D&D General D&D as an lore fan vs a tools fan

[TwoSix]

In the last two FR adventures my group played in, my DM had us look at a map of Faerun for a place that our characters hailed from. I had my Dragonborn Fighter (Baldur's Gate: Descent into Avernus) hail from the frontier town of Ruinspoke in the Dragonborn nation of Tymanther. As for my Bugbear Ranger/Rogue (Tyranny of Dragons), he hailed from The Reaching Woods near the town of Berdusk (where he worked as Bounty Hunter in his pre-adventuring days). In both cases, I checked out the lore for Ruinspoke, Tymanther, and the Reaching Woods and the towns near it on the FR Wiki.

Even if you aren't totally into the lore of a given setting, it's a good idea to know the lore of where your character came from.

I mean, I think it's clear that lore is useful as a tool in and of itself, for helping to build out your character concept or create adventures.

But that's different from, say, buying a setting gazetter or an art book of a setting just to read or display it, or buying a Forgotten Realms T-shirt. That's the sort of activity I would associate with someone whose primary focus on D&D was the lore (and here, I think "lore" is being used as stand-in for "recognizable IP") rather than as a tool.

 

[Morrus]

I mean, I think it's clear that lore is useful as a tool in and of itself, for helping to build out your character concept or create adventures.

But that's different from, say, buying a setting gazetter or an art book of a setting just to read or display it, or buying a Forgotten Realms T-shirt. That's the sort of activity I would associate with someone whose primary focus on D&D was the lore (and here, I think "lore" is being used as stand-in for "recognizable IP") rather than as a tool.

That’s a better explanation than mine.

 

[SothFan]

Is there a chance this question is polarized by generation?

There was very little lore (settings) for over a decade of the games history, but then it exploded, and if Wikipedia is correct, there are nearly 50 now. So early adopters had little or no lore, but current players have 52 years worth.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I voted both but I tend to view lore as part of the toolset. I like that there is lore but I do not in anyway feel beholden to the lore nor do I care if lore has changed. Since I pick and mix lore anyway that it has changed "officially" is not something that bothers me or that I am going to use or pay attention to.
As for rules I really like 5.5 but it is getting close to my crunch limits. I do not want rules that are over codified particularly if it slows down play.

 

[Parmandur]

I mean, I think it's clear that lore is useful as a tool in and of itself, for helping to build out your character concept or create adventures.

But that's different from, say, buying a setting gazetter or an art book of a setting just to read or display it, or buying a Forgotten Realms T-shirt. That's the sort of activity I would associate with someone whose primary focus on D&D was the lore (and here, I think "lore" is being used as stand-in for "recognizable IP") rather than as a tool.

Seems all of a piece: people often find joy in the tools they use for their hobbies?

 

[TwoSix]

Seems all of a piece: people often find joy in the tools they use for their hobbies?

Some people collect things for their utility, others for the joy of ownership and collection. Similar behaviors with different roots and motivations, which I think is the idea the OP was exploring.

I like D&D and buy D&D material for its utility in creating a game; I have no interest in the D&D material purely for its fictional content.

 

[bedir than]

I enjoy both, but quite differently.

I don't care about the official lore when playing the game of D&D.
And I greatly enjoy the movie, would do the D&D Nights exhibit if it was close and used to like the books. These engage a different part of me though.

 

[mamba]

Is there a chance this question is polarized by generation?

There was very little lore (settings) for over a decade of the games history, but then it exploded, and if Wikipedia is correct, there are nearly 50 now. So early adopters had little or no lore, but current players have 52 years worth.

if you answer the question today but have not taken a look at the last 45 years or so of lore at all, I am impressed

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Well...how do you feel about the rules themselves? Do you like to use the rules more-or-less as written, tweaking only when super necessary? Or do you see the rules mostly as just...a thing required to participate in the experience, doesn't really matter what the rules actually are?

Because it sounds to me like you appreciate lore, but don't particularly need it. It's a useful perk, not a requirement, so as long as you're getting SOME lore, you're good--doesn't have to be D&D-specific. Doubly so given the explicit "my first long campaign was a 3PP book that blows up FR." Which means the real question then is whether the tools themselves are a draw for you, or not. If not, then...I don't really know if you can vote, since that sorta means you don't care about either thing all that much?

i pretty much agree with you on rules in that they should be functional enough to play the game as intended out of the box with no or minimal tweaking, because otherwise why the hell am i buying them. i'm perfectly fine with tweaking rules to support how a setting or campaign works, but i think most people are fine with that so it probably doesn't mean much.

i actually think the rules are EXTREMELY important to the experience. they do a lot in establishing how the game world feels. just as an easy example that i'm sure you'll recognize, adding half your level to everything makes 4e feel much, MUCH different from 5e - 4e feels much more like the party are mythical heroes ascending into legend by fighting what should be invincible foes, while 5e...i mean, the foes can definitely be threatening, but i don't really think there are many monsters in 5e that couldn't be defeated by a large, prepared army. and even 4e feels different from pf2e in that regard because of how each game handles crits. in 4e, even that seemingly invincible foe could theoretically be destroyed by an army of regular soldiers if they were careless enough to get crit a million times. in pf2e? hell no, that monster is LITERALLY invincible to those people, they literally cannot even deal damage to it. and that's just one aspect of each game.

 

[SothFan]

if you answer the question today but have not taken a look at the last 45 years or so of lore at all, I am impressed

I think there may be good potential for the opposite today. More people know the lore than the game.