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.

"Fluff vs Fun"

Ther'es no difference.

I think there is a story behind everyones army. To tell your opponent about your armies story is a way to start the conversation but to tell that story for more than 10 minutes will ruin the game for most. I don't mind telling my opponents (friends) about my Ravenwing/Iyanden army as there is already fluff on their back story and I'm simply evolving it into my own. I also think it is quite cool to see homegrown characters such as HQ choices and sergeants as that bring character to that individual's army. After all this a hobby right???

What I don't enjoy doing is spending 2 1/2 hours with an opponent that is a win-at-all-costs player. Sure they have a painted army....but they brought 72 Firewarriors, 3 flyers, or 15 lascannons! Those players belong in one place...the touranments. So I always ask my opponents if they are sorely asking me to play or if they are looking to completely murder my ass! Lets keep it in middle where you can try and bring both fun and competetiveness to the table....now that's enjoyable!

Since I've played a pure Nurgle Daemons army since the first Daemons Codex dropped on us (late 4th Ed wasn't it?), I'd like to consider myself a fluff player. While I was rocking out Epidemius before he got huge, you could still say that by skipping daemons of the others gods, I was handicapping myself in the long run.***

I tried to make my list as competitive as I could, but never once strayed from the lovely Garden of Nurgle, skipping the "better" units in the 'dex in favor of sub-par but 'fun' units....like Beasts of Nurgle and nurglings....hordes and hordes of nurglings (I had 30 bases).

In my current daemons army, I've named all my special characters/princes/soul-grinders, and every unit also sports its own unique moniker. I don't share this unless asked, as I tend to feel rather silly about it lol. I also always try to win. I'm not one of those fluff-at-all-costs players who are always resigned to loose.

I short I'm not a WAAC player or a fluff-nazi. I think I represent the overwhelming majority of players since I enjoy both the fluff and the crunch. Saying that fluff players or competitive players aren't fun is far too vague an argument for something so nuanced.


/end rant


Edit:
*** I'll also have you guys know, that despite the fact I also play Death Guard, I never tried that Epidemius/DG allies cheese, I just like Nurgle

Makumba wrote:Because fluff is part of the hobby , not of the game.

... What?

I'm looking at my rulebook, and like two thirds of it is devoted to fluff. Sounds like that's the most important part of the game IS the fluff, not the rules.

 BattleCapIronblood wrote:
I think people who play for the fluff's sake miss the point of the hobby and the actual game.

There was a time when I was playing a 40k game with my Blood Angels, and the guy I was going up against had Dark Angels, and he wouldn't play until we came up with a comprehensive reason and background to why both armies were fighting each other, and he proceeded about with a lengthy explanation that his army believed that my army was harboring one of the Fallen, and that I had to designate one model to fulfill such roll.

I can't tell you how much that took the fun out of the game. I then told him I didn't want to play if it meant making it as accurately as possible. Eventually he gave up and played the game normally, but he didn't seem to enjoy it very much. I haven't played with the player since.

Has this ever happened to anyone?

Slow clap for epic troll. Well done.

Malik_Raynor wrote:
Sure they have a painted army....but they brought 72 Firewarriors, 3 flyers, or 15 lascannons! Those players belong in one place...the touranments

You have a very strange idea of WAAC if fairly weak lists like that qualify.

My argument?
Everything is fluff. If it is in your codex is it fluff. You can even justify a shadowsun/Farsight alliance. So what if telion is with my white scars and painted as ultramarine, so what if my librarian is blue and not white?
I only like fluff when my guys do something cool on the tabletop, and even then i imagine it after the game. Fluff doesnt preclude competitive.

If someone lectures you on why such and such is fluffy and what you should do different and you didn't want this then they are simply rude. If someone builds a thematic list and sticks to his guns despite not winning everytime only because he enjoys those units that's fine. If he starts putting on a "Holier than thou" act towards competitive players he crossed the line.

If someone wants to play such a fluff heavy battle they should ask and discuss the possibility of such a thing BEFORE the game. Many people have a very limited time amount for their PEW PEW battles, the last thing they want is waste that precious gaming time with the fluff of a player they just met.

If after a few games both players are up for it, that's cool. Narrative battles ARE better, but they have a time and a place.

Me, I just get a warm and fuzzy feeling inside when I see my Ice-world themed Necrons on the table and will gladly explain their fluff if someone asks me. If not, I'll just play the game and have fun.

 TheDraconicLord wrote:
Narrative battles ARE better, but they have a time and a place.

Me, I just get a warn and fuzzy feeling inside when I see my Ice-world themed Necrons on the table and will gladly explain their fluff is someone asks me. If not, I'll just play the game and have fun.

/Thread

Although in my case it's my Agri-world themed PDF allies. Flamers? What flamers?

I have a theme armored battlegroup that always has the same ten tanks in it. I keep kill tallies and rename the crew and tank if it explodes. All the characters are named.

I consider it quite fun indeed to see how each tank performs on the battlefield. For example Castellum/131, the command tank of third squadron "Inexpugnabilis" has an irrational hatred of Necrons, to the point that the club's cron players single it out for destruction. When it was a mere MBT in one game it killed four Necron tanks. The next game it was promoted to a destroyer, and killed a Monolith and one more tank before being wrecked. Currently now it is a thunderor, but the Machine Spirit and crew remain as vicious as ever with three armor kills in the last game before having its main gun blown off and retreating to hide.

That sort of stuff is awesome to me.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I have a theme armored battlegroup that always has the same ten tanks in it. I keep kill tallies and rename the crew and tank if it explodes. All the characters are named.

I consider it quite fun indeed to see how each tank performs on the battlefield. For example Castellum/131, the command tank of third squadron "Inexpugnabilis" has an irrational hatred of Necrons, to the point that the club's cron players single it out for destruction. When it was a mere MBT in one game it killed four Necron tanks. The next game it was promoted to a destroyer, and killed a Monolith and one more tank before being wrecked. Currently now it is a thunderor, but the Machine Spirit and crew remain as vicious as ever with three armor kills in the last game before having its main gun blown off and retreating to hide.

That sort of stuff is awesome to me.

Go on? This sounds awesome and interesting.

Anyways, fluff vs fun isn't the problem. The problem here is fun vs differing interests and being careless. The DA player shouldn't have forced you to wait so long and then force you to elect a member as a possible fallen. That being said, that is probably what he likes just as some care not 2 flips for fluff. No matter what, the extremes of fluff and crunch players are bad.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I have a theme armored battlegroup that always has the same ten tanks in it. I keep kill tallies and rename the crew and tank if it explodes. All the characters are named.

I agree that this can be fun. My flyers all have kill tallies painted on, tracking their actual in-game air-to-air kill count. Of course now I'm sure some fluff-at-all-costs player will show up to tell me how I'm doing it wrong and a real Imperial Navy fighter would have it done completely differently, so I'd better start painting my models properly or nobody will ever want to play against me.

 BattleCapIronblood wrote:
I think people who play for the fluff's sake miss the point of the hobby and the actual game.

I feel this is a very unfair statement. I think you may have missed a large part of this hobby by discounting fluff in games.

Given the nature of 40k, fluff is a big part of the game, and features heavily in the way some people play. Fluff is often at least interesting to people, even if it doesn't factor into their actual gaming.

Fluff is often what attracts people to an army as well.

I think it unfair that you should use such a sweeping generalisation to discount the opinions of one group of people in this hobby. I understand you had a bad experience with a player who plays the game very differently to you. That probably wasnt a fun game for either of you by the sounds of it. But it sounds like he was just trying to inject a little narrative into the game. You should just explain to your opponent that for you, fluff isnt a key part of actually playing the game, and that you'd prefer to just get on with the actually playing of it.

Your way of playing is just as valid as his.

I often like a little fluff in my games, the larger, less competitive ones at least. Often Ill just tip up and play whoever and not worry about fluff. But with things like apocalypse, its a bit of fun to create a background for the game, and to create a mission based on that.
Im actually in the process of creating a narrative campaign for me and a few friends.

Long story short, everyone plays this game in their own way. If someone plays it differently to you and you dont enjoy playing it that way, politely explain that to them and try and resolve it so both parties at least have a good game. If you cant, then try to play opponents for whom fluff is a non-issue on the table.

There are 3 types of players.

THose who play fluffy.

Those who play competitively.

Those who like the imagery, and like to paint/model.



Each of these people can be a mix, but generally, they are one of the 3 more than the other two. And each one can be a fun person to play against, or an arse.

Fluff player cam be fun when they get caught up in the story of a game, and their enjoyment is infectious. They can be annoying, if they nitpick, or gripe about an unfluffy match-up, or army.

Competitive player can be fun when they make the game a tough challenge, and really push the limits of your skill. Competitive player can suck, when they are WAAC, they spam the cheesiest units, or flat out cheat.

Painter-player can be fun when they bring an amazing looking model, that's just great to see on the table. They can suck the fun out of a game if they get critical of the painting of your army.



Everyone has their own reasons for enjoying the game. But, no matter the reason, they can be either fun, or a jerk.. Being a jerk, and enjoying the game a certain way, are not connected.

I think it unfair that you should use such a sweeping generalisation to discount the opinions of one group of people in this hobby. I understand you had a bad experience with a player who plays the game very differently to you. That probably wasnt a fun game for either of you by the sounds of it. But it sounds like he was just trying to inject a little narrative into the game. You should just explain to your opponent that for you, fluff isnt a key part of actually playing the game, and that you'd prefer to just get on with the actually playing of it.

You are only partly right . It is true that generalisations are used here. But the problem with fluff players is that everyone who plays the game to play the game , doesn't force them to write or think about fluff in this or that way . the fluff players on the other hand want both the fluff , something they are supposable interested more then anything else and they also want to decide how the game is played. Someone wants to play an army true to his own fluff , be my guest , but please don't force me to play units you think I should play , don't change the rules to fit your fluff and don't make fluff players look like some holy man and others equal to baby eating canibals.

Makumba wrote:
But the problem with fluff players is that everyone who plays the game to play the game , doesn't force them to write or think about fluff in this or that way . the fluff players on the other hand want both the fluff , something they are supposable interested more then anything else and they also want to decide how the game is played.

I respectfully disagree with the above statement, which the author has presented as 'fact', and submit that it is instead his 'opinion'. I like the fluff. The Sisters in my Order Minoris have names, and their Commandery has backstory. My PDF IG is similarly plotted out, and they never field template weapons; they're Agri-worlders, and part of their planet's cultural baggage is a belief that naked flame is only to be trusted to the blessèd Ecclesiarchy.

How is this, as me reflecting my enjoyment of fluff in my own army, deciding 'how the game is played'? I'm not telling my opponent what to field. I'm not telling him what is and isn't 'fluffy'. I'm not affecting the way he or she plays the game in any fashion whatsoever - save, perhaps, that my IG are hamstrung through lack of Wall of Fire overwatch. Frankly, I couldn't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys over whether or not they've read anything in their Codex beyond the Army List and Special Rules. If they want to talk about fluff, or they ask me about my army, sure - I really enjoy discussing it with someone who's actually interested - but I'm just as happy for them to move their little toy soldiers and roll their dice in relative silence.

I still fail to see the difference between fluff and fun.

Without the fluff, 40k is a stupid, poorly balanced game with thousands of questionable design decisions and a very poor and lacklustre model range that is essentially mostly identical (see: Space Marines) with little imagination. The "fluff" makes 40k what it is, it makes the game worth playing, it makes hte models worth painting (... sort of), and it makes the RPGs awesome.

But that's just me, apparently.

Waaaghpower wrote:
Because it's incredibly annoying to harrass people. However, 'competitive' players as you describe them are simply making sure there is no cheating going on for the most part. You make it sound as though this:
"Uh, you can't take 5 Helldrakes in a thousand point game, and you've got eighteen hundred points of models..."
"That doesn't matter to me."
Is a perfectly reasonable excuse. (Yes, this is extreme hyperbole, but I am making a point.) I know a couple people who I always have to double and triple check on before the game starts, simply because they screw up their lists very often and sometimes magically get gear they wouldn't have had or couldn't afford.
Harassing someone over rules: Can get annoying, but assures the game is played properly with no cheating. (Accidentally or otherwise.)
Harassing someone over fluff: Always annoying unless you are an equal fluff fan, adding an extra complication to an already complicated game.

I think the type of rules harassment he was referring to is not the "You can't take 5 heldrakes" variety, but more the creative rules interpreting/lawyering type of harassment. You know the kind I'm referring to (just check out the YMDC forum for countless examples). Its not ensuring the rules are followed, it ensuring that the harassing player's interpretation of the rules are followed. And harassing rules lawyers are completely deaf to any other interpretation of a rule.

 Melissia wrote:
I still fail to see the difference between fluff and fun.

Without the fluff, 40k is a stupid, poorly balanced game with thousands of questionable design decisions and a very poor and lacklustre model range that is essentially mostly identical (see: Space Marines) with little imagination. The "fluff" makes 40k what it is, it makes the game worth playing, it makes hte models worth painting (... sort of), and it makes the RPGs awesome.

But that's just me, apparently.

It's not just you.

 Melissia wrote:
I still fail to see the difference between fluff and fun.

Without the fluff, 40k is a stupid, poorly balanced game with thousands of questionable design decisions and a very poor and lacklustre model range that is essentially mostly identical (see: Space Marines) with little imagination. The "fluff" makes 40k what it is, it makes the game worth playing, it makes hte models worth painting (... sort of), and it makes the RPGs awesome.

But that's just me, apparently.

You're right there, besides half the fun is giving your army history, making its yours - nobody has my marines or their guard allies, they have a history and frankly with the amount of effort it takes to paint and model each one (every Guard squad has at least three converted soldiers - pretty well every marine has some modifications, not bragging - I mostly model) I really need the give all that work reason.

Fluff is a limiter in what you can take, it practically guarantees that you will be at a disadvantage at some point, making your victory sweeter (or transferring the blame of defeat to the gear used by your guys). after all, who doesn't love a challenge?

But after all that, when it comes time to have a game all that matters is the presence of stuff to kill - I'll worry about the correctness of marines vs SW later - after one of us loses

You'd never want to play me with my numerous character sheets for each of my armies and unfinished fan novels.

Been down this road a few times.

40k fluff vs. rules: GW endorses fluff more than anything.

Find a middle ground with your opponent and get to something you can agree with: "let's play".

We do not play chess so the pieces need to look good to give that cool epic diorama (drama?) to the game that gets others interested in the hobby.

"Fun" is being able to keep yourself and your opponent doing things all the time. Denial of assault or other phases of the game remove some of the fun. Most fun I have is when there is a two way serious beating going on.

It is being able to have your opponent kill models while you win that is the true genius of the general: the objective is to win AND keep it fun for your opponent. You want to keep having games right? There can only be so many suckers to fall for TFG tactics.

If I followed Sun Tzu's teachings I would quietly make my opponent's army case disappear because a true win is your opponent never knowing a war has been declared until it is over.

 Ailaros wrote:

Makumba wrote:Because fluff is part of the hobby , not of the game.

... What?

I'm looking at my rulebook, and like two thirds of it is devoted to fluff. Sounds like that's the most important part of the game IS the fluff, not the rules.

Realy how do you play the game with fluff ? you can't . to play the game you need rules. Else there is no difference between w40k and a 6year old playing with toy soldiers

Without the fluff, 40k is a stupid, poorly balanced game with thousands of questionable design decisions and a very poor and lacklustre model range that is essentially mostly identical (see: Space Marines) with little imagination.

Balance was never part of any game . if it was , people who are a better would be banned from playing any game.

Makumba wrote:

Balance was never part of any game . if it was , people who are a better would be banned from playing any game.

I think you're confusing balance of rules with relative skill level. Stevenage FC might be outperformed by a Premiership side, but that would be a function of relative skill level, not proof that the rules of football favour another team.

Makumba wrote:


Realy how do you play the game with fluff ? you can't . to play the game you need rules. Else there is no difference between w40k and a 6year old playing with toy soldiers

Yet without the fluff, it's simply playing the most expensive, most elaborate, most convoluted version of Ludo ever conceived. What's the point?

Makumba wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

Makumba wrote:Because fluff is part of the hobby , not of the game.

... What?

I'm looking at my rulebook, and like two thirds of it is devoted to fluff. Sounds like that's the most important part of the game IS the fluff, not the rules.

Realy how do you play the game with fluff ? you can't . to play the game you need rules. Else there is no difference between w40k and a 6year old playing with toy soldiers

Without the fluff, 40k is a stupid, poorly balanced game with thousands of questionable design decisions and a very poor and lacklustre model range that is essentially mostly identical (see: Space Marines) with little imagination.

Balance was never part of any game . if it was , people who are a better would be banned from playing any game.

These arguments are incredibly spurious at best.

Without fluff in the game, you'd just have a bunch of unpainted models and a bunch of over or underweight people rolling dice at each other and a book filled with nothing but charts, rules and numbers. The fluff part comes in what you put into your army. Some people like you just paint them to get them out to play quickly. Others put their hearts and souls into their models. Either model is valid, but one takes much more work than the other and those who do go down that road should be respected for putting that much effort into toy soldiers.

As for your second argument, balance has little to do with player skill, rules balance is there so that person playing army X which he or she likes better than army Y for whatever reason is not disadvantaged for just finding X cooler than Y.

Unfortunately for people playing the Black Templars and Sisters of Battle, their army X sucks large, plentiful balls while army Y players like Tau and Necron users can crap all over them all day long.

Different people get different things out of the game.

I guess the issue is when someone tries to put their way of playing before all else, including that of the other player.

Personally I do have fluff for my Ork army, but it's all in my head and I don't volunteer that information unless my opponent actually asks. I generally just play the game. Weather or not my opponent has fluff for the army he has just put on the table is up to him, we just play the game on the table.

Manners and mutual respect don't cost.

 Melissia wrote:
I still fail to see the difference between fluff and fun.

Without the fluff, 40k is a stupid, poorly balanced game with thousands of questionable design decisions and a very poor and lacklustre model range that is essentially mostly identical (see: Space Marines) with little imagination. The "fluff" makes 40k what it is, it makes the game worth playing, it makes hte models worth painting (... sort of), and it makes the RPGs awesome.

But that's just me, apparently.

Not at all, there are many that think just like you do. Personally though, it doesn't matter all that much to me, and I can still find the game worth playing. I like the fluff as a sidenote. I liked the fluff of WHFB much much more, but then I was as loyal to the Skaven back then as you could ever be. I started Skaven and never once did I even entertain the thought of maybe changing. Never. So reading about their triumphs made me smile. Plus, their whole society and its structure is really an interesting read.

In 40k, I like fancy models that look badass and I like imagining the chaos of the battlefield. But how the armies got to that field holds little interest to me. Still, I think it's worth playing anyway.
(And it's a way for me to hang out with some people from my childhood that I had drifted away from but always kept some contact with. You know, those people you heard from once a year. So 40k has a pretty important social aspect for me)

What I'm saying is, there are a lot of reasons to play a board game, and I don't think one is more valid than another.
I would rather not play with a person that is too extreme in any direction. Be it fluff or rules. I play for fun, and extremists are not fun to me. This goes for all aspects of life. I don't like extremists.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I have a theme armored battlegroup that always has the same ten tanks in it. I keep kill tallies and rename the crew and tank if it explodes. All the characters are named.

I consider it quite fun indeed to see how each tank performs on the battlefield. For example Castellum/131, the command tank of third squadron "Inexpugnabilis" has an irrational hatred of Necrons, to the point that the club's cron players single it out for destruction. When it was a mere MBT in one game it killed four Necron tanks. The next game it was promoted to a destroyer, and killed a Monolith and one more tank before being wrecked. Currently now it is a thunderor, but the Machine Spirit and crew remain as vicious as ever with three armor kills in the last game before having its main gun blown off and retreating to hide.

That sort of stuff is awesome to me.

This kind of stuff I can really get on board with. I love stuff like that. If someone in my team manages something heroic, he gets a stripe.
You should also be aware that according to the rules, being taken out as a casualty doesn't mean you are dead, so when you kill off your next tank crew and place new guys in there, you could have a little ponder on how it died just to give yourself some more reasons to keep tally (I flippin love keeping tally.)
Say the tank doesn't explode. It only gets wrecked. The it was shot in the front, so the driver probably snuffed it. But maybe he was the only one to die. On a 3+ for each additional crew member, they survive.
If it blows up, each crew member survives on a 5+.

This way, you could potentially have one tank commander that has survived several tank crews. Adds a little more flavour to each tank, yes?

I love it. But I don't care about Unit1126's army's homeplanet being destroyed and then they started 'the great exodus' etc etc. That does nothing for me.

Simply put, there's a balance. In D&D you role play a bit, and there's not even strong fluff. However, it tends be be banter, though each group may have its own set of guidelines for how much backstory each character has. Regardless of the level of RP, the game isn't as fun without it. At the same time, you don't run the game by role playing, it's often done while playing and typically without adding huge chunks of extra time.

Bring that to 40k. Having to explain armies to each other and the fluff behind them before playing is a bit much to many people, and not all players are going to like or be willing to do that. If someone is all about that aspect though, they will need to find others with whom they share that passion. If you asked me to give squad names and fluff for each, I'd stumble or make up random things on the spot. At the same time, in my local scene, only one player is really into making up stories to make everything work. Banter back and forth on the other hand, that's easy to do, and we all do it all the time.

In short, people are different, but unfortunately for those into more fluff, they are going to have to submit to those who want the lesser amount usually, unless they can both strike an agreement.