Fluff & Mechanics

[reddir]

I saw an older discussion, and the topic of mixing fluff & mechanics came up, mostly by those who feel it is a very bad habit.

I would like to know what most of you think. Do you feel that fluff and mechanics should be divorced as much as is reasonably possible? Or do you feel that a player should try to have fluff and mechanics matched as closely as possible?

[Grail]

they should try to match up, but at the end of the day

the game is effectively combined story telling
the mechanics need to enable this
if the mechanics get in the way, then fluff must triumph
anything else
you may as well just do miniature wargaming

[Mnemnosyne]

Really depends on what you mean. If you mean that the character's mechanics should support what his fluff says, then yes, absolutely.

If you mean that any character that chooses a class for its mechanical benefits should be required to follow the fluff written in the sourcebooks about that class, then no. The mechanics are a series of mechanics and nothing more, and the fluff that's written in the books is one possible interpretation of those mechanical abilities, but not the only interpretation of them.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Here you go (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206955), 42 pages of discussion on the subject. Though, from what I hear, it gets pretty bad very early on.

I still get yelled at by people who were scarred by the thread, and I swear I had the best of intentions when I made it :smallfrown:

[Oracle_Hunter]

Oracle_Hunter's Rules for Fluff & Rules
(1) Rules should always reinforce Fluff, never contradict it.
(2) Not all Fluff needs Rules to back it

IMHO, the whole "disassociation" discussion is a sideshow. It is impossible to define disassociation such that it doesn't include things that people think are totally fine (e.g. HP, XP) or only includes things that a particular individual finds subjectively distasteful.

[Democratus]

It very much depends on the game. GURPS and Hero, for example, have mechanics that are designed to be entirely divorced from fluff. This is because the systems are supposed to be used for any kind of fluff you wish.

Then there are game systems like D&D or the World of Darkness. These fit within a certain genre but allow for several campaign styles within that genre. The rules should help enhance the nature of the characters in these worlds but need to be flexible to allow play within any of the several campaign worlds allowed.

Finally, there are games dedicated to one thing like Dragon Age or Call of Cthulhu. These rules should be designed to promote and encourage the feel of the unique world in which they are set.

[reddir]

The Dark Fiddler, I hadn't read that thread, but have it on my list now :)

From the Title, I suspect it might be a bit different from my concern, though I suspect it might be addressed at some point in the thread.

--------

For me, I like to imagine a character, and then find rules and mechanics to back up the fluff.

I almost feel that if I don't use the mechanics provided, when they are provided, that my fluff/concept does not count. Of course, there are not rules/mechanics for everything. For things where there are no mechanics, I feel fully justified on insisting on my fluff, even without the backing of rules.



But, I read another thread which included some heated posts that seemed to suggest my view was not only wrong but also bad, and quite possible what is causing the downfall of the 'good rp' experience. So now I wonder...

[erikun]

The answer to this question highly depends on the game. With a system that is intended to be generic, such as Gurps or Fudge, you don't want mechanics modeling the "fluff" much - this is because, in systems like these, it is assumed that the player would come up with a character and just pick or create the abilities that fit best. With these, a description is just to give you the idea of how the ability was intended to work; it is frequently intended that players would change the details themselves.

On the other hand, systems like World of Darkness or Shadowrun have the mechanics and "fluff" fairly heavily entwined. You could change part of the setting as you see fit, much as you could change part of the rules, but the game system is as much the setting as it is the mechanics - if not moreso. You could still play Shadowrun with just the mechanics and getting rid of any setting "fluff", but it wouldn't be much of a Shadowrun game.


As an aside, I'm rather annoyed by the term "fluff". It is used intentionally to indicate parts of the system that are, by definition, unnecessary. However, setting material is just as necessary or unnecessary as any rule or mechanic found in the same book. I've heard it said many times (frequently here) that you can just make up your own "fluff", but you can just make up your own rules as well - and, to be honest, there are people who tend to be fine with ignoring rules as well.



But, I read another thread which included some heated posts that seemed to suggest my view was not only wrong but also bad, and quite possible what is causing the downfall of the 'good rp' experience. So now I wonder...
There are a few people on these forums who seem to have a RAW-IS-LAW attitude. Try not to let such talk get to you too heavily; it is no more valid than someone calling the system you like to play badwrongfun compared to their prefered system.

Using mechanics when provided certainly makes sense; they tend to have more support throughout the system than simply "generic ability #32". Of course, there are times when the mechanics themselves are just poorly written and it would be better to simply create your own...

[kieza]

Well, there's mechanic-fluff and there's setting-fluff. Mechanic fluff is the description of an ability, and it really should match the effects of the mechanic. (i.e. no summoning skeletons with a fireball power.)

Setting fluff is a little less clear-cut. Personally, I hate it when a book comes out with, say, a prestige class based around an organization. It implies that nobody but a member of that organization (or someone from that region, etc.) can ever learn the prestige class' abilities, and that bugs me if I have a character that it makes sense would learn those abilities, but doesn't want anything to do with the organization.

[Shadowknight12]

Depends on personal preference. I made a post about this a while ago, but the basic gist of it is that the people who want fluff to match crunch as much as possible are the ones that seek games that are mostly simulationist in nature, and they want mechanics to simulate fluff. They want Rules A to simulate Situation A and Rules B to simulate Situation B. Having Rules A being able to simulate Situations A and B ruins their fun because it undermines their sense of simulation and verisimilitude.

I, not being too big on simulationism, prefer to divorce crunch from fluff as much as possible to maximise my freedom of choice.

[Mastikator]

The fluff is the goal and mechanics the means.

[Runeward]

You need both. The fluff has to be fluffy enough to be engaging. The crunch has to be crunchy enough to be clean, understandable, and make some semblance of sense. The two can't contradict each other. That sounds simple, but proves to be really challenging in practice.

[prufock]

A rose by any other name...

[reddir]

The answer to this question highly depends on the game. With a system that is intended to be generic, such as Gurps or Fudge, you don't want mechanics modeling the "fluff" much...

On the other hand, systems like World of Darkness or Shadowrun have the mechanics and "fluff" fairly heavily entwined.
I never thought of these in this way, but I see you are correct. Gurps seems to go out of its way to avoid limiting the fluff a player or GM might create.

And World of Darkness very heavily relies on the fluff - its critical.


There are a few people on these forums who seem to have a RAW-IS-LAW attitude. Try not to let such talk get to you too heavily; it is no more valid than someone calling the system you like to play badwrongfun compared to their prefered system.
The impression I got from the thread I mentioned was almost opposite of RAW-IS-LAW. They seemed to be saying: make up all the fluff you want, you don't need to rely on rules or systems to back it up. All you need to do is abide by the mechanics that do affect your character's interactions, and explain things with any story that matches the mechanical effects.


Using mechanics when provided certainly makes sense; they tend to have more support throughout the system than simply "generic ability #32". Of course, there are times when the mechanics themselves are just poorly written and it would be better to simply create your own...
I find that mechanics tend to dictate the 'feel' of gameplay, which in turn heavily influences what fluff makes sense. For example, GURPS tends to feel very gritty where as D&D 3.5 feels very heroic - its not just the fluff or lack thereof, it seems to be how the mechanics play out.

One thing I absolutely adore about D&D 3/3.5 is the amazing amount of fan-made material. There is just so much to play with :smallsmile:


Well, there's mechanic-fluff and there's setting-fluff. Mechanic fluff is the description of an ability, and it really should match the effects of the mechanic. (i.e. no summoning skeletons with a fireball power.)

Setting fluff is a little less clear-cut. Personally, I hate it when a book comes out with, say, a prestige class based around an organization. It implies that nobody but a member of that organization (or someone from that region, etc.) can ever learn the prestige class' abilities, and that bugs me if I have a character that it makes sense would learn those abilities, but doesn't want anything to do with the organization.

I agree with you but....that gets into the sticky world of playing D&D more as a point-buy or build-your-own-class system. For this to work, one must assume that abilities are balanced (in some way).


Depends on personal preference. I made a post about this a while ago, but the basic gist of it is that the people who want fluff to match crunch as much as possible are the ones that seek games that are mostly simulationist in nature, and they want mechanics to simulate fluff. They want Rules A to simulate Situation A and Rules B to simulate Situation B. Having Rules A being able to simulate Situations A and B ruins their fun because it undermines their sense of simulation and verisimilitude.

I, not being too big on simulationism, prefer to divorce crunch from fluff as much as possible to maximise my freedom of choice.

My situation seems to be the opposite.

I want crunch to match fluff as much as possible. That is, I come up with the fluff first, then find the mechanics that support the character and playstyle I desire.

My concern is about those who feel rp is about the fluff, and the mechanics don't really need to directly support that fluff. They seem to suggest that relying upon the mechanics is pernicious, that it means allowing the mechanics to limit roleplaying.


The fluff is the goal and mechanics the means.

See, this is very close to what I believe.

But does that mean if ones does not employ a mechanical means to support the fluff then the goal is out-of-reach?

Conversely, does it mean that one can set as much fluff as they and their group desire, and any necessary mechanics can be made up to allow the fluff to be real.


You need both. The fluff has to be fluffy enough to be engaging. The crunch has to be crunchy enough to be clean, understandable, and make some semblance of sense. The two can't contradict each other. That sounds simple, but proves to be really challenging in practice.

I wasn't asking so much about contradiction between fluff and mechanics.

My question was about fluff depending on the mechanics.


A rose by any other name...

I'm not sure what you are suggesting...?

[Shadowknight12]

My situation seems to be the opposite.

I want crunch to match fluff as much as possible. That is, I come up with the fluff first, then find the mechanics that support the character and playstyle I desire.

My concern is about those who feel rp is about the fluff, and the mechanics don't really need to directly support that fluff. They seem to suggest that relying upon the mechanics is pernicious, that it means allowing the mechanics to limit roleplaying.

I have a friend who loves fluffy mechanics. He hates mechanics that are like the Iron Will feat, for example, but loves mechanics like the Divine Sorcerer feat (from Dragon Magazine, gives a sorcerer access to a single Domain), because the former is so generic and bland it might as well not exist, while the latter lets him have greater character customisation and enhance a character's fluff with mechanics that support it. He hates being told "well, of course you can have a divine sorcerer, just roleplay it!", he wants mechanics to support what he envisions.

And when we talked about it, it really boils down to what gets your creativity flowing. In his case, it's restrictions. He doesn't like being able to just float up to his goal, he likes being given a bunch of furniture and tools and building his own staircase to it. And in this metaphor, the furniture and the tools are the mechanics while the goal is the fluff. He was never one for extensive refluffing. Minor refluffing? Sure. But nothing that makes mechanics irrelevant, or else a big part of the game loses its fun.

I said all this to prove to you that I definitely understand where you're coming from, even if I do not share the same preferences. I don't think that matching mechanics and fluff as closely as possible impedes or hampers the game in any way. After all, we all impose restrictions upon ourselves. The person playing a T1 Wizard in a party of T5 characters is probably going to restrict themselves heavily to avoid ruining his fellow players' fun. We all make suboptimal decisions while roleplaying because that's what our characters would do.

And if it improves your fun while not hampering anyone else's, who are we to judge?

[Jay R]

The question always seems to answer itself, as soon as you stop using the words "fluff" and "mechanics" and actually define what you mean.

To me, it seems clear that what I'm trying to simulate ("fluff"), should always match the rules for simulating it ("mechanics").

Somebody else might consider fluff in a different way, which would lead to a different answer.

She and I don't necessarily disagree about any real issue beyond the definition of "fluff" and "mechanics".

But for what it's worth, here's my answer: what I'm trying to simulate ("fluff"), should always match the rules for simulating it ("mechanics").

[Seharvepernfan]

Responding to original post:

I'm not 100% sure that I know what you're talking about, but I think I do.

For instance, elves in 3.5 are supposedly great swordsmen and wizards, yet their stats don't reflect this. Oh, sure, an elf with weapon finesse and a rapier has a net +1, and all elves can use swords, but that doesn't really cut it (unless you're comparing elf commoners to human commoners or something).

So, for me, the fluff should be changed, or the mechanics should be changed.

If you change the fluff to match the mechanics, then suddenly elves become great guerilla archers and rebels, but their swordsmanship and magecraft are pretty much as good as any humans'.

If you change the mechanics to match the fluff, then elves gain bonuses to fighting with swords or using magic.

If you leave it as is, then the DM is pretty muched forced to say, "Well, elves just culturally lean towards levels in fighter or wizard, they aren't really any better than a human who took those same levels, elves are just more likely to have those levels (or more levels)." Which I think is crap.

[prufock]

I'm not sure what you are suggesting...?

Mechanics do what they do, regardless of the term or flavour attached to them. Because of this, I see no reason to see straightjacket the flavour with mechanics. They are two separate things. Does it matter if a Sorcerer is a dragon's descendent? What gameplay difference would it make to say a sorcerer gained his power from the gods? Or by eating a magical carrot? A fireball still deals xd6 damage.

[tyckspoon]

I'm probably repeating somebody here, but I feel there's no *necessary* need for fluff and mechanics to be oppositional; it's a beautiful thing in a game when its fluff and its mechanics are harmonized, and if you know exactly the kind of thing you're trying to represent you can do that. In the specific context of D&D, the issue is there's not really a clear vision of what "D&D" is supposed to be; there's no single overarching theme, style, or genre to develop with particular mechanics or to support with specific fluff.

Another thing I feel contributes to wanting to redescribe things in D&D is that the writers have a habit of creating kind of terrible default fluff. The ones that annoy me the most are when they ascribe very specific fluff to very general mechanical concepts- the standout example here is the Warblade, IMO. The Warblade mechanics are an effective and elegant way of representing dozens of different warrior concepts. The Iron Heart/Diamond Mind 'samurai', who fights with mind and body in harmony to a single goal. The savage berserk, reveling in the blood of his enemies with Tiger Claw. The dwarven guardian, using Stone Dragon to defend his clan with the strength and durability of the very hills. The battlefield tactician and leader, forging his unit into a threat greater than its mere sum with White Raven. All very distinct characters, all with different imagery and most probably with different personalities. But if you aren't allowed to ignore or modify the default fluff of 'How Warblades act'? All the same- they're all gloryhounding idiots, concerned primarily with how cool they look when they strike down that dragon. Not that they want its money, or that destroying it relieves a whole kingdom from fear, or maybe they're just really curious about what dragon liver tastes like... no, every single Warblade wants to beat that dragon because telling the story of it will make them sound awesome later. So much :smallfurious:.

[reddir]

I have a friend who loves fluffy mechanics. He hates mechanics that are like the Iron Will feat, for example, but loves mechanics like the Divine Sorcerer feat (from Dragon Magazine, gives a sorcerer access to a single Domain), because the former is so generic and bland it might as well not exist, while the latter lets him have greater character customisation and enhance a character's fluff with mechanics that support it. He hates being told "well, of course you can have a divine sorcerer, just roleplay it!", he wants mechanics to support what he envisions.

And when we talked about it, it really boils down to what gets your creativity flowing. In his case, it's restrictions. He doesn't like being able to just float up to his goal, he likes being given a bunch of furniture and tools and building his own staircase to it. And in this metaphor, the furniture and the tools are the mechanics while the goal is the fluff. He was never one for extensive refluffing. Minor refluffing? Sure. But nothing that makes mechanics irrelevant, or else a big part of the game loses its fun.

I said all this to prove to you that I definitely understand where you're coming from, even if I do not share the same preferences. I don't think that matching mechanics and fluff as closely as possible impedes or hampers the game in any way. After all, we all impose restrictions upon ourselves. The person playing a T1 Wizard in a party of T5 characters is probably going to restrict themselves heavily to avoid ruining his fellow players' fun. We all make suboptimal decisions while roleplaying because that's what our characters would do.

And if it improves your fun while not hampering anyone else's, who are we to judge?

You get exactly what I'm talking about :smallcool:

I hadn't realized it was about restrictions, that certainly gives food for thought...


The question always seems to answer itself, as soon as you stop using the words "fluff" and "mechanics" and actually define what you mean.

To me, it seems clear that what I'm trying to simulate ("fluff"), should always match the rules for simulating it ("mechanics").

Somebody else might consider fluff in a different way, which would lead to a different answer.

She and I don't necessarily disagree about any real issue beyond the definition of "fluff" and "mechanics".

But for what it's worth, here's my answer: what I'm trying to simulate ("fluff"), should always match the rules for simulating it ("mechanics").

I believe you've got the sense of what fluff and mechanics are.

But I do think that not everyone agrees on the purpose of such simulation, or the need for it. Some seem to look at playing the mechanics as the game - not so much rules lawyers, but perhaps taking encounters as the basic element to the game. This would be in contrast to a scene or plot element as the basic unit to the game.


Responding to original post:

I'm not 100% sure that I know what you're talking about, but I think I do.

For instance, elves in 3.5 are supposedly great swordsmen and wizards, yet their stats don't reflect this. Oh, sure, an elf with weapon finesse and a rapier has a net +1, and all elves can use swords, but that doesn't really cut it (unless you're comparing elf commoners to human commoners or something).

So, for me, the fluff should be changed, or the mechanics should be changed.

If you change the fluff to match the mechanics, then suddenly elves become great guerilla archers and rebels, but their swordsmanship and magecraft are pretty much as good as any humans'.

If you change the mechanics to match the fluff, then elves gain bonuses to fighting with swords or using magic.

If you leave it as is, then the DM is pretty muched forced to say, "Well, elves just culturally lean towards levels in fighter or wizard, they aren't really any better than a human who took those same levels, elves are just more likely to have those levels (or more levels)." Which I think is crap.[emphasis added]

That last bit, is how I seem to feel. Not that it is wrong, just...what's the point? If the mechanics are to have legitimacy to someone who cares about the fluff, those mechanics need to support/sustain the fluff.