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

[Distracted DM]

In my experience, lore only matters for players, if it becomes relevant to their decision making during playing the game. Anything else is fluff that rarely becomes of any relevant meaning to the players.

Yeah, I basically just wanted to link the Matt Colville video about the topic, which pretty much advises this ^^^

I will say that some players do jive with lore... But theyre the exception.

 

[Retros_x]

I will say that some players do jive with lore... But theyre the exception.

Jeah, definitely there are sometimes the exceptions. I had one player who absorbed my lore and always wanted more - which became a bit of a problem, because he knew the lore better than me and noticed my contradictions that came up during play, because honestly I don't care too much about the correctness of it all and often retrofit and retcon. Normally it flies over the players head, but this guy always noticed it.

"I thought the evil cult emerged from X not Y" "uhm, yea, but not also Y, uhm because wait a minut... goddamit"

 

[zarionofarabel]

Jeah, definitely there are sometimes the exceptions. I had one player who absorbed my lore and always wanted more - which became a bit of a problem, because he knew the lore better than me and noticed my contradictions that came up during play, because honestly I don't care too much about the correctness of it all and often retrofit and retcon. Normally it flies over the players head, but this guy always noticed it.

"I thought the evil cult emerged from X not Y" "uhm, yea, but not also Y, uhm because wait a minut... goddamit"

I've had that happen a couple of times when I ran games for people that were fastidious with notes. I take a lot of notes too but I don't always remember all the little details and hate disrupting narrative flow to read stuff. I don't bother hiding my embarrassment anymore, I just thank them for their attentiveness and continue on.

 

[Necropolitan]

Setting lore matters when the players are interested enough to interact with it or when the campaign involves them interacting with it (which hopefully leads to them being interested).

It's why hands-on deities (if they exist as beings as opposed to how they're done in Eberron in which case you can substitute their followers), active nations, and any other major powers doing things in the setting are so important.

If all being a Cleric of Tempus means is a PC Cleric has the War Domain the player's probably not going to care beyond writing the name in. If being a Cleric of Tempus comes with the expectation you'll engage in fair combat, avoid harming pacifists, and fight for what you'll believe in then the player will care.

The first Cleric I played was a Cleric of Umberlee and acting like a Pirate priest was incredibly fun.

 

[Bill Zebub]

"I thought the evil cult emerged from X not Y" "uhm, yea, but not also Y, uhm because wait a minut... goddamit"

“Remember that mysterious archway you passed through? Yeah, um, you switched to an alternate universe. Mostly the same, but some differences. Like Y instead of X.”

“Oh. Well…what else is different?”

“I’ll let you know…”

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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?"

Literally every option is most commonly chosen because the player just likes it, and everything else is nothing more than post hoc justification and attempts to make what they want to play work in the game.

Which is a good thing.

And if tabaxi mostly act like humans....okay? Then why does it bother you what cosmetics the character has?

 

[Thomas Shey]

And if tabaxi mostly act like humans....okay? Then why does it bother you what cosmetics the character has?

Because look-and-feel is very important to some people's connection with their game. That's the long and the short of it. This whole thing is about conflicting wants and needs.

 

[GobHag]

Because look-and-feel is very important to some people's connection with their game. That's the long and the short of it. This whole thing is about conflicting wants and needs.

If the lore and rules say that Tabaxi act like humans, would that also be an issue?

 

[Micah Sweet]

If the lore and rules say that Tabaxi act like humans, would that also be an issue?

That or anything like would be a terrible thing for rules to say, and I would not only happily ignore said rules, I likely would never play such a game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Because look-and-feel is very important to some people's connection with their game. That's the long and the short of it. This whole thing is about conflicting wants and needs.

Okay but like...how on earth does player character vibe desire not trump someone elses desire for fantasy hegemony?

I genuinely dont understand the mindset where person A wants a given vharacter vibe and person B doesnt love that vibe and somehow person B's preference isnt given less preferance compared to person A.

It seems unavoidably and objectively obvious to me that person A's character concept is more important than person B's dislike of furries.