It's always the DM's prerogative in my book how much lore is or isn't included. I still remember playing in my very first D&D campaign: I was the new guy, a freshman in high school playing with juniors and seniors who I didn't know all that well--they wanted a third person to round out the table (already DM+2) and I was eager to actually try D&D. I rolled a Cleric and promptly started hunting down FR source material since I knew that was the campaign setting.
At that time, I was too new to understand that my thirsty taste for lore was going to be uber-metagaming. Our DM had us journey to a port city--I think it was Manshaka? Maybe Mulmaster?--and in any case I immediately cracked the seal on my new Campaign Setting and read everything I could about the city and region. The lore said that it was a really dark, evil city ruled by a potentate who was a big fan of Bane. Goodly peoples (like Clerics of Tyr, of which I was one) were killed on sight.
I quickly told the DM that I stashed my holy symbol, found some unobtrusive black clothing, and tried to hide the fact that I was wearing armor--all to avoid being a target when we got to this "evil city."
The DM just gave me a quizzical look and said "Okay."
He let me slink around in the shadows trying to stay away from the city guard and basically slinking suspiciously throughout the city during our entire time there.
He had never read the lore entry for the city--and didn't care to--it was just a stopping point for us to get our next quest or maybe hang out in a bar and participate in a tavern brawl (my Cleric's associates were not nearly as LG as he).
I learned three things:
1) never assume the DM is using the lore
2) don't be the jerk that looks up the lore; ask what your character knows and make an appropriate check--it helps no one to meta-know lore that may or may not apply
3) there is nothing wrong with not using the lore; it was a great campaign and we all had a blast!
To clarify: I almost always use the lore; as a DM I tend to think of myself as more of a guide to the world than the "god" who controls it and like it when the pieces all fit together. I would deeply love having a new Forgotten Realms guide with all of the oodles of lore its known for.
At that time, I was too new to understand that my thirsty taste for lore was going to be uber-metagaming. Our DM had us journey to a port city--I think it was Manshaka? Maybe Mulmaster?--and in any case I immediately cracked the seal on my new Campaign Setting and read everything I could about the city and region. The lore said that it was a really dark, evil city ruled by a potentate who was a big fan of Bane. Goodly peoples (like Clerics of Tyr, of which I was one) were killed on sight.
I quickly told the DM that I stashed my holy symbol, found some unobtrusive black clothing, and tried to hide the fact that I was wearing armor--all to avoid being a target when we got to this "evil city."
The DM just gave me a quizzical look and said "Okay."
He let me slink around in the shadows trying to stay away from the city guard and basically slinking suspiciously throughout the city during our entire time there.
He had never read the lore entry for the city--and didn't care to--it was just a stopping point for us to get our next quest or maybe hang out in a bar and participate in a tavern brawl (my Cleric's associates were not nearly as LG as he).
I learned three things:
1) never assume the DM is using the lore
2) don't be the jerk that looks up the lore; ask what your character knows and make an appropriate check--it helps no one to meta-know lore that may or may not apply
3) there is nothing wrong with not using the lore; it was a great campaign and we all had a blast!
To clarify: I almost always use the lore; as a DM I tend to think of myself as more of a guide to the world than the "god" who controls it and like it when the pieces all fit together. I would deeply love having a new Forgotten Realms guide with all of the oodles of lore its known for.
Last edited: