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

[Thomas Shey]

Well, that's just depressing.

Not realizing there are plenty of people in the hobby that are very shallow in their approach doesn't make them not exist. Maybe you want to avoid them if you can, but they aren't going away.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have met many players who are not interested in "collaborative storytelling." Many want to play a game, plain and simple. I still think the hobby is for them.

As I've noted before, there are people who were there for token play from day one.

 

[Reynard]

As I've noted before, there are people who were there for token play from day one.

In my opinion, the real thing that makes RPGs RPGs isn't "storytelling" but agency -- the ability to do (or try) anything.

 

[Bill Zebub]

As I've noted before, there are people who were there for token play from day one.

...and a lot of them explore/expand into new areas over time.

 

[Thomas Shey]

...and a lot of them explore/expand into new areas over time.

Sure. But new people are coming in all the time and older players leaving, so assuming token play is attractive to newer players, you're always going to see plenty of it.

In addition, people who expand don't necessarily do so into ways that care intrinsically about setting. Some end up going heavily down what's sometimes called the "theater kid" dynamic, and they're very focused on whatever concept they've come up with, and where its operating is distinctly secondary. Others run up the power-gaming line, and they often only care about setting to the degree that supports or impedes that.

And of course some people just coast along with a casual approach for decades.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not realizing there are plenty of people in the hobby that are very shallow in their approach doesn't make them not exist. Maybe you want to avoid them if you can, but they aren't going away.

None of that makes it not depressing.

 

[Thomas Shey]

None of that makes it not depressing.

I don't know why it should be depressing that some people are very casual with the hobby; there are plenty that are with any other hobby, why should this be different?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know why it should be depressing that some people are very casual with the hobby; there are plenty that are with any other hobby, why should this be different?

The more people like that, the more likely the hobby will turn that way in general. And I don't want that.

 

[innerdude]

In my opinion, the real thing that makes RPGs RPGs isn't "storytelling" but agency -- the ability to do (or try) anything.

I generally agree, but would expand this to say, "Wherein the ability to 'do or try anything' is predicated on an imagined fictional space in which the character actions are attempted."

Which goes right back to the original question --- What elements of that imagined fictional space / shared imaginary space must be understood as "core lore" or "assumed as true within the fiction" in order for successful play to proceed?

I think we've already identified:

• Elements that create direct mechanical interactions / structures in the rules.
• Elements that create non-mechanical but material constraints on the resolution of a player's attempt to 'do or try anything relevant to the shared imaginary space'
  • E.g., clerics who follow certain gods/pantheons being restricted from entering a specific city, a desert biome so devoid of water that journeying through it mandates a "magical" character resource to generate water, etc (see: Dune, etc.).
• Elements introduced by the players through character creation + development that must be assumed as true-at-face-value in order for the character to mesh with the shared imaginary space.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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".



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 me to actually matter the setting element must either (a) be something there that we can interact with and can adapt to what we say or do or (b) be something I have a significant belief will be burned to the ground without there being a reset button. Which is why I don't give a damn about the Forgotten Realms, Golarion, or most of the other big settings. They're too big to fail. The Nentir Vale? Maybe Eberron? It's deliberately unstable and in its early years some DMs might have restarted the War. Our bar within Waterdeep. I mean sure that may burn. But a setting we made up together as part of session zero is inherently unstable, fragile, and vulnerable. There are no Elminsters. And I'm already invested in part of it because I made part of it and probably riffed on other peoples' parts.

This is why I find the implementation of any of Daggerheart's campaign frames (despite being half a dozen or so pages) matters more to me than the entirety of the Realms, Golarion, and Greyhawk combined. The Nentir Vale, the original Realms box, and more are different stories because they are so light and because I know that the GM can collapse them.

And this has nothing to do with physiologies based on heritage. Those just allow the players to create cool characters who are cool - and who are turned up to 11. I'd sooner see a Galapa or Tortle than Yet Another Elf (which doesn't matter either unless we're in Middle Earth or some other Great Setting that's inherently protected).