"Fluff" and "Crunch"

Peregrin · October 26, 2010, 09:18:54 PM

What do you mean by setting, CK?

Basic, AD&D, and Burning Wheel all have implied settings and a sense of time/place (especially Burning Wheel), but there's very little fluff aside from "this is how X works."

I wouldn't call those "non-games".

arminius · October 26, 2010, 09:20:30 PM

I've got no problem with the terms. I do think that "fluff" has a slightly negative sense, and for me it reflects the fact that a lot of "fluff" is pretty useless. Not all of it, but there's quite a bit I've come across that just seems like amateur literature or faux-anthropology, needlessly inflated and, to be brutally honest, wankery. The good stuff is to the point, genuinely entertaining (granted, this is a subjective value), and mostly gameable even if it doesn't come with stats or rules.

Benoist · October 26, 2010, 09:34:02 PM

Quote from: Peregrin;412049Very true, but isn't there a difference between implied setting and specific fluff?

Like, the magic rules may show through the mechanics how the cosmology in the game-world would work, what magic is capable of, and how it fits into society, but I don't necessarily need the fine details to construct a world based on those rules.

I think there's no distinction to make between these things, in the sense that in a role playing game that truly works, all its components work seemlessly together. Some RPGs will necessitate some details in some areas, others won't, or will need other details in other areas. All depends on the game itself.

My broader point is that background material, implied setting, rules, none of these things are opposed to each other. All these things work together towards creating a specific, enjoyable play experience for its users. Or well, they should.

flyingmice · October 26, 2010, 10:15:03 PM

Quote from: The_Shadow;412044Did you read my post? The part after "games might not be Shakespeare, but..." I think I made myself fairly clear, and your response was not really apropos.

Obviously, I thought it was.

-clash

flyingmice · October 26, 2010, 10:20:31 PM

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;412057I've got no problem with the terms. I do think that "fluff" has a slightly negative sense, and for me it reflects the fact that a lot of "fluff" is pretty useless. Not all of it, but there's quite a bit I've come across that just seems like amateur literature or faux-anthropology, needlessly inflated and, to be brutally honest, wankery. The good stuff is to the point, genuinely entertaining (granted, this is a subjective value), and mostly gameable even if it doesn't come with stats or rules.

Bingo!

-clash

flyingmice · October 26, 2010, 10:36:12 PM

Quote from: Benoist;412059I think there's no distinction to make between these things, in the sense that in a role playing game that truly works, all its components work seemlessly together. Some RPGs will necessitate some details in some areas, others won't, or will need other details in other areas. All depends on the game itself.

My broader point is that background material, implied setting, rules, none of these things are opposed to each other. All these things work together towards creating a specific, enjoyable play experience for its users. Or well, they should.

I agree. The distinction should be gameable vs non-gameable, whether fluff or crunch. Thing is, "fluff" gives much more latitude for - as Eliot put it - "to be brutally honest, wankery" than "crunch" does. Writing 'fluff" a designer needs much more self-discipline.

-clash

ColonelHardisson · October 26, 2010, 11:43:41 PM

They're good, shorthand terms. Everyone knows what they mean. They're only negative if you allow them to be so. Trying to coin some new phrase to replace them is akin to trying to give yourself a nickname - it's doomed to failure and seems really silly.

Benoist · October 26, 2010, 11:52:15 PM

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;412066They're good, shorthand terms.

Nope. Not "good", IMO. That's kind of the point of me writing the OP.

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;412066Trying to coin some new phrase to replace them is akin (...).

Or you know, people could actually speak fucking English.
What's wrong with words like "background", "backstory", "character", "rules", and so on?

Cylonophile · October 27, 2010, 12:00:39 AM

Quote from: CRKrueger;412052There's a tendency to give stupid dismissive shorthand names to just about anything - races, classes, whatever. It's what you do when you're cool.

Although Ben's right, increasingly crunch seems to be the "meat" of a game book, while fluff is just that background crap that gives you an excuse to kill shit.

We might buy game books to play not read, but I think people are too set on "I need rules everything else I make up" and "I want a realistic world, for the rules I'll use whatever". If something is really a full-fledged RPG (emphasis on game) and not just a setting book or a rules toolkit, then it ideally would have a setting with rules designed to express the focus or uniqueness of that setting.

Heh heh heh. This might become a good gamer comment:

"Crunch"= Rules for how to kill things.
"Fluff"= Excuses for killing things.

Soylent Green · October 27, 2010, 02:02:03 AM

"Fluff" and "crunch" don't bother me but I do hate the term "rules lawyer". It doesn't even sound like English. But heh, you just got to roll with the blows. Language and jargon just develops the way it develops.

Tetsubo · October 27, 2010, 08:14:04 AM

Quote from: The_Shadow;412036For me, the "fluff" is not something extraneous to be draped over the rigid skeleton of the "crunch". The imaginary world comes first, then the rules help to make it gameable.

I just can't relate to ideas like Tetsubo expressed..."descriptive text?" I guess that Shakespeare just wrote fluff too, no equations there, and we can all come up with that stuff on the fly, right?

Games might not be Shakespeare, but people like Stafford or MAR Barker are our equivalents, and I got into RPGs because of the imagination of writers like them, not for blocks of stats which I can come up with on the fly.

If I want descriptive text I will read a novel or Shakespeare. I don't read fiction however. I do read RPG books as I consider them meta-fiction. They present me with a framework that I can hang my own stories upon. I don't want someone else's stories. I like sandbox games. Give me an interesting setting concept, the rules to run it and get out of my way.

Examples: Sundered Skies does exactly what I want. While Evernight does exactly what I don't want.

Abyssal Maw · October 27, 2010, 09:05:31 AM

I just say "Setting" and "rules"

Melan · October 27, 2010, 10:21:42 AM

Quote from: Benoist;412020I notice that more and more people's opinions are being tainted by the words themselves, as if a background or an ability's description in game-world terms wasn't really necessary, incidental, rather than front and center of the game, whereas the solid stuff, the rules, really is what matters in the end. Maybe I'm just imagining it all.

Much like "rollplaying" and "roleplaying", they are used as halves of a false dichotomy, when there is really no need for a game not to have good fluff and crunch, and rewarding mechanical and non-mechanical interaction at the same time. It is a way communication diverts our thinking and frames discourse, sometimes even against our best intentions.

I have no deep problem with the terms themselves, although I am sure there are better ones.

LordVreeg · October 27, 2010, 11:26:09 AM

Quote from: Benoist;412046I don't like the way background and game rules are artificially segregated from one another by using the "fluff vs. crunch" paradigm/logic/lexicon. In a good role playing game, the rules support the game world, and vice versa. There's a synergy to the whole, up to the point it all works seemlessly together. Instead, with "fluff" and "crunch", we come to consider these elements as separate, even opposite to one another. Which doesn't make any sense.

I've been doing sales trainings and have not even gotten online in days socially. This is a thread I would have gotten on earlier if possible.

I disliked the OP, because I have no problem with the lexicon nor the way they are used.
I do agree that a complete separation is silly; Vreeg's first rule, etc. One effects the other, and I actually believe that a RAW ruleset properly serves a very narrow band of game and setting, and will need to be tweaked or abandoned to better serve other games and settings.

Buut we work on them one at a time, and can compare tham that way, so I understand the need to see them as they stand alone sometimes.

winkingbishop · October 27, 2010, 11:33:09 AM

Quote from: ColonelHardisson;412066They're good, shorthand terms. Everyone knows what they mean. They're only negative if you allow them to be so. Trying to coin some new phrase to replace them is akin to trying to give yourself a nickname - it's doomed to failure and seems really silly.

I propose the word "flavor" be used in place of "fluff." I believe "flavor" is less likely to be perceived with a (even mild) negative connotation.

Used together, "flavor" and "crunch" are both culinary descriptors. We can look forward to future gaming reviews reading like a high-brow gustatory experience. Indeed, this shift in vocabulary will only help to reinforce the Cheetoist agenda, which is both crunchy and flavorful.