Topic: Fluff

[markc]

  Reading the randomness thread Jolt said that the current state of most games is to produce books heavy on fluff and light on rules.

 I can say that I agree with this as most of the new books I have seen are 90% fluff if not more. I can understand how it is easier to produce fluff and why you do not just have new rules and mechanics. One being the new book has to have bigger and better rules than the others or the problem of new rules overshadowing of the base rules.

 But any way what is your opinion of "Fluff" in game books.
MDC

[RandalThor]

Personally, I like fluff - it helps with getting a feel for the game. I also do not think that writing fluff is easy in the least. Rules are far easier than trying to put together a world and a bunch of stories that help explain the world.

The major reason I have ALL of the Warmachine and Horde books is because of the fluff and the art. I certainly do not play the miniatures game, but I would play the RPG version.

Also, many times I wouldn't even be lookng at the game for the rules, but the flavor material it brings to the table.

As I said in another post, I prefer to think of these games more as art than science so geting rid of the art is a bad thing, imo.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

I personally don't like fluff in game books and think they should be left in world/campaign books.
My opinion is that rules should exist to help a GM manage his world, not define his world for him. In other words, the GM knows how his world works and wonders how to manage part aspects of it; rules exist to help him in such a task (another reason why I like RM2 and its many options for each concept rule; because a GM can pick the one appropriate for his own world) but shouldn't influence him about how his world is. I don't think rulebooks should give GM new concepts, ideas or material for his world; that's for what his own imagination, books (novels as well, not just campaign books), movies, comics, etc. are.

[Arioch]

IMHO fluff should be closely tied to crunch. In other words: the rules should directly support what the description of the setting says.
If a game tells me that the setting I'll be playing in is about "modern gothic horror" or "epic fantasy" I want rules that actually support that! It's really useless to spend pages and pages describing in full detail a setting if you don't give me a way of replicating what I read in my games.

So long histories, detailed descriptions of regions, etc are very nice, but I can read a book if I want inspiration for a game world: rules that really have an impact on gameplay and that make a setting unique are worth 10 thousands of pages of descriptions.

[jolt]

To me, fluff and art are two different things but they can definitely support each other.

I agree with OLF in that I prefer fluff to be set aside for world/campaign books.  Even then more than a couple just leads to book bloat.  Apart from the main campaign book (if there is one), I would like to see other fluff products as pdf's.  They cost less to produce and buy and you only have to print out the sections you need, if any.  I tend to like games less when the mechanics and the world are inextricably linked (though, of course, they should make sense together as Arioch said) because it always feels to me as if I'm playing in someone else's story.  Either my characters are meaningless because only the official fluff advances anything or my characters trump the fluff making large portions of it useless or nonsensical.

Fluff can be fun to read even if you don't use it but since fluff doesn't cost any less than crunch it's a bit of an expensive read.  Unless I'm playing in a game based on something like Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica or M...*ahem* Not-RM then I generally would just prefer the rules and I'll do the rest myself.

jolt

[markc]

 I can say that I do not think of art as fluff but as an enhancement to the product. And as always some do it better than other's out there in the game universe.

 Jolt;
 Yes that is the way I feel. Too much fluff is a very expensive read vs rules but at the same time I do thinnk there is some fluff or a lot of fluff needed to get a campaign off the ground. Then all you have to do it to get the players to read it also.

 IMO I like the format which provides a good overview of an area and then proceeds with greater detail with important sites in that area. I also like how the Echoes of Heaven provides plot hooks as well as Story Arc Facts so you know what can be changed and what cannot. This allows my players and me to change things.

MDC

[RandalThor]

Just like the rules, the fluff isn't entirely set in stone. You can use, not-use, rearrange, do what ever you want with it. It is just there to give you a feel and inspire you (read: not take over). No matter how imaginative you are, you will always do better if you have some sort of outside influence - be it talking to another person, reading a novel, listening to music. And by "do better" I mean you will get more ideas than just going it alone in your own head.

This harkens back to another thread about Tool-box games vs. Integrated games. I was raised in the era of integrated games where you would have a complete game come out, both rules and setting. Like Psi-World, Gangbusters, Star Ace. In some cases, the rules would be minor-to-moderate adjustments of existing rules if the games were made by the same company. Fantasy Games Unlimited (FGU) was big on this; they would put out a game every 6 months or so, with a different setting/genre but the rules were modifications of the rules used for the earlier games (and, generally had a DnD/ADnD feel to them). I like this (though not the DnD like rules  ).

I am ok with tool-box games* (Hero system is a prime example) but they do have a tendancy to be very complex with all the "stuff" there for any genre of game. It is too much. I pick up the Hero 5th edition and use it for weightlifting!! Oh, then they will put out a genre book that streamlines it down for you to cover just those things of a (insert genre here) nature. But that is ANOTHER book. Unless you want to spend the work-week full of hours to do it yourself, you need to buy the book. That is book bloat.

*So long as someone is willing to put in the work on designing every little item, spell/power/psionic ability, race, plant, animal, magical creature, magical rock, psionic rock, technological rock....ok I am sure you get my point. I have fun playing the games much more than working on the behind the scenes stuff. Though I do have some fun doing that, just not the massively tedious rules/number-crunching stuff. I like coming up with the plots, NPCs personal aspects and drives, that sort of stuff.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Just like the rules, the fluff isn't entirely set in stone. You can use, not-use, rearrange, do what ever you want with it. It is just there to give you a feel and inspire you (read: not take over). No matter how imaginative you are, you will always do better if you have some sort of outside influence - be it talking to another person, reading a novel, listening to music. And by "do better" I mean you will get more ideas than just going it alone in your own head.

I don't think anyone disputed that fluff is useful. Just that it shouldn't be mixed with the rules themselves. I don't think people read rules to get inspiration; it's for what "books (novels as well, not just campaign books), movies, comics, etc." are. People read rules for the mechanics part.

[RandalThor]

I pick up a game book. Said game is about something. The fluff is that something.

I believe that this turning away from the art ideal and going to the science ideal of gaming is why games like DnD 4e are thriving. It is about balanced numbers and crunch! crunch! crunch! Personally, I play these games for the exact same reason I read novels and watch movies, to be transported to a place of adventure - even if it is only for a little while. Only, in the game I am able to make some of the decisions about what is going on.

Getting rid of the fluff is getting rid of the imagination and you might as well be playing monopoly, imo.

[RandalThor]

Plus, as I am not a ga-jillionaire yet, I cannot afford to constantly purchase multiple books - which ALWAYS cost more than a single book. Putting them together is just economical.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

I pick up a game book.

A game rule book.

Said game is about something.

No, a game is about what you make it to be about. Rules are mechanics of the game, not the game itself.

I believe that this turning away from the art ideal and going to the science ideal of gaming is why games like DnD 4e are thriving.

D&D4 has plenty of source/campaign material, and a well-designed system for the population it targets. I doubt having less "fluff" in the rule books themselves would have impacted much how popular the game itself is.

Personally, I play these games for the exact same reason I read novels and watch movies, to be transported to a place of adventure - even if it is only for a little while. Only, in the game I am able to make some of the decisions about what is going on.

And? Who said anything about what you do in the game itself? You can put still keep the whole fluff IN your game, even if the rulebook is just about the rules.

Getting rid of the fluff is getting rid of the imagination and you might as well be playing monopoly, imo.

Who said anything about "getting rid of the fluff"? I wrote, twice, that it was about removing it from the rulebooks, to keep it in campaign books.

[Arioch]

I pick up a game book. Said game is about something. The fluff is that something.

No, the fluff is just some nice description you read in the game book. Without rules which actually make that something "happen" in your games, fluff means nothing. Otherwise, you could just pick up a random novel and use it as a rpg.

It is about balanced numbers and crunch! crunch! crunch!

And you know what? Without that crunch you cannot play that game.

[RandalThor]

No, the fluff is just some nice description you read in the game book. Without rules which actually make that something "happen" in your games, fluff means nothing. Otherwise, you could just pick up a random novel and use it as a rpg.

And I cannot get a feel for a game, why I would enjoy it, what am I going to be "seeing" when I play it, etc without some flavor there to show me how they connect with the playing. Now, with a game that is just rules, I can learn to play it so long as someone else has gone through the rulebook (which I would not have been able to, as I would have gotten extremely bored) and I learned in game.

If everyone was so keen on just rules and no fluff, why are RPG rulebooks packaged to be physically attractive? Obviously appearance (which is fluff) is important*. Otherwise, just to save money RPG companies would be selling all of their rulebooks in simple black-and-white schemes with no interior art. Just a manuscript. It would be waaaayyyy cheaper.

And you know what? Without that crunch you cannot play that game.

Actually, I can. For me, the rules can totally be just a way of gauging "levels" of things. In an encounter I have, and will in the future, totally ignore the numbers/rules to make the situtation play out as fun for the players.


*As most RPGs in their opening statements tell you the rules are not the most important part of a the game -they can be thrown out, changed, whatever you want for your fun - then I contend that what everyone here is calling fluff, is in fact is not the fluff. The rules are the fluff. The stuff previously known as fluff is now known as flavor - which is extremely important. 

[RandalThor]

Who said anything about "getting rid of the fluff"? I wrote, twice, that it was about removing it from the rulebooks, to keep it in campaign books.

So I still have to buty 2 books, when one will do. When I am a millionaire I will be OK with this, otherwise I'd rather buy one book.

[Arioch]

And you know what? Without that crunch you cannot play that game.

Actually, I can. For me, the rules can totally be just a way of gauging "levels" of things. In an encounter I have, and will in the future, totally ignore the numbers/rules to make the situtation play out as fun for the players.

Sorry but no, you can't play without rules. Rpgs are social games and as such they need rules to be played. Even if you decide to ignore numbers you're actually following the basic rule of most rpgs: players say what their character want to do, GM tells them what happens.
If you choose to ignore even this rule you're not playing a game anymore, you're just narrating a story (and probably arguing with others people at the table since, without rules, there's no way of deciding who narrates what).

And I cannot get a feel for a game, why I would enjoy it, what am I going to be "seeing" when I play it, etc without some flavor there to show me how they connect with the playing. Now, with a game that is just rules, I can learn to play it so long as someone else has gone through the rulebook (which I would not have been able to, as I would have gotten extremely bored) and I learned in game.

No, wait, I think you misunderstood what I said. I'm not saying that rpgs books should be made only by rules. I'm saying that rules are what makes things "happen" in game so fluff alone, without rules supporting it, is worth nothing.
Imagine a rpg with a manual describing in detail a fantasy world, with knights, mages, dragons etc... but without any rule covering knights, dragons or mages. Would it be a good game?

*As most RPGs in their opening statements tell you the rules are not the most important part of a the game -they can be thrown out, changed, whatever you want for your fun - then I contend that what everyone here is calling fluff, is in fact is not the fluff. The rules are the fluff. The stuff previously known as fluff is now known as flavor - which is extremely important. 

And this is an habit which I personally abhor: I find it a ridicolous excuse for bad game design. It's like the authors of the game saying "we came up with this wonderful idea for a setting but we weren't able to desing rules actually supporting it. But players, don't worry: the GM will do everything for us, even if he payed $$ for a manual full of inconsistent rules which we never bothered to playtest".

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

And I cannot get a feel for a game, why I would enjoy it, what am I going to be "seeing" when I play it, etc without some flavor there to show me how they connect with the playing.

Ah, but for my part, I know my world and only needs the rules to handle it. As such, the description of the situation the rule manages is enough for me to project it on my world, and think about practical uses.

As most RPGs in their opening statements tell you the rules are not the most important part of a the game -they can be thrown out, changed, whatever you want for your fun

Even when "not the most important part of a the game", rules are important. As Arioch said, could you imagine "playing" without any kind of rules? And you're still misunderstanding us as wanting to make the rules absolute while we're merely arguing about separating it from the fluff. We're not saying "the rules are the most important part", or "let's only have rules"; we're saying "keep the rules and the fluff in separate books".

So I still have to buty 2 books, when one will do. When I am a millionaire I will be OK with this, otherwise I'd rather buy one book.

This is a better argument, but the reverse is true: why buy a book where half is fluff you don't need? You're talking from the POV that the fluff in a rulebook is always relevant to your game, but I'd rather say it's rarely relevant. What if your world is vastly different from the world about which the fluff is? Why would I, for instance, pay for the fluff in the D&D rulebooks about the sample gods when I don't have them. Sure, you can say that I don't know, I may get inspirations from it, but I'd rather say that it imposes me a setting I don't need; it's like forcing me to read a novel when buying the rules. If I want inspiration, I have enough novels to find them.

[thrud]

A nice package is always more fun to read.
The world should be described in it's own books imho.
RM's always been a toolbox and that fits me perfectly.

[Elton Robb]

And this is an habit which I personally abhor: I find it a ridicolous excuse for bad game design. It's like the authors of the game saying "we came up with this wonderful idea for a setting but we weren't able to desing rules actually supporting it. But players, don't worry: the GM will do everything for us, even if he payed $$ for a manual full of inconsistent rules which we never bothered to playtest".

Rolemaster works.

[Arioch]

And this is an habit which I personally abhor: I find it a ridicolous excuse for bad game design. It's like the authors of the game saying "we came up with this wonderful idea for a setting but we weren't able to desing rules actually supporting it. But players, don't worry: the GM will do everything for us, even if he payed $$ for a manual full of inconsistent rules which we never bothered to playtest".

Rolemaster works.

But RM manuals aren't built upon the assumption that rules are secondary and that the GM will constantly have to change them to make the game fun. Instead they say:

Once you, the Gamemaster, understand what is included within the scope of Rolemaster, you should feel free to customize the rules to fit your world. The Rolemaster system has been designed to allow this kind of customization without affecting the basic system balance.

Which is a lot different.
Plus, RM basic books have almost no fluff 

[markc]

 I guess I should have defined my question better.

1) Fluff: Background Story info or descriptions of the world, its people and how everything interacts.
2) Art: To me art is presentation item. To me it is an important item as seeing something interesting that is not words can draw many peoples first and second looks.
3) Rules: How things get done in the frame work of the rule box. By rule box I mean how the complete set of all rules work and what were they designed to work with or work for.

Thanks
MDC