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.

Okay, weird question, but it's been eating at me ever since I joined Dakka. Does anyone else find the term 'fluff' annoying? To me, it implies that you don't consider the background to be important. (It's just an extra, just 'fluff.') To me, the background is the most important part of the game. I don't play any other wargames, because none of them have a setting that intrigues me enough to invest this much time, cash, and energy into being a small part of it.

I try to use the terms 'backstory,' 'setting,' or 'background' instead. I realize that all of these are longer, and it may just be an expediency thing. Am I totally off my rocker? I just want to know what other people think, and either way I won't harp on this anymore.

Fluff is a catchall term to justify the content of any game. There's fluff in Magic the Gathering, Mechwarrior, Warmachine, and any non-historical wargame. It usually isn't that intensive or that forward (Magic again as an example) while in 40k it is. So it's still just fluff, it's just very fleshed out fluff with 25 years of stories in it.

In the end, it just comes down to giving our spacemen reasons to kill each other. Some of it just happens to be pretty darn good.

Brother SRM wrote:Fluff is a catchall term to justify the content of any game. There's fluff in Magic the Gathering, Mechwarrior, Warmachine, and any non-historical wargame. It usually isn't that intensive or that forward (Magic again as an example) while in 40k it is. So it's still just fluff, it's just very fleshed out fluff with 25 years of stories in it.

In the end, it just comes down to giving our spacemen reasons to kill each other. Some of it just happens to be pretty darn good.

Mai spacemans have better reasonz to kill yor spacemans than your spacemans have to kill my spacemanes...

It's just what we call it. Fluff and crunch. Crunch is the game rules and fluff is the setting. I don't know if we want to dig too deep into the name.

Crunchy crunch.

Crunchy Nut Khorneflakes
You wouldn't want Fluffy Nut Khorneflakes for brekkers.

Well you might, I am sticking to bonemeal porridge.

I thought the word "fluff" was weird in the beginning. I had never heard it before. Now... I use it all the time without noticing when talking about fluff.

Jimsolo wrote:Does anyone else find the term 'fluff' annoying?

From memory, Jervis does. Hates it with a passion, for exactly the reason you mention.


Frankly, I don't think most people think about it that hard. But while the background of the game is important for setting the scene, ultimately, it is fluff. It's space opera science fantasy... and taking it too seriously leads to all of those nasty things that Yoda warned us about.

Don't get me wrong, I love the background of 40K. For what it is (the backstory for a game of toy soldiers) it's an impressive achievement. But high literature it's not.

I'm more interested in where the term came from. Without ever having heard the word in context with backround... it's kinda odd.

Goddard wrote:I'm more interested in where the term came from. Without ever having heard the word in context with backround... it's kinda odd.

I agree. I have been wondering on many occasions that where did the word originate.

Well I think where it has developed is you have players who only play the game for the game side of it, and then you have the players who look for a reason, for instance I have a nid playing friend who couldnt tell you what the Horus Heresy really was, however another friend is so Fluff driven that he will often jot down AAR's on every battle just to fluff it up.

insaniak wrote:From memory, Jervis does. Hates it with a passion, for exactly the reason you mention.

I think it was Gav. He said that every time someone says the word 'Fluff', God kills a kitten.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

insaniak wrote:From memory, Jervis does. Hates it with a passion, for exactly the reason you mention.

I think it was Gav. He said that every time someone says the word 'Fluff', God kills a kitten.

I'll correct myself before mods do, lets just say between this and all the other acts that are supposed to kill kittens you would think cats would be extinct

Which is why we all ignore Gav Thorpe...

H.B.M.C. wrote:Which is why we all ignore Gav Thorpe...

I thought it had something to do with Chao... silenced by order of the inquisition

Lol, thanks guys. Far be it from me to hop into the same boat as Jervis or Thorpe. Sorry for making a thing out of it.

It's amazing what can be done with fluff
http://youbentmywookie.com/wtf/teddy-bear-figurines-made-entirely-out-of-belly-button-lint-8942

Jimsolo wrote:Okay, weird question, but it's been eating at me ever since I joined Dakka. Does anyone else find the term 'fluff' annoying? To me, it implies that you don't consider the background to be important. (It's just an extra, just 'fluff.') To me, the background is the most important part of the game. I don't play any other wargames, because none of them have a setting that intrigues me enough to invest this much time, cash, and energy into being a small part of it.

I try to use the terms 'backstory,' 'setting,' or 'background' instead. I realize that all of these are longer, and it may just be an expediency thing. Am I totally off my rocker? I just want to know what other people think, and either way I won't harp on this anymore.

I must say I understand your point and agree with it.
I am a "story" player ; I am not a very "competitive" gamer, nor a skilled painter... but I love background... And that's why I like to play campaign.
(And yes, I am also a roleplaying adept from 15 years now...)

I don't play 40k (only dark heresy/deathwatch). I do own pretty much every novel i can get my hands on though.

Fluff is just an easy term for it, nothing more.

I've never had a problem with the term because 40k is a tabletop miniatures game that just so happens to have an interesting background. The background in some ways makes the game more fun, but the term fluff has never bothered me because first and foremost 40k is a game. The background is exactly that. Fluff.

I agree with Red Comet.

The gameplay is the core thing. The fluff is a colour background. It could be practically any type of loose science fantasy and have the same relevance to the game.

A campaign setting is more important for giving meaning to games. By which I mean maps, force allocations, supplies and reinforcements which provide military logic for why, when and how you would fight a battle.

DakkaDakka History Factoid: The 40K Background forum used to be called Fluff For Nutters.

Kilkrazy wrote:I agree with Red Comet.

The gameplay is the core thing. The fluff is a colour background. It could be practically any type of loose science fantasy and have the same relevance to the game.

A campaign setting is more important for giving meaning to games. By which I mean maps, force allocations, supplies and reinforcements which provide military logic for why, when and how you would fight a battle.

DakkaDakka History Factoid: The 40K Background forum used to be called Fluff For Nutters.

And now fluffernutter sounds good.....DAMN YOU MODS FOR MAKING ME HUNGRY!!!!!!!