On Sun, 6 Nov 2016 22:59:33 -0000 (UTC), masochist <***@pobox.com> wrote:
| On 2016-11-03, ***@gmail.com scribbled these curious markings:
|> "<blah> is about 90% crunch" or "<title> is almost all fluff" tells
|> you a fair bit about the releases if you know what fluff and crunch
| It also tells you about the speaker/writer. 'fluff' tends to
| indicate something seen as superfluous, spurious, or even
| actively unwanted. IME, people making this distinction tend to be
| the sort who rollplay rather than roleplay--the murderhobos
| inhabiting so many living campaigns. I don't have the opinions of
| others upthread, but I have come to regard people making the
| distinction as folks I probably won't have fun playing with.
| The words used for setting content--fluff, flavor--seem to
| implicitly demean the content to me, as though they are of
| secondary importance. Why not "rules" and "setting", perfectly
| viable words that are at once descriptive and neutral? Because
| the people who came up with the dichotomy have a rollplaying
I'd view calling it "flavour" as a more positive outlook. While "fluff"
is something you can do without, or possible see as actively bad,
playing a flavourless game is much less appealing.
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first: