• FINAL DAYS! -- The Awfully Cheerful Engine on Kickstarter! An action comedy RPG inspired by cheerful tabletop games of the 80s! With a foreword by Sandy 'Ghostbusters' Petersen, and VTT support!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D General Do you care about lore?

Reynard

Legend
This came up in one of the Ravenloft threads and I am just curious: do you care about official aka "canon" lore for D&D, either the implied setting or a specific campaign world? Does it bother you if that lore is changed with editions? Should a new version of a setting be "required" to not contradict a previous version?

For my part, I don't care much at all. Chances are I am going to change some stuff anyway if I am using a published setting and if I am homebrewing chances are the stuff in the Monster Manual or whatever isn't relevant in the first place. I don't read novel lines or pour over setting books, so I probably wouldn't notice most changes anyway.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

loverdrive

Makin' cool stuff
Publisher
I don't care about detailed info, and generally prefer things to be painted with broad strokes with a lot of blank spaces in-between.

The only thing in D&D lore I really care about is the Great Wheel.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
If I am using a published setting, I try to cleave as closely as possible to the established lore in the books as that is, in my view, one of the main reasons to play in a published setting - to explore that world's lore.

If I'm doing my own thing, the lore gets created as we play with just a bit on the front end from me (as little as possible). Over time it becomes more fully-realized with the group's contributions.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Indisputable Premise 1: In 1e, Bards had a Legend Lore percentage.
Indisputable Premise 2: In 5e, Bards have a College of Lore.

Indubitable Conclusion: Lore is just another sneaky Bard tactic.

Therefore, lore, like bards, must be exterminated with extreme prejudice.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
This came up in one of the Ravenloft threads and I am just curious: do you care about official aka "canon" lore for D&D, either the implied setting or a specific campaign world? Does it bother you if that lore is changed with editions? Should a new version of a setting be "required" to not contradict a previous version?

I care about lore only insofar as it is relevant to something I am playing or running. I do not give a whit if lore changes between editions, unless I am playing in a campaign that spans editions.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
This came up in one of the Ravenloft threads and I am just curious: do you care about official aka "canon" lore for D&D, either the implied setting or a specific campaign world? Does it bother you if that lore is changed with editions?
Depends on the lore, the canon, the setting, and the campaign world. If I enjoy it, I'm upset when it changes; if I don't enjoy it and it's changed to something I enjoy, I'm glad for the change; if I don't enjoy it and it's changed to something else I don't enjoy, I'm slightly upset as it could have been made into something I enjoy. And this only applies to settings I like. Al-Qadim, Dark Sun, Mystara, Ravenloft, and Spelljammer. Beyond those, I don't really care.
Should a new version of a setting be "required" to not contradict a previous version?
That's a ridiculous notion. At that point WotC should just make evergreen setting supplements for the various campaign worlds and only produce a tiny booklet of the updated edition's rules changes as they pertain to that campaign. Now that I type that out. I kinda want them to do that. But none of the settings should be locked in like that. They're not written in stone. Once they stop evolving over time they die.
 



ART!

Hero
I guess I have no connection or interest in canon D&D lore, myself. I'll Google a few things as it pertains to a character I'm making for a specific adventure/campaign, like "what FR gods would my peace-loving cleric follow?" or "where in the Ten-Towns area would my aged shaman make a living?".
 

Arilyn

Hero
I use lore for inspiration, but it very rarely survives intact. The lore in my current Liminal game, for example is different. I threw out the nests of political vampires pulling strings, because I'm just sooo tired of that trope. My vampires are rare, solitary beings instead.

I used Forgotten Realms a lot back in the day, but it's significantly different. I find other people's ideas are awesome for inspiration, but it has to become ours at the table.
 
Last edited:

I care -desperately- about the Lore.

And also not a single iota about it.

The lore of a setting is really important to me when I'm running the game. I want to make the atmosphere correct, ensure people walk away from my table feeling like they were part of the world, and that the world they were a part of can follow them to other tables of other DMs running the same campaign setting.

But the -second- it gets in the way of what the party is doing, what would be fun, or the specific narrative I want to use?

Gone. Out the window. Don't care how old the Way Inn is, it's not there if I need something else to be there, y'know?

Consequently, I only really care about Retcons if they're done poorly. That's just upsetting.
 

I'd love to say I don't, but if the lore of a setting is a really goddamn stupid or lame or mawkish or just downright embarrassing (looking at you, Sean Connery-style sex-machine Elminster), there is probably no way I'm going to play or run that setting and/or game.

It doesn't really matter to me if it changes between editions so long as it doesn't become embarrassingly dumb - 4E FR really tried to see how far it could push that one (oddly other 4E universe changes were actually less-mawkish/laaaaaame than more typical D&D stuff).
 



MarkB

Legend
I don't care about whether or not the lore maintains continuity between editions. But in some cases, that lore may be part of what attracted me to the setting in the first place, so I'll care if that aspect changes.

So for instance, in Eberron I don't care much about the history and major figures of the Five Nations, or where a new edition shoehorns in a previously-obscure player race, but if they mess with its unique planar cosmology, or change the deities away from being remote and possibly apocryphal, or make dragons colour-coded by alignment, I'm not going to be keen.
 

Not really. I know a bunch of it, but I'll only use it or suggest using it when it's the most fun option in the moment and/or adds to the game.

If we want to throw it out for any reason, we just do.
 

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
I care not a whit for the continuity or canonicity of published lore. In fact, I generally prefer if they reboot/reimagine settings when they're published for new editions.

I'm only really against changes that violate the overall feel of the setting, which sadly falls under the "I only know it when I see it" umbrella.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
For most D&D stuff? Not even slightly. I've never followed it.

(The plot of an adventure, that I care about; so I suppose that's lore in a sense).

But then I do care about Star Wars or Star Trek lore, and I cared about Dragonlance lore (we'll find out whether I still do, though I do plan to buy the new novel trilogy). So I guess it depends on the property.
 

Mercurius

Legend
I'll answer this in two ways. First, in the way the OP specified: I'm indfferent about official lore, except for reading entertainment and idea-mining. I've never run an official setting (as far as I can remember) and thus always created lore for my own homebrew, which only uses canonical D&D lore as a source of inspiration, which I vary to different degrees.

The second way is the way in which many are replying, but isn't actually what the OP asked: I love lore. It is the bread and butter of the game, the "hues and tones" of Story. Without lore, D&D would be a board game.
 


Awfully Cheerful Engine!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top