Fluff versus Crunch?

[Kholai]

For me, fluff is very much something I make myself.

She's not a Wildling swordsage, she's a Dryad monk who carries around the bonsai she's attached to.
He's not a Fighter/Mage/Thief, he's an elven dilettante who just happens to have a knack for everything.
That's not a crossbow, it's a gnomish flintlock.
How could there possibly be a problem with a Paladin/Rogue multiclass choice?

So.... Where do you stand on fluff versus crunch?

Is that two handed weapon that deals 2D6 damage plus 1.5 Strength modifier a Great Sword, or is it a Naginata? Or an enchanted branch from a rose bush?

Is "Strike of Perfect Clarity" the same or different from "Strike of the Giantslayer"?

Are classes exactly as they are fluffed to be, or simply building blocks for the character to build their own concept?

[Lord_Gareth]

There was a rather comprehensive thread on this subject; click the quote link in my siggy.

[Totally Guy]

If the fluff is versus the crunch, one needs to give. The pair work better in harmony with each other.

[kyoryu]

The only possible answer to this is "It depends" - on the game/specific instance/group/person/scenario/etc.

In some games, fluff is by design separate from crunch. In Champions, you don't buy a laser gun, you buy a 10d6 killing ranged attack with an obvious removable focus.

In D&D, I normally expect a greatsword to be a greatsword. But I'll happily improvise with players, so long as they dont expect to see magic bonsai trees in treasure piles.

Even classes in D&D 3.x (you realize how specific that is, right?) I can see the answer varying depending on the class. Fighter? Sure, you picked up some fighting. Wizard of Thay? I might be more inclined to say "yeah, you actually need to match the fluff on that one".

OTOH, in Burning Wheel, your lifepaths are *explicitly*, according to the rules, what you *did in your life*. If you took a Noble lifepath, *you're a Noble*. Period.

So, yeah. It depends.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If the fluff is versus the crunch, one needs to give. The pair work better in harmony with each other.

...this. So much this. I like the fluff attached to my D&D classes. I have no compunction whatsoever about changing it to suit a character though. Fluff and crunch really are better when they get along.

[Averis Vol]

agreeing with totally guy and kelb panthera. most fluff in dnd is....well, very narrow sighted. so generally any time i make someone who uses a big stick he's a warrior, whether it be Vaziel of the Armsreach, war commander of Dawnhall or Hravingar, warrior of the forests, or even the battle sorcerer Kharm Ravask, champion of fate; were you to ask what they were it would all generally be "I am a warrior with a blade."

So yeah, Fluff is much easier to change then crunch so I tend to base my build off crunch and tweak some fluff so the character as a whole works and isn't compromised on one side or another.

[jseah]

@Lord Gareth:
Oh gods, it's the flame hair thread. I remember that thread, it was responsible for a pretty significant amount of my post count.
I also remember it as Timmy the schizophrenic UMD rogue, and ginger bread trees. Good days, those were, when I had the time to post incessantly.

Btw, is ShadowKnight12 still around? I have a 100page magic system to show him (40% done as I keep saying), it's the one I mentioned partway through the thread.

Come to think of it, I never managed to characterize rule of cool. Coming from a slightly older (and more cynical) point of view, I think doing this is impossible as I suspect that rule of cool is variable between groups of players.
Which of course only furthers my dislike of using it.

-------------------------
On topic:
As it should be obvious from the link in Gareth's sig, my position is that fluff and crunch are actually the same thing. Change one, change the other to match.

And before the old arguments are rehashed, I would like to redirect your attention to *that thread*. Whatever "new" argument would result has likely already come up in that one.

[Zale]

Hey, I was in that thread!

Flame Hair, heh.

[Lord_Gareth]

That thread is the reason I try to head off these fluff/crunch threads. I still have horrific nightmares about the abominations before both Man and Nature that happened in That thread.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I think I was in that thread too. At the least, I remember reading it. Flame hair, magic (not UMD/magic item) rogue.

Anyway, I like what Kyoryu said. For example, in Strands of Fate, my Ranged Power Attack certainly can be the searing divine fire of the sun god powered by PURE MARTIAL ARTS SKILLZ! It can also a wizard shooting fireballs. But in Exalted? No chance in hell that I can give my character Infernal Charms and call him a Solar. D&D is somewhere in the middle. At the most extreme, it is possible to make Lord_Gareth's Magical RogueTM, but it also has premade fluff for very casual gamers.

[WarKitty]

I wonder if some of this doesn't depend on the game and DM as well. I tend to dislike overmuch focus on the fluff of classes because I write my own worlds with their own power structures and organizations and pantheons, and have no desire to try to fit whatever Paizo or WoTC have into my worlds. Showing up with the default fluff might well result in you being told to go back and try again after reading the setting I gave you.

Other DM's I know are uncomfortable with players changing the fluff around because it circumvents what they see as natural limits on player behavior. The last main DM I had saw it that way - he considered class fluff to be part of how his world worked and was uncomfortable with people changing it, because he saw people playing it out as part of the in-game limits on powergaming.

[Gamer Girl]

I like both, but most people have an odd disconnect between the two that just drives me crazy.

You see it all the time, especially with prestige classes: ''The Elemental Scholar studies the Elemental Planes'' sounds interesting but then they get abilities like ''plus one on DCs'' and ''can transform into an elemental'' and lots of ''blasty stuff'' all very odd for a 'scholar', and makes you wonder what an ''elemental blaster'' would look like.

And this is both official stuff and homebrew.


It's always a sad thing: A player will come up with a concept, say they want to be a sneaky in the shadows type. So the player will look for a martial shadow class and find one with great fluff...but sadly the crunch is like 'shadow sneak attack' and 'shadow blast' and such.

[Kholai]

There was a rather comprehensive thread on this subject; click the quote link in my siggy.

Comprehensive is the word, seems people got pretty intense in there.


The only possible answer to this is "It depends" - on the game/specific instance/group/person/scenario/etc.

I can appreciate that, this sort of thing certainly never comes up during BESM games.


Wizard of Thay? I might be more inclined to say "yeah, you actually need to match the fluff on that one".

What if a campaign doesn't have a "Thay"? Would this be an insurmountable issue, or could similar fluff be made? Would you be happy with the guideline: "fluff must not contradict crunch"?


If the fluff is versus the crunch, one needs to give. The pair work better in harmony with each other.

Well put, I suppose versus isn't the best word for it, fluff needs to fit mechanics just as surely as the reverse. I find myself happier to refluff something than I do to create new crunch though, you can't so easily build a game around the fluff as you can the mechanics.


...

First half: That actually sounds awesome. DM refluffing is every bit as valid and important as player refluffing, and that sort of thing helps develop a feeling of connection in the world.
Second half: I have to admit this confuses me, assuming this was D&D, was he actually inclined to attach fluff to the most mechanically powerful/least restrictive classes (I'm thinking pretty much Wizards here) to tone them down in the same way as any of the weaker options with heavier fluff? Or just "fluff is stone, but feel free to become a reality altering avatar of magic without any restrictions"?

[lesser_minion]

I personally don't like the argument that "fluff is mutable" because it gives way too easily to "fluff is meaningless", "fluff is worthless", "fluff is unimportant", and so on. The reality is that the fluff is no more or less sacred than the crunch is.

Overall, it's important that mechanics match the fluff. It's possible to change fluff (Tip-Ex exists), and it isn't automatically wrong or inadvisable to do so either (as long as you don't actually use Tip-Ex in your rulebooks).

However, I don't think changing things for the sake of change is a good idea, and I think it's important to have a clear understanding of what you are trying to model before you model it, even when modelling something fictional.

[Jay R]

The very words "fluff" and "crunch" seem to leave out one side of this discussion.

If you're just playing the rules of the game, separate from simulating anything, then the rules are "crunch" and what it represents is "fluff".

But if you are trying to simulate a character in a fantasy world, then the fantasy world you are trying to simulate is the (artificial) reality, and the game mechanics are merely a tool to make the simulation work. Calling the goal "fluff" and the limited attempt to reach it "crunch" just doesn't make sense.

Both approaches to the game exist; both types of players exist.

If you are mostly about the rules, you build the crunch, and then put a costume of fluff on it to suit your fancy. You probably also want to play RAW, and get annoyed when the DM makes decisions against the rules.

If you are mostly about simulation, you start with an idea about a character, and then see how close you can get within the rules. And you probably think that the rules are a simulation tool, to be modified whenever that makes the simulation better.

(And yes, this is an incomplete description of how people feel. But it does get across two competing approaches.)

[Lord_Gareth]

I personally don't like the argument that "fluff is mutable" because it gives way too easily to "fluff is meaningless", "fluff is worthless", "fluff is unimportant", and so on. The reality is that the fluff is no more or less sacred than the crunch is.

For some players, fluff IS unimportant. Mind you, I don't tend to play in those games, but there are gradients of distinction, you know. I'd prefer my fluff to be consistent (published fluff isn't), well-written (published fluff isn't) and interesting (published fluff isn't), so in 3.5 I refluff in order to acquire those things. Sometimes it's a matter of necessity, of course - someone likes certain mechanics but they belong to an organization the game world doesn't have, etc - and other times it's just about trying to bring a concept to life and not wanting to have to butt heads with the idiotic assumptions WotC built into the game.

I do appreciate well-written published fluff - White Wolf and Shadowrun are particular favorites - but having no qualms about changing that fluff isn't the same as writing fluff off entirely.

[tensai_oni]

I play Mutants and Masterminds in non-standard settings, so all powers have custom fluff by default.

[Ashdate]

I personally don't like the argument that "fluff is mutable" because it gives way too easily to "fluff is meaningless", "fluff is worthless", "fluff is unimportant", and so on. The reality is that the fluff is no more or less sacred than the crunch is.

I disagree, or rather, I agree with you in spirit but disagree in that i think "crunch" should be "more sacred" that fluff.

Have you ever read "Freakanomics"? There is a line in there that is really potent to me; it goes something like this: "Morality is the way we wish the world worked. Economics is how the world actually works."

I believe roughly the same thing about the fluff/crunch debate; the fluff ultimately is beholden to the "crunch" when designing a game, because ultimately it's the crunch (not the fluff) that determines the limits and bounds of a game in the absence of a higher power (i.e. a GM).

Don't get me wrong; fluff is critical for getting people to gronk your mechanics easily (everyone would scratch their head if D&D said that Wisdom was the most important stat for dealing damage with a sword), but the 3.5 crunch wouldn't fundamentally change if you swapped all instances of the word "dexterity" with "charisma". It might, however, if (for example) Charisma gave a bonus to all saving throws, intelligence bonus to AC, etc. Just because we can potentially imagine the connection between the "fluff" (a smarter person will avoid more blows) and "crunch" ("add your intelligence bonus to your AC") doesn't make it an inherently "good" mechanic compared to another.

Indeed, with what we know about 3.5e, adding one's intelligence bonus to AC (by default) would be a pretty bad design move! It would make a class like a Wizard even more powerful (as if they needed any help). However, we know it can work in 4e, even if a Wizard dumps a score of 20 in it. The system is designed to not give a huge advantage to a Wizard just because their Intelligence also adds to their AC.

And that's I think my ultimate point: you can change the fluff, but crunch must be relatively stable for a system to perform as designed. As a DM, players should feel free to "refluff" their short sword into a "katar" or something, but I'm certainly going to draw the line if they want to "change" their "1d6" short sword into a "1d12" short sword. This difference indicates (what I feel) is the big difference: fluff changes how people see the game; crunch actually changes the game.

[Kholai]

I personally don't like the argument that "fluff is mutable" because it gives way too easily to "fluff is meaningless", "fluff is worthless", "fluff is unimportant", and so on. The reality is that the fluff is no more or less sacred than the crunch is.

I don't think anyone, here or in the previous thread has suggested that there be no fluff on a character, that it was meaningless or anything of the sort, however. Is this an argument that has actually snuck in somewhere?


Overall, it's important that mechanics match the fluff.

Would you agree that the fluff must also meet the mechanics?

This isn't simple wordplay, if, for example, the fluff of the Fighter is that they are the amazing at fighting, when mechanically they're not actually that great, if fluff is equally sacred to mechanics, should either be changed? Or should both remain inviolate?

If an overall character concept is a spellsword, how important is the character concept compared to the individual abilities/classes/feats that make them up?

Where are the lines drawn?

[Hiro Protagonest]

I personally don't like the argument that "fluff is mutable" because it gives way too easily to "fluff is meaningless", "fluff is worthless", "fluff is unimportant", and so on. The reality is that the fluff is no more or less sacred than the crunch is.

Metal is mutable. You can heat and then bend or melt it into diferent forms. Is it worthless? No. Sure, at the end of the day, it's still metal, but nobody's going to look at a blast door and think "alright, who refluffed the giant shield?". The properties of metal are like crunch. The form of metal is like fluff. Both a blast door and a giant shield are really tough and durable, but while people may think that one can be improvised in place of the other (they can fill the same role in situations), they aren't the same thing.

Then we get things that are super rules-lite, like Wushu, which give you a piece of raw creation stuff and say "use your imagination to turn this into something".

[lesser_minion]

I don't think anyone, here or in the previous thread has suggested that there be no fluff on a character, that it was meaningless or anything of the sort, however. Is this an argument that has actually snuck in somewhere?

It's more that it's a very common response to complaints that mainly deal with the fluff. I don't think anyone's actually said that fluff is worthless or the like, but a lot of people do like to pick on it.


Would you agree that the fluff must also meet the mechanics?

This isn't simple wordplay, if, for example, the fluff of the Fighter is that they are the amazing at fighting, when mechanically they're not actually that great, if fluff is equally sacred to mechanics, should either be changed? Or should both remain inviolate?

I would expect one or the other to change. What you change is a matter of preference: it's easier to change the fluff, but I think changing the crunch would be more satisfying in the end.

[WarKitty]

First half: That actually sounds awesome. DM refluffing is every bit as valid and important as player refluffing, and that sort of thing helps develop a feeling of connection in the world.
Second half: I have to admit this confuses me, assuming this was D&D, was he actually inclined to attach fluff to the most mechanically powerful/least restrictive classes (I'm thinking pretty much Wizards here) to tone them down in the same way as any of the weaker options with heavier fluff? Or just "fluff is stone, but feel free to become a reality altering avatar of magic without any restrictions"?

Refluffing actually works great as a tandem activity, with a lot of back-and-forth between players and DM during character creation. I build a basic setting; players tell me what kind of character and background they want; I create more detail on those spots.

I don't think any of us ever played wizards. I know he pushed my druids to adhere to fluff, which led to one incredibly long argument about "but druids are supposed to hate undead!" between us when another player brought in a necromancer. I don't think it actually worked particularly well, but I see why he wanted it. Most DM's I know irl have had more people want to play the blasty wizards than anything else, so they tend not to think about it that much.

[BRC]

I wonder if some of this doesn't depend on the game and DM as well. I tend to dislike overmuch focus on the fluff of classes because I write my own worlds with their own power structures and organizations and pantheons, and have no desire to try to fit whatever Paizo or WoTC have into my worlds. Showing up with the default fluff might well result in you being told to go back and try again after reading the setting I gave you.

Other DM's I know are uncomfortable with players changing the fluff around because it circumvents what they see as natural limits on player behavior. The last main DM I had saw it that way - he considered class fluff to be part of how his world worked and was uncomfortable with people changing it, because he saw people playing it out as part of the in-game limits on powergaming.
I consider fluff-as-written to be a good "Jumping off point" for fluff as I apply it. However, it's also important to remember that Fluff does not equal Archetype. There are only three classes that I feel are really tied to a specific archetype: The Druid, The Barbarian, and the Paladin. A lot of other classes are usually presented with a specific archetype, but that's not the built-in fluff of the class.

Take, for example, the Rogue. Everybody knows about the classic "Thief" rogue. They're sneaky, untrustworthy, and will steal anything that's isn't nailed down unless they have a Crowbar handy, in which case nails are no obstacle.
But that's not really the "Fluff" of the rogue as I see it. That's not supported by the mechanics. That's just the most common Archetype of the rogue. A city watch detective could just as easily be a rogue. A cunning nobleman who knows how to fight dirty, a military scout, an indiana-jones style action-archeologist.

As a DM I dislike people changing MY fluff once I put it into the setting. If I say "The city of skullsburg openly embraces necromacy, and mindless undead are a common sight on the street", don't say "My character was exiled from Skullsburg for being a necromancer!".
However, until I've actually declared the fluff to be part of the game world, I love it when players provide their own fluff.

[Delwugor]

I prefer my own fluff; so systems like M&M, Mini-Six and Strands of Fate work well. I can come up with any concept I desire and then match generic mechanics to make it work well.
With D&D 3.5 I tend to keep with core as it is alright with allowing me to add my own character fluff. But I avoid most other D&D books and all prestige classes as they are never the fluff I'm looking for.

[SowZ]

There is a certain amount of fluff I have never seen argued by any GM. For example, my full attack with a greatsword is described in a way where I do a powerful swing, then I let go with one hand to grab his by the throat and run him through with the other, then roundhouse him off my sword to kill him. Technically, I wouldn't get 1.5 damage on swing two and the third attack WOULD be an unarmed strike, but since the dude is dead anyway it doesn't matter.

Or a cleave that kills two dudes. That is supposed to be a swing that cuts through the first foe. But I could say a hit a guy so hard he spins around and accidentally shoots his ally next to him with a crossbow.

THIS type of fluff I have never seen denied.

[obryn]

I seriously re-fluff everything. For me, mechanics tell me a lot about what something does in the game rules. There's multiple ways in which a single rules element can manifest itself in the game's narrative.

I go the other way, too. From there, if there's mismatches, I'll tweak the mechanics right back.

For example, quite some time ago, the PCs got into a fight with a sunwarped mutant gladiator in my Dark Sun game. He was very big, very fast, and four-armed.

Why was he four-armed? Well, I decided his mechanics were identical to a (Monster Vault) Hydra's. Just, instead of bites, he had brutal, cleaver-like shortswords. From there, I changed the mechanics a bit right back and took out the head severing/regeneration/burn-it-with-fire bit; as far as I was concerned, this was a wash, mechanically.

With monsters this is easy enough to justify - after all, I could have built him as a unique solo from scratch. But why bother when I can take an existing monster and let WotC do my work for me?

On the player level, my group isn't generally very needy, fluff-wise. I had a Thri-Kreen monk who wanted to do Starblade Flurry and ... heck, whatever the sling feat is. I let them both happen with a chatkcha instead of the typical sling/shuriken - very thematically-appropriate, and IMO pretty cool.

-O

[Kholai]

If you'll forgive the analogy, it's like walking into a restaurant, ordering a rare steak, being served a well-done steak, and trying to decide whether or not to send it back. Sending it back will take time and require you to make a fuss, but in the end, you'll have what you ordered and you might get a free dessert.

So... your meal had too much crunch and not enough fluff? :smallconfused:

To take a purely 3.5 example. Someone has a concept of an agile swordmage, with evasion, attacks almost as good as a fighter and spells almost as good as a full on mage.

Would you consider it necessary to craft a complete homebrew class which gave, for example, Evasion, level 9 spells, 16 BAB, and two or three bonus feats? Or is creating the perfect blend of levels to give you the crunch you wanted to fit the fluff adequate? Is there a difference in how you perceive them to fit the fluff?


I don't think any of us ever played wizards. I know he pushed my druids to adhere to fluff, which led to one incredibly long argument about "but druids are supposed to hate undead!" between us when another player brought in a necromancer. I don't think it actually worked particularly well, but I see why he wanted it. Most DM's I know irl have had more people want to play the blasty wizards than anything else, so they tend not to think about it that much.

Hm, well whatever works for the group is great. I know too many people tend to jump into "wrongbadfun" whenever a DM or player does something that they didn't like. So long as he plays low-optimisation I assume it generally works out?
I have to say I far prefer the first method though.


...

Of those three classes, I think the only one that I'd consider really straight jacketed would be the Paladin, since for that one the mechanics themselves are pretty much fluff. I could definitely see a "Paladin" that didn't actually have any levels in Paladin though, so I'd consider it a one-way limitation.
A barbarian could simply be a civilised man with "no time for book larnin'" and a really bad temper, or "rage" fluffed into "battle focus" (I believe someone did an excellent job of that in the previous thread).
Even the Druid could be an evil Druid could potentially be a druidic Ur-Priest equivalent, stealing the power for personal gain. Apart from metals interfering with their magic they don't have that many mechanical rules apart from "moderately apathetic".

Do you consider it better or worse having classes that are closely tied to their fluff / archetype? Would more classes with specific fluff be better, or few broad base classes with a lot of scope for customisation in abilities and fluff?

It seems pretty much fair that DM fluff as the primary storyteller be the primary consideration, there should be enough space in the world to get most concepts you want for your character without stepping on anyone's toes, at least for most themes.

[Slipperychicken]

Both.

Fluff however you want, as long as the crunch backs it up.