D&D General Do you care about lore?

[Steampunkette]

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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).

 

[Scribe]

Yeah, I do. Too much probably.

World building matters a lot to me, and lore is of course central to that.

 

[Mind of tempest]

It helps to have something to work with beyond dull stats.

 

[MarkB]

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.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Morrus]

Without lore, D&D would be a board game.

But board games have lore.