| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh...
Why can't we just ask for a definition of fluff without accusing some segment of our gaming population of being bad people for not worshiping it?
I love fluff. I am a writer and a GM of 32 years.
But I don't see why every conversation must be acrimonious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is fluff?
Fluff is everything that isn't crunch.
Why is it considered fluff
Because that's what it is.
and why is it considered useless and ignored by crunchers?
Lemme ask you a few questions: Why do you A.) Think fluff and crunch are incompatible, B.) Feel the need to put people into categories like "cruncher" (which sounds like a cereal mascot but okay), and C.) Think "crunchers" find fluff useless?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Design-wise, there is a minor difference between "fluff" and "set dressing".
Set Dressing is the stuff that is actually completely without meaningful mechanics, like what color the sky is, or how many people live in a town, or local superstitions.
Fluff is the description given to mechanical devices to explain, within the context of the setting or story, how a mechanical effect plays out.
A good way to think about it is, if someone were to actually see a given ability used, how might they describe what they saw.
Fluff, ideally, is largely up to the player or GM.
For instance, a fireball could be described classically, as a wizard throwing a small bead of flame which explodes into a massive fireball on impact. It could also be described as a person clenching their fist and causing an eruption of pure light and heat. Or, a manifestation of a laughing skull which then explodes into shadow-fire leaving everything scorched and blackened.
All are possible descriptions of the same "take 5d6 fire damage" mechanical effect.
The conflict comes when people think that a certain description is the only description.
People who are interested in how mechanics work ignore fluff because they know that when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of how rules interact with each other, the fluff is largely irrelevant.
|
and why is it considered useless and ignored by crunchers?Lemme ask you a few questions: Why do you A.) Think fluff and crunch are incompatible, B.) Feel the need to put people into categories like "cruncher" (which sounds like a cereal mascot but okay), and C.) Think "crunchers" find fluff useless?
First off I'll ignore the first and second parts of your post as they useless.
A) I personally don't think fluff and crunch are invompatible as I dont think of them as seperate things. I think of discription and mechanics as a whole.
B) Crunchers was the simplest why I could think of to easily discribe those who look to what they consider crunch (mechanics) and pretty munch ignores what they conisder fluff (anything that doesnt effect die rolls). And by your response you understood what I meant but took it as a derogatory comment, which wasnt what I was going for.
C) In several threads (90% of which deal with attributes) a number of posters have stated, in so many words, that fluff wasnt crunch so was useless (or at least that was the impression I got).
|
|
Design-wise, there is a minor difference between "fluff" and "set dressing".
Set Dressing is the stuff that is actually completely without meaningful mechanics, like what color the sky is, or how many people live in a town, or local superstitions.
Fluff is the description given to mechanical devices to explain within the context of the setting or story, how a mechanical effect plays out.
A good way to think about it is, if someone were to actually see a given ability used, might they describe what they saw.
Fluff, ideally, is largely up to the player or GM.
For instance, a fireball could be described classically, as a wizard throwing a small bead of flame which explodes into a massive fireball on impact. It could also be described as a person clenching their fist and causing an eruption of pure light and heat. Or, a manifestation of a laughing skull which then explodes into shadow-fire leaving everything scorched and blackened.
All are possible descriptions of the same "take 5d6 fire damage" mechanical effect.
The conflict comes when people think that a certain description is the only description.
People who are interested in how mechanics work ignore fluff because they know that when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of how rules interact with each other, the fluff is largely irrelevant.
Thank you that was clear thought out response to my question that didnt assume I meant or was trying to be mean.
Glad to help. Does that cover what you needed to know?
An example of conflict between fluff and crunch:
In Ultimate Equipment, the description of Antitoxin says:
"This substance counteracts a specific toxin. If you drink a vial of antitoxin, you gain a +5 alchemical bonus on Fortitude saving throws against poison for 1 hour."
The first sentence implies that you need to buy a different antitoxin for every poison. The second suggests that antitoxin works against all poison. Normally, we assume that the first sentence is 'just fluff' and can be ignored, whereas the second sentence is the 'crunch', a rule that we can easily apply in game. It's simpler that way.
|
|
An example of conflict between fluff and crunch:
In Ultimate Equipment, the description of Antitoxin says:
"This substance counteracts a specific toxin. If you drink a vial of antitoxin, you gain a +5 alchemical bonus on Fortitude saving throws against poison for 1 hour."
The first sentence implies that you need to buy a different antitoxin for every poison. The second suggests that antitoxin works against all poison. Normally, we assume that the first sentence is 'just fluff' and can be ignored, whereas the second sentence is the 'crunch', a rule that we can easily apply in game. It's simpler that way.
I see that first sentence as an uncorrected error, but I see in this instance what you mean.
|
What is fluff?
Why is it considered fluff and why is it considered useless and ignored by crunchers?
"Crunchers" are defined by thinking fluff is useless, which is why they think it's useless. I mean, we are all gamers. The word gamers comes from the word game and so it's easy to understand why most of us are excited about crunch. If someone cares only about crunch, that's a cruncher.
For nearly everyone, though, fluff and crunch are two parts of the same thing. Every rule in a role playing game, for example, is meant to represent something happening in the game world. The fluff is the thing happening in the game world, while the crunch is the rule of how to resolve that thing in real world term of rolling dice and adding numbers.
So if I see that a rouge can sneak attack, that means he is able to fight real dirty and has learned really well how to place incredibly accurate strikes on the weakest spots. That's the fluff. When the player playing as the rouge scores a hit against a flat footed or flanked foe, he rolls additional damage. That's the fluff.
So for most players, the ability to sneak attack wouldn't be nearly as exciting if it would have lacked either half - if the rouge just arbitrarily had an ability called "extra damage when certain conditions apply" which dealt extra d6's, or if he had an ability called sneak attack which didn't actually do anything except describing his fighting style, that just wouldn't be exciting.
So while fluff is "useless" as far as character effectiveness goes, I have yet to see a player who actually didn't care about it at all - usually it's the fluff that draws players in to the game in the first place, and then the crunch is interesting enough to keep them engaged. Have you ever encountered anyone who actually didn't care about fluff, at all?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Glad to help. Does that cover what you needed to know?Yes it does.
Personally I dont see things this that way (fluff and crunch). I believe it all fits (set dressing, discriptions, and mechanics) as a whole to make the game.
That's not a point people are trying to dispute.
But the game itself is built on mechanics. The game is not Pathfinder without the mechanics. The Golarion flavor and everything built into the classes' descriptions is not integral to the running of the game.
You can put anything there and it will work together with the mechanics to make the game as a whole.
Fluff is mutable.
Sometimes there is a conflict between play styles.
For example, one player sees a Monk as a guy who was raised in a monastery, and a Barbarian is a savage tribesman, and that these are traditional archetypes that are an important part of the game world and not mere fluff.
Another player might think these classes are just game mechanics, and it's up to the player to say that his Barbarian is a down-on-his-luck aristocrat with a bad temper, or his Monk is a thug from the slums who made his living from bare-knuckled boxing contests.
|
|
.
You can put anything there and it will work together with the mechanics to make the game as a whole.
Fluff is mutable.
Crunch is mutable as well. A fireball, for example, could have just as easily be a spell that always deals 6d8 points of fire damage, regardless of caster level.
There are many possibilities to represent a certain fluff with crunch, and there are several possibilities to represent crunch with fluff. They are both every bit as mutable.
Take, for example, d20 modern. While the crunch is very similar to D&D 3.5, fluff is completely different and the game feels very different. So It's hardly correct to say that flavor is less integral for the game than the rules - because changing the fluff sufficiently *would* create a different game.
The game truly is a combination of fluff and crunch and neither outweighs the other in importance because they are both necessary.
You saying that crunch is what drives the game while fluff is mutable is like saying that a car is not a car without an engine, but the wheels are interchangeable. Every car has an engine, true, but so do helicopters and boats and tanks. Take away the wheels and what you have is not a car anymore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A fireball, for example, could have just as easily be a spell that always deals 6d8 points of fire damage, regardless of caster level.
Except at that point it's not Fireball any more. Once it works different, it is not the original thing.
You can have a, I dunno, a Lamborghini in yellow, red, or orange, and it's roughly the same car. The paint job is the fluff.
Once you take out the inner workings and replace it with something else though...it ain't what it used to be, even if you keep the frame and the paint. It's now something else, but with the same wrapper.
That is why the mechanics are more immutable, not least because mechanical differences from table to table are what are known as "houserules".
Playing a campaign in a different setting, or saying all humans are anthropomorphic cat people (but are mechanically unchanged) leaves the game recognizeable even through the new coat of paint.
Change the mechanics, however, and the line starts to blur between whether this is still Pathfinder, or if it's another game.
If Fighters have 6 level casting and Slow Fall, are they still Pathfinder's Fighters? No.
If Fighters are mechanically identical but are renamed Fleeglesnarfs and serve as warrior princes to the Dag'fnargian empire, are they still Pathfinder's Fighters? Yes.
|
|
A fireball, for example, could have just as easily be a spell that always deals 6d8 points of fire damage, regardless of caster level.Except at that point it's not Fireball any more. Once it works different, it is not the original thing.
You can have a, I dunno, a Lamborghini in yellow, red, or orange, and it's roughly the same car. The paint job is the fluff.
Once you take out the inner workings and replace it with something else though...it ain't what it used to be, even if you keep the frame and the paint. It's now something else, but with the same wrapper.
That is why the mechanics are more immutable, not least because mechanical differences from table to table are what are known as "houserules".
Playing a campaign in a different setting, or saying all humans are anthropomorphic cat people (but are mechanically unchanged) leaves the game recognizeable even through the new coat of paint.
Change the mechanics, however, and the line starts to blur between whether this is still Pathfinder, or if it's another game.
If Fighters have 6 level casting and Slow Fall, are they still Pathfinder's Fighters? No.
If Fighters are mechanically identical but are renamed Fleeglesnarfs and serve as warrior princes to the Dag'fnargian empire, are they still Pathfinder's Fighters? Yes.
I feel like you missed my point entirely.
I'm saying that if, when you first opened the core rulebook to a 3.x D&D game, you would have read that there's a 3rd level wizard/sorcerer spell called fireball, and that it deals 6d8 damage in an area of effect, it wouldn't have seemed strange to you at all.
Why? because the exact mechanic of 1d6 per caster level is not the only way to reasonably represent a fireball with 3.x rules. Because there are several mechanical ways to represent the same flavor. Point is, you can change a huge amount of crunch related details without making the game feel very different. Changing fireball from 1d6 per caster level to 6d8 is similar to changing fighters to Fleeglesnarfs.
It's only when you change the very core of the mechanics that the game starts to feel like something else - if, for example, fighters have access to 6 level spellcasting. But this is a *huge* change in detail, not just slightly playing with variations of mechanics to represent the same idea. Again I'll use the d20 modern example - fighters in d20 modern work exactly the same as they do in 3.X - they are good combatants with extra feats as their core mechanic. Generally speaking, the mechanics of d20 modern are astonishingly similar to those of 3.X. However, it's really easy to understand that they are different games because the fluff is different enough.
In chart form:
fireball from d6 per caster level to 6d8 <==> fighters are Fleeglesnarfs
fighters have 6 level casting <==> d20 modern
Change the core mechanics enough, you get a different game. Change the core fluff enough, you get a different game. Both are equally important to how a game feels, and the game couldn't exists without either of them.
I'm saying that if, when you first opened the core rulebook to a 3.x D&D game, you would have read that there's a 3rd level wizard/sorcerer spell called fireball, and that it deals 6d8 damage in an area of effect, it wouldn't have seemed strange to you at all.
But what I'm saying is that that's not what happened, and when it is changed it is an actual change to Pathfinder.
A change to the rules, however minor, changes the game. Not to where it's unrecognizable with such a small change, granted, but it is a change.
A change to the fluff is no real change at all. Everything is the same, it just looks different.
Playing Pathfinder in Forgotten Realms doesn't change the game at all.
Changing how a spell or class or whatever actually WORKS does change the game.
|
|
I'm saying that if, when you first opened the core rulebook to a 3.x D&D game, you would have read that there's a 3rd level wizard/sorcerer spell called fireball, and that it deals 6d8 damage in an area of effect, it wouldn't have seemed strange to you at all.But what I'm saying is that that's not what happened, and when it is changed it is an actual change to Pathfinder.
A change to the rules, however minor, changes the game. Not to where it's unrecognizable with such a small change, granted, but it is a change.
A change to the fluff is no real change at all. Everything is the same, it just looks different.
Playing Pathfinder in Forgotten Realms doesn't change the game at all.
Changing how a spell or class or whatever actually WORKS does change the game.
I have now realized you and I are talking about completely different things.
I have now realized you and I are talking about completely different things.I'm saying that if, when you first opened the core rulebook to a 3.x D&D game, you would have read that there's a 3rd level wizard/sorcerer spell called fireball, and that it deals 6d8 damage in an area of effect, it wouldn't have seemed strange to you at all.But what I'm saying is that that's not what happened, and when it is changed it is an actual change to Pathfinder.
A change to the rules, however minor, changes the game. Not to where it's unrecognizable with such a small change, granted, but it is a change.
A change to the fluff is no real change at all. Everything is the same, it just looks different.
Playing Pathfinder in Forgotten Realms doesn't change the game at all.
Changing how a spell or class or whatever actually WORKS does change the game.
Maybe so.
I figured what the topic was about was fluff, and how a lot of people (including myself) say it's unimportant what the fluff IS as long as it EXISTS being misconstrued as "The fluff is unimportant in its entirety", and how that interacts with re-fluffing things and so on.
What did you think it was about? <-- Not meant to be a sarcastic remark.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is fluff?
Why is it considered fluff and why is it considered useless and ignored by crunchers?
Whatever gets in the way of the cruncher getting what they want.
Which is why it is ignored.
The fact that the game is an attempt to replicate a game world and the parts that are intended to explain the intent of the replication are dismissed by someone is a huge red flag for me that the person is more interested in "winning" than "playing"
|
|
The other problem with defining fluff is the selective fluff user.
For example, the person who claims something is fluff then says grease in the spell is flammable.
Why is it flammable? Because they say it is grease, and that is a feature of grease.
Doesn't say it is flammable anywhere in the spell, but they read into the spell and attach added benefits.
However if something in the description seems limiting, well...that is just fluff you can ignore.
It is this inconsistency in analysis that leads to most of the conflict and eye rolls in these discussions.
If someone took the time to write it in a heavily word count limited book, one can presume some utility was intended.
It is strange that for some people those readings are always in favor of the position they hold in a given discussion (subject to change if they realize it doesn't actually support the position)
|
|
An example of conflict between fluff and crunch:
In Ultimate Equipment, the description of Antitoxin says:
"This substance counteracts a specific toxin. If you drink a vial of antitoxin, you gain a +5 alchemical bonus on Fortitude saving throws against poison for 1 hour."
The first sentence implies that you need to buy a different antitoxin for every poison. The second suggests that antitoxin works against all poison. Normally, we assume that the first sentence is 'just fluff' and can be ignored, whereas the second sentence is the 'crunch', a rule that we can easily apply in game. It's simpler that way.Interesting. Were I ruling as GM, I'd say, instead, that the word "specific" in the first sentence trumps the imprecision in the second.
I do understand, however, why someone might interpret it otherwise.
I read it as it only works once, against one specific poison attempt rather than against all poisons for an hour.
In other words you drink it, if someone tries to poison you, bonus kicks in as a one time bonus. If you are poisoned again within the hour, no bonus because it was used against that, specific, poison attempt.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
These conversations wouldn't be as argumentative if the language wasn't geared toward making them confrontational. I prefer "flavor" and "mechanics" over "fluff" and "crunch." For starters, fluff doesn't sound like anything important, but for most gamers it is.
Example: Look at how many people dislike having guns and gunpowder in their games. Now if you reskinned the "crunch" (the mechanical operation of the guns) with the right "fluff" (magical projectile weapons that require energy from magical crystals to fire) then you might have something that doesn't offend the sensibilities of people that don't want firearms souring the flavor of their favorite campaign.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What did you think it was about? <-- Not meant to be a sarcastic remark.
Well, mostly it seems like you are speaking in considerably more technical terms than I did. When you say that a game where a fireball deals 1d6 per caster level is not the same as a game where it deals 6d8 damage, you are technically correct.
For my part I was talking about what seems to actually matter. When Wizards decided to switch from 3.5 to 4, even though there was no major shift in fluff, many people felt like 4th edition is not the same game as 3.5 and is not the game they wanted to play. Out swoops Paizo with Pathfinder - a game *based* on 3.5 D&D which includes far greater changes that the numbers on a single spell - and those who still want to play 3.5 D&D flock to them. For me it was because Pathfinder was the same game as 3.5 D&D - sure, it was more streamlined in a couple of places, it changed many details (universally for the better IMO) and it even canned an entire subsytem (grapple rules) and replaced it with another one. But the reason I was playing Pathfinder was that it was the same game. It was clearly still D&D- not "close enough to D&D", but the actual same game. I'm pretty sure that a large number of the other people who opted for Pathfinder over 4th edition feel the same.
So my intentions were that to me (and to my belief, to most people) fluff is every bit as important to the way I define a game as the crunch is. A feat giving +1 to AC called "dodge" is, to me, inherently different that a feat giving +1 to AC called "instant premonitions". The first is obviously about how quick my character is while the second suggests a sort of supernatural power. It's not the same feat.
My evidence to support my claim is the difference between 3.5 D&D and a system like d20 modern (very few people will say it's the same game), and the difference between D&D 3.5 and 4th edition. The first is an example of the importance of fluff while the second is about the importance of crunch.
You, however, went for a more rigid, strict-speaking approach. So I don't disagree with you about what you said, I just think the things we've been saying to each other have been mutually irrelevant.
What is fluff?
Why is it considered fluff and why is it considered useless and ignored by crunchers?
I think a significant factor is the inherently subjective nature of flavour material. There's not a lot of point arguing about whether elves should be regarded as arrogant or merely aloof.
I suspect there is a tendency amongst those who care about the crunch to try and limit debate to those aspects of the game that are debatable. Thus, I don't think they "ignore" flavour when actually playing, so much as accept that there isn't much value in discussing it in a rules forum.
It isn't essential to playing the game ("playing" defined as just using the rules and rolling the dice. We may disagree on whether or not that is "truly playing"), much like fluffy fur trim on the collar of my corduroy coat isn't essential to being warm. It just looks nice.
I have never had a player that ignored fluff or considered it useless. Even the handful of power gamers I've played with. They may not ask me what the primary export of their player's home city is, but they at least want to know the basic history of the religion their Cleric is a part of.
|
|
I know the 'game logic' uses of it aren't much different but then why make it such a BIG DEAL when you gain just a single point? I'm just speculating on what the differences in performance DESCRIPTION might be for other people, after all you wouldn't in a realistic setting say the old man (Wizard 8 str) has only a 25% less chance to lift something then the Burly weight lifter (martial with 18 str). Game logic has to be balanced and all but thats not what I'm wondering about thoughts on lolWell that's actually my point. A Wizard with 8 Strength actually can beat a professional weight lifter with 18 Strength in an arm wrestling contest more than a quarter of the time.
This is the kind of statement I dont understand. If Average Joe on the street walked up to Arnold Schwarzenegger (circa 1975)and challenged him to an arm wrestling contest, Arnold would win everytime. Why should the mechanics of the game make the same type of challenge have the possibilty of such a drasicly different out come?
Doesnt make since to me. Of course this is just my opinion.
This is the kind of statement I dont understand. If Average Joe on the street walked up to Arnold Schwarzenegger (circa 1975)and challenged him to an arm wrestling contest, Arnold would win everytime. Why should the mechanics of the game make the same type of challenge have the possibilty of such a drasicly different out come?
Doesnt make since to me. Of course this is just my opinion.
Why should they? Dunno.
But they do. Arm Wrestling is opposed Str checks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fluff is a delicious white amorphous plastic which resembles masticated marshmallows.
I especially like it with peanut butter or Nutella on bread. -- And a big glass of milk.
Yeah, but we can assume that both men are taking 20. Arnold would crush the puny joe.
Can't Take 20 on Ability Checks.
10 then
Can't do that either. It's skills only.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If his elbow slipped on a wet patch on the table?
|
|
Eh, dunno then. But PF does not always completely accurately represent reality. Because there is no chance in hell i could arm wrestle with Dwayne Johnson and win. Absolutely none.
I agree with Hama, even if the raw machanic says its possible, arm wrestling is 95% raw strength and 5% technique so thiers no away an 8 str character should be able to beat an 18 str character.
At least thats the way I see it.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bah. Compare strength scores. The guy with the higher strength score wins at arm wrestling. All this dice rolling stuff is BS.
Nah, too crunchy. The outcome should be decided by the GM based on what's best for the story; to do otherwise is to be a "cruncher" who ignores fluff. Take your "strength scores" and get out of my game, cruncher!
Eh, dunno then. But PF does not always completely accurately represent reality. Because there is no chance in hell i could arm wrestle with Dwayne Johnson and win. Absolutely none.I agree with Hama, even if the raw mechanic says its possible, arm wrestling is 95% raw strength and 5% technique so there's no away an 8 str character should be able to beat an 18 str character.
At least that's the way I see it.
Yes, but should, and are, are different things.
And there are clear mechanics for arm wrestling in Pathfinder. =)
Arm Wrestling: Not merely typical arm wrestling bouts, such matches are usually conducted on a barrel top covered in broken glass, knives, or caltrops. Participants make opposed Strength checks, with the higher result determining the winner, and the loser taking an amount of damage equal to 1d2 + the winner’s Strength modifier as his hand and arm are pushed onto whatever lies on the table.
I intemperate it as every antitoxin will outright negate one toxin, but only have a chance to counter all others. If a character interrogates a foe while offering the exact antitoxin they need, they get bonuses to intimidate. Fluff can be made into crunch.
I saw D20 modern. It was so not DnD crunchwise that I never played it.