Lore Isn't Important

[MGibster]

So four pages in, do we even have a working definition of lore? Because I think of any setting information as lore.

 

[Reynard]

So four pages in, do we even have a working definition of lore? Because I think of any setting information as lore.

As OP but only speaking for myself, I was specifically talking about how precise details and deep dives are largely unnecessary, especially as it relates to fights over changes to that lore. Specifically, again in context of the OP, changes in lore don't matter and folks should probably chill about this character being race or gender swapped, etc.

More generally, as a GM I much prefer a shallower, more ephemeral lore because, frankly, I'm not trying to build an incorruptible second world fantasy
For me, that part of it just isn't important. I'd rather lay out some broad general truths and fill in whatever details are relevant at the time they are relevant and if they contradict previous details, well, historians are human. Maybe the wrong side wrote that previous history.

 

[MGibster]

As OP but only speaking for myself, I was specifically talking about how precise details and deep dives are largely unnecessary, especially as it relates to fights over changes to that lore.

Okay, I think I can get down with that. Even in an established setting like Star Wars, it's not like I'm going to get all pissy if we go to Tatooine and Tour Aryon isn't the Imperial governor. (I had to Wookiepedia that information. I love Star Wars, but I'm not married to it.)

More generally, as a GM I much prefer a shallower, more ephemeral lore because, frankly, I'm not trying to build an incorruptible second world fantasy

For my own settings, I don't bother with lore I don't think will matter in the game. I was running a Hell of Earth campaign set in Little Rock, and one of my players kept asking me questions about the demographics; How many people, how many children, old people, men, women, etc., etc. I kept answering her questions until she looked at me and asked, "You're just making this all up, aren't you?" The only question I had answered was the number of people, 5,000, and I hadn't given a thought to demographics.

 

[Reynard]

Okay, I think I can get down with that. Even in an established setting like Star Wars, it's not like I'm going to get all pissy if we go to Tatooine and Tour Aryon isn't the Imperial governor. (I had to Wookiepedia that information. I love Star Wars, but I'm not married to it.)


For my own settings, I don't bother with lore I don't think will matter in the game. I was running a Hell of Earth campaign set in Little Rock, and one of my players kept asking me questions about the demographics; How many people, how many children, old people, men, women, etc., etc. I kept answering her questions until she looked at me and asked, "You're just making this all up, aren't you?" The only question I had answered was the number of people, 5,000, and I hadn't given a thought to demographics.

EXACTLY

 

[hawkeyefan]

So I can offer an example that actually happened in my group.

One of my friends wanted to run Star Trek Adventures, the 2d20 system from Modiphius. He’s a huge Star Trek fan. The rest of the group are much more moderate in our enjoyment of Star Trek.

The GM selected our starting time period to be around the time of the Next Generation. He explained it would be around season 2. This meant very little to the rest of us beyond a very basic grasp.

So one of the players said he’d like to play an android. The GM said he could not because there was only one android in Starfleet at that time, Data.

And that’s about as good an example I can think of where lore gets in the way of play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Okay, I think I can get down with that. Even in an established setting like Star Wars, it's not like I'm going to get all pissy if we go to Tatooine and Tour Aryon isn't the Imperial governor. (I had to Wookiepedia that information. I love Star Wars, but I'm not married to it.)


For my own settings, I don't bother with lore I don't think will matter in the game. I was running a Hell of Earth campaign set in Little Rock, and one of my players kept asking me questions about the demographics; How many people, how many children, old people, men, women, etc., etc. I kept answering her questions until she looked at me and asked, "You're just making this all up, aren't you?" The only question I had answered was the number of people, 5,000, and I hadn't given a thought to demographics.

What’s interesting is that there is no scenario where you wouldn’t be just making it up.

It’s interesting how many peopleseem to think if something is made up two weeks ago versus just now it’s somehow more authentic or whatever.

 

[RivetGeekWil]

explicitly false by the definitions in many rulebooks.

The participants may have different roles or responsibilities but they're all still players.

 

[MGibster]

What’s interesting is that there is no scenario where you wouldn’t be just making it up.

Obviously it's all made up at some point in time. What she was getting at is that I was making it up on the fly rather than having thought things out ahead of time.

It’s interesting how many peopleseem to think if something is made up two weeks ago versus just now it’s somehow more authentic or whatever.

Whatever authenticity might be or it's importance, I don't think that's the salient point here. Generally speaking, if you've had time to work on something it's going to be better than whatever you come up with on the fly.

 

[Fenris-77]

So there are two ideas about lore that I find mutually awkward. The lore I hate, and I mean I hate it with a passion, is the lore that accrues from a longstanding IP of any kind, whether that be Star Wars or Forgotten Realms. That lore tends to be deployed like a stick by players who have invested an inordinate amount of time in memorizing it and then feel like they be able to wield that subject mastery like a stick in game, and use it to correct both the GM and other players. So, yeah, no, not in my game. Then there's the 'good lore'. This is pretty much everything that's not the first example. Knowing things about the setting makes he game better, generally. It adds depth and interest, and this can and often does, come from some level of lore investment by the players. But it isn't a weapon, or a contest.

 

[clearstream]

So I can offer an example that actually happened in my group.

One of my friends wanted to run Star Trek Adventures, the 2d20 system from Modiphius. He’s a huge Star Trek fan. The rest of the group are much more moderate in our enjoyment of Star Trek.

The GM selected our starting time period to be around the time of the Next Generation. He explained it would be around season 2. This meant very little to the rest of us beyond a very basic grasp.

So one of the players said he’d like to play an android. The GM said he could not because there was only one android in Starfleet at that time, Data.

And that’s about as good an example I can think of where lore gets in the way of play.

I am more on the side of flexibility with lore, and that probably works best for most groups, but I wouldn't denigrate folk who love a specific lore and engage in the play because they want to explore a specific preexisting lore. I'm thinking of something like ICE's MERP. Or Bushido or RuneQuest as I have mentioned. Perhaps an ACW group who do not want anything anachronistic in their game.

That noted, perhaps in this case the GM made a different mistake. They assumed that what had been presented on screen was all there is, and all there could be. This is more about how lore should be translated from a static-linear medium to a dynamic non-linear one. A decision to start a Star Trek RPG at the begining of Season 2 is not a decision to play out the on-screen events of the series line-for-line from there. It may be a fixed starting point, but how it unfurls from there emerges from play.

At game start then, Data is the only android in Star Fleet. Good. From there, it must be that player choices can impinge what happens next. So when a player decides to roll up an android, it becomes true that there are now two androids in Star Fleet. Just as if a player disintegrates a canonical character, the further actions of that character that were shown in subsequent on-screen episodes, can no longer be going to take place. Perhaps the GM mistake was not so much the lore, but their grasp of what is implied in playing a game in a given setting... from a given starting point?