D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."

[Simulocust]

Now, this may be a little tangential (it is), and it's not like I'm going to read all 750 replies even if I find the momentum of the post interesting. Still, something occurred to me as I nodded my head in agreement with both the suggestion that "whatever lore is" we don't really know what it is, and with the sentiment that "it is not rules."

Here it is: whatever lore is, it is vastly, cosmically, big-in-the-way-that-planets-are-big, more important than 'rules.' Nearly any system of rules can yield a fascinating, satisfying campaign so long as the lore is there to breath life, enchantment, and enstrangement into the game. Sure, some rule systems are more ungainly than others, and may, like a haphazardly discarded pile of caltrops, present disruptions in what should be smooth gameplay--but usually nobody much cares about that if the game is interesting, if the story (whatever that is) is good, if there is fascination and mystery, a sense of place, ambiance, blah blah.

And fine, on the distinction between the two: Rules are fungible. So are articles of lore. And yes, source materials are not imbued with biblical authority. These are games we are talking about. That suggests a sense of play. So, if we are afraid to 'play' with the materials we are given, we are doing something more like following orders, than actually playing. Let rules be those things that govern physics and certain, less interesting details of the fictional/material worlds we inhabit so that the we may, in large part, ignore them and focus on the magic (you know, the sense of magic, the fun stuff, not the rules that govern spellcasting).

 

[ProgBard]

Now, this may be a little tangential (it is), and it's not like I'm going to read all 750 replies even if I find the momentum of the post interesting. Still, something occurred to me as I nodded my head in agreement with both the suggestion that "whatever lore is" we don't really know what it is, and with the sentiment that "it is not rules."

Here it is: whatever lore is, it is vastly, cosmically, big-in-the-way-that-planets-are-big, more important than 'rules.' Nearly any system of rules can yield a fascinating, satisfying campaign so long as the lore is there to breath life, enchantment, and enstrangement into the game. Sure, some rule systems are more ungainly than others, and may, like a haphazardly discarded pile of caltrops, present disruptions in what should be smooth gameplay--but usually nobody much cares about that if the game is interesting, if the story (whatever that is) is good, if there is fascination and mystery, a sense of place, ambiance, blah blah.

And fine, on the distinction between the two: Rules are fungible. So are articles of lore. And yes, source materials are not imbued with biblical authority. These are games we are talking about. That suggests a sense of play. So, if we are afraid to 'play' with the materials we are given, we are doing something more like following orders, than actually playing. Let rules be those things that govern physics and certain, less interesting details of the fictional/material worlds we inhabit so that the we may, in large part, ignore them and focus on the magic (you know, the sense of magic, the fun stuff, not the rules that govern spellcasting).

Aw, man, you get me. You really, really get me.

 

[Simulocust]

Aw, man, you get me. You really, really get me.

Yeah. I had a similar thought while reading your post!

 

[Shasarak]

That's interesting... I always thought it was what the owners of said IP decided was canon...so if I'm understanding you correctly... if a majority rejects a subset of D&D IP... it is no longer canon?

WotC is just the latest steward of DnD so they can say what they want to be the DnD canon but Aldarc is right that we the consumer does not have to drink the cool aid. No company wants to be the next New Coke no matter how much they like to shout hands back on.

 

[Shasarak]

Now, this may be a little tangential (it is), and it's not like I'm going to read all 750 replies even if I find the momentum of the post interesting. Still, something occurred to me as I nodded my head in agreement with both the suggestion that "whatever lore is" we don't really know what it is, and with the sentiment that "it is not rules."

If lore is so important then we can just sit around the table telling stories to each other.

But the other half of DnD is the "game" part.

 

[Simulocust]

If lore is so important then we can just sit around the table telling stories to each other.

But the other half of DnD is the "game" part.

That points, perhaps vaguely, towards an interesting debate. What is the 'game' part? To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, if rules are the defining characteristic of a 'game,' then we may as well sit around solving math problems. Alternately, the word 'game,' once again, suggests 'play' which carries with it associations like, I don't know, having fun, breaking rules, you know, playing. This must have something to do with the enormous success of sandbox video games, for example.

In the end, I would like to emphasize that the rules are there (at least in games like these) largely to solve mundane problems for everyone so there is not a time consuming debate regarding whether or not you can jump x casm or seduce y bar wench. All of the character, personality, meaning (whatever that is), and enjoyment comes from lore, or something like it. Granted, there is an animal satisfaction to be taken from success (yeah, I broke that ork's skull, etc.) but it is how the orc reacts, and how the rest of its tribe does, and what that means that offers the real magic. Thank god for rules, or there would be no play. Thank god for lore, or no one would give a sip in the first place.

If you are only in it to 'win' or 'succeed' according to the dictates of the 'rules,' then play football, not rpgs.

This is going to be inflammatory in some way isn't it? I don't care what brings anyone joy. Go for it. There is no right answer, that would be reductive and boring. Everyone should play how they want. But, you are attracted to whatever game or campaign setting, or world because of the lore, the setting, the feel--not the math that makes it function.

Done.

 

[Simulocust]

That was posted twice. I honestly don't know why. Now it's gone.

 

[Shasarak]

Now here's another question. If a setting has no lore covering something, does it become homebrew if the DM colours in the blank spaces?

Or if you look at it another way, what is homebrew if it is not the DM colouring in blank spaces?

 

[Simulocust]

Or if you look at it another way, what is homebrew if it is not the DM colouring in blank spaces?

Couldn't agree more Shasarak. Same thing.

 

[Shasarak]

That points, perhaps vaguely, towards an interesting debate. What is the 'game' part? To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, if rules are the defining characteristic of a 'game,' then we may as well sit around solving math problems. Alternately, the word 'game,' once again, suggests 'play' which carries with it associations like, I don't know, having fun, breaking rules, you know, playing. This must have something to do with the enormous success of sandbox video games, for example.

Solving maths problems is obviously at the other extreme of the axis where Lore is set to 0.

But I would say that breaking rules does not necessarily equal fun. In fact I have played in many games where people break the rules so they can have fun that do not make it fun for everyone else - oh so you roll another Critical Hit? Wow, the tenth one out of ten rolls so far tonight, that is so fun!

In the end, I would like to emphasize that the rules are there (at least in games like these) largely to solve mundane problems for everyone so there is not a time consuming debate regarding whether or not you can jump x casm or seduce y bar wench. All of the character, personality, meaning (whatever that is), and enjoyment comes from lore, or something like it. Granted, there is an animal satisfaction to be taken from success (yeah, I broke that ork's skull, etc.) but it is how the orc reacts, and how the rest of its tribe does, and what that means that offers the real magic. Thank god for rules, or there would be no play. Thank god for lore, or no one would give a sip in the first place.

Is that not the whole point, that you need both and both build off each other? Sure you could describe the Giants weapon as being a huge tree trunk but if you only use a 1d4 for damage does that really make any sense? No, you have a giant weapon and it does giant damage - lore and rules combining together.

If you are only in it to 'win' or 'succeed' according to the dictates of the 'rules,' then play football, not rpgs.

Or you could, you know, play RPGs. Because if you are going to 'win' because you are playing the hero of the story and the hero always wins in the end then you may as well just write your FR fan fic and publish it on your blog. That would save the rest of us having to turn up to the "game".

This is going to be inflammatory in some way isn't it? I don't care what brings anyone joy. Go for it. There is no right answer, that would be reductive and boring. Everyone should play how they want. But, you are attracted to whatever game or campaign setting, or world because of the lore, the setting, the feel--not the math that makes it function.

Done.

Obviously I disagree. Take two different settings Forgotten Realms and Dark Sun. Each setting has a different lore and also each setting as different rules to reflect that lore. A Wizard in FR does not have to worry when casting a spell but that same Wizard in DS does. Anyone who claims that "whatever lore is, it isnt rules" is just playing a different thing then DnD.