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

[doctorbadwolf]

o it became part of the question --- what makes lore actually matter from a play perspective? Because races are without question "lore" for a setting.

I can find interest in this question, if i ignore the entire rest of the post and thread, so i will endeavor to do so.

The main thing that makes players care about the lore elements of their character is to ask them questions that tie them to those elements beyond the stats.

Specifics depend on setting so i will assume FR for common language.

Your character is a tabaxi, are you from chult, maztica, or is your family an imigrant family and if so where? Are you lazy like most felines, with bursts of extreme energy? Are you easily overstimulated?

But know that the player usually hasnt thought that deep because there is jo reason to because most people do not get bothered by whether a frog person is treated differently by the world than a cat person. that is not a failure of player or game, it is an unusual expectation that you need to communicate to the group before session 1. There is no other way to make a cosmetic choice not just cosmetic.

Going outside species, i can say that my players are always invested in lore. It always matters in my campaigns.

Every PC has 3 Contacts tied to their past, and tied to the world and its lore. Every PC has told me about their upbringing at least a couple sentences. I do the work to give them hooks and tidbits that speak to their past, home, family, etc.

I remind them of thier phisiology. When the Troll (think rock trolls and Ludo and such not dnd trolls) character does dope monk stuff i insert their massive rough-skinned form with its moss where hair should be and black-scelera eyes and etc as i describe how thier action plays out in the scene. I remind the gnome ranger how her crystaline eyes absorb and refract the light and turn deeper and darker the more they absorb all the light that hits them, and since sh3 is a forest gnome she hears animal sounds and knows what they mean so i describe the sounds and tudbits of what the animals are saying to eachother. I ask the elf what this part of town looked like last they were here, 120 years ago.

It is very much your job as DM to paint the world. If the color pallete doesnt suit you, fix it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The cultural progression of RPG is all about the slow erosion of GMing power after all.

How can you possibly state something like that as an objective fact? Progression suggests moving a positive direction. I get this is likely positive for you, but that's all you can speak for. And in any case how do you expect this "slow erosion of GM power" to work? Are GMs supposed to stop caring about what they want out of a game and just service the player's needs in your vision?

 

[innerdude]

The main thing that makes players care about the lore elements of their character is to ask them questions that tie them to those elements beyond the stats.

Specifics depend on setting so i will assume FR for common language.

Your character is a tabaxi, are you from chult, maztica, or is your family an imigrant family and if so where? Are you lazy like most felines, with bursts of extreme energy? Are you easily overstimulated?

But know that the player usually hasnt thought that deep because there is jo reason to because most people do not get bothered by whether a frog person is treated differently by the world than a cat person. that is not a failure of player or game, it is an unusual expectation that you need to communicate to the group before session 1. There is no other way to make a cosmetic choice not just cosmetic.

Yep. And again, my personal preference now is to just be done with the "pretend theater" of choosing a race/heritage.

"You can choose human as your race. Period, the end."

Going outside species, i can say that my players are always invested in lore. It always matters in my campaigns.

Every PC has 3 Contacts tied to their past, and tied to the world and its lore. Every PC has told me about their upbringing at least a couple sentences. I do the work to give them hooks and tidbits that speak to their past, home, family, etc.

I remind them of thier phisiology. When the Troll (think rock trolls and Ludo and such not dnd trolls) character does dope monk stuff i insert their massive rough-skinned form with its moss where hair should be and black-scelera eyes and etc as i describe how thier action plays out in the scene. I remind the gnome ranger how her crystaline eyes absorb and refract the light and turn deeper and darker the more they absorb all the light that hits them, and since sh3 is a forest gnome she hears animal sounds and knows what they mean so i describe the sounds and tudbits of what the animals are saying to eachother. I ask the elf what this part of town looked like last they were here, 120 years ago.

Sure, all good for you and your group. I just don't care about making the effort for this anymore. I don't care about having to construct/describe/maintain those kinds of details about each of the various PCs and their selected heritages, nor maintain the cultural impacts and zeitgeists for each heritage, etc.

You want to differentiate your character? Cool, then tell me how your human character is unique. How do they dress? What are their personality traits? What are their worldviews? That's waaaaaay more interesting to me than maintaining the illusion of how their "scaly / feathery / furry skin" is affected by the weather.

It is very much your job as DM to paint the world. If the color pallete doesnt suit you, fix it.

Yep. Exactly what I do. "Everyone's a human, next question."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why even make the thread lol

 

[Umbran]

Are GMs supposed to stop caring about what they want out of a game and just service the player's needs in your vision?

Because, as we all know, the internet only supports the extremes.

We can embrace the broad space between "the GM is all-powerful" and "the GM just services the player's needs".

 

[RenleyRenfield]

The main thing that makes players care about the lore elements of their character is to ask them questions that tie them to those elements beyond the stats.

Specifics depend on setting so i will assume FR for common language.

Your character is a tabaxi, are you from chult, maztica, or is your family an imigrant family and if so where? Are you lazy like most felines, with bursts of extreme energy? Are you easily overstimulated?

Here is where the thread first unravels for me (and I think @innerdude ) as well. That's not lore. What you just described is a kind of anthropomorphisation just in reverse. You are asking how the human behaves kinda catty... not lore. not purposeful. just a windowdressing on a human.

But know that the player usually hasnt thought that deep because there is jo reason to because most people do not get bothered by whether a frog person is treated differently by the world than a cat person. that is not a failure of player or game, it is an unusual expectation that you need to communicate to the group before session 1. There is no other way to make a cosmetic choice not just cosmetic.

There is no way to make a cosmetic choice not cosmetic = i strongly disagree. and I posted early a very concise example of why its 100% false to claim players need a thousand page bible on a non-human race to be far more than window dressing and cosmetics. There are many tools in both literature and layout design to keep this short, easy to read, and highly meaningful.

I remind them of thier phisiology. When the Troll (think rock trolls and Ludo and such not dnd trolls) character does dope monk stuff i insert their massive rough-skinned form with its moss where hair should be and black-scelera eyes and etc as i describe how thier action plays out in the scene. I remind the gnome ranger how her crystaline eyes absorb and refract the light and turn deeper and darker the more they absorb all the light that hits them, and since sh3 is a forest gnome she hears animal sounds and knows what they mean so i describe the sounds and tudbits of what the animals are saying to eachother. I ask the elf what this part of town looked like last they were here, 120 years ago.

All of this is either cultural appropriation= Why does the troll have and use eastern martial arts and call themselves 'monk'?
I am not saying that is bad. but once again you only describe the worst part = what the troll looks like, and how they perform human actions with a squiggly body. That's not lore.


These are things that drive folks like me away from "races" and other such things, magic, classes, monsters, etc etc; too. At the end of the day, everyone is just playing a human. We still haven't given purpose or interconnected reason why any race even exists. Let alone why they come up with human only practices

It's that trite shallowness of personhood that makes it non-valuable at its core.

Why even make the thread lol

I like this question. And , for me, this thread serves as both a sounding board for me to say things i think might be true, let people challenge and discuss them, and then step back and revaluate if I still feel that way or if someone changed my mined/educated me. I personally apricate all folks like you who took time to post thoughtful responses, and give me reason to doubt my own ideas.

Because, as we all know, the internet only supports the extremes.

We can embrace the broad space between "the GM is all-powerful" and "the GM just services the player's needs".

I would like to soften this statement a bit and say maybe that we should not take any of these cases as black or white, ALL or NONE.

To help, maybe we can steer the conversation back towards a more rounded discussion on the topic of =

- What is lore?

- For those who like that definition of Lore, why is it hard to access or use?

- For those who don't like that definition of lore, why? what is missing?

- Can we as a group come up with ideas or a way to accommodate lore that also establishes purpose and acknowledge reason for whatever odd bits fantasy settings offer? (races, magic, classes, monsters, etc etc)

 

[Aldarc]

So it became part of the question --- what makes lore actually matter from a play perspective? Because races are without question "lore" for a setting. But if they don't actually matter in play other than stat bonuses and "cool outfit, bro!", (IMHO) they're a waste.

Not sure if I agree with this. IMHO, aesthetics and resonance matter, and both of these are reasons why players pick certain races even if it just amounts to humans doing cosplay.

Also there is a certain tinge of "That's BadWrongFun!" that rubs me the wrong way about the post.

I agree that these things aren't necessarily "lore," but there are some other opinions mixed in there that I find a bit distasteful.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Not sure if I agree with this. IMHO, aesthetics and resonance matter, and both of these are reasons why players pick certain races even if it just amounts to humans doing cosplay.

Also there is a certain tinge of "That's BadWrongFun!" that rubs me the wrong way about the post.

I agree that these things aren't necessarily "lore," but there are some other opinions mixed in there that I find a bit distasteful.

Well.... let's keep going with this line of thought, because it has some points that can be discussed.

Starting with "aesthetics" which you seem to agree, "just amounts to humans doing cosplay.".... "I agree that these things aren't necessarily "lore,"

So... let's dig into why someone might balk or become frustrated with "aesthetics as lore". =
When a person buys an rpg book to learn it and play it, or even joins an rpg game = and someone says "this is the lore of the world" , and it just is "aesthetics" of different ears and skins. Then that person could be very let down. because that stuff isn't lore.

Let's take Vulcans of Star Trek. This show goes out of their way to say these Races have Lore that far far far surpasses their superficial looks. In fact, the Majority of all interactions with Vulcans is in regards to the Lore = not their looks!

This is a good example of a setting having 'lore' and then from that lore there was built physiology, and that physiology backs up evolutionary and technological and cultural divergence from humanity. Then from there we can have a few scenes of 'Vulcan ears' which give that fun of being non-human. (that let's be honest, tech or magic could also provide, and a good show like Star Trek acknowledges this - Forgotten Realms/Golarion/etc etc = do not. )

Tell me WHY the troll has ascetic monk martial arts. What about their physiology, history, and evolution and magic made that ever a thing at all... the humans had monks but they make wine and pen books...they don't do martial arts. So let's get into why the Trolls did, they have magic, they have tools... or do they? What was their evolutionary history 40,000 years before they invented martial arts? We don't need the whole timeline, but there should be Some lore that points back at something that isn't just skin-swapped humans...

------------------------
final note: yes its ok for folks to not care. its ok for folks to be happy with just bunny ears on humans. This is not a qualitative demand, its a discussion to help folks find better terms and sources for what they do like and how to politely avoid things they dont.

 

[Umbran]

I was responding to RenleyRenfield 's assertion that for him, he's sick and tired of fantasy settings because "the lore and boundaries around lore" are useless/meaningless. For him, fantasy has turned into an uninteresting and off-putting useless grab-bag of "vaguely magical medieval-ish castle-place thingies."

So, there's something here we can pick at.

The genre of fantasy, overall, is broad.

The genre of easy-entry, psuedo-medieval, pseudo-sword-and-sorcery fantasy RPGs using traditional rulesets is rather less broad.

Stepping out of that Tolkien/Gygaxian genre box may call for different kinds of rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because, as we all know, the internet only supports the extremes.

We can embrace the broad space between "the GM is all-powerful" and "the GM just services the player's needs".

We can, but my experience with the poster to whom I am responding suggests that they are at least as extreme in their preferences as I am in mine.