Lore Isn't Important

[RuinousPowers]

I would love it if WotC had novels they would try to sell

I'm glad they don't.

 

[pemerton]

broadly speaking "lore" is just some stuff someone thought up at the moment. Unless it's Tolkien, it probably isn't even particularly well thought out. You should absolutely feel free to change it to suit your game.

This seems so obvious to me that it surprises me it needs to be said!

Here's a take on some of this stuff from several years ago: D&D 5E - Do you care about setting "canon"?

 

[clearstream]

Unless you feel it is.

But broadly speaking "lore" is just some stuff someone thought up at the moment. Unless it's Tolkien, it probably isn't even particularly well thought out. You should absolutely feel free to change it to suit your game.

Brought to you by Dragonlance and Eberron threads...

What is your view when the lore is Tolkien? (Thinking about the coming 5e version of The One Ring by the Free League.)

Implied in your OP is a distinction in the quality of lore. From "thought up at the moment" to "Tolkien". I think there is a related distinction, too, that participants in an RPG make. They decide to what extent preestablished fiction will prevail over in-the-moment-fiction. The characterisation "thought up at the moment" would seem to relegate in-the-moment-fiction to a lower quality than preestablished fiction. That contradicts the argument being made, which I think urges toward the value of in-the-moment fiction overwriting or filling in for preestablished.

It's not all or nothing. A group may have lore pillars - preestablished fiction (such as fictional persons) that they may learn more about, but in regard to which they already hold some preestablished truths. Their game benefits from and often unravels out of those truths. And then as implied by "learn more about", they may have blank spaces and lore that is lightly held.

Broadly speaking, lore is not all of an ilk. I think you have that right. I agree with the sense in the OP that one should not be too precious about it. On the other hand, I think a game can benefit greatly from having some well-wrought lore that a group chooses to be precious about.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

If I only wanted a system, then everybody would buy D&D/d20, because learning different system is a harder effort.

In the other side if I spend my money I want to buy crunch, because the sourcebooks focused mainly into lore, they may be interesting, but only readen once or twice. And in the age of internet with lots of fandom wikis we don't need to spend a lot of money to get ideas for your own stories.

 

[Reynard]

What is your view when the lore is Tolkien? (Thinking about the coming 5e version of The One Ring by the Free League.)

Implied in your OP is a distinction in the quality of lore. From "thought up at the moment" to "Tolkien". I think there is a related distinction, too, that participants in an RPG make. They decide to what extent preestablished fiction will prevail over in-the-moment-fiction. The characterisation "thought up at the moment" would seem to relegate in-the-moment-fiction to a lower quality than preestablished fiction. That contradicts the argument being made, which I think urges toward the value of in-the-moment fiction overwriting or filling in for preestablished.

It's not all or nothing. A group may have lore pillars - preestablished fiction (such as fictional persons) that they may learn more about, but in regard to which they already hold some preestablished truths. Their game benefits from and often unravels out of those truths. And then as implied by "learn more about", they may have blank spaces and lore that is lightly held.

Broadly speaking, lore is not all of an ilk. I think you have that right. I agree with the sense in the OP that one should not be too precious about it. On the other hand, I think a game can benefit greatly from having some well-wrought lore that a group chooses to be precious about.

My only point with bringing up Tolkien was about the depth and care of the design of the lore. In other words I don't think most RPG world buildingis particularly good. Also I wasn't entirely clear, so: Middle Earth isn't sacrosanct if you're playing there, either. No canon is sacred once it hits the table.

Of course shared knowledge of lore can be very useful for communicating ideas, tone, etc. Star Wars is a great example of this. If we sit down to play a game in the Star Wars universe everyone at the table has an immediate understanding of what that means. But that doesn't mean any particular fact can be changed because it is better for play.

 

[Grantypants]

I feel like there are two different arguments going on in this thread. Establishing lore at the table for your players is important for immersive gameplay and good storytelling. I agree with that. That said, the lore at your table doesn't need to match the lore at anyone else's. Canon, in my mind, is not super important and in some cases can detract from the overall experience at your table.

 

[pemerton]

If we sit down to play a game in the Star Wars universe everyone at the table has an immediate understanding of what that means.

I'm not sure about that. The one of the original three films is pretty consistent. The prequels, though, are different in tone and tropes.

In Middle Earth, there is likewise a difference between The Hobbit and LotR.

I think that tone, tropes and theme - as much as geography, timelines, etc - are pretty key elements of a setting.

 

[MGibster]

My only point with bringing up Tolkien was about the depth and care of the design of the lore. In other words I don't think most RPG world buildingis particularly good. Also I wasn't entirely clear, so: Middle Earth isn't sacrosanct if you're playing there, either. No canon is sacred once it hits the table.

What standard are we using to judge whether the world building is good or not? As far as games go, a good world is one that is condusive to gaming. It provides some direction and inspiration for both players and GMs and helps make the game compelling/fun. You could have the greatest world built, but that doesn't mean it's good for gaming purposes.

And I'll give you an example of a fantastic setting that wasn't the best for gaming. Blue Planet. Blue Planet's sourcebooks were simply a pleasure to read, and actually provides both GM and palyers with all sort of inspiration. Oh, you mean I can play an uplifted killer whale armed with torpedos fighting against Earth government backed corporations trying to ruin this plant like they did the old planet? Awesome. What it lacks is direction. There's so many different types of campaigns, there's no default for campaigns.

 

[Aldarc]

What standard are we using to judge whether the world building is good or not? As far as games go, a good world is one that is condusive to gaming. It provides some direction and inspiration for both players and GMs and helps make the game compelling/fun. You could have the greatest world built, but that doesn't mean it's good for gaming purposes.

And I'll give you an example of a fantastic setting that wasn't the best for gaming. Blue Planet. Blue Planet's sourcebooks were simply a pleasure to read, and actually provides both GM and palyers with all sort of inspiration. Oh, you mean I can play an uplifted killer whale armed with torpedos fighting against Earth government backed corporations trying to ruin this plant like they did the old planet? Awesome. What it lacks is direction. There's so many different types of campaigns, there's no default for campaigns.

This was how I felt about Tekumel (before the MAR Barker fiasco). It was great to read about this alien world inspired by non-European cultures with its own languages and writing systems but I had no earthly idea what adventure or group play in the setting looked like. I'm sure that some people, even now, think that Tekumel is great for gaming and know how to run it, but it's not all that obvious to me.

 

[pemerton]

This was how I felt about Tekumel (before the MAR Barker fiasco). It was great to read about this alien world inspired by non-European cultures with its own languages and writing systems but I had no earthly idea what adventure or group play in the setting looked like. I'm sure that some people, even now, think that Tekumel is great for gaming and know how to run it, but it's not all that obvious to me.

The sort of adventuring presented in my copy of EotPT (the pink cover one from 1987) is weirdly (at least it seems weird to me) close to OD&D - ie dungeon crawling and looting. The social possibilities are kind-of adverted to, but not really developed.