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.

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?

You are 180 degree out!

This happens to me all the time. I've given up on playing random pickup games because people always nitpick my list and give me endless rants on how my unit choices aren't fluffy enough (for example, taking melta guns when clearly the DKoK would use grenade launchers) or the numbers painted on my tanks aren't using the correct organizational system. And even once the game finally starts I have to hear all about each of their fluffy units and the elaborate history behind it. It really drains all the fun out of the game, if I want to spend an entire evening on a story I'll just read a book.

I agree fluff players don't have fun or don't know what fun playing the game is . For them people should be playing some sort of preconstructed army that only exist in their own minds. Everything that beats their army is unfluffy. They always tell you how they beat top tier armies and players , but you see them play 2-3 games per week , when those that game play 2-3 per day etc. If fluff players like fluff so much then they should stick to BL books , but those are probably unfluffy too.

What a load of bullocks... there are kill-joys (extremists?) on either side... I've met many gamers ... actually no.. the term would be maths-hammerers.. that play only to win.. construct only to table weaker opponents and refuse to settle the hell down whilst rule-lawyering all the while...
so don't pretend you guys are the only ones that have it so bad... go too far either way (fluff or rules) and it will kill the fun..
there are two sides to this story with all the gooduns in the middle just wanting to have fun and make friends...

Makumba wrote:
They always tell you how they beat top tier armies and players , but you see them play 2-3 games per week

To be fair, it's hard to get in a lot of games when you're spending that many hours every week on writing fluff for your army.

Pointless (and wrong) binary argument is pointless.

I could go on about how EVERYONE who doesnt write fluff for their army is a complete powergaming tard that sucks the life out of the game with their internet mathhammer lists, but I'd be as far off the mark as the opposite argument.

I like the setting, I'll make up some fluff, doesn't mean I'm writing novels about it, or that I won't use a heldrake.

Dunno.

If I wanna play a game for the sake of playing a game, I can just pick up a US$ 5,- pack of cards. Or flip coins. Or play rock-paper-scissor. Or challenge my tactical skills at the local chess club (they'll let you use their figures free of charge too!!)

To only thing that would make it worthwhile collecting a month or two worth's salary of overpriced plastic, meticulously paint them in hours of free time not spend with your friends/family/etc.. and force yourself through some of the most atrocious game-rules ever written, would be to create some resonance with the background, no?

 Zweischneid wrote:
If I wanna play a game for the sake of playing a game, I can just pick up a US$ 5,- pack of cards. Or flip coins. Or play rock-paper-scissor. Or challenge my tactical skills at the local chess club (they'll let you use their figures free of charge too!!)

To only thing that would make it worthwhile collecting a month or two worth's salary of overpriced plastic, meticulously paint them in hours of free time not spend with your friends/family/etc.. and force yourself through some of the most atrocious game-rules ever written, would be to create some resonance with the background, no?

But we're not talking about the average player who enjoys the fluff, we're talking about the kind of fluff-at-all-costs player who ruins the game with their fluff obsession.

 Peregrine wrote:
This happens to me all the time. I've given up on playing random pickup games because people always nitpick my list and give me endless rants on how my unit choices aren't fluffy enough (for example, taking melta guns when clearly the DKoK would use grenade launchers) or the numbers painted on my tanks aren't using the correct organizational system. And even once the game finally starts I have to hear all about each of their fluffy units and the elaborate history behind it. It really drains all the fun out of the game, if I want to spend an entire evening on a story I'll just read a book.

Well who ever is saying that DKok "clearly" take grenade launchers is wrong, just because they come with one doesn't mean they use them. And The DKok favor the melta anyway...so its fluffy to take Melta guns.

Hell its fluffy to take 12 quad launchers.. but that makes a fluffy list competitive so then it's not fluffy anymore.

 Peregrine wrote:


But we're not talking about the average player who enjoys the fluff, we're talking about the kind of fluff-at-all-costs player who ruins the game with their fluff obsession.

Is it? I am pretty sure that in the example above (told from one side of the conflict only), both sides would consider themselves as "the average player" and the other as the "extreme one".

Fluff vs. Fun seems to be fairly binary to me.

But yes, of course, a "genuine" discussion would have to deal with a far more nuanced questions of mutual expectations that different players bring to a game, and how to accommodate them if there are different priorities.

"Fluff vs. Fun" isn't that discussion however.

But that's an extreme.

I'd very much consider myself somebody who's into the fluff, but I'd never bother my opponent over fluff issues. This is like saying all competitive players are bad because you had a bad experience with one once.

 Troike wrote:
But that's an extreme.

I'd very much consider myself somebody who's into the fluff, but I'd never bother my opponent over fluff issues. This is like saying all competitive players are bad because you had a bad experience with one once.

Is it?

"Competitive" players harass their opponents all the time about things that matter to them, like exact point values, WYSIWYG, adherence to the FoC, odd RAW-rulings, etc.., irrespective of whether it matters to their opponent or not.

Why shouldn't fluff players have the same right?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Troike wrote:
But that's an extreme.

I'd very much consider myself somebody who's into the fluff, but I'd never bother my opponent over fluff issues. This is like saying all competitive players are bad because you had a bad experience with one once.

Is it?

"Competitive" players harass their opponents all the time about things that matter to them, like exact point values, WYSIWYG, adherence to the FoC, odd RAW-rulings, etc.., irrespective of whether it matters to their opponent or not.

Why shouldn't fluff players have the same right?

No.

One can be "competitive", as in caring about building a winning list, without harassing one's opponent over it,

Also, nobody should feel that they have "the right" to be awkward to their opponent just because there are other examples of people being so.

 Troike wrote:

No.

One can be "competitive", as in caring about building a winning list, without harassing one's opponent over it,

Also, nobody should feel that they have "the right" to be awkward to their opponent just because there are other examples of people being so.

Agreed. Nobody has "the right" to be awkward. But this isn't (mostly) a discussion about one person being awkward (he/she may well have been).

It's a discussion people prioritizing fluff being, by definition, unsporting/awkward/un-fun to play against. Such a pre-set bias is equally awkward to begin with an may very well have coloured the perception of the OP in his communication (and later re-telling of the event on this forum) in the event described.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Troike wrote:

No.

One can be "competitive", as in caring about building a winning list, without harassing one's opponent over it,

Also, nobody should feel that they have "the right" to be awkward to their opponent just because there are other examples of people being so.

Agreed. Nobody has "the right" to be awkward. But this isn't (mostly) a discussion about one person being awkward (he/she may well have been).

It's a discussion people prioritizing fluff being, by definition, unsporting/awkward/un-fun to play against. Such a pre-set bias is equally awkward to begin with an may very well have coloured the perception of the OP in his communication (and later re-telling of the event on this forum) in the event described.

I think that the key is recognising that extremes do not represent all players of a certain mindset. Not all fluffy players are fielding overtly weak armies and get anal about fluff issues. Similarly, not all comparative players are rules lawyers who are looking to utterly crush you every game.

It's better to look at people as individuals with their own personality and mannerisms, rather than trying to sort them all into categories.

 Troike wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Troike wrote:

No.

One can be "competitive", as in caring about building a winning list, without harassing one's opponent over it,

Also, nobody should feel that they have "the right" to be awkward to their opponent just because there are other examples of people being so.

Agreed. Nobody has "the right" to be awkward. But this isn't (mostly) a discussion about one person being awkward (he/she may well have been).

It's a discussion people prioritizing fluff being, by definition, unsporting/awkward/un-fun to play against. Such a pre-set bias is equally awkward to begin with an may very well have coloured the perception of the OP in his communication (and later re-telling of the event on this forum) in the event described.

I think that the key is recognising that extremes do not represent all players of a certain mindset. Not all fluffy players are fielding overtly weak armies and get anal about fluff issues. Similarly, not all comparative players are rules lawyers who are looking to utterly crush you every game.

It's better to look at people as individuals with their own personality and mannerisms, rather than trying to sort them all into categories.

Which is near the exact point of this post to categorize others into categories.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
If I wanna play a game for the sake of playing a game, I can just pick up a US$ 5,- pack of cards. Or flip coins. Or play rock-paper-scissor. Or challenge my tactical skills at the local chess club (they'll let you use their figures free of charge too!!)

To only thing that would make it worthwhile collecting a month or two worth's salary of overpriced plastic, meticulously paint them in hours of free time not spend with your friends/family/etc.. and force yourself through some of the most atrocious game-rules ever written, would be to create some resonance with the background, no?

But we're not talking about the average player who enjoys the fluff, we're talking about the kind of fluff-at-all-costs player who ruins the game with their fluff obsession.

Better them then the super WAAC competitive players who cheat their way to victory and become a complete donkey-cave if they lose.

Fluff vs Fun is a poor choice of title.

Fluff is usually what many would consider to be fun. Where as super competitive gaming on average is viewed not so much as fun as is it tends to be WAAC behaviour.

There is a big difference between fluff players and extreme RPGers.

I like fluff, it is nice to have a back story to my army and use appropriate unit choices. However, it tends to stop there... the odd scenario is nice but it won't prevent the majority of us from playing the game.

If your opponent was miserable because you didn't feel like creating/following an elaborate back story for a casual match, then he was a "special" person and should play with other "special" people.

 gossipmeng wrote:
Fluff vs Fun is a poor choice of title.

It's not. It's the most revealing thing about this thread.

A title of "Un-fun people vs. fun" would be a non-issue.

Everybody can agree that obnoxious people (whether they fall on the "fluff-extreme", WAAC-extreme or anywhere in-between) aren't fun to play against.

The tone of the post however suggest that there is something uniquely "un-fun" about people putting high priority on fluff over other things in their hobby, which doesn't equally apply to "the same person" with a different "first priority" (be it winning, painting, drinking beer, getting to make the most Orky-jokes human possibly in 2 hours-game-time, whatever).

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Troike wrote:

No.

One can be "competitive", as in caring about building a winning list, without harassing one's opponent over it,

Also, nobody should feel that they have "the right" to be awkward to their opponent just because there are other examples of people being so.

Agreed. Nobody has "the right" to be awkward. But this isn't (mostly) a discussion about one person being awkward (he/she may well have been).

It's a discussion people prioritizing fluff being, by definition, unsporting/awkward/un-fun to play against. Such a pre-set bias is equally awkward to begin with an may very well have coloured the perception of the OP in his communication (and later re-telling of the event on this forum) in the event described.

I think that the key is recognising that extremes do not represent all players of a certain mindset. Not all fluffy players are fielding overtly weak armies and get anal about fluff issues. Similarly, not all comparative players are rules lawyers who are looking to utterly crush you every game.

It's better to look at people as individuals with their own personality and mannerisms, rather than trying to sort them all into categories.

Which is near the exact point of this post to categorize others into categories.

Actually, I said mindset. Deliberately a very loose term.

I don't get what the big deal is. You could have just let him go off and have his fluff in the corner without really caring. I don't understand how someone coming up with a story for your quasi-roleplaying-game (because you have minis, characters with statlines and special abilities, dice you roll to see if you hit stuff, etc. etc.) interfered with your ability to play the game as you wanted it to be played.

I mean, you don't get upset when people choose to bring fluffy lists or give their models a fluffy paint scheme, do you? I don't get why someone putting in the extra effort would suck the fun out of the game for you.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Dunno.

If I wanna play a game for the sake of playing a game, I can just pick up a US$ 5,- pack of cards. Or flip coins. Or play rock-paper-scissor. Or challenge my tactical skills at the local chess club (they'll let you use their figures free of charge too!!)

To only thing that would make it worthwhile collecting a month or two worth's salary of overpriced plastic, meticulously paint them in hours of free time not spend with your friends/family/etc.. and force yourself through some of the most atrocious game-rules ever written, would be to create some resonance with the background, no?

Probably the best post in the thread.

I'd rather play Dark Angels fluff guy than a sprue-grey proxyfest army of the latest 'competitive tournament' build. Bugger that noise.

I think I'd just go "ok, it's this guy" and point to a random trooper.

I wonder how he'd react if I then put him in reserves and deepstrike him. He comes in at like round 4, and I drop him out where there isn't the hint of fighting. Would he turn his whole army around to get him?

Or just go "I'll tell you if you win. He isn't carrying a big banner saying 'FALLEN' "

And then if he won, I'd tell him the Fallen guy wasn't here after all. He was shipped out on the truck that left the battlefield a second before the battle, dressed up as a dustman.

simple way to deal with this type of fluff player:

"real? why this BA vs DA fight is not real. the chaos gods are playing an ilUsiOn on YoU... the WaRp doeS soMe stRangE thiNGs to the unwary who travel...."

it also causes me to fail to create illusions with typing.

however, I have to agree that a degree of fluff is needed sometimes - maybe not when I'm at the club, but with my friends definitely. usually I have a laugh with my opponent, saying "I have no idea why my loyalist IG are fighting your marines", but apart from that I just play and get absolutely smashed as per usual.

as for fluffy games, I have just one rule - if it takes you more than 5 minutes to create a background for a game, then just leave it. I'm not gonna waste time writing up paragraphs to a random game with someone. I'll let the warp and chaos gods deal with the fluff.

 Zweischneid wrote:


Is it?

"Competitive" players harass their opponents all the time about things that matter to them, like exact point values, WYSIWYG, adherence to the FoC, odd RAW-rulings, etc.., irrespective of whether it matters to their opponent or not.

Why shouldn't fluff players have the same right?

Because fluff is part of the hobby , not of the game. No one says people can't make armies they think are fluff or read fluff or talk about it .That would be silly. But a game has rules to be played and fluff , no matter how one understands the word , is not part of the rules.

Also I find it funny how you view playing by the rules as harrasing .

Makumba wrote:


Because fluff is part of the hobby , not of the game. No one says people can't make armies they think are fluff or read fluff or talk about it .That would be silly. But a game has rules to be played and fluff , no matter how one understands the word , is not part of the rules.

Also I find it funny how you view playing by the rules as harrasing .

The game is part of the hobby. You can't separate that out. Plenty of tournaments enforce painting requirements, even though they aren't strictly in the game rules. Plenty of tournaments have sportsmanship scores, as the social aspects are important. So why not the background?

Inversely, if you can ignore painting-standards or ignore background-conformity if you'd rather not bother, why can't you equally ignore game rules? There's nothing that makes the latter any more sacred than the former, other than your choice that it ought to be so.

By creating the sort of priority you do, with "the game" coming first, and "the hobby" (fluff and all) second, you're already making a judgement call on the priorities that are important to you.

All I am saying is that others might have different priorities (the hobby > the game), and they are not any less valid than yours.

Somewhere else on the internet, on another forum, perhaps one named Akkadakkad, someone is saying, in his thread titled "Fun vs Fluff",

I think people who play for the fight'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 Dark Angels, and the guy I was going up against had Blood Angels, and I wouldn't play until we came up with a comprehensive reason and background to why both armies were fighting each other, and I proceeded about with a lengthy explanation that my army believed that his army was harboring one of the Fallen, and that he had to designate one model to fulfill such role.

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

Has this ever happened to anyone?

My 2 cents is thus, I'm a fluff player but if you try to change the rules to fit the fluff, just stop. Play the game and come up with fluff on the fly if you can, if you can't that particular battle just didn't happen. It was some quasi scenario that they were helping you train with or something.

I name all of my Characters and name every squad that is with a character. All of my Characters and the army in general has a background story, in the case of my Tau I even have the fluff for a Sept written up.

I enjoy the game and the story aspect and will normally make up a reason for my armies to fight other player's armies .Since I play Tau and some Flavor of Chaos, it's not that hard to think up a reason.

But you shouldn't hold up the game thinking up a reason. If you play an Imperial Army (or any other really popular army at the time) you'll have to think of a reason why they would fight before hand just because you know you'll be fighting a lot of Imperials (or whatever faction) Even if it has to be a crappy copout like Bad intel, go with it and move on unless your opponent wants to sit down and work all of this out with you.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Troike wrote:
But that's an extreme.

I'd very much consider myself somebody who's into the fluff, but I'd never bother my opponent over fluff issues. This is like saying all competitive players are bad because you had a bad experience with one once.

Is it?

"Competitive" players harass their opponents all the time about things that matter to them, like exact point values, WYSIWYG, adherence to the FoC, odd RAW-rulings, etc.., irrespective of whether it matters to their opponent or not.

Why shouldn't fluff players have the same right?

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.