RPG and Design VI - Unproductive fluff (and crunch)

RPG and design series so far:

* I - Vocabulary; Manual x Encyclopedia
* II - Crunch x Fluff
* III - Crunch IS Fluff (excavators can't jump!)
* IV - Theme, Mechanics, and Narrative
* V - Incongruous and dissociated mechanics
* VI - Unproductive fluff (and crunch)
---

In this post I'll talk about unproductive fluff and unproductive crunch. Unproductive is the best word I could find, I think. I considered "useless", but even unproductive fluff can be used an inspiration. Let's see.

We have established that most of the actual "role-playing game" takes place purely in the fluff or in the interaction between fluff and crunch. More precisely, the role-playing game happens while the players can interact with things that happen to their characters, usually by making meaningful choices (see the post by The Alexandria in part V).

While a PC is talking to an NPC, that is obviously role-playing. When the player rolls a dice to see if the PC can hit a foe, he is also playing a role-playing game.

There are some details, however, that are so removed from this experience as to be near useless; they do not affect the things that happen to the PCs.

In the diagram above, such unproductive parts are marked in red; they are far from one another (i.e., unproductive fluff has no effect on crunch and vice-versa) and far from the emerging narrative. In short, they are peripheral to the role-playing experience, at most.

Lets tackle unproductive fluff first.

One example is the detailed chronology or geography that was included in some old campaign settings.

If a king died 100 years ago leaving no descendants, castles, lessons, factions or relics for the PCs to interact with, the fluff is entirely unimportant to what happens to the PCs, and thus almost useless for the actual role-playing game.

Likewise, the fact that one village produces barley while the next village produces rice does not affect most adventures.

In theory, ANY piece of information can be relevant to a campaign. However, these are examples of things that are unlikely to be relevant.

There is at least one good reason to include unproductive fluff in RPG books: solely to provide inspiration. Maybe the manner of death of a king sets the tone for the campaign, for example. In this manner, they function like a beautiful piece of art inserted in an RPG book (like art, however, they serve other functions such in layout, etc.).

Still, feels wasteful to provided inspiration that do not affect the PCs. If the king was killed in an undead invasion, where are the undead now? Could they rise again? Did they leave relics? Etc.

Therefore, the fluff included in a book should either affect the lives of the characters, provide inspiration for the reader, or, preferably, BOTH.

Details that do neither are both useless and boring.

Unproductive crunch is a bit trickier - only because we are so used to it.

I call unproductive crunch the mechanics that take you away from the fluff, and therefore away from the actual game. These mechanics are not entirely removed from the fluff, or they wouldn't be included; in fact, they just add unnecessary steps.

Let's say a stealthy thief turns a corner in the dungeon, sees a goblin, and attacks it. These are the steps the group can take when playing 5e, for example:

* Check for surprise [maybe for BOTH sides]
* Roll initiative [also for both sides]
* Roll to see if you hit [re-roll 1s if you have such feature]
* Roll for damage
* [Re-rolls 1s and 2s if you have such feature]

In old school D&D, things are not necessarily any easier - initiative can be a lot more complicated, for example.

There are other complications, of course. In 5e, for example, a dragon might have four different rolls to decide: if it attacks first, it its breath in available, if it success in hurting the PCs, and how much damage it causes (sometimes, this is actually an automatic hit with two separate rolls for damage: "dexterity saving throw to take half damage", etc.)

We are used to this stuff. It feels familiar. But it is far from necessary. The entire situation could be resolved with a single d20 roll. You'd think dividing it in many phases would give you a more detailed account of events:

- You approach the goblin [roll] but he sees you before you attack. [roll] however, you have the initiative [roll] and you hit the goblin [roll, maybe re-roll] but your attack is not strong enough to kill him.

However, a single d20 has enough results to account for all these possibilites (specially if the enemy rolls as well), including variable damage if you find this useful, and also some non-binary possibilities that are both realistic and fun. For example, the goblin is "half-surprised", etc.:

- You approach the goblin [rolls 15] and quickly hit him before he can react, but he is still alive.

The first method takes longer to get to the same result (the goblin is wounded), and includes lots of rolling without meaningful decision from the players (all decision were made before the rolling starts) and results that do not really matter (did the goblin avoid a blow because he saw the PC coming [perception], because he prepared quickly [initiative] or at the last moment, when the PC swung his sword [AC]? I doesn't matter).

Notice that each roll involves other steps such as adding different your ability modifiers, skills, choosing the dice that corresponds to your weapon, etc. In addition, 5e has multiple instances of re-rolling, ignoring the result of the dice if lower than X, rolling multiple dice and ignoring a few (I'm not talking about ad/disad, but things like the savage attacker feat).

I think it would be possible to ignore all of that, but that's a difference subject that deserves a post of its own.

For completeness sake, I must include that useless minutia should be included in unproductive fluff (and crunch). Two quick examples:

* "The good king William was killed by Saxons a few decades ago" versus "The good king William was killed by Saxons in 1053 at the age of 44 in the battle of Justinvented near Hoocaresatall."

* A feat that will give you 3% additional damage on average, but this raises to 7% with the right build.

The "incredibly long and boring backstory" that some players write to their PCs fall unto the same category. Likewise, when GMs do the same for their NPCs and setting. Ultimately, this is a futile exercise because it doesn't affect the actual play; it has no effect in the table. Again, it might provide inspiration, but other than that it becomes irrelevant.

"Metaplot" (as in "things that happen without the PCs being able to interfere") is the same. It only becomes relevant when it affects the PCs and allows players to react.

Most RPG players know these things are bad ideas, anyway - but it is useful to know why these ideas are bad in the first place.

In short: both the fluff and the crunch should be in service of telling the players what happens to their characters (an the surroundings) so that they can make informed decisions on what to do next.

The rest is filler.