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

[zakael19]

Leaving game-world history lore aside, for a moment...

Lore, typically, speaks in generalizations - it presents stereotypes. Insisting that stereotypes apply to all specific individuals seems, in terms applicable to your personal preferred style, like questionable simulation.



You get to want what you want, of course. But, in the context of trade offs, "must abide by the GM's views on details of my character's behavior," would probably look like a notable trade-off to lots of players.

A great example is how ethnically and culturally diverse even real-world rough historical analogues were. Travelers travelled, often away from their homes for years at a time (I was just reading an account of an African-homeported Jewish merchant and philosopher who floated and caravened off to India for like 4 years, coming home to a now toddler son). Divergence happened between one valley and the next, depending on who’d migrated in and intermixed over the preceding so many years.

Our fantastic settings are often far less diverse and interesting in a cultural and beliefs level than real life. I was just reading an interesting blog post talking about how to make a setting that more resembles that level of diversity, focused entirely on humans/mono-species.

 

[Umbran]

That is to say, the topic of the thread is "What makes setting lore "actually matter" to the players?"

And if the person answers this with "Lore does not matter and reason for lore does not matter" = then nothing in this thread is going to be relevant outside of that. Nothing in this topic would address folks who just dont need or care about lore as a tool for character aspect purpose.

Hm. I am pretty sure you are wrong, in an "assuming the conclusion" sort of way.

What is the point of the question? Why do we ask what makes setting lore actually matter to the player?"

I expect I speak for many when I answer: We ask, because in general, lore qua lore doesn't matter! Lore only matters to players in specific, rather than in general. We want to know what those specifics might be, so we can target our lore creation and use, rather than waste our time on lore that won't matter.

 

[zakael19]

Hm. I am pretty sure you are wrong, in an "assuming the conclusion" sort of way.

What is the point of the question? Why do we ask what makes setting lore actually matter to the player?"

I expect I speak for many when I answer: We ask, because in general, lore qua lore doesn't matter! Lore only matters to players in specific, rather than in general. We want to know what those specifics might be, so we can target our lore creation and use, rather than waste our time on lore that won't matter.

I mean some people world build as a creative hobby or passion regardless of if a player will ever see it (or to satisfy their need for a level of detail), but yeah that doesn’t really answer the OP question.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Than ultimately what they brought to the table was desirable for you, because you valued it more than not having to deal with the irritating things they do.

You know that's almost the definition of a trade-off, right?

 

[Umbran]

I mean some people world build as a creative hobby or passion regardless of if a player will ever see it (or to satisfy their need for a level of detail), but yeah that doesn’t really answer the OP question.

Yep. Like, you can write a novel, and never intend to publish it. But then questions of what the audience would think of it are moot, because they won't think anything about a novel that's not available to be read.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If you choose to play a species that has a particular place in the lore of the setting in which you are playing, but you also choose to ignore that lore in your own characterization, I'm going to want an in-setting explanation why or I'm going to be irritated. Call that gatekeeping if you want. The player gets to decide to play in the setting and what PC in that setting they want to play. Once they do that the setting is real for that PC and they should have a good reason why they behave the way they do in it that makes sense. I'm open to ideas from that player, but I want more than just "I thought it would be cool".

Does somebody who wants to play an outlier, "weird" human have to adhere to the same standards and justify it?

 

[AnotherGuy]

Setting lore matters when it can be used to further their characters' goals.
I suspect in a longer campaign it may become easier for them to leverage as more and more lore becomes available.
It's also useful for character creation...often enough players scour the setting lore to find something cool for their character (mechanically) or background story.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I can only speak for what I get out of the thread, so to answer your question I would say = This thread isn't about and for that person answer type.

That is to say, the topic of the thread is "What makes setting lore "actually matter" to the players?"

And if the person answers this with "Lore does not matter and reason for lore does not matter" = then nothing in this thread is going to be relevant outside of that. Nothing in this topic would address folks who just dont need or care about lore as a tool for character aspect purpose.

Flipping the question to be "why is someone saying lore must be important to everyone" = isn't correct, and isn't a valid opinion as its not the purpose point, or topic at all.

A better way to consider it would be "I dont care about lore or race purpose, so what would get me to think that does matter?" = that is on topic! That is a relevant part of the question.

There is nothing qualitative about the thread topic for those who dont think it need to matter. because all playstyles and interested in or lack of interest in, are valid.

This is funny.

@everybody: Enworld apparently has a new rule that threads must not wander off topic. If you can't address the OP's question, don't post.

 

[Neonchameleon]

A great example is how ethnically and culturally diverse even real-world rough historical analogues were. Travelers travelled, often away from their homes for years at a time (I was just reading an account of an African-homeported Jewish merchant and philosopher who floated and caravened off to India for like 4 years, coming home to a now toddler son). Divergence happened between one valley and the next, depending on who’d migrated in and intermixed over the preceding so many years.

Our fantastic settings are often far less diverse and interesting in a cultural and beliefs level than real life. I was just reading an interesting blog post talking about how to make a setting that more resembles that level of diversity, focused entirely on humans/mono-species.

I'll second that. Most D&D races that stay true to their racial characteristics are neither more nor less than a Star Trek (TOS) Planet of the Hats.

Also adventurers pretty much by definition are weird and strange, having turned their back on their species normal way of life for the life of an adventurer no matter what that way of life is. The closest you'd get is something like someone who's taken something equivalent to an Amish Rumspringa and gone ludicrously above and beyond.

 

[Fifinjir]

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.

I can only speak for myself, but my stake is that other species that are functionally treated as humans have a tendency to edge into becoming like analogies or allegories for real life ethnicities, which I find kind of questionable. A thought I had recently is that if a character comes from an analogue to a real life culture, I’d much rather they be human than otherwise. Making, say, a China-like nation majority gnome opens the door to way too many headaches in my observations.

This of course isn’t inevitable when using species for aesthetics, but I found it after goes hand in hand.