Rules and Fluff Question about Piranha Kiss weapon

[VampByDay]

So from the Grand Bazaar, p. 106 we get the weapon Piranha Kiss found here. Couple of questions, one is Pathfinder Society rules related (hence why I am putting it in rules discussion) and one is a fluff question.

The rules question: The 'Frequent Shopper boon' for a whopping 30 ACP gives you access to some of the stuff out of the Grand Bazaar. If I want my Ranger to be dual-wielding Piranha kisses, do I have to buy the boon twice? Or does buying the boon give me permenant access to buy as many Piranha kisses as I want?

Second Question: What the heck is a Piranha Kiss? There's no illustration in the book, and as far as I know there is no real world weapon called a Piranha Kiss. The closest weapon I can think of that even vaguely fits the description are Deer Horn Knives . (These are one handed 'knives' that have curving 'teeth' that point back towards the handle and look like they'd be good at disarming.) Anyone know what real-world weapon these are supposed to look like, or, if they aren't real-world inspired, vaguely what they are supposed to look like?

[Dancing Wind]

From another thread

Tonya Woldridge wrote:

Removed a sub-thread using the words fluff/crunch. There have been repeated requests by Paizo staff to not use these words in relation to Paizo products (and potentially any gaming products). Ignoring this request is rude and harassment.

You may want to rephrase your post if you don't want it to be removed.

[The Raven Black]

Access is to the item, no matter the quantity.

I think the weapon might look like a swordbreaker dagger.

[Castilliano]

Dancing Wind wrote:

From another thread

Tonya Woldridge wrote:

Removed a sub-thread using the words fluff/crunch. There have been repeated requests by Paizo staff to not use these words in relation to Paizo products (and potentially any gaming products). Ignoring this request is rude and harassment.

You may want to rephrase your post if you don't want it to be removed.

That's news to me and I've read nearly every thread (though follow only select ones). I imagine we'll see most people continue to use these terms unless Paizo's more overt about disliking them (which in turn might exacerbate the rudeness!). Then again, lack of hearing this might be a "me" thing.

Note that I can't recall ever using them and think it's a false binary view, especially in PF2 with its more informal style of writing and push to mesh the mechanics more with the narrative/setting/rule of cool. But most conversations about the meta of gaming will bring up those terms, I'd think. There's going to need to be replacement words, albeit perhaps less dismissive, like say "mechanics" & "narrative"? Dunno.

[The Raven Black]

"Mechanics", "rules" vs "flavor", "lore" is what I use most of the time now.

[Tonya Woldridge]

We'd prefer mechanics/lore (thanks to The Raven Black for listing these and other options) to the prior terms and would greatly appreciate you using them from here on out. I would note my quoted moderator comment was in a thread where a poster doubled down on using the undesired terms and noted they did not care about staff requests, which is why I labeled the behavior harassment.

[VampByDay]

Dancing Wind wrote:

From another thread

Tonya Woldridge wrote:

Removed a sub-thread using the words fluff/crunch. There have been repeated requests by Paizo staff to not use these words in relation to Paizo products (and potentially any gaming products). Ignoring this request is rude and harassment.

You may want to rephrase your post if you don't want it to be removed.

Good to know. I wasn't aware, but I will try to conduct myself accordingly (old habits die hard and all, so no guarantees I'll be perfect.)

So, Lore wise, anyone know what a Piranha Kiss actually looks like? I'd love it to be deer horn knives, those look awesome, but I doubt they are as they are not Tien Xia in origin.

[Onkonk]

So we look at the description we have:

Piranha Kiss wrote:

Made of a jagged blade with teeth pointing toward a leather-wrapped hilt...

and the we look at the name, this to me implies that it has a lot of "teeth" similar to this but maybe more exaggerated.

[The Raven Black]

The Raven Black wrote:

Access is to the item, no matter the quantity.

I think the weapon might look like a swordbreaker dagger.

[Xethik]

I was thinking the jagged blades would be on the other side, like a serrated knife.
Something like this. Maybe more serrated/smaller more jagged edges?

[Perpdepog]

I imagine them looking similar to sawtooth sabers, only shorter and with a narrower blade. I also imagine they have more pronounced teeth whose points aim toward the wielder, and which are situated along the inner curve of the weapon rather than the outer edge, so they can slice with the outer edge easily, and catch enemy weapons with a backswing.

No idea how well that'd work from a practical fighting standpoint, but that's what I imagine.

[aobst128]

I'm confused as to why "fluff" isn't allowed.

[breithauptclan]

aobst128 wrote:

I'm confused as to why "fluff" isn't allowed.

It is just that they want a euphemism. "fluff" is still allowed - just under the label of 'lore' instead.

Apparently calling it "fluff" has some negative connotations. Probably that calling it that makes it seem unimportant.

[Dancing Wind]

James Jacobs quote, Feb 2020

James Jacobs wrote:

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.

Rysky wrote:

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.

.......

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...

[Aw3som3-117]

I mean, personally I've always used the term "flavor" or "flavor text" (and will continue to do so), which seems far more accurate to me.

But, at the same time I also find it kind of ridiculous that the word fluff would be banned in this context. The idea expressed in Edit 1 in the post above puts all the power in the hands of someone who says they don't like a word and everyone else then has to follow that for some reason? I just don't get it. Either the arguments for and against it being allowed are relevant (in which case the back half of the sentence about convincing them that it wasn't meant offensively falls apart) or anyone can say they're offended about anything, which isn't something I'm a huge fan of for obvious reasons.

Harassment directed at an individual and/or derogatory terms are and will always be different to me than someone getting offended by every day language not intended to harass.

[Rysky]

The word has actual literal definitions of being insults (“something of no value” is an insult), as brought up above. People asking others not to use an insulting word to constantly describe their works is not out of left field.

“I wasn’t using the insult as an insult” is a non-starter.

Flavor/Lore has none of that baggage, so seeing people [in general] getting super defensive over their need to HAVE to use “fluff” is very peculiar.

[Unicore]

Aw3som3-117 wrote:

I mean, personally I've always used the term "flavor" or "flavor text" (and will continue to do so), which seems far more accurate to me.

But, at the same time I also find it kind of ridiculous that the word fluff would be banned in this context. The idea expressed in Edit 1 in the post above puts all the power in the hands of someone who says they don't like a word and everyone else then has to follow that for some reason? I just don't get it. Either the arguments for and against it being allowed are relevant (in which case the back half of the sentence about convincing them that it wasn't meant offensively falls apart) or anyone can say they're offended about anything, which isn't something I'm a huge fan of for obvious reasons.

Harassment directed at an individual and/or derogatory terms are and will always be different to me than someone getting offended by every day language not intended to harass.

You don’t “have to follow it for some reason.” You can choose to respect the person who tells you the language is hurtful or not. Honestly, there are many times where people who are causing harm to others get defensive about language that draws attention to that harm that I choose not to follow their requests about language use, especially in my own life…but this is 100% not that situation. This is the creative director of a world that I think we all love asking us to respect him and his wishes for how we talk about his work and the work of others that have built this world.

Language is always evolving, changing and being experienced in different contexts by different people. Fighting for your right to define words for others can be a good or bad thing depending upon that context. But when that word has minimal value for you, and a lot of value (positive or negative) for someone else, it is often a good idea to question why this feels like a battle you need to pick with them. The word fluff really doesn’t need anyone fighting for it in this context.

[Dancing Wind]

Aw3som3-117 wrote:

But, at the same time I also find it kind of ridiculous that the word fluff would be banned in this context. The idea expressed in Edit 1 in the post above puts all the power in the hands of someone who says they don't like a word and everyone else then has to follow that for some reason? I just don't get it. Either the arguments for and against it being allowed are relevant (in which case the back half of the sentence about convincing them that it wasn't meant offensively falls apart) or anyone can say they're offended about anything, which isn't something I'm a huge fan of for obvious reasons.

Harassment directed at an individual and/or derogatory terms are and will always be different to me than someone getting offended by every day language not intended to harass.

If someone tells you they are feeling harassed by something you said, you can't evade responsibility by saying, "I didn't intend to harass you, so you aren't allowed to feel that way."

When the actual dictionary definition for that "everyday language" is that it trivializes someone's entire body of work, then you can't claim that you didn't intend to demean them.

When you say "I just don't get it" it comes across as "I don't believe you have any right to feel offended". As if you get to decide how other people are allowed to feel when you've said demeaning things about them.

[Ravingdork]

I've seen WAY too many people feign offense over the most trivial things, not for their own feelings or any righteous sense of morality, but in order to gain power over others. As a result, I am automatically suspicious every time this sort of thing comes up.

Example: Someone takes something a fellow employee said out of context and publically feigns offense to get them in hot water to take them out of consideration for an upcoming promotion.

I'm not saying anything so underhanded as that is happening here, not at all, but people SHOULD be wary in general. To disregard the potential for social manipulation and take absolutely everything at face value is the height of naivete, and will only result in the unwary getting trampled upon by those with ill intent.

If not for there being a literal definition in this particular instance, and the Paizo staff generally having a positive reputation as upstanding people, I likely would have made a similar post to that of Aw3som3-117.

[Aw3som3-117]

I don't have a dog in this fight, as, as said previously, I don't use the term anyway, and I'm not familiar with the other thread in question, so I can't comment on whether it was appropriate there or not. But let's not pretend that the term can't make sense in certain contexts. After all, this is a rules forum. In the context of the rules / mechanics a certain portion of the text could very well be seen as superficial or trivial to the question at hand. For example, I can't point to a specific spot but I bet I said that something was "irrelevant" when talking in one of these forums before. Is that offensive because it's belittling of the text? I would argue no, because in context it makes sense as it's not relevant here in the same way someone else might say that something is "fluff" in the context of a question about the mechanics of an ability. I'm not saying it's impossible to interpret it negatively or that it's okay in all contexts, but that's not necessary for my point.

As Ravingdork said, Paizo staff has a good track record, so I'm not too worried or anything, but it honestly does seem a little strange to me, and quite frankly the replies are not convincing me otherwise. Especially the ones that are implying or even outright stating that me arguing for person A to be allowed to use language is somehow equivalent to invalidating Person B's feelings about that language.

Unicore's point is definitely the most relevant reply, and to be clear if I did use the word "fluff" to describe flavor text then I would change that habit upon learning that it makes someone else uncomfortable for no real value added to myself as described. But at the same time I'm not going to force that on others, and I find it kind of odd that seemingly everyone is on board for doing so in this context.

Anyway, this is getting off topic of the original post. This will be my last reply to this sub-topic here, though, feel free to reply to it if you'd like.

[Rysky]

Because having empathy is weird to you apparently?

It’s an insult, people have stated their dislike of their word because, shockingly, people don’t like themselves or their work being insulted.

No one is being executed or banned, just promptly “hey, could you not?” and people are getting defensive over a word not being okay for them to spam.

Which is weirder since you go out of your way to say you wouldn’t use it, then why are you getting defensive and saying that people should use it/be able to? That’s… odd.

It’s an insult. You [general] were asked, not demanded at gunpoint, asked to not use it. Why is that so hard.

[Rysky]

“I'm not saying anything so underhanded as that is happening here, not at all, but people SHOULD be wary in general. To disregard the potential for social manipulation and take absolutely everything at face value is the height of naivete, and will only result in the unwary getting trampled upon by those with ill intent.”

Hilarious that you bring this up when the exact opposite is occurring.

But painting your bogeyman must accomplish something.

Someone unknowingly used an insult, it was pointed out that it was an insult, person acknowledged that, other people came in after trying to defend the insult.

[aobst128]

By the description, it's a total fantasy weapon. I imagine it's a toothed shortsword by the description. Or could be a particularly jagged Bowie knife with something like a sword breaker close to the hilt. You probably have to make something up.

[Ravingdork]

VampByDay wrote:

What the heck is a Piranha Kiss? There's no illustration in the book, and as far as I know there is no real world weapon called a Piranha Kiss. The closest weapon I can think of that even vaguely fits the description are Deer Horn Knives . (These are one handed 'knives' that have curving 'teeth' that point back towards the handle and look like they'd be good at disarming.) Anyone know what real-world weapon these are supposed to look like, or, if they aren't real-world inspired, vaguely what they are supposed to look like?

Upon reading the description my first thought was of a barbed/serrated dagger similar to a short, jagged sawtooth saber or any number of small Klingon blades. The serration points point towards the user, much like a barb (or rather, a series of barbs).

[Aw3som3-117]

Rysky wrote:

Because having empathy is weird to you apparently?

Can we not resort to personal attacks please?