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

[dragoner]

Calm down darth Dragoner.

There is no good faith or trust, people's criticisms are just another form of attention getting, one upmanship.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I mean, you're under no obligation to be constructive. But I generally view the times I'm not acting positively and constructively as moments of weakness; I forgive myself for them but I don't view those actions as being good.

Though what translates into "constructive" can sometimes be hard to tease out. I don't do this with setting lore (well, usually, unless something just jumps out at me as jarring or such) but I quite commonly will go over mechanical problems without always having a good fix for them, under the hope that pointing them out and analyzing them will help someone else come up with a good one. Not everyone appreciates that at all and some people consider it bashing a system.

 

[TwoSix]

Though what translates into "constructive" can sometimes be hard to tease out. I don't do this with setting lore (well, usually, unless something just jumps out at me as jarring or such) but I quite commonly will go over mechanical problems without always having a good fix for them, under the hope that pointing them out and analyzing them will help someone else come up with a good one. Not everyone appreciates that at all and some people consider it bashing a system.

People who can't accept criticism of their likes are just as bad as people who continually bash things they hate. (It is fair to be irritated by criticism founded on purely emotional response that is couched as objective, though.)

 

[dragoner]

People who can't accept criticism of their likes are just as bad as people who continually bash things they hate. (It is fair to be irritated by criticism founded on purely emotional response that is couched as objective, though.)

There is no knowing which is which, so it all gets rejected as bad.

Similar to as if one is going to go back and edit something? No, long term maybe ten years down the road. The successful always state the same thing, create something new.

 

[Fenris-77]

There is no good faith or trust, people's criticisms are just another form of attention getting, one upmanship.

Nonsense. We're talking about an actual thing that admits of both assertions and critique. Ego doesn't need to be involved. By your account there would be no reason for any of us to be here at all.

 

[dragoner]

Nonsense. We're talking about an actual thing that admits of both assertions and critique. Ego doesn't need to be involved. By your account there would be no reason for any of us to be here at all.

You aren't doing it right now? There is no reason to any of this.

 

[Fenris-77]

You aren't doing it right now? There is no reason to any of this.

Good lord. You are performative, aren't you?

Edit - in case anyone is wondering I'm quoting and responding to a post that has since been deleted, not having a senior moment.

 

[Thomas Shey]

People who can't accept criticism of their likes are just as bad as people who continually bash things they hate. (It is fair to be irritated by criticism founded on purely emotional response that is couched as objective, though.)

I think part of it is because I can very much come across as consistently negative there, as I'm a mechanics hack by temperment and experience, and I just don't find much to say about mechanics that are just getting the job done without problem areas. So someone sensetive to such things can think I'm just all about being critical, because in practice, that's most of what they see. I used to get that on the Atomic Think Tank fairly frequently, even though Mutants and Masterminds was my go-to superhero game for more than a few years; but people still thought I was just there to bash it in some cases.

 

[dragoner]

Good lord. You are performative, aren't you?

proving my point

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes, but too what level, and that's what I'm driving at. Quite a few 'facade' pnp RPGs sketch the setting and that's pretty much it. Something like FR goes far farther, it fleshes out most of the nations, a LOT of the cities, even some locales and people that live there. Now compare that to the other extreme of Bastionland. In one people who've read FR know what to expect (mostly), someone who has read Bastionland does not, not at all beyond 'knight stuff'! Both of those approaches have their own appeal, but what I've noticed is that our group prefers knowing stuff (it being relatable) and does not always do well with the complete unknown or the not easily understandable (Empyreal).

And what I'm pointing out is that the level filled out more or less doesn't matter. The PCs are going to be always poking at roughly the same level (individual character level) and there is no way for the source material to present enough for that unless you use an extremely constrained environment like the dungeon. The question is what gives enough for the GM without giving so much it's constraining.