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

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Ok, I hadn't thought of that, and haven't observed that happening, but let's say it can happen...it sounds like you are aware of and alert to that possibility. Isn't that enough to prevent it from happening at your table? What am I missing?

 

[Umbran]

That's not what I said. I said I want more than, "I thought it was cool", if that characterization flies in the face of the setting lore for that species and the player can't be bothered to come up with a single in-setting reason as to why.

The, "can't be bothered" is a characterization loaded with presumptions.

I will repeat - the setting lore for a species is typically a stereotype. Real sentients vary widely in behavior. If this is supposed to be a simulation of something like real people, we should not expect individuals to adhere to a stereotype any more than we should expect humans to adhere to the various cultural stereotypes we have about them.

Not having a specific justification for playing other than the bog standard stereotype is less an indication of "couldn't be bothered" than it is an indication that the player doesn't feel a justification should be necessary or required.

I personally don't think that's too much to ask.

So, the base question of the thread is, "What makes lore matter to the players?"
You are the GM in this scenario. "The GM thinks it isn't too much to ask," is not a selling point to a player.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I will repeat - the setting lore for a species is typically a stereotype. Real sentients vary widely in behavior. If this is supposed to be a simulation of something like real people, we should not expect individuals to adhere to a stereotype any more than we should expect humans to adhere to the various cultural stereotypes we have about them.

This is the point I was trying to make with my thought experiments about playing humans in varied ways. We accept a huge variety of personality types with humans...in fact we encourage and even expect players to come up with something more interesting than standard tropes. And yet we expect non-humans to conform to expectations/norms? Seems like a weird double standard.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ok, I hadn't thought of that, and haven't observed that happening, but let's say it can happen...it sounds like you are aware of and alert to that possibility. Isn't that enough to prevent it from happening at your table? What am I missing?

The history of D&D especially in the TSR era. oD&D and Keep on the Borderlands is basically a fantasy Western with the orcs and co standing in for Native Americans - and that's before we get into e.g. Mystara.

 

[Fifinjir]

Ok, I hadn't thought of that, and haven't observed that happening, but let's say it can happen...it sounds like you are aware of and alert to that possibility. Isn't that enough to prevent it from happening at your table? What am I missing?

Well, yes, I’d be able to counter it I think. The guideline I thought of earlier would be part of that managing if I implement it.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

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

I think you entirely misread my post. Like, entirely.

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.

...Considering your reply is the same point I was also making. I think, in part, we are in agreement, you are just wording it different. Which is fine.

I am interested in what makes folks not like lore. I am also interested in hearing what makes folks resist getting into lore. And for those who never care about lore, what might perk their interest in lore... and much more.

I am not interested in convincing folks that that lore is required for all games and players.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

But who is saying that "Lore does not matter and reason for lore does not matter"? I might have missed someone but as far as I can tell literally no one (and certainly not me) is saying that.

Considering none of my posted were quoting you, you can assume I am not referring to you.

I was talking more to the worries some folks have that the attempt to add some amount or purpose of lore to a game, especially races = that is its not qualitative. I state over and over that there is nothing wrong with: "someone just wanting to imagine their character look a certain way." and no more lore is needed or offered or used. If that is all someone wants or needs, then fine. no contest, no need. They are already having fun.

The attempt to force a setting lore to matter to someone who isn't looking for any lore at all - is not the goal or a good attempt. I certainly am not trying to convince people they must care about lore. I am only stating why - when there is lore - it falls flat or fails to engage.

However I am outright saying that good lore engages players and bad lore loses them. And that a lot of lore, even quite highly praised and read lore (WoD metaplot I'm looking at you) inhibits rather than inspires players and lowers the stakes and thus investment in the setting. Also that allowing the players to add to lore rather than keeping tight control of it helps make good lore.

None of this is valid or contested. So I am not gonna state what is "most valid or not", or what folks "must do". Instead I am just gonna look at lore, and wonder what makes it work and why. and if it don't work...why?

If you don't think the lore of WoD is inspiring, and it that it inhibits. Why? What you think might overcome that? What could be changed to make it work for/matter to you? I personally find that WoD empowers and inspires myself and players, exceptionally so. It's lore matters a lot to us!

So with that in mind....

If folks want to get into lore, and they find it does not matter or it is unhelpful, then.. why?
And from that 'why' we can discuss attempts to refine the way its presented, the volume of it, the types of details.....whatever those things are that make it unhelpful.

- What makes setting lore "actually matter" to the players?
and maybe a good addition would be...
- What things makes a setting lore not not matter to players?
and maybe...
- What things make a setting lore hard to read/use to players?

I am just guessing, so insert your own questions and answers as needed.
Because what makes players think lore does not matter is different for all, so I want to hear all the things different folks say to that... and maybe add to that "and then state what you think might overcome that."

 

[Neonchameleon]

The attempt to force a setting lore to matter to someone who isn't looking for any lore at all - is not the goal or a good attempt. I certainly am not trying to convince people they must care about lore. I am only stating why - when there is lore - it falls flat or fails to engage.

And I am disagreeing.

If you don't think the lore of WoD is inspiring, and it that it inhibits. Why? What you think might overcome that? What could be changed to make it work for/matter to you? I personally find that WoD empowers and inspires myself and players, exceptionally so. It's lore matters a lot to us!

I personally find that the WoD's lore is among the best of the 20th Century settings. But we've come a long way in the past 30 years in getting the benefits out of good lore without burying it in extruded content. But why did oWoD lore work? And more to the point why did oWoD lore work when the nWoD basically flopped?

1. The oWoD splats all have strong elevator pitches
2. It was fresh. Basically nothing like it at the time had been seen
3. It had edge at the time, especially compared to the world of 90s D&D
4. It was a clean system by the standards of the times (compared to e.g. AD&D)
5. It was incredibly queer especially by the standards of the 90s, attracting a large subgroup
6. It had an actual attempt at a psychological model and meta-resources that allowed characters to express themselves (willpower and whatever the splat resource was, whether blood, quintessence, rage, or whatever)
7. It was varied. "All Splats WoD" is an entire managerie which gives just about everyone at least one thing that they can identify with. I mean you had vampires, werewolves, changelings, mages, etc. - and structured stereotyped subgroups within each splat.
   1. I'm pretty sure that there's more variety between the vampire clans in V:tM 1e than there is in the "Tolkien Races" of any pre-4e PHB. And there's certainly more inner conflict

But, there's a fundamental but to come. It was the lore that brought the oWoD down. The lore in the core books attracted people in part because it was cooked rare. You were intended to set it in your home town before Chicago By Night came out.

I'm also going to suggest my observation. Many many people were drawn into the World of Darkness (and deservedly so) with its larger than life characters and light but existing lore written in ways that inspired players. Very few players were drawn in by the metaplot or clan books. Existing GMs and some players bougth them, and they made money for White Wolf so were worth producing from a corporate perspective but they mostly created a barrier to entry, selling more and more books to fewer and fewer people until most of those that were buying books were the tiny minority that were lore-heads.

And then the nWoD came out and (with the honourable exception of Changeling: The Lost) the WoD audience collapsed. The elevator pitch wasn't as strong for Requiem as Masquerade or Forsaken as Apocalypse and they just didn't feel fresh while the people still there for the lore had had all they had learned turned irrelevant.

So with that in mind....

If folks want to get into lore, and they find it does not matter or it is unhelpful, then.. why?

First we need to ask why folks want to get into the lore. In my experience there are three reasons:

1. They like the setting and want more. The lore doesn't get them in, the hooks do
2. It's a way of engaging with the hobby when not playing. So it's for hardcore fans at the expense of more casual ones.
3. To tie into something else (e.g. books, real world history)

 

[RenleyRenfield]

I personally find that the WoD's lore is among the best of the 20th Century settings. But we've come a long way in the past 30 years in getting the benefits out of good lore without burying it in extruded content. But why did oWoD lore work? And more to the point why did oWoD lore work when the nWoD basically flopped?

1. The oWoD splats all have strong elevator pitches
2. It was fresh. Basically nothing like it at the time had been seen
3. It had edge at the time, especially compared to the world of 90s D&D
4. It was a clean system by the standards of the times (compared to e.g. AD&D)
5. It was incredibly queer especially by the standards of the 90s, attracting a large subgroup
6. It had an actual attempt at a psychological model and meta-resources that allowed characters to express themselves (willpower and whatever the splat resource was, whether blood, quintessence, rage, or whatever)
7. It was varied. "All Splats WoD" is an entire managerie which gives just about everyone at least one thing that they can identify with. I mean you had vampires, werewolves, changelings, mages, etc. - and structured stereotyped subgroups within each splat.
   1. I'm pretty sure that there's more variety between the vampire clans in V:tM 1e than there is in the "Tolkien Races" of any pre-4e PHB. And there's certainly more inner conflict

But, there's a fundamental but to come. It was the lore that brought the oWoD down. The lore in the core books attracted people in part because it was cooked rare. You were intended to set it in your home town before Chicago By Night came out.

I'm also going to suggest my observation. Many many people were drawn into the World of Darkness (and deservedly so) with its larger than life characters and light but existing lore written in ways that inspired players. Very few players were drawn in by the metaplot or clan books. Existing GMs and some players bougth them, and they made money for White Wolf so were worth producing from a corporate perspective but they mostly created a barrier to entry, selling more and more books to fewer and fewer people until most of those that were buying books were the tiny minority that were lore-heads.

And then the nWoD came out and (with the honourable exception of Changeling: The Lost) the WoD audience collapsed. The elevator pitch wasn't as strong for Requiem as Masquerade or Forsaken as Apocalypse and they just didn't feel fresh while the people still there for the lore had had all they had learned turned irrelevant.

First we need to ask why folks want to get into the lore. In my experience there are three reasons:

1. They like the setting and want more. The lore doesn't get them in, the hooks do
2. It's a way of engaging with the hobby when not playing. So it's for hardcore fans at the expense of more casual ones.
3. To tie into something else (e.g. books, real world history)

Now we are cooking with cat grease! I like this post!

I will add my 2c = oWoD was a format and style of lore that was engrossing and to a smaller degree a touch of the unreliable narrator. It was telling you about its world, and offering to let you come play in it.

nWoD lore was a massive amount of refined info around 'what could possibly be, if you want, but maybe maybe not - your lore for your game.' and since it was mildly non-committal and to a degree, buffet style take or leave - it felt less engrossing and purposeful.

So is that a useful aspect of lore to other folks? (that a setting's lore is 'opinionated and self reliant' as opposed to being a bundle of options to choose)

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I've often had that sort of disparity among players, and my answer has always been to just neutrally run whatever I was going to run anyway and let the players sort it out among themselves.