without anything else is neither here nor there. Yes, you can run the D&D game with just the PHB/DMG/MM and build your home setting based on the game's implied setting and advice. But really that's not the point.

We're having a communication breakdown here because you do not accept my definition of "fluff" when I say it covers stuff like descriptive power text (or description of feats or the descriptive introductory paragraph of a class or race or whatnot). Fact is? There are LOADS of people out there who use the term as such! So you know what? You're not even agreeing with what the word "fluff" means with those guys!

That's my point! The Term "Fluff" = EPIC FAIL.

No, the discussion moved past "fluff" when you reached for the claim that "No, the rules, descriptive texts, backgrounds, in-world explanations are not opposites. In the best of games they support and fuel each other to create a greater game than the sum of its parts." Undoubtedly, an RPG needs something more than bare mechanics. What that is precisely, is debatable, but it generally includes a concept of representation, as against abstraction. In plain terms: RPGs involve players interacting with imaginary worlds. Even in games whose rules are fairly abstract, playing them as RPGs generally entails interpreting the abstractions into terms that mean something in the game world.

But that's all the point that needs to be made. There may be extremists out there who don't even bother with the process of interpretation, but reacting to them distorts your outlook--which, again, is what I think is going on here. Any reasonable RPGer takes the rules and constructs an imaginary world out of them, through play. The published stuff beyond the minimum that can be inferred from the rules may or may not be important. Again, in D&D, it's not really very essential, and that doesn't make D&D a bad game. In Talislanta or Runequest (most editions), the stuff beyond the mechanics is fairly essential, and both are very good games. But if D&D was published in a format where the only way you could lay hands on the rules would be in a book containing 50% or more Mystara background, I don't think it would have been as successful or as good.

Quote from: Benoist;413116Case in point. No, the rules, descriptive texts, backgrounds, in-world explanations are not opposites. In the best of games they support and fuel each other to create a greater game than the sum of its parts. But these loaded terms basically imply they are, which is a terminological failure, as far as I'm concerned, and the main reason why I do not use them.

Now, see, that's a good line of argument. Far more sophisticated and meaty than "fluff sounds poopy!" which is what others' arguments have basically amounted to.

Very nice.  

Now, do I think you're right? Kind of. I think that using the terms can put things in a context where fluff and crunch seem to be in opposition to each others; but it need not be so. Opposite terms do not implicitly require opposing forces. "Black" and "white" are opposite terms, but black and white can interact in fascinating ways to create art.

The problem is, if you don't use "fluff" and "crunch", or any other words that imply opposite concepts (because even just saying "rules" and "setting" imply opposite concepts) how the fuck would you go about dissecting an RPG, for review or study purposes?
So I think that even if you were right, that the terms might wrongly lead some people to make assumptions about opposition between the forces themselves rather than just the terms representing opposite areas, your argument would still be "right but not useful", because there would be no better alternative for the kind of things that these terms are designed to address.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;413745The problem is, if you don't use "fluff" and "crunch", or any other words that imply opposite concepts (because even just saying "rules" and "setting" imply opposite concepts) how the fuck would you go about dissecting an RPG, for review or study purposes?

I would use plain English, and take a bit more time to write sentences that actually describe what I'm talking about, and how, rather than resort to blurry shortcuts that will be misunderstood by at least a part of my readership.

Instead of "fluff" and "crunch", I would use words that specifically describe what specific parts of the game I'm talking about: "background", "world timeline", "cultures", "this ability's description in game world terms", "this NPC's backstory", "the way this element of the game is translated into this rule", "the skill mechanics", whatever. Any specific expression that better describes whatever part of the game I'm talking about.

Quote from: RPGPundit;413745...if you don't use "fluff" and "crunch", or any other words that imply opposite concepts (because even just saying "rules" and "setting" imply opposite concepts)

Maybe it's because English isn't my first language but I really feel that fluff and crunch express an opposition because they are words based on opposite sensations. You have to bite crunchy stuff while fluffy cotton candy melts in your mouth.

I don't feel the same about rules and setting which don't compose a strong antagonist couple. You could add GM advice and/or scenario to these two categories, it wouldn't feel like they overlap.