I play only games that the author calls "rules lite", and i think they are missing the point entirely. We dont play these games because they are simpler (though they are), more straightforward (true), or easier to teach new players (also true). Instead we prefer them to D&D because they are more fun (for us). It's not about having fewer rules. It's about having rules that make the game more fun or exciting. Most D&D groups houserule the system so much that they arent using half of the game's mechanics, and the other half are heavily modified. The resulting game hardly resembles the one described in the source book, and ends up being slow, tedious, and limiting. I'd rather play a game that rewards you for learning the actual rules, a game whose mechanics are cohesive, additive, and fit the vibe at the table. I want mechanics that help me be more creative, and help the table create a better and more compelling collaborative story. D&D is also designed for 4-6 hour sessions. My group does weekly 2 hour sessions, so 5e combat can last weeks. By the third session of combat the players are starting to forget the stakes of the fight. The games i'm talking about are those like Blades in the Dark, Dungeon World, The Sprawl, Armor Astir, etc. My group recently did a campaign of the Avatar the Last Airbender RPG and while it wasn't my favorite, it wasn't bad. I liked the system much more than 5e.

Back in the '90s, when the term "crunch" arose, "fluff" arose alongside it to describe things like background detail and other things that would be called "lore" in a post-WoW world. So it's a little weird to see background detail held up alongside the other kinds in this article.

> My group does weekly 2 hour sessions, so 5e combat can last weeks. By the third session of combat the players are starting to forget the stakes of the fight. I've had similar experiences with 2 hour sessions in both D&D and Cyberpunk RED. I've started aiming to have fights done in one session, usually with the opponents having some win/lose condition that will end the fight logically. For my next campaign, I think I'll give Blades in the Dark a shot. I also want to try Ten Candles, but I hear that can be tough.

I'm certainly beyond the point in getting any satisfaction in 'defeating complex rules' to find clever ways to do well. I prefer games that slide into action and drama quickly!

"Fluff" always implies "unnecessary" to me - and so I could argue the application of the terms should be reversed. I don't need another rules engine, it's unnecessary padding in the pages of a new game, and instead I need a new game to show me lore, setting and concepts that I've not got to explore (or crunch into) before.

Ten Candles is an amazing game, but it is a one-shot, not for campaigns. Everyone dies at the end of the game. Period. It is the journey toward that inevitable end when everything goes dark that makes it so good.

I don't think fluff should be considered unnecessary. A teddy-bear without fluff is just an empty bag. In a game, the fluff fills out the world, giving it form. It's needed by both rules heavy and rules lite games. My term for rules lite games is usually "cinematic". In these game, the story and the narrative take precedence over number crunching or rules lawyering, just as movies often ignore what is "real" in favor of what is "cool".

My favorites are when the mechanics are about the story. See combat in Dungeon World for example. You are still rolling dice, crunching numbers, and rules lawyering (the dice take precedence over all) but you are arguing about what happens, not how much damage someone does/takes.

I'm not saying that lore is unnecessary or undesirable. I'm saying that historically, it was never included as part of what counted as "crunch", and at the time was even taken to be its opposite.