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

[Umbran]

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.

Sure. And that prioritization helps us accept some less-than-optimal approaches to play. We choose "good enough" for sake of the primary goal. No argument.

But that only goes so far. And it does not apply to games that are not primarily about socialization.

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.

Even if you have "no particular goal", there are still general goals that apply.

Certainly, I can choose game style or elements that are so against people's general goals that they would choose to forego the socialization entirely. Just as an example: for many, a game that includes explicit sexual violence is just right out.

Walk that back a bit, and I'd have game style or elements that don't literally drive them away, but still negatively impact their socialization time - they can play, it isn't deeply offensive or something, but it is unfun, and maybe just snacks and chatting might be preferable.

Which then brings us to: if socialization is the primary goal, then choosing a game that at least does not hinder that, or even enhances socialization, would be preferable. And so the game we are playing still matters, and we ought to be conscious of the "good enough" choices we have each other make.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

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

Sure! but also not fully. I mean, we are talking about a 'world' and entire 'setting'. So it is 100% fair to ask "how did this world get to to be this way." That is part of the Lore.

We are not asking the 'purpose of life', but we are asking the lore on 'how life got to...' frog people and human people and magic and so on...

Oddly enough, i think the old chaosium book, Nephilim did this quite well!

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?

I agree, and my posts say as much. I mention magic and geography as well.

My best guess as to why Races are more hot button than magic or factions are in this conversation is = People tend to be less pushed away from magic or geography and other such things as they are 'passive', they tend to not participate in the game except for "that one mission to the floating castle". In which case yes! You bet I am asking "what is the purpose this thing?"

I can't count how many GMs have broken and given up over a player asking what the purpose of a faction like the Harpers is.
That happens a lot!

The more the setting/book/lore just shrugs as says "because magic" or whatever, the more it drives away some folks.

I rather enjoy in Vampire the Masquerade of "But why Camarilla and why Sabbat?" and the books have lots of answers! historical ones, personal ones, drama and petty personal fight ones - more than one for each! They show a great way how many things lead to many other things and give rise to Camarilla or Sabbat.

In fact, VtM even goes so far as to give all kinds of lore for players to pick apart and argue over "what is the purpose of life as a vampire" and there are roads, paths, and many philosophies that drive play - all in character, all in the book.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

It's barely a trade-off. There are only about three hours in a session. And with K and that group I can either have a mediocre tactical session or an excellent dramatic session. My tastes are diverse.

The only time it becomes a problem is if I've got e.g. J and R at the table. J is a great tactical player but not that interested in drama. R is a dramatic chaos gremlin with little interest in tactical play. They're both awesome players - but I know any time I try to run for both players is going to leave me slightly disappointed because what I do to draw the best out of one is not how I connect with the other.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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"

Never give them lore straight, filter it through a narrator, Grantus the sage said "...." and the like. Or you recall from your studies that "...."
History is often unreliable and contradicts.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I agree, and my posts say as much. I mention magic and geography as well.

My best guess as to why Races are more hot button than magic or factions are in this conversation is = People tend to be less pushed away from magic or geography and other such things as they are 'passive', they tend to not participate in the game except for "that one mission to the floating castle". In which case yes! You bet I am asking "what is the purpose this thing?"

Quite the reverse. Races are part of how players get to personalise their characters. They are more intimately connected with the parts the players engage in than geographic features that the players are never going to see; the players don't carry geography around with them. Meanwhile magic is clearly a setting conceit. The purpose of D&D races is presentation and player identification with the character, and fun.

Do fantasy races have to have a deep connection with the setting? No. In my current game the Ribbets live on a small isolated island just off the main continent and for almost all the NPCs this is the first Ribbet they have ever met (and very possibly the last). And in a different campaign the Ribbets could be there and the players just wouldn't notice.

Yet despite this the fact that the player is playing a Ribbet and Ribbet lore building on what has been established has been one of the key drivers to the plot. It's been a great story arc that would never have mattered if I had been much more precious and not allowed one of the players to play a slightly melodramatic frog-boy because he thought the art was cool. Had I not allowed him enough space to start this story off and then worked and built on it I'd still have had entertaining scenes with the player (he's a good player) but the story would have landed nowhere near as hard. And even if I'd tried the same story it would have been cheesy because it would not have had the foundations and the investment.

I can't count how many GMs have broken and given up over a player asking what the purpose of a faction like the Harpers is.
That happens a lot!

This is as far as I can recall literally the first time I have ever heard of this happening in a tabletop RPG. And the only context I can imagine players even asking is if someone, being precious about their setting, asks what the point of Tieflings or Dragonborn and so the players ask what the purpose of every thing the DM does allow them to have. If everything has to have a purpose, and a purpose connected to the setting you can't blame yourself when you get cross-examined on that.

But in a more realistic setting where some things exist just because they are cool or because someone thought it would be a good idea or by mistake or even by pure chance many things do have purposes but this isn't a question the players feel they need to ask.

The more the setting/book/lore just shrugs as says "because magic" or whatever, the more it drives away some folks.

And the more some GMs claim "Only things I know the purpose of before the game starts" the more they drive away some folks and stunt the creativity and investment in the game of others.

I rather enjoy in Vampire the Masquerade of "But why Camarilla and why Sabbat?" and the books have lots of answers! historical ones, personal ones, drama and petty personal fight ones - more than one for each! They show a great way how many things lead to many other things and give rise to Camarilla or Sabbat.

In fact, VtM even goes so far as to give all kinds of lore for players to pick apart and argue over "what is the purpose of life as a vampire" and there are roads, paths, and many philosophies that drive play - all in character, all in the book.

Indeed. VtM is great to read. If you want a set of game books to read while sitting on the loo they are great. But then you get into the world Piled High and Deep that some players find too much to engage with, and then you get into the metaplot that discourages interaction between the players and the setting because the NPCs will do all the important stuff which is heavily about Epic Conflicts with the players in the background.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Not practical? Sure. Not desirable? I'm not sure how.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. And that prioritization helps us accept some less-than-optimal approaches to play. We choose "good enough" for sake of the primary goal. No argument.

But that only goes so far. And it does not apply to games that are not primarily about socialization.



Even if you have "no particular goal", there are still general goals that apply.

Certainly, I can choose game style or elements that are so against people's general goals that they would choose to forego the socialization entirely. Just as an example: for many, a game that includes explicit sexual violence is just right out.

Walk that back a bit, and I'd have game style or elements that don't literally drive them away, but still negatively impact their socialization time - they can play, it isn't deeply offensive or something, but it is unfun, and maybe just snacks and chatting might be preferable.

Which then brings us to: if socialization is the primary goal, then choosing a game that at least does not hinder that, or even enhances socialization, would be preferable. And so the game we are playing still matters, and we ought to be conscious of the "good enough" choices we have each other make.

And as was said above, that assumes socialization is the primary goal for at least the majority of the group. Often the game is the main reason we're all here, or at often enough that assuming it's mostly an excuse to socialize shouldn't be our first thought.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not practical? Sure. Not desirable? I'm not sure how.

Because you want to play with specific people, perhaps for themselves, perhaps because you know they'll bring things to the game that curating them out would lose you. Even in the VTT days you don't have an infinite pool to access, and getting people who don't want things you might prefer not to have in the game can end up meaning getting people who bring things you do want in the game--strong self-motivation, say.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And as was said above, that assumes socialization is the primary goal for at least the majority of the group. Often the game is the main reason we're all here, or at often enough that assuming it's mostly an excuse to socialize shouldn't be our first thought.

I'll point out Umbran referenced that in the second sentence you quoted.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I gotta admit I don't fully understand...or maybe 'sympathize with' is a better way of expressing it...the importance placed on roleplaying non-human races in distinctive ways. I get that those races absolutely could have distinctive traits/behaviors, and it doesn't even have to be explained biologically, but why is it so important that other people roleplay it that way? What's wrong with someone just wanting to imagine their character look a certain way.

Two thought experiments:

1. In a humans-only campaign/game, or if somebody picks human among multiple choices, but then wants to describe their character as having highly distinctive (but plausible) physical features, with zero mechanic impact, would anybody have a problem with that? Then why not choose an elf/dwarf/tiefling/whatever just because they like the way it looks?
2. Similarly, take any presumed worldview/mindset of an imaginary race, due to the circumstances of their species (living underground, generations of servitude, etc. etc. etc.), and now imagine that somebody wants to play a human with those same traits, without necessarily having grown up underground or enslaved. Anybody have a problem with that? If not, then why is it a problem for a member of one of those races to act like a typical human?

A lot of what I'm reading smells to me like thinking that a certain set of roleplaying preferences are correct, and that people who don't share those preferences are doing it wrong.