What makes setting lore "actually matter" to the players?

[innerdude]

An interesting point was brought up in the What rpg system would you use for a 60+ session fantasy campaign? thread earlier this week.

It was expressed by @RenleyRenfield that fantasy settings were no longer of interest, because "none of their lore actually matters or has intriguing boundaries".

none of their lore actually matters or has intriguing boundaries

And it got me thinking---what qualities must lore possess to rise to the level of "actually mattering" in play?
Or perhaps put another way, what qualities must players perceive about lore for them to consider it as "actually mattering" in play?

For my own part, I generally still enjoy fantasy settings in the sense of "vaguely medieval-ish time period with magic."

But I'm totally, completely done with fantasy settings that have races/heritages with "alternate physiologies". To the point that I'm this close to basically stating up front for every campaign I GM from now on that human is the only available heritage.

I'm still very much interested in Tolkien-esque fantasy PRECISELY because it means I don't have to worry or care about culturally portraying non-human heritages. I'm not interested in portraying or interacting with cat people. Or dog people. Or walking-tree-people. Or (with apologies to Daggerheart) mushroom, turtle, or frog people.

Humans, elves, dwarves, halflings---and maybe on a good day, orcs, goblins and gnomes. (Truthfully, they're all just "humans with minor differences in appearance traits," but I can at least give my players some illusion of choice, I suppose.)

So this is kind of a weird intersection of Renley's other statement about "boundaries." One particular "boundary" or "distinctiveness" for many fantasy settings seems to be the prevalence of a multitude of heritages----but fantasy (or sci-fi for that matter) trying to set itself apart with "15 new and unique heritages!" does absolutely nothing for me.

In my experience, physiologies based on heritage never matter in play. On the very, very rare occasions a PC's race/heritage ever mattered, it was in such a shallow, superficial manner that it rendered the "matter" trite. In my experience players don't choose race/heritage based on deeper character building / cultural introspection / psychological interweaving. They choose race/heritage for A) the stat bonuses or B) some vague notion of "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if I was a furry cat person?"

As a GM, I want players to bring personality, attitudes, values, mindsets, thought processes to life through their characters---the things that make us as individual humans interesting. Making your character a "walking mushroom" just because "that would be so rad" actively hinders getting to the character traits I'm actually interested in seeing from their characters.

This was further driven home by my recent reading of Project Hail Mary ..... which to avoid spoilers, I'll only say that one of the main characters ultimately fits into this same paradigm----the character is of interest PRECISELY because of the presentation of their personality, attitudes, values, mindsets, and thought processes. The character's physiology is only interesting insofar as it presents a metaphysical space for presenting and exploring the character traits.

Another boundary where I diverge greatly from say, Brandon Sanderson --- I couldn't care less about how "unique" and "special snowflake-y" the magic system is. I don't care if your magic system is mentalism/psionics, Vancian waving of bat poop and pearls in the air until your spell goes off and its "burned from your memory", sorcerous "burning of the blood," ingesting bits of metal into your stomach to activate powers, or convincing alternate-dimension demons / angels / fairy sprites into altering reality at your behest.

What's intriguing about magic isn't the inner workings---its how the characters and the assumed cultural society develop norms around its use. For me, magic is only interesting insofar as it creates meaningful social play space inside the fiction. If it doesn't serve that purpose, I generally don't care about magic at all.

Say what you will about the presence of the Jedi in Star Wars, the Jedi Order absolutely creates an interesting social play space inside its fiction. Anyone who watches Star Wars with any level of non-passive interest can describe for you the social normative conventions of Force use imposed by the Jedi --- their political aims, their teaching and instruction style, the limits of use for avoiding the "dark side, etc.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

I want to hook the setting up to wall current and see that only a little smoke comes out.

I happen to have Marshall McLuhan right here and I don't want him to say that the authors know nothing of his work.

I want the setting to reward thinking about, not punish it.

 

[payn]

Im not entirely sure of the original quote's context? Based on the OP, it seems less interesting setting because of lots of species, and more interesting because of places and factions. The Inner Sea Guide for Golarion of Pathfinder is an excellent read for just this sort of preference.

 

[innerdude]

I happen to have Marshall McLuhan right here and I don't want him to say that the authors know nothing of his work.

I mean, I had to travel literally 5 feet to my left to pick this up off my shelf ...... Does that mean something?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'd say there's no general answer for that. What will catch one person's attention will be of no concern to another. And there are some people who aren't going to really care about the setting lore in general.

 

[Reynard]

I'm still very much interested in Tolkien-esque fantasy PRECISELY because it means I don't have to worry or care about culturally portraying non-human heritages. I'm not interested in portraying or interacting with cat people. Or dog people. Or walking-tree-people. Or (with apologies to Daggerheart) mushroom, turtle, or frog people.

Humans, elves, dwarves, halflings---and maybe on a good day, orcs, goblins and gnomes. (Truthfully, they're all just "humans with minor differences in appearance traits," but I can at least give my players some illusion of choice, I suppose.)

If you think that the differences races of Tolkien's world are just humans with some minor physical appearance differences, i would suggest you aren't reading Tolkien very carefully. (Except hobbits, who are in fact just short, if idealized, English folk.)

 

[innerdude]

Im not entirely sure of the original quote's context? Based on the OP, it seems less interesting setting because of lots of species, and more interesting because of places and factions. The Inner Sea Guide for Golarion of Pathfinder is an excellent read for just this sort of preference.

Yeah, I may not have given good explanations around the examples I shared.

I mentioned race/heritages because for me they represent one of the main points, which is that I find that they ultimately don't matter in play.

It's basically me putting forth the proposition of, "The races/heritages included in a given setting should have some kind of representation and meaning within the fiction of that setting---stylistically, thematically, and culturally."

IMO, most fantasy settings fail at establishing that proposition in a way that's meaningful to either players or GM. (A further contention might be that establishing thematic/cultural significance through "alternate humanistic views" can often be futile/fruitless anyway, since most compelling themes are based on universal abstractions of a moral property, but that's neither here nor there. )

 

[innerdude]

If you think that the differences races of Tolkien's world are just humans with some minor physical appearance differences, i would suggest you aren't reading Tolkien very carefully. (Except hobbits, who are in fact just short, if idealized, English folk.)

So to be clear, let's differentiate between, "Innerdude, who has read the Lord of the Rings novels 38 times in his lifetime (this is not an exaggeration) and has spent a non-trivial amount of time pondering on the themes and cultural significance of the origins of Tolkien's races as outlined in the Silmarillion," and "Innerdude, the long-time GM who just wants his players to imbue their characters with meaningful personality traits, fears and hopes, motivations, values, and mindsets and not just fall back on lazy fantasy setting tropes like 'my character is a walking turtle with a spear'."

 

[innerdude]

I'd say there's no general answer for that. What will catch one person's attention will be of no concern to another. And there are some people who aren't going to really care about the setting lore in general.

I think the question is driving precisely around (or through) what you're saying---what properties must lore possess to make it such that the players cannot ignore it because it represents a real, tangible material aspect or aspects in play?

Of course if the "lore doesn't matter" then "caring about the lore" is purely a matter of preference.

I'm asking to dig deeper---what properties of setting lore make it so that "the lore does matter" and that players are compelled to care about it or play cannot continue?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think the question is driving precisely around (or through) what you're saying---what properties must lore possess to make it such that the players cannot ignore it because it represents a real, tangible material aspect or aspects in play?

Bluntly? Inform the mechanics in some fashion. Nothing else will matter to some of them, and even for those who it can matter to, on the whole if it doesn't impact the mechanics, its prone to losing.

Of course if the "lore doesn't matter" then "caring about the lore" is purely a matter of preference.

That's the point, here. As I've noted before, some people are here just to fight things, overact, and solve puzzles. Lore can impact the latter, and sometimes manage the middle, but it doesn't tend to matter to the first, and even to the latter two, one lore is largely as good as another.

It sounds tautological, but lore matters to people who care about lore and to the degree there's any serious engagement there, I'm not sold that's the majority of players.

I'm asking to dig deeper---what properties of setting lore make it so that "the lore does matter" and that players are compelled to care about it or play cannot continue?

As I think I've made clear, I don't believe there is such a set of properties for every, or perhaps even the majority of players. Lore exists for the entertainment of the people creating or running the campaign (and perhaps not all of them), and the subset that does care.