Rules Citation Requested: Fluff vs Crunch

[LudicSavant]

It was done on purpose. They wanted to avoid the whole exact-word-and-legalese circus.

Yeah.

The implication from the books, as far as I can gather, is that there is a line but they wanna leave it up to DMs to determine exactly where it is.

[diplomancer]

"fluff" is a rule I don't want to follow, "crunch" is a rule I want you to follow. Those are the meanings of the words as they are actually used in such arguments.

[Knaight]

Let's talk qualitative mechanics here. Fluff is absolutely a thing - sidebar fiction, chapter start fiction, etc. is all over RPGs. The example of how to play generally has some real fluff to it, etc. That doesn't mean that all rules must be quantitative though, which brings me to qualitative mechanics. Outside D&D these are incredibly well established as a thing; nobody is going to seriously argue that the Aspects listed on a Fate character sheet aren't mechanics. D&D has historically used these rarely enough that they're not really embedded in the consciousness of the playerbase, but they're there. Alignment is a qualitative mechanic. Inspiration is a qualitative mechanic. And yes, the restrictions on armor use for druids is a qualitative mechanic.

[Darth Ultron]

Seems like a lot of 5e is written in a fuzzy manner like that.

Really all of D&D ever was always written like this....and many other games too.

As a D&D book is a rulebook...technically it has no fluff and all crunch: but it really does not matter as the DM gets to decide what is ''real and true" in their game.

Page 5 says X, and page 44 says Y. The DM says that in their game, it's X. DM B says it is Y, and DM C says it's Lollypop. Nobody is ''right", but nobody is ''wrong".

There are no Official Rules Rulings. If there were...they would just be Rules. Sure the books are full of typos and mistakes, but that is a whole other issue.

And..even if you want to say that ''guy that works at D&D is a Rule Lord"...well, others can still just ignore him and play the game however they want.

[Red Fel]

I think Ninja Prawn's response was the most accurate. Notwithstanding the fact that you called it "Non responsive," PhoenixPhyre, I think it was extremely responsive. To wit:

I can't see anything in black and white, at least not in the PHB. Obviously the line between fluff and crunch has been blurred since 4e; there's no firm partition any more. But like, it doesn't take to much to separate it out. The fluff is almost always presented first, as in:

Darkvision. Accustomed to life underground, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions. You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light. You can't discern colour in darkness, only shades of grey.

The magenta section is clearly fluff, because it has no mechanical meaning. It's purely descriptive and can be freely changed or deleted without having any impact on the game (though it could have roleplaying implications). For example, if I change dwarves to be nocturnal forest-dwellers, that's a re-fluffing that doesn't affect their mechanics at all.

That last paragraph, I think, gives the most definitive explanation as to whether a line of text is fluff or crunch.

Let me back up. If you come into this thinking that everything is crunch, unless it is specifically fluff, which is what you claim in the OP, then you've already basically made your decision. Nowhere do the books say, "Hey, this next part is fluff." At least, not with specificity. However, if you instead approach it from a neutral position - text is either fluff or crunch, to be determined contextually - then Ninja Prawn's position makes sense if you summarize it as follows:

Language is fluff if it has no mechanical meaning, and its removal would have no impact on mechanics.

In the example above, the language, "Accustomed to life underground, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions," is precisely that. It's filler. You could remove it and the description of the ability would still be mechanically accurate and complete. Therefore, that sentence is fluff. By contrast, the sentence that follows it, "You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light," has mechanical impact. It describes the operation and modification of a character's line-of-sight mechanics. To remove it would change the description of the ability in a mechanical way. It is therefore crunch.

[LudicSavant]

I think Ninja Prawn's response was the most accurate. Notwithstanding the fact that you called it "Non responsive," PhoenixPhyre, I think it was extremely responsive. To wit:



That last paragraph, I think, gives the most definitive explanation as to whether a line of text is fluff or crunch.

Let me back up. If you come into this thinking that everything is crunch, unless it is specifically fluff, which is what you claim in the OP, then you've already basically made your decision. Nowhere do the books say, "Hey, this next part is fluff." At least, not with specificity. However, if you instead approach it from a neutral position - text is either fluff or crunch, to be determined contextually - then Ninja Prawn's position makes sense if you summarize it as follows:

Language is fluff if it has no mechanical meaning, and its removal would have no impact on mechanics.

In the example above, the language, "Accustomed to life underground, you have superior vision in dark and dim conditions," is precisely that. It's filler. You could remove it and the description of the ability would still be mechanically accurate and complete. Therefore, that sentence is fluff. By contrast, the sentence that follows it, "You can see in dim light within 60 feet of you as if it were bright light, and in darkness as if it were dim light," has mechanical impact. It describes the operation and modification of a character's line-of-sight mechanics. To remove it would change the description of the ability in a mechanical way. It is therefore crunch.

Yeah, that's about how I see it, too.

As Red Fel points out (and as I was trying to communicate earlier), the neutral position isn't "it's crunch, not fluff, unless the book says otherwise." It's "text is either fluff or crunch, to be determined contextually."

[EggKookoo]

I have yet to find it for anything in 5e. Of course a DM (or player, with DM permission) can alter anything, but that goes equally well for "rules". In the absence of such a textual authority, there can be no RAW distinction--anything written must be evaluated as part of the rules unless it specifically exempts itself.

I'm confused why the DM (or a player with DM approval) can't simply declare fluff to be non-binding, either in a blanket fashion or in particular cases, based on the numerous places in the PHB and DMG that lets the DM customize the game.

Why are you looking for something specifically referring to fluff? If, as you say, by RAW fluff is considered "rules," and by RAW the DM can alter the rules, it follows the DM can alter the fluff specifically (and a player can as long as the DM is cool with it).

What else do you need?

[Unoriginal]

I'm confused why the DM (or a player with DM approval) can't simply declare fluff to be non-binding, either in a blanket fashion or in particular cases, based on the numerous places in the PHB and DMG that lets the DM customize the game.

Why are you looking for something specifically referring to fluff? If, as you say, by RAW fluff is considered "rules," and by RAW the DM can alter the rules, it follows the DM can alter the fluff specifically (and a player can as long as the DM is cool with it).

What else do you need?

PhoenixPhyre is asking if there any in-text fluff vs crunch separation that'd allow someone who pretend to be following RAW to discard one part of the rules as "not important because it's fluff".

Any rule can be declared non-binding by the DM. But people who do RAW arguments often argue that RAW is what the rules are without DM intervention. So the question is: if you claim to follow RAW, is there any part of the rules that separate fluff from crunch (like the case was in 4e) to allow one to discard the fluff parts as non-rules.

[KorvinStarmast]

One of the most explicit instances showing fluff and crunch are the same is the Druid's "doesn't wear metal armors" feature.

I agree with you, and yet I wish we had not raised this from the dead ...

Except it's not.

We have another thread for that conversation, won't you please take it there, or start another one on that topic?

From a RAW perspective, the restriction on metal armors and druids is exactly as binding as the rule prohibiting a druid from wildshaping into a tarrasque. The rules themselves make no distinction between "mechanics" and "narrative fluff." They're all "rules".

Yes.

From my personal perspective, there are no rules except what a table agrees to abide by. ...Rule 0 is not so much an exception, but it's a reminder of the underlying reality--that the text does not have primacy. The table and its decisions as a whole do.

That is very sensible.

It says druids will not.

Mechanics =/= rules. There is nothing in the text that claims such a thing, nor is such a claim even meaningful in this edition.

Indeed, but we really need a separate thread for this never ending battle on that one little issue ...

And you still haven't responded to the original request, which was for evidence. I see people claiming a distinction, but no one has provided a citation. Which is what RAW demands. Live by RAW, die by RAW.

I fought the RAW and the RAW run ...

Exactly. In 5e, as in many and even most RPGs, "fluff vs crunch" is an artificial distinction drawn by the person trying to make the artificial distinction.

And now our resident attorney will file his brief ...

A druid *will not* wear metal armor. So a person that willingly wears metal armor is not a druid.

Which is bound to get a rise out of someone ...

If I understand correctly, PhoenixPyre is arguing that there's no distinction between rules and flavor, unless the book explicitly tells you that there is. ... I think this calls for a smidgeon of common sense.

But not during a discussion on an internet forum. That requires other human characteristics.

No, but there is a DM in the rules. And Druids will not wear metal armor You wear it, and you're no longer a druid.

Reference to the DM being the arbiter is on page 6 of the PHB. It's a rule.

Hmm. The text doesn't say that a druid won't wear metal armor willingly. It says they will not, hard stop. Who knows what kinds of calamitous reality-rending incidents will occur if you try to slip a gauntlet onto a sleeping druid's hand in order to prevent the impossible?

As with practical jokes during summer camp, the druid will most likely wet the bed.

It was done on purpose. They wanted to avoid the whole exact-word-and-legalese circus.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[EggKookoo]

PhoenixPhyre is asking if there any in-text fluff vs crunch separation that'd allow someone who pretend to be following RAW to discard one part of the rules as "not important because it's fluff".

Any rule can be declared non-binding by the DM. But people who do RAW arguments often argue that RAW is what the rules are without DM intervention. So the question is: if you claim to follow RAW, is there any part of the rules that separate fluff from crunch (like the case was in 4e) to allow one to discard the fluff parts as non-rules.

So I don't know if there's any single, simple declaration about it but in the DMG in Chapter 1, under Creating a Campaign, the text goes on at length about how you're encouraged to invent your own setting, with details down to how common magic is, how currency works, what the atmosphere and flavor is like, etc. Fluff is often just an overall term for "the details of how things work in my setting," which would mean it's within the RAW to adjust as necessary. At least for the DM.

That might seem like a weak point to make but frankly it seems appropriate to the question.

[diplomancer]

has there ever been an argument about whether a particular rule is "fluff" or "crunch", when the person arguing the position "it's fluff" did not want the rule to apply to his character or otherwise wanted not to follow the rule (or, to make it more general, to argue that not following this rule is totally ok, and why are you so intent in following this rule?))

interestingly enough, it usually happens when there is a clear mechanical benefit (either in power or versatility) to not following the rule.

So a useful heuristic is this: if people are arguing about whether a particular rule is fluff or crunch, it's crunch.

[JackPhoenix]

And Druids will not wear metal armor You wear it, and you're no longer a druid.

What *are* you, then? You still have all the abilities of a druid, and you're still wearing metal armor.

Again, the rules don't actually prevent a druid from putting on metal armor.

Devotion paladins don't lie or cheat... but they still can, and if they do, they are no longer devotion paladins, and the rules actually tell you that and explain what happens. That is not the case for druids wearing metal armor.

In 3.5, druids were actually prevented from wearing metal armor, and when they put it on, there were consequences for doing so. There still wasn't anything actually stopping them from putting on metal armor, and they haven't stopped being druids if they did, they just lost access to some abilities. But nothing like that happens in 5e.

[EggKookoo]

What *are* you, then? You still have all the abilities of a druid, and you're still wearing metal armor.

Obviously you're a Drood.

BTW, since the "will not wear metal armor" is a condition under the Proficiencies property, it means a Druid is not proficient with metal armor even if it would otherwise be eligible. Of course this brings up another question: is a multiclass fighter/druid actually a fighter/druid when wearing metal armor?

[Vorpalchicken]

I'm very open to refluffing but the Druid not wearing metal armor isn't fluff. It's a hard rule. Otherwise it wouldn't be brought up in the multiclassing rules section of the PHB.

I'm not saying that if, say, a Druid is forced to wear it he will cease to be a Druid. But the Druid will remove the armor at the first opportunity. If you've built a fighter/druid, work with your DM to see what fantasy non-metal heavy armor might be available. There are plenty of examples of low level magic items of this sort in AL for example.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll be clear and brief. The idea that crunch and rules are synonymous is wrong and causes lots of problems for the game. RAW as used on these forums is an illusion, an attempt to pass off a particular interpretation of the text as somehow privileged and special. It's not. The text is but one source of "rules", and has no intrinsic extra weight. And RAW is worse--it cherry picks which text to use and which to leave behind as "fluff".

Edit: and as to what the default is, my connection is that asking that question presumes too much. It presumes a distinction that has no support that anyone has been able to provide. And yes, if you accept that the text has primacy, you're stuck with a lot of bad results. That's because you made the mistake of granting the text power it never asked for or was designed for.

[EggKookoo]

If you've built a fighter/druid, work with your DM to see what fantasy non-metal heavy armor might be available. There are plenty of examples of low level magic items of this sort in AL for example.

A monk can wear armor (and retain the benefits of Unarmored Defense), as long as the "armor" is decorative and doesn't provide a mechanical benefit to AC. Like, costume armor that's really paper mache, perhaps for a stage performance or the equivalent of cosplay. Likewise, the druid not wearing metal armor is flavor text if the druid can get armor made out of something that, mechanically, is identical to wearing metal armor.

[ad_hoc]

Druids and armour is crystal clear.

In a broader sense, if you think all that matters in the game is "crunch" you really should just go play a strategy game. There are lots out there that are very good.

The rules are designed story/narrative first. You can't understand the game if you throw out the story.

[Xetheral]

So the question is: if you claim to follow RAW, is there any part of the rules that separate fluff from crunch (like the case was in 4e) to allow one to discard the fluff parts as non-rules.

How is the answer to that question in any way useful? The only thing an answer would provide is dubious support to one side or the other in an argument over how accurate someone is when they claim to follow RAW.

If someone claims to follow RAW, and via discussion I discover that they appear to mean something different by that label than I would expect, I would simply ask questions to discover what it means to them. It's not the end of the world for the statement "I follow RAW" to contain some ambiguity.

[Zalabim]

There is no such distinction, except in the head of certain posters. It's a false dichotomy in every edition of 5e except 4e, where it was made explicit.

The rules are the rules. Some are role-playing rules, some are world rules, some are variant or optional rules, some are combat rules, some are resolution rules. Many blend some combination of those. Some are more easily modifiable. Some are vague and imprecise. Some are pretty obviously descriptive or examples, but even then can contain things that will affect gameplay directly in a rules-like fashion, if you will.

For an example of the last, each class and race has a section that is heavy on descriptive / example text. But even then, the section describing Monk Ki (for example) affects the how a DM will treat Ki when the question comes up as to if it is magic, and how it interacts with other rules based on if things are magic.

I think it would be very illustrative for the argument in general, but I've definitely used it in specific about the monk, to look at the System Reference Document and see that it has no descriptive text. No fluff. If the rule is in the SRD, any part of the PHB rule that the SRD omitted is (probably) fluff.

has there ever been an argument about whether a particular rule is "fluff" or "crunch", when the person arguing the position "it's fluff" did not want the rule to apply to his character or otherwise wanted not to follow the rule (or, to make it more general, to argue that not following this rule is totally ok, and why are you so intent in following this rule?))

interestingly enough, it usually happens when there is a clear mechanical benefit (either in power or versatility) to not following the rule.

So a useful heuristic is this: if people are arguing about whether a particular rule is fluff or crunch, it's crunch.

Unfortunately, people often do argue for a mechanical benefit because of fluff. A quick example might be someone arguing for better vision in a dark area 100' away even though they have Darkvision 60', because the first line of darkvision just says 'you have better vision in dark areas,' and if you don't give me better vision than a human in this case, then you're ignoring the rule for darkvision about me having better vision in dark areas.

[diplomancer]

the answer to that argument is "you do have better vision than a human, you can see 60' further away than he can, that is better and if you dont think it is I will limit your darkvision to 15', which is still better than a human", not to try to argue that "you have better vision in dark areas is fluff", because it is actually not.

[Kadesh]

I'll be clear and brief. The idea that crunch and rules are synonymous is wrong and causes lots of problems for the game. RAW as used on these forums is an illusion, an attempt to pass off a particular interpretation of the text as somehow privileged and special. It's not. The text is but one source of "rules", and has no intrinsic extra weight. And RAW is worse--it cherry picks which text to use and which to leave behind as "fluff".

Edit: and as to what the default is, my connection is that asking that question presumes too much. It presumes a distinction that has no support that anyone has been able to provide. And yes, if you accept that the text has primacy, you're stuck with a lot of bad results. That's because you made the mistake of granting the text power it never asked for or was designed for.

[Citation Needed]

[qube]

TL;DR: RAW is a myth, as the english language is vague on it's own.

When you confuse fluff with rules, you'll be stuck with rules that still need Rule 0 - the DM as arbiter - to decide which way to interprete it.

-----------------------

Which is what RAW demands. Live by RAW, die by RAW.

on druid armor / metal armor / RAW : armors that are "made of metal":

... when is an armor "made of metal"?

Surely my car isn't "made of rubber", or my computer "made of gold" - dispite a car containing rubber (namely its tires) and a computer containing gold (as conductor in chips).

Sorted by certainty it is made of metal

• metal
  Half Plate. consists of shaped metal plates that cover most of the wearer’s body.
  
• metal, worn with
  Chain Shirt. Made of interlocking metal rings, a chain shirt is worn between layers of clothing or leather.
  Breastplate. This armor consists of a fitted metal chest piece worn with supple leather.
  
• metal, includes nonmetal
  - Chain Mail. Made of interlocking metal rings, chain mail includes a layer of quilted fabric ...
  - Plate. Plate consists of shaped, interlocking metal plates to cover the entire body. A suit of plate includes gauntlets, heavy leather boots, a visored helmet, and thick layers of padding underneath the armor ... (Plate is made from metal, a suit of plate is composite)
  
• contains metal and non-metal
  Splint. This armor is made of narrow vertical strips of metal riveted to a backing of leather
  
• contains non-metal and metal
  Scale Mail. This armor consists of a coat and leggings (and perhaps a separate skirt) of leather covered with overlapping pieces of metal
  
• metal not mentioned
  Ring Mail. This armor is leather armor with heavy rings sewn into it.
  Studded Leather. Made from tough but flexible leather, studded leather is reinforced with close-set rivets or spikes.
  
• metal not mentioned - as expected
  (padded, leather, hide)

Yet RAW does not specify where to draw the line ...

Hmm. The text doesn't say that a druid won't wear metal armor willingly. It says they will not, hard stop. Who knows what kinds of calamitous reality-rending incidents will occur if you try to slip a gauntlet onto a sleeping druid's hand in order to prevent the impossible?

... is it specified what your level of intelligence must be before you can figure out which armor is metal and which isn't? In fact, if your character comes from an area where he's never seen metal (ex. a Chult tribe at forehand untouched by civilisation) - it doesn't matter what - as the entire concept of metal would be unknown to 'm.

And then, the argument can be made, that if your druid doesn't know it's metal, it no longer falls under doing something willingly.

Again, as with made of rubber: I wouldn't willingly severly harm other people - yet the butterfly effect nots that I'm possibly am.

[Kadesh]

{Scrubbed}

[Unoriginal]

'Written rules are myth'

"Written rules" and "rules as written" aren't the same thing.

Everyone acknowledge there are rules written. "Rules As Written" is a supposed "rules without interpretation or DM intervention" state that some people claim to have their arguments based on.

[Kadesh]

"Written rules" and "rules as written" aren't the same thing.

Everyone acknowledge there are rules written. "Rules As Written" is a supposed "rules without interpretation or DM intervention" state that some people claim to have their arguments based on.

You're going to have to back up your argument a lot stronger than that to suggest that the rules as they written is a different beast from the rules written down.

[EggKookoo]

Druids and metal armor aside, what are some actual, concrete, at-table problems people have run into as a result of fluff/crunch confusion? I suspect most of them can be solved with a little dash of common sense or, perhaps, re-framing from a more pure crunch perspective (such as I said upthread where it's irrelevant from a crunch perspective that a druid can't wear metal armor if the druid can replace it with something mechanically identical).

Without some grounding in actual at-table problems, this could easily slide into a kind of anti-RAW dogma.

[qube]

'Written rules are myth'

My god this site at times. Never seen such pretentiousness.

Sorry mate, but misintrepreting my words, and instead of asking for clarification (or just reading the full text), just assuming you're right, that's pretentiousness.

Oppositely, the quote "RAW is a myth" - is actually an old quote, from back in the 3rd edition days, from the WotC forums.

3. RAW is a myth.

This is one of the dirty little secrets of the board. The Most Holy RAW is invoked continuously by those who want to give their arguments the veneer of officiality. The problem is, RAW is generally applied not as "The Rules as Written," but rather as "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah." The RAITAYCPIWN. Not quite as catchy an acronym, granted, but that's what it boils down to.

~~ Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization

[Unoriginal]

You're going to have to back up your argument a lot stronger than that to suggest that the rules as they written is a different beast from the rules written down.

*sigh*.

You're one to talk about pretentiousness.

"Written rules" = the fact that rules are written. People know the rules are written, they can read.

"Rules As Written" = the claim to follow the rules as they are written in an objective fashion and without interpretation. Which, as demonstrated in this very thread, is often an inaccurate claim as there is always a layer of subjective interpretation. For ex: the Druid's class feature "a druid will not wear metal armor" has been interpreted by people who claims to follow the RAW as "even if a druid wears a metal armor, nothing happen" because there is no rules on what happen should a druid wear a metal armor, despite the fact that according to what is written a druid will not wear metal armors, at all.

You pretended that people said there was no written rules, which is different from saying that it is impossible to follow the rules in a 100% objective fashion.

Druids and metal armor aside, what are some actual, concrete, at-table problems people have run into as a result of fluff/crunch confusion? I suspect most of them can be solved with a little dash of common sense or, perhaps, re-framing from a more pure crunch perspective (such as I said upthread where it's irrelevant from a crunch perspective that a druid can't wear metal armor if the druid can replace it with something mechanically identical).

I've seen people claim that the gesture described in the Burning Hands text meant you needed to have both hands free to cast this spell, and that Power Word Kill required you to talk even if you used Subtle Metamagic because the text says you have to speak the power word. Also there is a debate if the verbal component of the spell Suggestion is "tell the suggestion" or "do a bunch of mumbo-jumbo incantations, then tell the suggestion".

Yes, as you said, those things can be solved with "a little dash of common sense".

More specifically, though, there is no fluff/crunch confusion because there is no real separation between the two. All is a question of how the DM will rule the instance.

Without some grounding in actual at-table problems, this could easily slide into a kind of anti-RAW dogma.

Well, that's some impressive fear mongering and bad-connotation you have here, pal. There is no "anti-RAW dogma" because there is no actual unalterable RAW. The game tells you to modifies things as you wish and come up with your own interpretations.

[Zalabim]

Druids and metal armor aside, what are some actual, concrete, at-table problems people have run into as a result of fluff/crunch confusion? I suspect most of them can be solved with a little dash of common sense or, perhaps, re-framing from a more pure crunch perspective (such as I said upthread where it's irrelevant from a crunch perspective that a druid can't wear metal armor if the druid can replace it with something mechanically identical).

Without some grounding in actual at-table problems, this could easily slide into a kind of anti-RAW dogma.

Another example (from this thread) is whether all uses of Ki are magical [they are not] based on (mis)reading the fluff text in the introduction to the monk class. This applies to whether magic resistance means a creature has advantage on saves against stunning strike, and whether flurry of blows can be used while in a beholder's antimagic cone.

[Unoriginal]

Another example (from this thread) is whether all uses of Ki are magical [they are not] based on (mis)reading the fluff text in the introduction to the monk class. This applies to whether magic resistance means a creature has advantage on saves against stunning strike, and whether flurry of blows can be used while in a beholder's antimagic cone.

And that is easily solved when one apply the "is this magical" test from the FAQ, which is pretty common sense.