D&D (2024) How Important Is The Lore

[Reynard]

For more info, consult the 5000 page Guide to Forgotten Realms.

I don't understand the fascination with explaining things with as few words as possible. I guess it would be useful though in a core book either full of full page art or one with 50 other species in it.

I think that concise is always better than the alternative when it comes to core rules. These are games and people should be able to understand them and get playing as fast and as successfully as possible.

Your setting tomes for D&D can -- and should -- be chock full of lore! That is what setting books are good for.

 

[TwoSix]

For more info, consult the 5000 page Guide to Forgotten Realms.

I don't understand the fascination with explaining things with as few words as possible. I guess it would be useful though in a core book either full of full page art or one with 50 other species in it.

Short is faster.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I don't understand the fascination with explaining things with as few words as possible. I guess it would be useful though in a core book either full of full page art or one with 50 other species in it.

I think it's mostly about table use.

"Hold on, let me get through these 1,000 words on what doorknobs look like in the Dalelands" isn't conducive to speedy play.

I think the answer might be to put the lore to be read at leisure in another book (ideal) or at least separated from the "here's what you need to know if you're looking for answers mid-game" stuff. Maybe bullet point the highlights for each section and put them in a colored box for the DMs to look at.

But mostly, I think this is the old White Wolf issue: Are these books meant for play or are they meant to read? We have strong proponents of each on this board and what pleases one group will often frustrate the other.

 

[CreamCloud0]

For more info, consult the 5000 page Guide to Forgotten Realms.

I don't understand the fascination with explaining things with as few words as possible. I guess it would be useful though in a core book either full of full page art or one with 50 other species in it.

it's not about explaining things with as few words as possible, it's about trimming out all the information that doesn't consistently and fundamentally describe all elves as standard, a grudge against orcs? not fundamental to their elfness, cut it, their forest civilisations? not always in place, cut it, but increased perceptive capabilities? true about all elves, put it in their entry.

*while some elves may deviate from these descriptions the understanding would be that any elf types that do would be notable outliers.

 

[Reynard]

I think it's mostly about table use.

"Hold on, let me get through these 1,000 words on what doorknobs look like in the Dalelands" isn't conducive to speedy play.

I think the answer might be to put the lore to be read at leisure in another book (ideal) or at least separated from the "here's what you need to know if you're looking for answers mid-game" stuff. Maybe bullet point the highlights for each section and put them in a colored box for the DMs to look at.

But mostly, I think this is the old White Wolf issue: Are these books meant for play or are they meant to read? We have strong proponents of each on this board and what pleases one group will often frustrate the other.

I think even in a lore centrered book, I would like the structure that news articles and many textbooks use now: at the top of each section, article or chapter, there is a brief overview paragraph, then a bunch of bullet points, THEN the body of the work.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I think even in a lore centrered book, I would like the structure that news articles and many textbooks use now: at the top of each section, article or chapter, there is a brief overview paragraph, then a bunch of bullet points, THEN the body of the work.

It is weird how many RPG books seem to be produced by people who've never looked at any other books to see what best practices (or even just better practices) look like.

 

[Umbran]

Only the lore at my table matters in my game. I like having flavorful, interesting world-neutral flavor in the books but only as a source of potential ideas, not as a straitjacket.

With the caveat that there is no such thing as "world neutral flavor". There is merely meeting the expectations of what we would call "generic fantasy" and not.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The shorter the lore, the most space available for game mechanics, which I think is what a lot of players seem to care more about.

They're happy to make up their own stories and don't want anyone to put more of that unnecessary lore stuff in their way... but they need the game designers to give them all the different ways in which combinations of dice can be rolled to make sure everything players do can be calculated and balanced out, so that the fights they build will give the exact results they plan for.

 

[Deset Gled]

With the caveat that there is no such thing as "world neutral flavor". There is merely meeting the expectations of what we would call "generic fantasy" and not.

I am not @Whizbang Dustyboots (obviously), but to me the idea of "world neutral flavor" isn't about fitting into "generic fantasy", it's about being easy to add/remove by itself.

For example, if your dwarves are fundamentally described as being short, stocky mountain dwellers, you can put them in any setting with mountains. You'll still have trouble importing them into a Waterworld setting, but it's a pretty "world neutral" description. If your dwarves are described as being the descendants of giants who were cursed by the god of shortness, it's a lot harder. Now importing dwarves also implies bringing in giants (whether historical or current) as well as the accompanying god and some degree of cosmology/pantheon/polytheism that comes with it. That's much less "world neutral", regardless of what you think generic fantasy looks like.

Or to put it another way, neutrality in this case is a measure of mobility, not proximity to a standard.

 

[Stalker0]

I think one of the major failures of 4e was that to many it did not "feel" like dnd. I can argue many of its mechanical improvements and benefits (and make no mistake, there were many) but I think a shift away from lore and presentation into the more clinical version we got is one of the reasons 4e struggled.

At the end of the day, people can play dozens of RPGs....but if they are choosing to play "dnd", they want to feel dnd, and the lore is a key part of that. Its a common thread that binds groups together across many campaigns, and one of the ways we can all share in the common experience that is dnd.