Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The topic is basically what the rubric tells. Why do we call lore fluff? With we i mean gamers in general.

First time i came in contact with the term "fluff" was when i started to collect my first army (Bretonnia), i was going to a local tournament where everyone needed to have fluff for their army to be able to participate.

The word should have some kind of origin, is it from a cpu game perhaps?

I hate the term fluff personally, I use 'background' mostly.

It's a term used in reference to most games. At some point someone deemed all non-rules related material to be "fluff," as opposed to the rules themselves; the "crunch."

Orlanth wrote:I hate the term fluff personally, I use 'background' mostly.

Im willing to agree with you. I dont hate the term but i dislike it. When communicating in english i like to use the term "lore/army lore". In the Swedish language i havent found any better term then fluff, so i still use the term fluff when talking with swedish people. I personally think that the term fluff comes with a derogatory meaning.

My interpretation of the term fluff = something that is soft and has no meaning to the game.

Tibrand wrote:
My interpretation of the term fluff = something that is soft and has no meaning to the game.

Fluff means padding, extra words of filler material in the codex. This implies that it bulks out an army and provides nothing firm for it. This concept only makes sense if only rules and stats are relevant, I could never agree with that.

Most 'background' discussions I've had involve TV shows where you would refer to the 'canon'. Here, I use fluff because others do.

Its a silly word to be sure.. Your reward for knowing a lot of fluff is to be called a fluffer.. What a deal

Its fluff because the Necrons team up with Blood Angels. Even the people who write the books do not take it seriously.

Fluff is that stuff thats really nice to have and that we all love but we really dont need. Simple

Fluff is a way of saying filler, like that in a stuffed animal.

Like others have said, it's anything non rules specific. Lore is fine and dandy, but GW for example have a tendency to rewrite their own lore throughout several editions of a book, making it less lore and more filler.


To me, lore is history that is unchangeable. Such as the Old Ones being the genesis of the WFB world.

As someone pointed out recently, in the Storm of Chaos campaign, an orc named Grimgore Ironhide killed Archaon, and then in the newest edition of the Orc and Goblin book, this event is not mentioned at all in the characters story.

To me, the kill was fluff and not lore, as GW have decided to ignore it completely.

Fluff vs. Crunch in gaming came to be used in the 90s, IIRC, when people were getting disenchanted with White Wolf and other really narrative centered games whose books were chock-full of stories and background and other artistic or pretentious touches like song quotes and made-up quotes from fictional characters, which felt like padding and sometimes a bit self-indulgent and pointless. Gamers started reacting against this, and looking for more "crunch"; more stats and mechanics and game in their games.

I can only assume that the word ‘fluff’ began as a pejorative – a way to dismiss the background material as something unimportant to the actual game. Over time though I think the word has been reappropriated and is now used simply as a descriptor, without any hidden meaning (good or bad).

Didn't one Mr Gav Thorpe refer to "Fluff" as "something that you pull out of your belly button" at one point in the past?

Because "lore" would give it a gravitas and credibility that it doesn't have - hence it is called "fluff".

Fluff is "filler" and padding, and essentially lightweight content. Those parts of the "rule book" that are not "rules". Those 5 minute "human interest" stories on News broadcasts, for example, are often called "fluff" or "puff" pieces.

@Worglock: That would explain where Mr Ward gets his "lore" from, then.

Must be something to do with contemplating belly buttons surely?

Orlanth wrote:

Tibrand wrote:
My interpretation of the term fluff = something that is soft and has no meaning to the game.

Fluff means padding, extra words of filler material in the codex. This implies that it bulks out an army and provides nothing firm for it. This concept only makes sense if only rules and stats are relevant, I could never agree with that.

I agree with the filler material been fluffy. It makes an army book 3x fluffier / thicker than i need it for xD

chromedog wrote:Because "lore" would give it a gravitas and credibility that it doesn't have - hence it is called "fluff".

Fluff is "filler" and padding, and essentially lightweight content. Those parts of the "rule book" that are not "rules". Those 5 minute "human interest" stories on News broadcasts, for example, are often called "fluff" or "puff" pieces.

@Worglock: That would explain where Mr Ward gets his "lore" from, then.

<3 chromedog

As others said, fluff is used derogatively, it became popular for 40k in the early 2000s when there was a big split over where armies should be maximised to win (competitive) or should have some sort of theme or storyline (fluff).

This came about mainly because the army books were so unbalanced. Worse yet some armies like Iron Warriors with maxed out artillery were both fluffy and competitive. I don't hear that debate as much lately, maybe the books are getting better in this respect.

It also refers to things like spin off books, video games etc. For most gamers they're happy to buy the models and rule book but others want more background, more storyline and go in big for the spin off stuff.

Which causes some friction when the high fluff players 'correct' someone because their army is not in accord with some novel or art book.

I see that sort of OCD comment in the gallery from time to time where some attacks a gorgeous model for being 'wrong'.

It always pisses me off.

Fluff is the bit around the edges (of the games) ...

Tibrand wrote:The topic is basically what the rubric tells. Why do we call lore fluff? With we i mean gamers in general.

First time i came in contact with the term "fluff" was when i started to collect my first army (Bretonnia), i was going to a local tournament where everyone needed to have fluff for their army to be able to participate.

The word should have some kind of origin, is it from a cpu game perhaps?

Funny, I always thought lore was an odd term because I only encountered it when my buddies tried to get me to play mmos with them. I'd always heard it referred to as fluff before that and I was confused as to why they were calling fluff lore.

tuebor wrote:

Tibrand wrote:The topic is basically what the rubric tells. Why do we call lore fluff? With we i mean gamers in general.

First time i came in contact with the term "fluff" was when i started to collect my first army (Bretonnia), i was going to a local tournament where everyone needed to have fluff for their army to be able to participate.

The word should have some kind of origin, is it from a cpu game perhaps?

Funny, I always thought lore was an odd term because I only encountered it when my buddies tried to get me to play mmos with them. I'd always heard it referred to as fluff before that and I was confused as to why they were calling fluff lore.

Lore was a term I learned when I started playing role-playing games like Dungeons and Dragons 3.5. The reason for the role-playing community to talk about lore instead of fluff may be due to that the element of "lore / fluff" has a more distinct impact on the actual gameplay.

Gav Thorpe also once said that every time you use the word fluff, God kills a kitten. He wasn't a fan of the word.

'Fluff' also resulted in my fav Dakka phrase of all time, from none other than Mauleed himself:

"Shut up about your fluff and roll your damned armour saves!"

He even had that put on a T-shirt!

Tibrand wrote:
Lore was a term I learned when I started playing role-playing games like Dungeons and Dragons 3.5. The reason for the role-playing community to talk about lore instead of fluff may be due to that the element of "lore / fluff" has a more distinct impact on the actual gameplay.

That's how I've seen it -

-Non-historical wargames have 'fluff' - it's background that's there, but you don't need to know it in order to play the game. So it's extra, filler, unnecessary.
-Historical wargames have, well, history - what actually happened does have an affect on how the game is played, whether you're recreating Gettysburg, or how a 'points system' works, as how a Napoleonic French Voltigeur will cost more than a Russian militiaman.
-RPG's have 'lore' - it's made up history, but it can, and often will, have an effect on the game.

Which is interesting when you think about it - while playing 40k, it's 'fluff', but while playing DH/RT/DW/BC, it's 'lore'.

Maybe it's just because I'm not a RPG'er or MMOG'er, but I don't use the term "lore" because it it gives an importance and gravitas to game background that seems undeserved. It also smacks of taking it way too seriously. No offense to those that use the term, it just ain't my cup-o-tea.

I use the terms "Background" or "Fluff" interchangeably and non-derrogatorily. Fluff is fun, but it's just fluff. Still, call it what you will, fluff/lore/background are just different names for whatever is in a rulebook/sourcebook that isn't rules.

The rules have all changed now. God will only kill kittens when people listen to those new Metallica/Lou Reed songs.

I've heard armies described as "fluffy" and it had a purely positive connotation. Fluff itself hints at being pejorative while not always being so.

Perhaps it would help if you stopped thinking of 'fluff' as referring to bland, soft, and generally vague tufts of whatever



and start thinking of 'fluff' as a term describing a substance sent by whatever god you choose to make us happy and give meaning to our lives.

Necros wrote: those new Metallica/Lou Reed songs.

Best team-up since Blood Angels and Necrons

I find 'fluff' to be dismissive and derogatory, although I think 'lore' is putting on aires a bit. I like 'background.' I did my own thread on this about a year ago, and the general consensus at the time was that 'fluff' didn't have a negative conotation in most people's minds. So I stopped harping about it, because there's no point in being the vocal minority about something just for the sake of being the vocal minority. For what it's worth, I don't like the term 'fluff' either, but I've learned to put up with it.

Because in GW's case, they've got like a windsock thing going on.

My girlfriend is mildly interested in the hobby, mostly to understand what I do on Saturdays. She used the word lore, and it really took me back, because it took me a moment to understand that when she asked "so there's a lot of lore behind the game" she was really asking about background.

Fluff does have the advantage of being made into an adjective. An army can be "fluffy" rather than "consistent with the background."

Fluff might have some negative connotations, but interestingly, "fluffy" does not.