PDA

View Full Version : Fluffing the Crunch and Crunching the Fluff



Bosh
2007-08-27, 03:23 AM
I think a lot of people try to keep crunch and fluff separate. Mechanics are used to adjudicate combat and RPing is used for most other stuff. If this is the case, what mechanics are used shouldn't have much of an affect on how your roleplay and vice versa. Basically, "so what, that's just rules if we roleplay well those don't matter." In my experience, this isn't the best way of going about things.

Fluffing the Crunch:

In RPGs the crunch is the basic framework that all of the fluff is hung off of. A lot of fluff is about interpreting the bit of crunch that just happened (i.e. saying "I decapitate the orc with a vicious backhand blow" instead of "Yay! A crit, that orc is toast" when its the crunch that has just determined that the orc is dead). Because of this I think that its important to have a lot of character traits that can be directly translated into crunch rather than just more abstract ones. Especially if you're not the best actor in the world (I'm certainly not), I find it really helpful when making a character to think about the sort of crunch decisions that I tend to make in an adventure and then think about how my RPing of that character would influence those decisions. If I think of a character whose personality isn't something that really relates to those decisions then that would be a very hard character to roleplay properly.

For example, if I had a character who was a master tactician who obsessed about the proper tactics for any given situation, (Sun Tzu type) that would be very hard to roleplay. Basically what I would have to do is just try to think up the best tactics for any given situation, which would have me making the same crunch decisions as if I were rollplaying and then throw in a few throwaway lines. Similarly if I had a character who pined for his farm boy childhood, that would be something I'd have a hard time translating into crunch. He'd whine a bit about how he missed the farm, but that character trait wouldn't have much of an impact on the sort of basic crunch decisions that are most common in D&D adventures.

A while back I played a character who did all he could to spare the lives of sentient beings (he was the descendant of some orcish children that the party had spared after killing all the adults while on a time-travel expedition). This translated into crunch very easily and resulted in him taking Improved Sunder and Intimidate and using them all the time in order to try to get people to back down rather than be killed. Similarly in another campaign one character played an overbearing, insanely brave and pushy barbarian who had high Con and Improved Bullrush so that he could shove people around as well in crunch as in fluff and the Con helped him survive enough insane risks to have his continued bravery make sense. Similarly something as simple as something RPing a wizard who loves to burn things memorizing a lot of fireball spells would be an example of fluffing the crunch.

In my opinion, having fluff that translates easily into crunch is great since it keeps you focused on your RP at all times and it lets you RP even when the rest of the party is focusing on Rollplaying. Because of this, exactly what crunch you have on hand can make a big difference in your RP.

Crunching the Fluff:

The same thing applies in the other direction as well. If a game has things that are normally thought of as just fluff and gives them mechanical meaning, it can really improve the quality of RP by grounding the fluff in the basic mechanics of the game. It keeps the RP from being a bunch of talking that takes place in between the crunch, to something that is part of all aspects of the game.

One example of this would be alignment in D&D. Things such as your personal moral philosophy are very fluffy, but D&D takes it and makes it part of the crunch by making it part of the mechanics. Not the best implementation, but the basic idea is on the right track. A better example of this sort of thing would be Aspects in Fate. In that game you have a certain number of aspects that are descriptions, relationships or catch phrases that sum up your character (see here http://www.crackmonkey.org/~nick/loyhargil/fate3/fate3.html#aspects). Those aspects are very fluffy descriptions of your character that can be just about anything, but they are also a very important aspect of the basic crunch of Fate since they're what you use to use and get Fate points.

The ideal RPG would crunch the fluff so much that even the most dedicated rollplayer would end up roleplaying without even trying since that would be what the basic rules system of the game would lend itself to.

Basically, even if you're the most dedicated roleplayer what the mechanics of a game matter a great deal.

Zincorium
2007-08-27, 12:59 PM
Interesting take, but what you don't address at all are instances in which one of the two concerning a certain idea is desirable whereas the other is not.

For instance, like Miko, you like the fluff of being a samurai, but the crunch is universally regarded as incredibly lame.

Having a more correlation does nothing to help this. In fact, it makes it worse by denying any chance to play the fluff without the crunch.


Lastly, I personally would appreciate if you'd stop using the term rollplayer. In my experience, it's always used as a pejorative, just as you're using it. Nevermind the fact that the two ideas (combat and immersion) are not exclusive, the entire concept of 'making people roleplay better' by changing the game is elitist and simply does not work. If you want to help someone get more into roleplaying or help develop their skills, that's a personal learning problem rather than game design.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-27, 01:40 PM
For instance, like Miko, you like the fluff of being a samurai, but the crunch is universally regarded as incredibly lame.

Having a more correlation does nothing to help this. In fact, it makes it worse by denying any chance to play the fluff without the crunch.I think some of this is just a matter of presentation of the idea. Usually, when people say "Fluff doesn't matter," they don't actually mean that we should be playing cardboard cutouts of characters that bonk heads and don't do anything else. Rather, the phrase is typically used to actually mean "Fluff is important, and it's important enough that I'm not going to be restricted by what was given to me by the publisher."

It basically boils down to making the character in the dungeon match the character in the tavern -- whether or not it's what the designers had in mind when they wrote the class. Internal consistency (your character now matches your character from 2 sessions ago, more or less) is far more important than external consistency (your character matches the one used in playtesting your mechanical choices).

Starsinger
2007-08-27, 01:48 PM
Rather, the phrase is typically used to actually mean "Fluff is important, and it's important enough that I'm not going to be restricted by what was given to me by the publisher."

Example, Dragon magic, races of the dragon, the phb, and the dragon disciple prestige class all point to "Sorcerer equal dragon" which is fluff I don't particularly care for. Infact, it's tied with Mialee for thing I hate most about 3rd edition.

Matthew
2007-08-28, 01:55 PM
Aw, man. My lengthy post got eaten up. Oh well, I just wanted to say that I think 'Description' and 'Mechanics' interact a lot already in the game, but I'm not sure I would want everything 'Descriptive' explicitly legislated for 'Mechanically'.

Jasdoif
2007-08-28, 02:12 PM
I wouldn't say they're separate, but they can be separated, and one half replaced.

That's pretty much what it comes down to. If you don't like the mechanics typically associated with a particular role, use different mechanics with the same role. Likewise, if you don't like the role typically associated with a particular set of mechanics, use a different role with the same mechanics.

The reason the ability of separation is mentioned is to avoid the false notion that a separate base class is needed for any character who doesn't fit the usual description of a class. Or worse, that such a character can't be played. It's better to realize that you can change the half you don't like, rather then forcing yourself to settle for a character you won't enjoy playing as much.

Matthew
2007-08-28, 02:17 PM
More than one half can really be replaced, though. It's just as valid to change the Mechanics as the Description. So, for instance, if someone wanted to play a stealth orientated Fighter, I would have no problem altering the mechanics of the Fighter Base Class to accomodate them (perhaps reducing Armour Proficiency or Hit Die in return for more Skill Points and Class Skills).

Jasdoif
2007-08-28, 02:30 PM
More than one half can really be replaced, though. It's just as valid to change the Mechanics as the Description. So, for instance, if someone wanted to play a stealth orientated Fighter, I would have no problem altering the mechanics of the Fighter Base Class to accomodate them (perhaps reducing Armour Proficiency or Hit Die in return for more Skill Points and Class Skills).Sure. It seems that Description gets changed more often then the mechanics, if only because it eliminates the need for mechanical balancing questions...but you can certainly change either half.

Kajorma
2007-08-28, 05:04 PM
I agree with the concept as far as games go, however, I have a soapbox type thing about rulebooks like this...

I've recently been reading about 7th Sea (which is a knida neat concept for those who are into pirate roleplaying)

The thing that bothers me about it is that the mechanics are all interlaced with storytelling. (White wolf has this problem too)

I prefer to keep the "Crunch" and "Fluff" seperate when talking about game systems. For me, the system is all about the mechanics, and everything else is just setting. (GURPS took this idea and ran with it)

In my ideal world, I'd have a choice of multiple systems, and multiple settings, and I could mix and match them as I saw fit.

Damionte
2007-08-28, 06:07 PM
I agree with the concept as far as games go, however, I have a soapbox type thing about rulebooks like this...

I've recently been reading about 7th Sea (which is a knida neat concept for those who are into pirate roleplaying)

The thing that bothers me about it is that the mechanics are all interlaced with storytelling. (White wolf has this problem too)

I prefer to keep the "Crunch" and "Fluff" seperate when talking about game systems. For me, the system is all about the mechanics, and everything else is just setting. (GURPS took this idea and ran with it)

In my ideal world, I'd have a choice of multiple systems, and multiple settings, and I could mix and match them as I saw fit.

I agree. I feel D&D is balanced between the two all right enough to get by. It's not as bad as the White Wolf games but it's not as well doen as Hero System or Gurps in that regard.

I want my mechanics to be completely seperate fropm teh crunch. That way I can use the crunch to portray whatever fluff < I > feel it fits into. That's the real strength of the Hero System. That 3d6 ranged kill attack that cost me 45 points could be more than one thing.

That could be a Wizards disintegrate spell. It could be the rat-a-tat-tat of a soldiers 50. Machine gun. It could be A magical spear thrown by my barbarian warrior, or it could be, the draining effect of my Care Bear Stare! Mechnically it's a 3d6 Ranged Kill attack.

I believe that many players who have come over, or come back to D&D from systems like this either lament over what seem to be restirctions in the system, or they take the same concept of seperating the fluff from the mechanics and can twist and mold D&D into whatever they need.

Many players don't understand the concept of seperatign the fluff from the crunch and are pegeoned holed into what they see as a restricting system. Some of the game designers have this problem too though. The Monk class is a prime example. They took one persons idea of a martial artists and made it the basis for all others. When thier vision doesn't nessesarily match the vision the rest of us may have had. so you end up with this goofy class that doesn't work for others. Warlocke has the same problem.

While the fighter class is a good example of doing it the other way. They didn't tie anythign specific to the fighter. He doesn't have to be a knight, he doesn't have to be a heavy armored super tank, he doesn't have to be light and fast and agile, you can build him multiple ways with pretty much the same mechanics.

JackShandy
2007-08-28, 07:36 PM
[T]he entire concept of 'making people roleplay better' by changing the game is elitist and simply does not work. If you want to help someone get more into roleplaying or help develop their skills, that's a personal learning problem rather than game design.

I totally disagree with this. Both the system and the way your group runs it have a profound influence on the style of play someone develops. If you want players to use evocative descriptions, mechanically rewarding such descriptions with a bonus will tend to make them focus on that. If you want players to think about characters core motivations a lot, having a system where player-defined motivations tie into the reward/advancement system [i.e. Burning Wheel] will tend to keep that at the front of peoples minds.

Zincorium
2007-08-28, 09:32 PM
I totally disagree with this. Both the system and the way your group runs it have a profound influence on the style of play someone develops. If you want players to use evocative descriptions, mechanically rewarding such descriptions with a bonus will tend to make them focus on that. If you want players to think about characters core motivations a lot, having a system where player-defined motivations tie into the reward/advancement system [i.e. Burning Wheel] will tend to keep that at the front of peoples minds.

If the only reason your players provide character motivations and describe their actions well is to gain an in-game mechanical benefit, you're just bribing them. If bribing them works well enough that you can phase it out later and they'll still do it, that's fine.

D&D has this. It's called ad hoc roleplaying xp. Most people use it.

People who are really into the immersion aspect of the games won't need the system to give them shinies for doing what they like to do (but it might be nice).

Other people, who aren't poetic and fluffy with words, are going to get annoyed by the fact that what they've done gets constantly overshadowed by other players who are overdoing the description just to get benefits.

And either way, it is not a simple matter of "If I use system X, all of my players will start playing style Y". Like I said, you can't force it. It has to come voluntarily.

Damionte
2007-08-28, 10:02 PM
If the only reason your players provide character motivations and describe their actions well is to gain an in-game mechanical benefit, you're just bribing them. If bribing them works well enough that you can phase it out later and they'll still do it, that's fine.

D&D has this. It's called ad hoc roleplaying xp. Most people use it.

People who are really into the immersion aspect of the games won't need the system to give them shinies for doing what they like to do (but it might be nice).

Other people, who aren't poetic and fluffy with words, are going to get annoyed by the fact that what they've done gets constantly overshadowed by other players who are overdoing the description just to get benefits.

And either way, it is not a simple matter of "If I use system X, all of my players will start playing style Y". Like I said, you can't force it. It has to come voluntarily.

Good point.

My own group had this problem for a bit. we have a couple of players who are very articulate. They're good writers and can reallyput words together. In our GM's eye's they were always the best role players, simply because they were the best actors and talkers in the group. He gave out a sizeable XP bonus to whoever won the Rp award each night. This always with a few exceptions went to the same player each week.

This got old after a while. Everyone else is role playign as well, it's not thier fault LL Cool J is sitting at the table too.

Diggorian
2007-08-28, 10:55 PM
This got old after a while. Everyone else is role playign as well, it's not thier fault LL Cool J is sitting at the table too.

Please go to Youtube and search for Mos Def, lyrics have evolved quite a bit ... homeboy. :smallamused: Still, 100 retro-cool points. Word! :smallbiggrin:

I've found it is simply a matter of altering the game to get the desired style from players. Direct door crashing players start being more tactical when facing more cunning foes. Weak roleplayers become more intuned with character when first person narrative is stressed. Mechanically oriented players when introduced to fluff-powered games like Wushu become alot more descriptive.

Whatever challenge you put before them gamers rise to the occasion ... or quit. Forced, no; Encouraged, definately.

JackShandy
2007-08-29, 01:08 AM
If the only reason your players provide character motivations and describe their actions well is to gain an in-game mechanical benefit, you're just bribing them. If bribing them works well enough that you can phase it out later and they'll still do it, that's fine.

D&D has this. It's called ad hoc roleplaying xp. Most people use it.

People who are really into the immersion aspect of the games won't need the system to give them shinies for doing what they like to do (but it might be nice).

Other people, who aren't poetic and fluffy with words, are going to get annoyed by the fact that what they've done gets constantly overshadowed by other players who are overdoing the description just to get benefits.

And either way, it is not a simple matter of "If I use system X, all of my players will start playing style Y". Like I said, you can't force it. It has to come voluntarily.

Why phase out rewards for playing the game the way your group enjoys? That would be like reducing the XP awards from combat because your group really enjoyed tactical combat and did a lot of encounters.

Meshing people who have different play styles is hard. The person who "gets constantly overshadowed by other players who are overdoing the description just to get benefits" is just the flip side of the player who's margainalized by people who enjoy spending their time optimizing their character builds and so have mechanically much more effective characters.

However, I guess I misinterpreted what you meant by "'making people roleplay better". I thought you were saying that the system couldn't help make people "roleplay" better. If you were saying the system couldn't force people into a different play style than I don't disagree. I am assuming people who are willing try different ways of playing but who it might not come naturally to. I think lots of players can stretch themselves. I know I've become a lot more comfortable speaking in front of people through roleplaying.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-08-29, 01:15 AM
This got old after a while. Everyone else is role playign as well, it's not thier fault LL Cool J is sitting at the table too.I've been around the tubes a few times, but the day someone reaches for a famous acting talent and pulls out LL Cool J is a day in which I'm legitimately shocked. Congratulations on your accomplishment?

horseboy
2007-08-29, 01:50 AM
I'm constantly amazed and astonished at what gets passed of as "fluff" in D&D. D&D doesn't have any fluff. It's got a few, poorly written descriptions. But Descriptions do not equal fluff. Descriptions equal descriptions. For good fluff, look at Earthdawn Survival Guide or any army book from GW.

D&D has no fluff. :smallyuk: