Home Forums General General The term Fluff

Tagged: 

This topic contains 13 replies, has 13 voices, and was last updated by Not Connard Sage Not Connard Sage 4 months ago.

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #96599
    Mike
    Mike
    Keymaster

    I saw this online a few days back:

    Please stop calling non-rules text for games “fluff”. That word devalues a lot of the hard work game writers do to create mood and believable worlds and insinuates they shouldn’t be paid.

    I replied thus:

    I don’t mind the word fluff.
    (and I have created it for rules)

    I am in the process of writing more for my new rules and will be calling it fluff in conversation, but will market it as ‘background’.
    Background sounds more professional but I wont mind people calling it fluff.

    Your thoughts?

    #96605
    DM
    DM
    Participant

    Everyone knows what “fluff” is. I don’t mind if people refer to my period-feeling content as “fluff”.

    A bit like referring to non-combatant models as “ice cream vans”

    What I don’t like is “puff”, where stuff is added just to increase the page count and cost.

    #96606
    Not Connard Sage
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    I prefer to use the more accurate word ‘filler’.

    A page or two before the body of the rules outlining the mechanics a la WRG is fine.  Put the ‘background’ bollox at the end of the rules. All I want in the rules is rules, and maybe a few relevant boxed examples of play. If the boxed examples of play run to one per page, the rules needed a rewrite before they were foist upon an unsuspecting public.

    Historical rules (rather than sci-fi or fantasy) should need little or no ‘background’.  Go and read a proper history book if you want background FFS.

    The lack of pretty pictures won’t make me cry either. Oh, and you can piss off with the ‘comedy’ asides too. Who do you think you are? Terry Pratchett?

    Hrrrrrrrrrrumph 🙂

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

    #96631
    Ruarigh
    Ruarigh
    Participant

    I don’t object to the word ‘fluff’, and I don’t usually consider the background included with many sci-fi and fantasy rules to be filler per se; it often has the purpose of setting the scene for the way the rules work. That said, I prefer my sci-fi and fantasy rules to be generic and easy to adapt to my collection. I have my own background that I use, and I really don’t want to buy a book where half of what I am paying for is somebody else’s background. In most cases, I would be very happy with a couple of pages from the author telling me why they made the design decisions they chose, and what sort of future or fantasy the rules are designed to model, instead of having details of the author’s world.

    Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    https://emidsvikings.ac.uk/
    #96633
    Thaddeus Blanchette
    Thaddeus Blanchette
    Participant

    I prefer “skub”, myself

    https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Skub

     

    We get slapped around, but we have a good time!

    #96638
    willz
    willz
    Participant

    I just look at my bellybutton.

    #96643

    warwell
    Participant

    If it is not truly necessary to understand and play the game, it’s fluff.

    Sorry if people feel that I am devaluing their work, but as the consumer it is my right to determine what I think has value. And their vanity project has no value to me. But then I am a firm believer in “your world sucks.”

    #96644
    irishserb
    irishserb
    Participant

    It seems to be a term in common use, with an understood meaning in the hobby community.  I don’t see any issue with it.

    With respect to whether I want it in my rules, it depends on the subject , quality, and cost.

    #96650

    Thomaston
    Participant

    I prefer using fluff because it’s easy to say.

    My internal rationalization is Fluff is the excuse text for how the rules/stats are (Warhammer 40K), while background is what the the rules tries to represent (e.g. WWII).

    Life's too long.

    #96659

    McKinstry
    Participant

    I’m fine with both the term and the inclusion of fluff. As in most things, how well it is done determines its’ value to me, not the presence or absence.

    Never wrestle with a pig. You both get muddy and the pig just likes it.

    #96666
    MartinR
    MartinR
    Participant

    We all know what fluff is, sometimes I only buy a set of rules for the fluff (1866 and 1870 being cases in point). Fluff can get in the way of the narrative, which really pi**es me off. A lot of modern hardback rules seem to suffer from this, and it makes them really hard to read. If Don Featherstone can manage to separate rules from commentary, why on earth can’t everyone else.

    "Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

    #96677
    Rhoderic
    Rhoderic
    Participant

    It’s not the same as in the news media, where a “fluff piece” is something of lesser worth than what the productive grown-ups in that field are writing/reporting.

    Of the countless times I’ve used the word “fluff” for wargames background fiction/exposition, I don’t think I’ve ever meant it in a negative or dismissive sense. A well-written fluff piece is something for a wargames writer to be proud of.

    As for the thing itself, I consider it quite integral to the hobby, much as I do the pretty miniatures and, yes, artwork. Without these things, the “inspiration” dimension of miniatures gaming is no longer there. That’s not to say I adhere to the sanctity of “official” fluff as something proprietary to its respective game system. Sometimes I take the fluff as-is, sometimes I replace it with fluff of my own, and often I do something in between.

    On that note, I don’t consider the word “fluff” to only denote “formal”, cemented background material, like what may be printed in a rulebook or official magazine. If in the middle of a game I improvise a brief outline of a background story for a figure or unit, then that’s fluff, even if I discard it again as soon as the game is over. Fluff is, happily, something nebulous and indefinite.

    #96717
    Autodidact-O-Saurus
    Autodidact-O-Saurus
    Participant

    “hmmmph” [as he passes the talking stick to the next person in the circle].

    Self taught, persistently behind the times, never up to date. AKA ~ jeff
    More verbosity: http://petiteguerre.blogspot.com/

    #96718
    Not Connard Sage
    Not Connard Sage
    Participant

    We all know what fluff is, sometimes I only buy a set of rules for the fluff (1866 and 1870 being cases in point). Fluff can get in the way of the narrative, which really pi**es me off. A lot of modern hardback rules seem to suffer from this, and it makes them really hard to read. If Don Featherstone can manage to separate rules from commentary, why on earth can’t everyone else.

    I see that we’re on the same page…

    "I go online sometimes, but everyone's spelling is really bad. It's... depressing."

Viewing 14 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.