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

[GobHag]

Part of the problem with races other than human is that there are no players that are non-human.

The issue is that I--the circus troupe character player--don't see this as a problem at all.

 

[TiQuinn]

The issue is that I--the circus troupe character player--don't see this as a problem at all.

Yeah, I’m not that much of a role player to concern myself with whether I can get into the head of a non-human character, and I’m not gonna really try. I’m going to have fun playing the character I want to play, first and foremost.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This isn't a valid point in any way. Every argument ever made always comes with a caveat of "there is some exception somewhere."
And, the point never was to say "everyone must agree to this need".

When you're talking about it--as that poster appears to be--in the context of what the players are doing and why--of course it is. Otherwise you're just projecting your wants on other people and being annoyed they're not supplying what you want.

The question is boiled down to: "why are things this way?" and "how did we get here" and "Are we stuck here or is there opportunity?"

And my suggestion is "If you want other people to start playing in a way that will suit you, for the most part you are doomed to disappointment." Most of them don't care about the same things you do, and you trying to tell them they should is not going to change that.

The topic came up as "Here are reasons to avoid Golarion/Forgotten Realms" esque settings... generic fantasy settings. Even more so (maybe?) in the "D&D mechanic" arena...

No. I will quote the bolded line from the first post:

"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?"

One doesn't have to like that the answer to that for many people is "For many people it simply won't" for that to still be true. The fact Innerdude followed that up with his own feelings did not change the actual question he posed at the start of the thread, which was not dependent on others sharing his position. If he--or you--wanted the thread to be framed only in terms of people sharing your views, it needed to be asked in that way.

ergo... "why are things this way?" and "how did we get here" and "Are we stuck here or is there opportunity?"

Again, as I stated earlier, there is by and large the most desired part of ttrpg can be seen as Lore... which not only isn't refuted, but is backed up by an overwhelming majority of games having Lore (and some even having mechanics to back it up).

I don't think it says any such thing. And I've explained why over the course of the thread. If you disagree, you do.

 

[SableWyvern]

A lot of this conversation seems to be begging the question, to me.

If I like a setting, if I'm inspired to run a game in that setting, then I will do so. If I, as a GM, count as a player for the purposes of this discussion, then I can't really answer the question with anything more than saying that what makes the lore matter is the fact that it inspires me to want to run a game. But there is no set list of things that will do this -- I take each game on it's merits. Once you dig down at all, the things that interest me about Mythic Bastionland and the things that interest me about the 1e Savage Frontier have almost no crossover.

My players trust that if I'm inspired to run a game, they'll almost certainly enjoy playing it. I don't really make any effort to ensure the lore "matters" to the players, but if they buy into the game and participate in it, then the aspects of the lore that are relevant to the campaign that eventuates will matter because they're relevant to the campaign we're participating in.

If the question is what ensures they matter or are relevant ... I don't get it? If you're playing in a setting, the facts of the setting are going to matter when the PCs interact with the world. How can they not?

If the question is more like, "How do you make the dramatic pre-historical events the author has poured their heart and soul into describing, matter?" then my answer is, you either ensure during the design process that they're relevant in some way to what's happening right now, or they aren't aren't going to matter to the players. And that's OK. Why does it need to matter?

 

[payn]

For me (trying to explain my own insanity here, lol) , and this is just my own thoughts of why Forgotten Realms/Golarion very much made matters worse....

Let's look at the Tengu.

There is absolutely nothing about their lore that could not be swapped out with humans from country X. The fact they lay eggs, and have feathers = absolutely of no consequence or value to their 1000+ years of culture, evolution, and purpose in the world.

You can remove this race entirely and nothing of the world even notices.

You can say the same for every species in every setting in every genre.

So the game has to become more generic, such that Tengu can live amongst humans, fit into human architecture, and have no function aside from whatever other people are up to.

This incredible lack of limitation or defining purpose is the very thing I rail against in fantasy.

They just don't matter.

And adding a hundred new things that don't matter is not adding depth or fun to a game. to me.

To you, is pretty key. You seem to ignore quite a bit of whats available. Though, I think that outlines a large missing piece of the puzzle. A lot of what makes species unique is what folks bring to the table. I dont think the setting material itself can actually deliver something that matters.

....

Entire ecosystems are build around how birds seed habitats, how eggs create predatory chains, how feathers determine species practices and habits - all surface things that underlay what should come next but never does for fantasy = ok but why?

Why Tengu? because we want humans decorated to look like birds, that's why.

If thats what you got, then you didnt look closely enough.

 

[SableWyvern]

Let's look at the Tengu.

There is absolutely nothing about their lore that could not be swapped out with humans from country X. The fact they lay eggs, and have feathers = absolutely of no consequence or value to their 1000+ years of culture, evolution, and purpose in the world.

If they're in a game with dozens of class and race options, then they're most likely there for people who want dozens of class and race options and they matter to those people simply by dint of their existence.

If you want a detailed avian race with a unique culture, then you're looking at filling a very different niche, most likely in a world with fewer and more tightly curated character options. So, my answer to how to make this type of stuff matter in the context you've provided is to limit options but increase the detail of those options.

 

[bloodtide]

I sure have seen a lot of Homebrew Setting Fatigue in the last year or so. So many DMs over the last 20 or so years have really doubled down on the idea of making "their perfect setting". The DM takes the default fantasy setting and then tweaks things to their whims. The "My elves are so different" trope.

Ask ten DMs about their custom settings, and you get ten wild crazy "how my setting is different". It's enough to get whiplash. Every setting is now "ok, so your elves are what?" and players struggle to remember all the details, even more so when the players jump games a lot.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I sure have seen a lot of Homebrew Setting Fatigue in the last year or so. So many DMs over the last 20 or so years have really doubled down on the idea of making "their perfect setting". The DM takes the default fantasy setting and then tweaks things to their whims. The "My elves are so different" trope.

Ask ten DMs about their custom settings, and you get ten wild crazy "how my setting is different". It's enough to get whiplash. Every setting is now "ok, so your elves are what?" and players struggle to remember all the details, even more so when the players jump games a lot.

That's why I became a fan of The Most Generic Fantasy Setting Ever (tm). Someone upthread made a comment about how using generic elves and dwarves makes it easier to get players on board and it's totally true. If I can explain the lore of a race by saying it's just like the most common version of the race, that everyone knows, then it's super easy to get people on board with the tropes of the setting. If I have to spend an hour explaining why "my elvez are different and kewl" then I'm probably gonna watch most folks eyes glaze over a few minutes into the explanation. I know amongst YT DMs there is a definite prevalence for the idea that in order to be a "good DM" you absolutely must have your own homebrew setting. The problem is most of the settings are not very interesting, and alot of them are virtually nonsensical. It's like its a competition to make the weirdest, hardest to follow/understand, setting. Then they do an AP and nobody watches it because the amount of lore you need to learn just to have the slightest idea what's going on is not the kind of thing anyone other than the people participating in the game is willing to do. I was never the hugest fan of Forgotten Realms (not at all really) and I liked Greyhawk only marginally better (don't know the lore as well) but at least I could have a conversation with other GMs about the setting. Nowadays there is no discussion about setting, just a comparison about how that persons setting makes even less sense, or is "kewler" or more innovative (not at all) than the "generic" ones. Give me a generic setting any day over a bespoke one, at least I can explain it to people quickly and get to gaming instead of needing hours of explanation of how it's different, and not at all better or more interesting in any real way.

 

[GobHag]

Yeah, I’m not that much of a role player to concern myself with whether I can get into the head of a non-human character, and I’m not gonna really try. I’m going to have fun playing the character I want to play, first and foremost.

I'm actually someone that is very much capable of making something that is attached to the (canon) settings and to fulfill those kind of Roleplaying; It's just that I don't see 'the other races act non-human' as one of those fulfillments.

I am however much less caring for tone if race is the deciding factor, I quite simply believe that if your arthuriana fantasy using the D&D system will be ruined by one of the knights being a bunnyman then I think your homebrew fantasy sucks

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If thats what you got, then you didnt look closely enough.

Mod Note:

That (plus some other phrases in that post) come across as goading & confrontational. Do better, please.