The difficulty in assessing the applicability of Ancient Elf to Half-Elves is really due to the poor connection in the heritage between the mechanics and the lore. There are certainly things that I think could be unique to an ancestry with people who can live over 500 years. Having a former career is not one of them. Surely a 200 year old Dwarf with a background as a Gladiator might have learned to rage at some point. Surely a 100 year old Half-Elf with a background in the Circus might have picked up some Bard cantrips.
As such, I tend to agree with The-Magic-Sword that the importance of the question relates to game balance. Is it too strong a choice to have more broadly available? I don't really know. It is strong, but not absurdly so.
In the end, I kind of see it the way I see the flick-mace. It is neat, but I wish it hadn't been included in the rules.
|
I didn't say otherwise. I merely pointed out that within the RPG community, the word "fluff" has a meaning that was not covered in the dictionary definitions provided.
While I do believe everyone has an obligation to look to other people's comfort, I think it unrealistic to expect the entire RPG community to stop using "fluff/crunch" phrasing based on one person's objection in one thread in one forum.
It is, however, completely reasonable to ask that people tailor their language to the needs of those present. A request has been made. That request should be honored.
Most everyone on here and elsewhere that I've seen use fluff, and when asked on it, use the negative definitions (aka something unimportant/useless).
I am completely honest when I say this is the very first time I've heard of "fluff" having specific RPG jargon that you pointed out in the Wikipedia article. Which if anything reads like an after-the-fact attempt at justification excuse (the article, not you).
Tunring a word of "this thing is useless/this is inconsequential" to "stuff other than mechanics" isn't really a shining endorsement of that being a good or even legitimate term to use in context.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most everyone on here and elsewhere that I've seen use fluff, and when asked on it, use the negative definitions (aka something unimportant/useless).
I am completely honest when I say this is the very first time I've heard of "fluff" having specific RPG jargon that you pointed out in the Wikipedia article. Which if anything reads like an after-the-fact attempt at justification excuse (the article, not you).
Tunring a word of "this thing is useless/this is inconsequential" to "stuff other than mechanics" isn't really a shining endorsement of that being a good or even legitimate term to use in context.
I don't know. When I Googled the use of the word in RPGs, mostly I saw people talking about their favorite "fluff" or games with great "fluff". I think there is a range of usage, but I don't think that it being synonymous with "useless" is the norm. There are certainly people who don't care about lore in games, and might speak disparaging about "fluff", but I don't think they are choosing that word to show their disdain. But I don't claim any sort of broad knowledge. As I've said, when I use the word, I'm typically talking about my own characters' non-mechanical components. Or, potentially throw-away color sentences that do little but sometimes cause confusion.
But language is complex, and my experiences are not anyone else's. It is important to understand both what people mean AND what people hear.
EDIT: AS an experiment, I went to the subreddit r/rpg and searched on the word "fluff". Looking at the top ten results, the word seemed to consistently be used to mean non-mechanical material, sometimes specifically lore or setting. Nine of those ten times, "fluff" was a positive or sought after thing. One it was used (I think) as something unappealing. In none of the threads was "fluff" used to mean something unimportant.
Again, I'm not suggesting here that we should ignore Jame's wishes. I'm just commenting on how the word is used in the world of RPGs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is a range of usage, but I don't think that it being synonymous with "useless" is the norm.
Sure, RPG fans might not tend to use it in a way that is synonymous with uselessness. That however implies that the only community that matters in this conversation is RPG fans. RPG creators belong to our community and they belong to other communities, they belong to communities of writers and artists where it matters to them that the dictionary definition of the word fluff has a meaning that is derogatory to writers and their work.
Despite your statement that we should honor the request to not use that word in this thread, you're still (and not just you) going out of your way to continue to explain why you don't think it's bad to use the word. Which could be construed as being dismissive.
Rather than continuing to go back and forth over the usage of the questionable word - maybe we should engage further without using it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding Half-Elves and Ancient Elf, I think "Half-Elves are good at multiclassing" is already encapsulated in the Multitalented ancestry feat (it's even the same name as the PF1 ability). It's just that the feat is now available to all humans (it's just better for half-elves).
I think there's a potential risk in letting someone get *all the multiclassing* by being ancient multitalented half-elves.
The one ancestry I think that could use something like an ancient heritage, though is gnomes. Since the gnome lifespan is theoretically unlimited, and the way they stay alive is "avoiding boredom" so a 1st level gnome PC could theoretically be a thousand years old and have tried basically everything except what they're currently doing already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is a range of usage, but I don't think that it being synonymous with "useless" is the norm.It's not a matter of being synonymous, it's the actual definition. Just because some pockets have built up a supposed jargon around or don't know the definition doesn't change the definition.
That is a wildly simplistic understanding of language. Words mean what a group of people agree they mean, and are understood within appropriate context. Dictionaries do not capture all meanings of words. Jargon isn't just normal, it is vital. It may not matter much for RPGs, but go tell doctors or scientists or engineers to restrict themselves to your single, online dictionary and see what happens.
Heck, try playing P2E while using definitions from that specific dictionary in place of the meanings defined within the game itself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So about Ancient Elf:
Big thanks to James Jacobs for wading in and providing that lore and flavor perspective. That ended up giving me a couple of cool ideas for what kind of character I could potentially make in the future around this idea, or even recommend to other players.
I could be biased from my experience, as I tend to be a pretty easy-going GM as far as character options, and feel like I'm very much able to have these types of conversations with my players, but for this type of character option that is likely to be brought up, I would just ask that my players tell me how Ancient Elf fits the story of their character (as long as they can take it by RAW), and I'm probably game. It's honestly as simple as that with me. The intentions and thoughts that Paizo staff are awesome enough to provide in threads like these is really helpful and can help guide those conversations too!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jargon isn't just normal, it is vital. It may not matter much for RPGs, but go tell doctors or scientists or engineers to restrict themselves to your single, online dictionary and see what happens.
Using a word that is potentially offensive to someone because everyone else uses it is not "vital" to any form of communication. A specific person expressed taking offense at the word and requested we not use it.
You have posted six separate defenses of your usage of that word in the time since the request was made. Your objection to being restricted from using that word is well noted at this point. Continuing to discuss it speaks to just how much deference you're paying to James' opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jargon isn't just normal, it is vital. It may not matter much for RPGs, but go tell doctors or scientists or engineers to restrict themselves to your single, online dictionary and see what happens.Using a word that is potentially offensive to someone because everyone else uses it is not "vital" to any form of communication. A specific person expressed taking offense at the word and requested we not use it.
You have posted six separate defenses of your usage of that word in the time since the request was made. Your objection to being restricted from using that word is well noted at this point. Continuing to discuss it speaks to just how much deference you're paying to James' opinion.
I have not "defended [my] usage of that word". I've discussed how it is used in the community in general. I personally use it to describe my own writing. You are free to go through my posts to see if this is some word I particularly rely on outside of an discussion of how slang is used.
FWIW, the connection to the dictionary definition is not to the "trivial or unimportant" meaning. It is to the "soft" meaning, metaphorically contrasting it to the mathematically "crunchy" portions of gaming materials. Halflings being slight or sneaky is lore. The specific bonus to becoming unnoticed is crunch.
Maybe before a community is condemned for being insensitive, you might want to hear what they are actually saying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Language is mutable and complex. In this thread, we've seen at least 4 or 5 different interpretations and connotations to a word. Guess different sections of the internet use terms in slightly different ways. Communities are funky like that
What we do when someone asks us to not use a certain term is not hard. You just freakin stop. It's no different than purposefully misgendering a person who has corrected your pronoun usage. Don't be a jerk
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not even sure your premise is correct, though. You're right, the term has established usage within the community, but that usage has traditionally been in line with the dictionary definition. That's where it comes from. CharOp style communities differentiating 'important' rules text from the unimportant, trivial fluff text.
Ultimately though, regardless of whether or not you think the term is good or not "people have been using it for years" doesn't seem like a really impactful argument either way. Traditional doesn't mean good.
Also it seems weird for someone to come out and say that certain language makes them uncomfortable and less likely to engage in future conversations and then we get a whole bunch of people dedicating the rest of the thread to trying to explain why he's wrong for feeling that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not even sure your premise is correct, though. You're right, the term has established usage within the community, but that usage has traditionally been in line with the dictionary definition. That's where it comes from. CharOp style communities differentiating 'important' rules text from the unimportant, trivial fluff text.
Ultimately though, regardless of whether or not you think the term is good or not "people have been using it for years" doesn't seem like a really impactful argument either way.
It comes from "soft", not from "unimportant". It contrasts with "crunch", not with "important". It is a metaphor for the mathematical and non-mathematical portions of a game. The reason it is not used in the community to mean "trivial" is because it has never meant that in the community.
I've been spending a fair amount of time just reading RPG discussions that include the word. I've yet to come across it being used to mean anything but lore and/or setting.
Here is the page I last read. https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/121881-reading-only-for-the- fluff/
Note that the player says they read the RPG books just for the *lore*. One of the authors pops in to say they write specifically for players interested in the *lore*. The word is used to mean the soft rules, the setting, the lore. The OP has no interest in the crunch, the mechanics, the math. Soft vs. hard crunch.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is a range of usage, but I don't think that it being synonymous with "useless" is the norm.It's not a matter of being synonymous, it's the actual definition. Just because some pockets have built up a supposed jargon around or don't know the definition doesn't change the definition.That is a wildly simplistic understanding of language. Words mean what a group of people agree they mean, and are understood within appropriate context. Dictionaries do not capture all meanings of words. Jargon isn't just normal, it is vital. It may not matter much for RPGs, but go tell doctors or scientists or engineers to restrict themselves to your single, online dictionary and see what happens.
Heck, try playing P2E while using definitions from that specific dictionary in place of the meanings defined within the game itself.
Bolded the salient point.
Not everyone is in agreement that "Fluff" is fine, the creators of the content being described as "Fluff" certainly aren't, as are a number of people on here.
Maybe before a community is condemned for being insensitive, you might want to hear what they are actually saying.
… what community?
The community is asking people not call people's work something of no value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The community is asking people not call people's work something of no value.
No one here has said such a thing. The word was used as being synonymous to "flavor", and everyone, including James, understood it to mean as such.
But please do point to anyone saying that there is no value in the lore/setting of Pathfinder.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The outright definition of the word disagrees with you.It comes from "soft", not from "unimportant". It contrasts with "crunch", not with "important". It is a metaphor for the mathematical and non-mathematical portions of a game.I'm not even sure your premise is correct, though. You're right, the term has established usage within the community, but that usage has traditionally been in line with the dictionary definition. That's where it comes from. CharOp style communities differentiating 'important' rules text from the unimportant, trivial fluff text.
Ultimately though, regardless of whether or not you think the term is good or not "people have been using it for years" doesn't seem like a really impactful argument either way.
The reason it is not used in the community to mean "trivial" is because it has never meant that in the community.This is flat out false.
I've been spending a fair amount of time just reading RPG discussions that include the word. I've yet to come across it being used to mean anything but lore and/or setting.You come across plenty of people calling the lore and setting superficial/of no consequence.
Here is the page I last read. https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/121881-reading-only-for-the- fluff/
Note that the player says they read the RPG books just for the *lore*. One of the authors pops in to say they write specifically for players interested in the *lore*. The word is used to mean the soft rules, the setting, the lore. The OP has no interest in the crunch, the mechanics, the math. Soft vs. hard crunch.
Just because that author doesn't have an issue with the term, or just didn't raise it at the time, does not justify the term.
|
|
The community is asking people not call people's work something of no value.
No one here has said such a thing. The word was used as being synonymous to "flavor", and everyone, including James, understood it to mean as such.
But please do point to anyone saying that there is no value in the lore/setting of Pathfinder.
Then stop calling it fluff.
It's a not a synonym, it's the actual definition of the word.
When you're calling the lore/setting "fluff" you're saying it's of no value, since that's what the word "Fluff" means.
Jargon only works if it's near universally accepted, and "Fluff" is not anywhere close to that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The outright definition of the word disagrees with you.
"Soft material" is literally one of the definitions.
You come across plenty of people calling the lore and setting superficial/of no consequence.
LOL. That is so wrong I don't even know how to begin. If you were to replace the one word with "lore", the conversations do not change meaning. If you were to substitute in "superficial material of no consequence", the conversations would be non-nonsensical.
Here is the page I last read. https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/121881-reading-only-for-the- fluff/
Just because that author doesn't have an issue with the term, or just didn't raise it at the time, does not justify the term.That is not the point. The point is that the participants in the conversation use the word in question interchangeably with lore, and all of it is talking about that material being what is important to them. I mean, read the thread.
Quoting myself is weird but:
Also it seems weird for someone to come out and say that certain language makes them uncomfortable and less likely to engage in future conversations and then we get a whole bunch of people dedicating the rest of the thread to trying to explain why he's wrong for feeling that way.
This is sort of the larger point I was getting at earlier and I feel like it kinda got glossed over a bit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then stop calling it fluff.
It's a not a synonym, it's the actual definition of the word.
When you're calling the lore/setting "fluff" you're saying it's of no value, since that's what the word "Fluff" means.
Jargon only works if it's near universally accepted, and "Fluff" is not anywhere close to that.
First of all, I was not the one who used the word "fluff" to mean lore. I don't object to it, but you are thinking of someone else.
I've talked about what the word means in RPGs.I get that you spend your days going from group to group telling them not to use jargon or slang. I get you don't believe in metaphors. I get you believe that one, limited dictionary prescribes all language. I'm sure that you don't use the definitions of words in the Pathfinder rule book where they are not an exact match for your singular, limited dictionary.
And I get that in your dictionary, you only look at the definitions you want to see. Mechanics=inflexible mathematical rules=crunch. Lore=soft, flexible rules=fluff. Can't see that. Obviously people who talk about fluff in RPGs so much are nonsensically saying they consider it unimportant.
I get that you spend your days going from group to group telling them not to use jargon or slang.
Whether or not Rysky told you to stop using jargon or slang, James Jacobs - the creative director of the company whose forums we are currently conversing in asked us to not use that one particular piece of slang because he finds it offensive.
Rysky pointed out the definition to maybe give us a clue as to why James Jacobs feels that way.
entertainment or writing perceived as trivial or superficial
It's very easy to see why a creative director/writer might be offended by a word with the definition that defines their work as trivial or superficial. You don't agree, that's fine. You have more than stated your case.
However it has now been 7 posts since you said:
It is, however, completely reasonable to ask that people tailor their language to the needs of those present. A request has been made. That request should be honored.
Now would perhaps be a good time to follow your own advice and begin honoring the aforementioned request
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean the central problem with "fluff" is that it strongly implies that the thematics of a thing are less important than the mechanics of the thing.
When indeed, the thematics and the mechanics should support each other- the thematics provide meaning to the mechanics and the mechanics should support the themes. Trying to disconnect the two things is counterproductive.
I mean, sure you could "reflavor" something to change how it fits in the your version of the game world, but you could also just change the mechanics to better fit your vision of your game world- these things aren't materially different. If you really want to change how something fits in your game world, you do both.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now would perhaps be a good time to follow your own advice and begin honoring the aforementioned request
If talking about how words are used and the history of those words is the same as using them, them you have many people to admonish, including yourself.
Yes, Rysky pointed out a definition. He pointed out the wrong one. The correct one, the one that is the actual origin of the usage in RPGs, surely matters more than the wrong one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I'm getting the sense that people are interpreting the word 'fluff' as "offensive/derogatory" in the slur/misgendering kind of way, could we not do that?
It almost certainly wasn't what Jacobs meant and it's kind of a gross thing to do to score points, speaking as someone kind of close to that issue.
Creative Director
|
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't expect this thread to turn into an argument about semantics, but I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.
When it comes to the word "fluff," there is an exact meaning of the word that applies SPECIFICALLY to writing. It's definition 3 from what Rysky listed upthread, and it's this precise definition, which is one that specifically addresses the use of the word when talking about writing, that makes me cringe and feel sad whenever the word is used to describe world lore, flavor, or anything in a written RPG that isn't rules text.
3) entertainment or writing perceived as trivial or superficial
In this case, Rysky pointed out the EXACT right definition. The correct one that matters when the word is used to apply to entertainment or writing, which is both what an RPG is all about. It's this definition of the word fluff that I find offensive when it's used to describe ANY sort of writing, not just flavor text in RPGs. When I read about people using the word "fluff" to describe flavor or lore writing, in my head, I use this definition of the word. I read a sentence that says "This book focuses more on fluff than crunch" as "This book focuses more on trivial and superfical writing rather than rules." AKA: When folks say "fluff" when they're talking about writing, I interpret their comment via the word's actual definition as regards it being applied to writing—that they're talking about the writing being trivial and superficial.
So let's stop arguing back and forth what intentions are and move on—this thread is already way off topic and if folks don't feel the need to keep discussing the Ancient Elf and its flavor and implications, I feel like the thread has run its course.
EDIT: The bigger picture is that if someone tells you a word that you use offends them, it's a learning moment and a chance for you to adjust the words you use when interacting with them, and trying to convince someone that the word isn't offensive to them is in itself offensive.
EDIT 2: Searching for "What does fluff mean in writing?" in Google gives a pretty good bit of evidence why I, as a writer, find the word insulting...