Until today, to me "fluff" and "lore" were the same thing in a RPG: the part that fleshes out the world/universe of your game - giving you more options for your characters and the DM, and feel them more "grounded" in the specific milieu (should you like it, of course).
Now I was watching a video by The RPGPundit (the one about the idea of "belonging" or not to a community, IIRC - the first one in his "Rants" playlist on YouTube) and he does seem to refer to the two things as different concepts. Is it so? Opinions?
Sorry if I kept this short, but I am really under the weather :(
Same thing to me but I must admit I liked the larger metaplots 90s games had.
I'd say that lore is a sub-category of fluff.
Lore is tidbits about the world such as its history and definitions of things (armor types/nations/mecha/whatever) while fluff is broader - for example it can also include things like little stories and journal entries which take place in the setting, while I wouldn't consider them to be lore.
But - just my $0.02.
I've always conflated the two. How did Pundit describe them?
To me lore is in-game facts (history, geography, relationships, etc.) that impact the setting on a large scale while fluff is descriptive text alongside rules text (like descriptions of how a spell looks/sounds/smells along with what gestures are made and words said to cast it). Changing fluff text doesnt't necessarily alter the game world all that much but changing lore often will even if the rules are still the same.
There's fluff, and there's crunch.
Crunch is rules, mechanics, etc.
Fluff isn't.
I always saw Fluff as a comparison to Crunch. Lore is a much more encompassing term in my mind that could include both Fluff and Crunch.
Lore is useful to gameplay as its the foundation of the setting.
Fluff is bullshit to increase page count and sell supplements. It's why 150 page RPGs are instead 300 pages, and still can't stand on their own.
Unfortunately, fluff sells because too many gamers mistake game texts for novels.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1088606Lore is useful to gameplay as its the foundation of the setting.
Fluff is bullshit to increase page count and sell supplements. It's why 150 page RPGs are instead 300 pages, and still can't stand on their own.
Unfortunately, fluff sells because too many gamers mistake game texts for novels.
Agreed, and still we have the intelligentsia telling us how a game of less page count is somehow automatically lesser. Remove all the fluff and you might find that that US60 book is less than 100 pages, suddenly that 150 pages supplement looks like the publisher milking you.
Remove all the Fluff of both and you end with a whole book that stands on it's own clocking about 150 pages.
Lore is important real world stuff like campaign relevant information or setting stuff about how the world works. Fluff is the little details that arent anymore relevant than cursory observation. Lore is the important stuff the average person in the game ought to know. Fluff is the unimportant information that although it adds flavor to the world, it isnt 'important meaty information'
This world has dragons - Lore
The barmaids toenails are painted gold - Fluff
Problem is some cant distinguish setting info from "fluff" and since its a derogatory term anyhow they will aim it at about anything that 'offends' them. Even occasionally mechanics or whole modules. Then you get the problem where the setting info is mixed in with prose.
A good recent example is the 5e Sword Coast book. Its got alot of setting info. But its buried in alot of prose and you have to dig it out of that. Some would consider it all fluff. These people are morons as theyd also consider all the setting info in say the greyhawk boxed set to be 'fluff' even though theres no prose atatched to any of it. Like I said. Morons.
Quote from: Reckall;1088592Until today, to me "fluff" and "lore" were the same thing in a RPG: the part that fleshes out the world/universe of your game - giving you more options for your characters and the DM, and feel them more "grounded" in the specific milieu (should you like it, of course).
Fluff is the nonsense timeline that's listed in the book before the game's setting happens. The history of long forgotten Emperors and Kings kind of thing.
I found the reference: It was something The Pundit mentioned in passing while charting a brief story of TSR's "book fever". To him, books were the fluff, and soaked up the energies needed to publish quality supplements (the lore).
I don't know if I agree or not. I have read some books, back in the day, some were absolutely dire but others, like "Elfshadow" by Elaine Cunningham, were full of lore bits and story ideas. Also it is always refreshing and creatively stimulating to see people and places "in motion, living their lives" and not only as a picture or a paragraph on as page,
[OK, that's a bit from Stanley Kubrick, and how one thing he aimed to accomplish with "Barry Lyndon" was "To show all those people in pictures and frescoes as they lived and died - not frozen in one image in time"]
The problem was that TSR published so many different books that finding something good was a roulette. At the end I simply ran my gigantor Forgotten Realms/Planescape campaign (1999-2012) the way I wanted - and, strangely enough, I managed to pull it off rather well. Amazing, uh?
Fluff is a term of art in 4e D&D and similar games (like I guess all boardgames) that separate in-world description from mechanical resolution. It makes a lot of sense when describing Eurogame boardgames like Settlers of Catan or Carcassone where the Fluff is a thin coating over the abstract mechanical Crunch - the game is in the Crunch. This is different from simulationist wargames like eg Battle of Arnhem where the rules are created to model the events that are the topic of the game. Players of the latter type of game commonly house rule to create a better model of in-world reality - "It ought to be at least possible for the British Paratroopers to dislodge the SS Panzer regiment!" - which would be a nonsensical thing to do in a Eurogame.
The Fluff/Crunch dichotomy is normally irrelevant to RPGs since they are partially simulationist and the GM makes rulings based on in-world reality.
Lore are the useful bits of setting material that you might not have made up yourself, or at least would have taken you considerable time. Fluff is all the stuff you could make up on the spur of the moment, when it is needed.
The dividing line between the two is necessarily a moving target, as each person applies that criteria.
How I've always seen it is...
Crunch = Mechanics
Fluff = Everything else
Lore is one kind of fluff.
So, all Lore is Fluff.
Not all Fluff is Lore.
But, that's the kind of argument I'd expect a TGD Sperglord to make. Never been a big fan of the term "fluff" meaning anything non-mechanical.
You could argue it means things "not important", so many things about a setting would not be Fluff.
Really though, it seems to mean "Stuff I don't find important", and so is absofuckinglutely useless as a term in all cases. :D
I don't believe fluff is unimportant, in general.
Is some fluff unimportant? Sure, it can be, but by no means is all of it.
Likewise, I don't see fluff as a derogatory term.
I agree with the fluff / crunch (or core) divide, although I'm more likely to use rules rather than crunch. A games crunchiness is frequently used to describe the level of detail, low rules complexity = low crunch, highly detailed rules = high crunch. Fluff can be just as important as the rules, after all that is what you are most likely stealing when you want to run a setting under a different set of rules.
I can see how one could want to further divide fluff into categories with different levels of importance. My initial thought is that lore is just a highfalutin word for fluff.
To me, fluff is flavor, while lore is clues.
Aragorn is descended from the kings of a kingdom destroyed 1400 years ago, and further descended from Elrond's half brother. (Fluff - flavorful, but not all that important).
Aragorn is the only heir to a kingdom destroyed 1400 years ago, and heir to another kingdom to the south (lore - the campaign involves putting a Lost Heir on his deserved throne).
An example from one of my earliest campaigns: "...blah blah blah the mines below the destroyed castle were the only known source of adamantium in the world..."
Players (in unison): There's very little treasure and the doors are impossible to bash open!"
My fault, not making it clear...
So, "lore" is "goodtext", and fluff is "ungoodtext", sometimes even "plusungoodtext"? :)
Lore makes it to the gametable. Fluff usually doesn't.
For instance, if all nobles in your setting have a common half-demon ancestor, that's lore if the demon taint is a setting aspect where nobles either succumb or battle their natures and that plays out across adventures and defines the background.
If its just 18 pages of bad fanfic, that's fluff.
Fluff can be good or bad. It can just be pointless padding (or at least it can appear that way to those that don't like it), or it can bring something unique to the game or at least the product. An example of fluff that I think was done well and was unique at the time (or to the games I was familiar with) was the Street Samurai for shadowrun. The little shadow talk sections discussing the merits of each weapon in the catalogue really helped bring the book to life.
Quote from: Reckall;1088638I found the reference: It was something The Pundit mentioned in passing while charting a brief story of TSR's "book fever". To him, books were the fluff, and soaked up the energies needed to publish quality supplements (the lore).
I don't know if I agree or not. I have read some books, back in the day, some were absolutely dire but others, like "Elfshadow" by Elaine Cunningham, were full of lore bits and story ideas. Also it is always refreshing and creatively stimulating to see people and places "in motion, living their lives" and not only as a picture or a paragraph on as page,
I dont know exactly what Pundit was ranting about with DnD books but you can not blame them for sinking TSR.
Quote from: Reckall;1088592Until today, to me "fluff" and "lore" were the same thing in a RPG: the part that fleshes out the world/universe of your game - giving you more options for your characters and the DM, and feel them more "grounded" in the specific milieu (should you like it, of course).
Now I was watching a video by The RPGPundit (the one about the idea of "belonging" or not to a community, IIRC - the first one in his "Rants" playlist on YouTube) and he does seem to refer to the two things as different concepts. Is it so? Opinions?
Sorry if I kept this short, but I am really under the weather :(
Almost same to me, whether I'm running or playing.
But to players fluff can be lore and lore fluff: a kingdom can have cool lore but to some players everything unrelated to where their PC can get a drink is fluffy.
In WFB, fluffy is the opposite of beardy!
I suspect that the terms Lore and Fluff stand at opposite ends of a spectrum. Fluff is usually obvious and adds a bit of character to an otherwise bland description, but usually has no more than a minor effect on play ("My dwarf sports iron rings in his beard") and can be made up on the spot if you want. Lore can have a massive effect but be secret until the PCs discover it through play - the fact that Dwarves from the Assassin's guild all wear iron rings in their beards is lore (known only to the GM, initially). Lore requires a bit more thought and is usually in the purview of the GM.