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

[billd91]

I don't see any trade-offs in the games I'm running, unless you mean that by being selective with who the group comprises such that they're all really into the core conceits so we can coalesce around a shared-table-fun is inherently a trade-off?

Like, I put a game and world in front of people that I'm genuinely excited about and see if they are as well, and then we shape the resultant game to sustain that level of excitement and interest (again, that's what End of Session questions exist for).

Do you always get exactly what you want out of a game like that? Or do you sometimes ease off on some of your preferences because you know other players don't favor them the way you do? Do you ever come up with an idea but adjust it for someone else's sensibilities?
That's the trade-off (or I'd say compromise) that Umbran's talking about.
It's like some people prefer lunch, some prefer breakfast, so you go to brunch. "It's not quite breakfast, it's not quite lunch, but it comes with a slice of canteloupe at the end. You don't get completely what you would at breakfast, but you get a good meal."

 

[TwoSix]

I think you misinterpret the issue in a maximally negative light. It has nothing to do with a zero-sum game.

When you go out to dinner with your friends, do you always go to your own personal first choice of restaurant? Do all your friends have the exact same first choice of restaurant, each and every time? Probably not. Somewhere in there, some person or people are accepting the choice as "good enough". That is a sense in which these tradeoffs happen. We are all enjoying things together, but we should not claim or pretend that things we enjoy together don't entail tradeoffs. Maybe the time is awkward for the new parent in the group. Maybe the movie has some sexist jokes that one person thinks are unfunny. Maybe someone at the meal doesn't like cheese, and so on.

It pays to pay some attention to that, though, because by a sum of individual choices that each seem "good enough", you can end up with someone in a bad place - like with your vegan friend trying to find a way to assemble a meal out of side dishes at a meat-forward BBQ joint.

I think some of this comes down to how we personally decide our expectations.

When I go out to dinner with friends, I'm not expecting to go to my favorite restaurant. I'm expecting everyone to have some opinions and we'll come up with an option acceptable to everyone. But I don't think the fact I'm not going to my favorite restaurant is a trade-off, because I'm prioritizing the socialization over the food experience.

Likewise with a game table. I go to the game table hoping to have a fun time with friends; if the game we choose is one of my personal preferences, all the better. But that isn't the point of the game. Socialization first, game second. So thinking of that game selection in terms of a "trade-off" simply doesn't enter into it, because I had no particular goal of what game experience I would be having.

 

[Umbran]

We still haven't given purpose or interconnected reason why any race even exists.

That sounds less like a question about lore, and more like an existential crisis. Very, "What is the purpose of life?!?" energy.

- What is lore?

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

I don't think the core issue is that it is "hard to access or use". The core question is what makes lore meaningful to player's interests? Less about access, more about relevance.

Some of you are very focused on "lore about game races", but the question generalizes.

Like, there's an antagonist in an adventure that is a, "Red Wizard of Thay". How does a GM set this up so that a player engages with that antagonist as a "Red Wizard of Thay" and not "a spellcasting opponent"? How does the lore about Red Wizards matter to the players?

 

[zakael19]

Do you always get exactly what you want out of a game like that? Or do you sometimes ease off on some of your preferences because you know other players don't favor them the way you do? Do you ever come up with an idea but adjust it for someone else's sensibilities?
That's the trade-off (or I'd say compromise) that Umbran's talking about.
It's like some people prefer lunch, some prefer breakfast, so you go to brunch. "It's not quite breakfast, it's not quite lunch, but it comes with a slice of canteloupe at the end. You don't get completely what you would at breakfast, but you get a good meal."

Yeah? Like, I don't see Session 0 Lines and Veils as a trade off. I wasn't planning to drop sexual assault on the group, nor does it harsh my fun to veil out harm to children or whatever comes up. Asking the players what they want to see within the context of the larger frame I'm already excited about doesnt feel like a trade off - I'm looking to them to give impetus so that play sustains at a high degree of enthusiasm across all participants.

Mind you, I've gotten better over the years with how I present options or games such that whatever shows up under the umbrella is something we're all into. And by leaving openings in the world building / lore aspects for players to register what they want, I'm still always starting from a "hey, let me assert the foundation but you build off it."

 

[Thomas Shey]

The notion that there is some sort of trade off between player and GM enjoyment of the game - on some posited spectrum from "dancing monkey" to "viking hat* - is just really foreign to me.

Buying and selling involves trade offs. Building a house on a budget involves trade offs. But social interactions among friends are about enjoying things together. And for me, this is what RPGing is like. We play to have fun together, not to dole out little parcels of fun in some strange zero-sum fashion.

On the other hand, the idea that there are many groups that play together for various reasons that have some conflicts about what they want in a game, and some of those conflicts require surrender of some of one party's enjoyment in those areas to the others shouldn't be that radical a concept. And that's even assuming the people playing together are beyond friendly acquaintences (which is not uncommon, and a different dynamic than actual close friends).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't see any trade-offs in the games I'm running, unless you mean that by being selective with who the group comprises such that they're all really into the core conceits so we can coalesce around a shared-table-fun is inherently a trade-off?

That's the alternate to dealing with trade-offs--curating the player group and GM combination. There are various reasons that's not always practical or desirable on other grounds, however.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Likewise with a game table. I go to the game table hoping to have a fun time with friends; if the game we choose is one of my personal preferences, all the better. But that isn't the point of the game. Socialization first, game second. So thinking of that game selection in terms of a "trade-off" simply doesn't enter into it, because I had no particular goal of what game experience I would be having.

I have to note that with many groups the game is first however. This is sometimes even true with groups composed of closer friends, who do other things when the primary goal is socializing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Do you always get exactly what you want out of a game like that? Or do you sometimes ease off on some of your preferences because you know other players don't favor them the way you do? Do you ever come up with an idea but adjust it for someone else's sensibilities?
That's the trade-off (or I'd say compromise) that Umbran's talking about.
It's like some people prefer lunch, some prefer breakfast, so you go to brunch. "It's not quite breakfast, it's not quite lunch, but it comes with a slice of canteloupe at the end. You don't get completely what you would at breakfast, but you get a good meal."

Meanwhile for me what I get by actively letting everyone create is never what I want and is 90% of the time actively better than what I'd have picked on my own.

We aren't setting down for a meal fundamentally prepared by a chef none of us have ever met. We're a team working together. And I can either try telling them what to do or share my vision and let them bring their A game and skills and aptitudes I know nothing about. And they'll bring things that build off what I'm suggesting in ways I wouldn't have forseen and I'll then build on that. Their skill builds on mine and mine builds on theirs until we create something better than any of us could have made individually because we all have different skills.

And if that means I sometimes have a craving for tactical and know perfectly well that it's not K's thing what of it? We're making awesome dramatic and I can play tactical with other people.

 

[dragoner]

And if that means I sometimes have a craving for tactical and know perfectly well that it's not K's thing what of it? We're making awesome dramatic and I can play tactical with other people.

I love wargames, though they are best one on one, it's like Traveller has High Guard, great wargame, I don't do it with RPG's though, as they are better with a group. Sometimes it is basic reading the room.

 

[billd91]

And if that means I sometimes have a craving for tactical and know perfectly well that it's not K's thing what of it? We're making awesome dramatic and I can play tactical with other people.

As I see it, that doesn't make it not a trade-off. You like tactical play, you trade that as a significant focus in the game for an opportunity to improve the game for K's benefit when they're in the game. You defer tactical play to another group for play with K. Trade-off isn't a dirty word or anything. It's just a recognition that decisions you make, particularly in group situations, have pros, cons, and opportunity costs and you forego some things in order to obtain other things.