Crunch & Fluff: What do they mean to you?

[Tetsubo]

What do these two terms mean to you?

In video form:

[Alcore]

        What do these two terms mean to you?
      http://youtu.be/kkTA8-B1Pc4
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art:http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube:http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57

Crunch: Game mechanics associated with rules, generally that are
directly associated with some percieved improvement or modification of
character power and survivability. I exclude from "crunch" game
mechanics that clearly have non-competitive or combat application.
For instance: Power Attack Feat is CRUNCH. The
Profession(Blacksmith) feat is not. For a Wizard who's schtick is
making items I'd rate the Item Creation feats as "crunchy", but not
for any other class or application of wizard less focused on such
things. To be crunchy, they have to be in a context that makes them
valuable in terms of character power.

Fluff: Anything that is more description than substance. Other than
specific granted (somewhat variable) powers, familiars are more fluff
than anything else. Players will lavish extensive descriptive effort
and detail describing their warhorse. The only crunchy part of that
warhorse is it's HP total/hit dice. In 4e, almost all of what makes
one power that pushes things around the playfield different from
another that does mechanically the same thing is Fluff. The actual
rule content is simple, abstract, and applies the same way no matter
how you describe it. All the differentiation is therefore Fluff.

These are my opinions... but they are absolutely and incrontrovertably
the one and only true answer in MY game. (Feel free to chose
differently in yours.)

Alcore

[Tetsubo]

Post by Alcore

Post by Tetsubo
What do these two terms mean to you?
http://youtu.be/kkTA8-B1Pc4
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art:http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube:http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57

Crunch: Game mechanics associated with rules, generally that are
directly associated with some percieved improvement or modification of
character power and survivability. I exclude from "crunch" game
mechanics that clearly have non-competitive or combat application.
For instance: Power Attack Feat is CRUNCH. The
Profession(Blacksmith) feat is not. For a Wizard who's schtick is
making items I'd rate the Item Creation feats as "crunchy", but not
for any other class or application of wizard less focused on such
things. To be crunchy, they have to be in a context that makes them
valuable in terms of character power.
Fluff: Anything that is more description than substance. Other than
specific granted (somewhat variable) powers, familiars are more fluff
than anything else. Players will lavish extensive descriptive effort
and detail describing their warhorse. The only crunchy part of that
warhorse is it's HP total/hit dice. In 4e, almost all of what makes
one power that pushes things around the playfield different from
another that does mechanically the same thing is Fluff. The actual
rule content is simple, abstract, and applies the same way no matter
how you describe it. All the differentiation is therefore Fluff.
These are my opinions... but they are absolutely and incrontrovertably
the one and only true answer in MY game. (Feel free to chose
differently in yours.)
Alcore

Now tell me that I am using the terms incorrectly and complete your
journey to the Dark Side!

[Will in New Haven]

        What do these two terms mean to you?
      http://youtu.be/kkTA8-B1Pc4
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art:http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube:http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57

Crunch:  Game mechanics associated with rules, generally that are
directly associated with some percieved improvement or modification of
character power and survivability.  I exclude from "crunch" game
mechanics that clearly have non-competitive or combat application.
For instance:  Power Attack Feat is CRUNCH.  The
Profession(Blacksmith) feat is not.  For a Wizard who's schtick is
making items I'd rate the Item Creation feats as "crunchy", but not
for any other class or application of wizard less focused on such
things.  To be crunchy, they have to be in a context that makes them
valuable in terms of character power.
Fluff:  Anything that is more description than substance.  Other than
specific granted (somewhat variable) powers, familiars are more fluff
than anything else.  Players will lavish extensive descriptive effort
and detail describing their warhorse.  The only crunchy part of that
warhorse is it's HP total/hit dice.  In 4e, almost all of what makes
one power that pushes things around the playfield different from
another that does mechanically the same thing is Fluff.  The actual
rule content is simple, abstract, and applies the same way  no matter
how you describe it.  All the differentiation is therefore Fluff.

Warhorses don't get attacks in 4e? Is it just as easy to fight on the
back of a palfrey you bought for two bits yesterday as on a trained
warhorse? Can you get a farmer's horse that you stole to stay within
combat range of a dragon just as well as you can a trained destrier?

--
Will in New Haven

[Matthew Miller]

Post by Will in New Haven
Warhorses don't get attacks in 4e? Is it just as easy to fight on the
back of a palfrey you bought for two bits yesterday as on a trained
warhorse? Can you get a farmer's horse that you stole to stay within
combat range of a dragon just as well as you can a trained destrier?

In short, no. There's crunch for that.

[Alcore]

On Oct 31, 6:24 pm, Will in New Haven

Post by Will in New Haven

        What do these two terms mean to you?
      http://youtu.be/kkTA8-B1Pc4
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art:http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube:http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57

Crunch:  Game mechanics associated with rules, generally that are
directly associated with some percieved improvement or modification of
character power and survivability.  I exclude from "crunch" game
mechanics that clearly have non-competitive or combat application.
For instance:  Power Attack Feat is CRUNCH.  The
Profession(Blacksmith) feat is not.  For a Wizard who's schtick is
making items I'd rate the Item Creation feats as "crunchy", but not
for any other class or application of wizard less focused on such
things.  To be crunchy, they have to be in a context that makes them
valuable in terms of character power.
Fluff:  Anything that is more description than substance.  Other than
specific granted (somewhat variable) powers, familiars are more fluff
than anything else.  Players will lavish extensive descriptive effort
and detail describing their warhorse.  The only crunchy part of that
warhorse is it's HP total/hit dice.  In 4e, almost all of what makes
one power that pushes things around the playfield different from
another that does mechanically the same thing is Fluff.  The actual
rule content is simple, abstract, and applies the same way  no matter
how you describe it.  All the differentiation is therefore Fluff.

Warhorses don't get attacks in 4e? Is it just as easy to fight on the
back of a palfrey you bought for two bits yesterday as on a trained
warhorse? Can you get a farmer's horse that you stole to stay within
combat range of a dragon just as well as you can a trained destrier?
--
Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Sorry.. I have no idea how to handle war-horses in 4e. I was
speaking more from my preferred 3.5 point of view there... But to
stick with that point of view: Yes, war-horses get attacks, but the
only stat you really need to feed into the rules engine is the War-
horse's Hit-Dice/level. That one stat derives all the other stuff
that's game-mechanics relevant (for most normal cases). It's Crunch.

You can name your warhorse Bob. You can describe his temprement and
other personality traits. You can illustrate him as a brown
clydesdale with white spots. You can select inside a broad range of
specific phyical traits like height and weight. None of this makes
any difference in the rules. It's all Fluff.

Now if you encounter a druid with an unaccountable collection of
spells that only affect Clydesdales, then some or all of that Fluff
might get Crunchy... But that would just plain be wierd and I would
expect to find such a thing only as a plot or story hook of some kind.

[Justisaur]

        What do these two terms mean to you?

It means someone needs to in the words of the immortal shatner 'get a
life.' It signals to me that whoever is speaking has gone too far down the
rabit hole, and get their head out of that hole. It means whoever's
talking is not someone worth listening to, just like when I hear marketing
speak or other useless jargon.

- Justisaur

[Justisaur]

Post by Justisaur

        What do these two terms mean to you?

It means someone needs to in the words of the immortal shatner 'get a
life.' It signals to me that whoever is speaking has gone too far down the
rabit hole, and get their head out of that hole. It means whoever's
talking is not someone worth listening to, just like when I hear marketing
speak or other useless jargon.

Now I'm wondering how something from 2010 got at the top of my queue.

My HD just crashed and I had to reinstall a newsreader, but it's showing up at the top in GG too, weird.

- Justisaur

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Justisaur

Post by Justisaur

        What do these two terms mean to you?

It means someone needs to in the words of the immortal shatner 'get a
life.' It signals to me that whoever is speaking has gone too far down the
rabit hole, and get their head out of that hole. It means whoever's
talking is not someone worth listening to, just like when I hear marketing
speak or other useless jargon.

Now I'm wondering how something from 2010 got at the top of my queue.
My HD just crashed and I had to reinstall a newsreader, but it's showing up at the top in GG too, weird.

It's showing up at the top of GG because you'd responded to it

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Justisaur

        What do these two terms mean to you?

It means someone needs to in the words of the immortal shatner 'get a
life.' It signals to me that whoever is speaking has gone too far down the
rabit hole, and get their head out of that hole. It means whoever's
talking is not someone worth listening to, just like when I hear marketing
speak or other useless jargon.

Dunno, distinguishing between books which are largely about mechanics and largely about flavor or settings strikes me as something reasonable to do.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 9:09:21 AM UTC+11, Justisaur

Post by Justisaur

        What do these two terms mean to you?

It means someone needs to in the words of the immortal shatner
'get a life.' It signals to me that whoever is speaking has
gone too far down th

e

Post by Justisaur
rabit hole, and get their head out of that hole. It means
whoever's talking is not someone worth listening to, just like
when I hear marketin

g

Post by Justisaur
speak or other useless jargon.

Dunno, distinguishing between books which are largely about
mechanics and largely about flavor or settings strikes me as
something reasonable to do.

Doing so with buzzwords, however, contributes little to the
discussion. If anything at all.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Justisaur

        What do these two terms mean to you?

It means someone needs to in the words of the immortal shatner
'get a life.' It signals to me that whoever is speaking has
gone too far down th

e

Post by Justisaur
rabit hole, and get their head out of that hole. It means
whoever's talking is not someone worth listening to, just like
when I hear marketin

g

Post by Justisaur
speak or other useless jargon.

Dunno, distinguishing between books which are largely about
mechanics and largely about flavor or settings strikes me as
something reasonable to do.

Doing so with buzzwords, however, contributes little to the
discussion. If anything at all.

"<blah> is about 90% crunch" or "<title> is almost all fluff" tells you a fair bit about the releases if you know what fluff and crunch are.

[Tetsubo]

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Justisaur

Post by Tetsubo
What do these two terms mean to you?

It means someone needs to in the words of the immortal shatner
'get a life.' It signals to me that whoever is speaking has
gone too far down th

e

Post by Justisaur
rabit hole, and get their head out of that hole. It means
whoever's talking is not someone worth listening to, just like
when I hear marketin

g

Post by Justisaur
speak or other useless jargon.

Dunno, distinguishing between books which are largely about
mechanics and largely about flavor or settings strikes me as
something reasonable to do.

Doing so with buzzwords, however, contributes little to the
discussion. If anything at all.

"<blah> is about 90% crunch" or "<title> is almost all fluff" tells you a fair bit about the releases if you know what fluff and crunch are.

If someone uses a term and the person understands that term, even if
they hold that term in derision, it is a valid term. I use crunch and
fluff all the time. I even use them when talking to my wife about gaming
books and she doesn't game. But she understands what I mean. Humans talk
in shorthand all the bloody time. Some folks don't seem to like the
terms 'crunch' and 'fluff' when applied to role-playing games. Oh well.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 10:53:06 AM UTC+11, Gutless

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Justisaur

        What do these two terms mean to you?

It means someone needs to in the words of the immortal
shatner 'get a life.' It signals to me that whoever is
speaking has gone too far down th

e

Post by Justisaur
rabit hole, and get their head out of that hole. It means
whoever's talking is not someone worth listening to, just
like when I hear marketin

g

Post by Justisaur
speak or other useless jargon.

Dunno, distinguishing between books which are largely about
mechanics and largely about flavor or settings strikes me as
something reasonable to do.

Doing so with buzzwords, however, contributes little to the
discussion. If anything at all.

"<blah> is about 90% crunch" or "<title> is almost all fluff"
tells you a fair bit about the releases if you know what fluff
and crunch are.

Buzzwords are only useful to those who knows the buzzwords. Common
usage words are useful to far more people.

And you have a funny definition of "fair bit."
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[h***@gmail.com]

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 10:53:06 AM UTC+11, Gutless

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Justisaur

        What do these two terms mean to you?

It means someone needs to in the words of the immortal
shatner 'get a life.' It signals to me that whoever is
speaking has gone too far down th

e

Post by Justisaur
rabit hole, and get their head out of that hole. It means
whoever's talking is not someone worth listening to, just
like when I hear marketin

g

Post by Justisaur
speak or other useless jargon.

Dunno, distinguishing between books which are largely about
mechanics and largely about flavor or settings strikes me as
something reasonable to do.

Doing so with buzzwords, however, contributes little to the
discussion. If anything at all.

"<blah> is about 90% crunch" or "<title> is almost all fluff"
tells you a fair bit about the releases if you know what fluff
and crunch are.

Buzzwords are only useful to those who knows the buzzwords. Common
usage words are useful to far more people.

along with all other words.
To me fluff and crunch are more jargon than buzzwords, jargon is words used in an area because they convey meaning quickly, buzzwords are words thrown in because they're trendy and get you attention.

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
And you have a funny definition of "fair bit."

Elves of <world>, is it going to be mainly about their customs or societies or a whole heap of new character options, weapons, feats etc?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

On Friday, November 4, 2016 at 3:00:56 AM UTC+11, Gutless

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 10:53:06 AM UTC+11, Gutless

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 9:09:21 AM UTC+11,

Post by Justisaur

        What do these two terms mean to you?

It means someone needs to in the words of the immortal
shatner 'get a life.' It signals to me that whoever is
speaking has gone too far down th

e

Post by Justisaur
rabit hole, and get their head out of that hole. It
means whoever's talking is not someone worth listening
to, just like when I hear marketin

g

Post by Justisaur
speak or other useless jargon.

Dunno, distinguishing between books which are largely
about mechanics and largely about flavor or settings
strikes me as something reasonable to do.

Doing so with buzzwords, however, contributes little to the
discussion. If anything at all.

"<blah> is about 90% crunch" or "<title> is almost all fluff"
tells you a fair bit about the releases if you know what
fluff and crunch are.

Buzzwords are only useful to those who knows the buzzwords.
Common usage words are useful to far more people.

along with all other words.
To me fluff and crunch are more jargon than buzzwords, jargon is
words used in an area because they convey meaning quickly,
buzzwords are words thrown in because they're trendy and get you
attention.

Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
And you have a funny definition of "fair bit."

Elves of <world>, is it going to be mainly about their customs
or societies or a whole heap of new character options, weapons,
feats etc?

Moving goalposts. The discussion was about specific buzzwords.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[masochist]

Post by h***@gmail.com
"<blah> is about 90% crunch" or "<title> is almost all fluff" tells
you a fair bit about the releases if you know what fluff and crunch
are.

It also tells you about the speaker/writer. 'fluff' tends to
indicate something seen as superfluous, spurious, or even
actively unwanted. IME, people making this distinction tend to be
the sort who rollplay rather than roleplay--the murderhobos
inhabiting so many living campaigns. I don't have the opinions of
others upthread, but I have come to regard people making the
distinction as folks I probably won't have fun playing with.

The words used for setting content--fluff, flavor--seem to
implicitly demean the content to me, as though they are of
secondary importance. Why not "rules" and "setting", perfectly
viable words that are at once descriptive and neutral? Because
the people who came up with the dichotomy have a rollplaying
bias.

[Paul Colquhoun]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 22:59:33 -0000 (UTC), masochist <***@pobox.com> wrote:
| On 2016-11-03, ***@gmail.com scribbled these curious markings:
|> "<blah> is about 90% crunch" or "<title> is almost all fluff" tells
|> you a fair bit about the releases if you know what fluff and crunch
|> are.
|
| It also tells you about the speaker/writer. 'fluff' tends to
| indicate something seen as superfluous, spurious, or even
| actively unwanted. IME, people making this distinction tend to be
| the sort who rollplay rather than roleplay--the murderhobos
| inhabiting so many living campaigns. I don't have the opinions of
| others upthread, but I have come to regard people making the
| distinction as folks I probably won't have fun playing with.
|
| The words used for setting content--fluff, flavor--seem to
| implicitly demean the content to me, as though they are of
| secondary importance. Why not "rules" and "setting", perfectly
| viable words that are at once descriptive and neutral? Because
| the people who came up with the dichotomy have a rollplaying
| bias.


I'd view calling it "flavour" as a more positive outlook. While "fluff"
is something you can do without, or possible see as actively bad,
playing a flavourless game is much less appealing.

[Tetsubo]

Post by masochist

Post by h***@gmail.com
"<blah> is about 90% crunch" or "<title> is almost all fluff" tells
you a fair bit about the releases if you know what fluff and crunch
are.

It also tells you about the speaker/writer. 'fluff' tends to
indicate something seen as superfluous, spurious, or even
actively unwanted. IME, people making this distinction tend to be
the sort who rollplay rather than roleplay--the murderhobos
inhabiting so many living campaigns. I don't have the opinions of
others upthread, but I have come to regard people making the
distinction as folks I probably won't have fun playing with.
The words used for setting content--fluff, flavor--seem to
implicitly demean the content to me, as though they are of
secondary importance. Why not "rules" and "setting", perfectly
viable words that are at once descriptive and neutral? Because
the people who came up with the dichotomy have a rollplaying
bias.

The only bias I'm seeing here is yours. The term 'fluff' as being used
in this thread far out dates role-playing games. It has been in news
reporting for ages. And I do use it to mean superfluous setting
material. Most setting material is useless to me. I want rules or
'crunch' with only a bare minimum of setting. I'm a role-player. Of
course I probably won't pass your criteria for that. I must be doing
wrongbadfun.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Post by Tetsubo

Post by masochist

Post by h***@gmail.com
"<blah> is about 90% crunch" or "<title> is almost all fluff"
tells you a fair bit about the releases if you know what fluff
and crunch are.

It also tells you about the speaker/writer. 'fluff' tends to
indicate something seen as superfluous, spurious, or even
actively unwanted. IME, people making this distinction tend to
be the sort who rollplay rather than roleplay--the murderhobos
inhabiting so many living campaigns. I don't have the opinions
of others upthread, but I have come to regard people making the
distinction as folks I probably won't have fun playing with.
The words used for setting content--fluff, flavor--seem to
implicitly demean the content to me, as though they are of
secondary importance. Why not "rules" and "setting", perfectly
viable words that are at once descriptive and neutral? Because
the people who came up with the dichotomy have a rollplaying
bias.

The only bias I'm seeing here is yours. The term 'fluff' as being used
in this thread far out dates role-playing games. It has been in
news reporting for ages. And I do use it to mean superfluous
setting material. Most setting material is useless to me. I want
rules or 'crunch' with only a bare minimum of setting. I'm a
role-player. Of course I probably won't pass your criteria for
that. I must be doing wrongbadfun.

People who object to "rollplaying" as shallow and meaningless are
louder than people who object to, for lack of a more insulting
term, diceless narrative roleplaying as boring and "not a game,"
but both exist, and both are quite committed to their positions.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Mart van de Wege]

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 9:09:21 AM UTC+11, Justisaur

Post by Justisaur

        What do these two terms mean to you?

It means someone needs to in the words of the immortal shatner
'get a life.' It signals to me that whoever is speaking has
gone too far down th

e

Post by Justisaur
rabit hole, and get their head out of that hole. It means
whoever's talking is not someone worth listening to, just like
when I hear marketin

g

Post by Justisaur
speak or other useless jargon.

Dunno, distinguishing between books which are largely about
mechanics and largely about flavor or settings strikes me as
something reasonable to do.

Doing so with buzzwords, however, contributes little to the
discussion. If anything at all.

On the other hand, you don't get to arbitrarily decide what constitutes
'buzzwords' and what constitutes 'jargon'.

Mart

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Post by Mart van de Wege

Post by Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy

Post by h***@gmail.com

Post by Justisaur

        What do these two terms mean to you?

It means someone needs to in the words of the immortal
shatner 'get a life.' It signals to me that whoever is
speaking has gone too far down th

e

Post by Justisaur
rabit hole, and get their head out of that hole. It means
whoever's talking is not someone worth listening to, just
like when I hear marketin

g

Post by Justisaur
speak or other useless jargon.

Dunno, distinguishing between books which are largely about
mechanics and largely about flavor or settings strikes me as
something reasonable to do.

Doing so with buzzwords, however, contributes little to the
discussion. If anything at all.

On the other hand, you don't get to arbitrarily decide what
constitutes 'buzzwords' and what constitutes 'jargon'.

Neither you do, wingnut.

If we're both here, I wonder if Little Tommy will be along soon,
too.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Vincenzo Beretta]

Post by Tetsubo
What do these two terms mean to you?

Long answer.

The modern Italian language is mostly derived from the ancient Sicilian,
mixed with Florentine, with Occitanic influences. A lot of French
troubadours migrated from France to Southern Italy (when it was still a
Norman kingdom) and brought part of their language with them. Occitanic, in
turn, "contaminated" Sicilian, and bits of it became part of Italian. There
are still today small enclaves in Calabria and Sicily where they speak
dialects derived from the old Occitanic language.

This, today, is something "linguists" wank to, and that you study in
Universities. But I guess that back in XIV Century, giving all this mixing,
there were people having conniptions because "this is not a PROPER word,
this is not HOW you should call it!!"

All of this to say that "Crunch and Fluff" are two terms, related to RPG
games, which will have linguists wank to when they study the story of the
hobby in the XXVI Century. But I guess that back in our XXI Century there
are people having conniptions because "this is not a PROPER word, this is
not HOW you should call it!!"

So, to sum it up, these term mean to me that the whine against "l33t
language" of today is the culture of tomorrow. The conclusions, I'll keep
for myself.

[Alcore]

Post by Vincenzo Beretta

Post by Tetsubo
What do these two terms mean to you?

Long answer.
The modern Italian language is mostly derived from the ancient Sicilian,
mixed with Florentine, with Occitanic influences. A lot of French
troubadours migrated from France to Southern Italy (when it was still a
Norman kingdom) and brought part of their language with them. Occitanic, in
turn, "contaminated" Sicilian, and bits of it became part of Italian. There
are still today small enclaves in Calabria and Sicily where they speak
dialects derived from the old Occitanic language.
This, today, is something "linguists" wank to, and that you study in
Universities. But I guess that back in XIV Century, giving all this mixing,
there were people having conniptions because "this is not a PROPER word,
this is not HOW you should call it!!"
All of this to say that "Crunch and Fluff" are two terms, related to RPG
games, which will have linguists wank to when they study the story of the
hobby in the XXVI Century. But I guess that back in our XXI Century there
are people having conniptions because "this is not a PROPER word, this is
not HOW you should call it!!"
So, to sum it up, these term mean to me that the whine against "l33t
language" of today is the culture of tomorrow. The conclusions, I'll keep
for myself.

And this is a remarkably FLUFFY answer to the topic. ;-)

(Full of Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing.)

[Harold Groot]

Post by Tetsubo
What do these two terms mean to you?

Crunch: A cold breakfast cereal, more fully "Captain Crunch".

Fluff: A spreadable form of sugar, more fully "Marshmallow Fluff".

Two great tastes that taste great together.

Why - should they have any other meanings?

[Jim Davies]

Post by Tetsubo
What do these two terms mean to you?
http://youtu.be/kkTA8-B1Pc4

Crunch: rules
Fluff: background

--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.aaargh.org

There is no God. But there is pudding!

[c***@yahoo.com]

Post by Jim Davies

   What do these two terms mean to you?
  http://youtu.be/kkTA8-B1Pc4

Crunch: rules
Fluff: background

This is roughly my split, but I give a slightly negative connotation
to both.

Crunch to me isn't just rules, but dense rules, written like a math
textbook on non-linear algebra. It's boring to read because it, well,
reads like a textbook.

The worst kind of fluff to me are vignettes -- if i wanted to read
mediocre gaming fiction, I'd buy a novel. At least a section on
history or geography has some relevance to play. a vignette usually
does not.

To me, the ideal situation is to have the two blended together so
neither dominates.

Brandon

[tussock]

Post by Tetsubo
What do these two terms mean to you?

Crunch is resolution mechanics for the game, generally conflict
resolution in classic RPGs.

Fluff is creating a shared gameworld for players, to more easily
portray assorted encounters against. So a Wizard casting /Fireball/ in a
city street can _mean something_.


The crunch of an Ogre is 4HD, Mv 30, large greatclub with reach @ +8.
The fluff is when you describe a massive, disheveled psychopath who wants
to eat your horse, on the road to Greyport, wearing red clan insignia,
and carrying fresh imperial coins: and that neatly says a lot about the
area, recent events, and hints at deeper troubles.

[Alcore]

Post by Tetsubo
What do these two terms mean to you?

    Crunch is resolution mechanics for the game, generally conflict
resolution in classic RPGs.
    Fluff is creating a shared gameworld for players, to more easily
portray assorted encounters against. So a Wizard casting /Fireball/ in a
city street can _mean something_.
The fluff is when you describe a massive, disheveled psychopath who wants
to eat your horse, on the road to Greyport, wearing red clan insignia,
and carrying fresh imperial coins: and that neatly says a lot about the
area, recent events, and hints at deeper troubles.
--
    tussock

Most excellent reply. Very "crunchy" to the topic.

[TREE]

Post by Tetsubo
What do these two terms mean to you?
http://youtu.be/kkTA8-B1Pc4

These terms are also often used to describe different types of gaming,
not just differences in elements within one game. D&D, in general, is
viewed as "crunchy" compared to some other systems. White Wolf is
generally viewed as less crunchy. White Wolf (for example) has mechanics
to resolve gameplay, but they come up less frequently. The entire game
style is different.

This is obviously not an absolute. You *could* play a game of political
intrigue (fluff) in D&D, and you *could* play a dungeon crawl where the
point is to kill things and take their stuff (crunch) in just about any
system.

Different groups can also play the same game different ways. Some groups
prefer the minutiae of tactics on a big grid with miniatures and
counting squares (crunch). Others don't want to spend that much time on
combat, which they view as a minor part of the game, and would rather
spend game time advancing the *plot* (fluff?).