D&D General Do you care about lore?
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
dave2008
Legend
Yes, this
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I think there are two questions being asked here: what do you think of lore, and do you care about continuity of that lore? Personally, I like lore, as a concept. Not all lore is created equal, and I have no qualms about changing lore if it suits my purposes to do so. I don’t care about continuity of lore, at least not in RPGs. New editions should feel free to use lore that suits them and change or eliminate lore that doesn’t.
Voadam
Legend
Depends.
If a player says they want to research famous magical swords to go quest after it is nice to have some existing stuff like Black Razor for the sage/bard/oracle to reference.
If your players only react to what you put out and do not come up with their own topics to explore then Black Razor is useful to the extent you tie it into your existing or planned adventures.
el-remmen
Moderator Emeritus
I don't disagree, but from a player-facing perspective, whether you made up Black Razor on the spot, fetched the info out of the index card box of custom magic items you've been building for 30 years (not a joke, I have one!), or googled "Famous D&D swords" and liked the name but ignored the specific lore for your own needs, makes little to no difference.
Remathilis
Legend
Like a Facebook relationship: Its complicated.
D&D should have its own lore. It's not Generic Fantasy RPG d20, it is its own thing. I am perfectly fine with their being specific info on D&D elves, dragons, deities, and such. A D&D game should be unique. I'm also fine with the Multiverse they've implemented as the catch-all for the various setting/genre books they are calling campaign guides.
That said, every edition of D&D brings new rules and new assumptions, and settings should adapt to those edition's assumptions if they are going to support the game. I would be very cross if (for example) a 5e Mystara setting didn't allow dwarves to be wizards because "they weren't wizards in Basic". That is lore that needs to adapt to the 5e paradigm of any class, any race. Similarly, I'm fine with any WotC setting introducing tieflings and dragonborn in them even if they didn't have them prior to 4e because that's what's in the PHB. Settings serve the game, not vice-versa.
In specific examples like Ravenloft and Dark Sun, extra concern is warranted as both settings are very genre dependent and what is/isn't acceptable in those genres have changed. It doesn't bother me that these two settings are more spiritual successors than direct continuations. I imagine Dragonlance and Greyhawk would get similar (if not as radical) reboots to their classic eras with an eye for modern audiences. While I may not agree with every change, I agree that these products need to evolve, innovate, and meet the demands of newer audiences. If something in the lore has to shift to accommodate, I'm willing to accept.
D&D should have its own lore. It's not Generic Fantasy RPG d20, it is its own thing. I am perfectly fine with their being specific info on D&D elves, dragons, deities, and such. A D&D game should be unique. I'm also fine with the Multiverse they've implemented as the catch-all for the various setting/genre books they are calling campaign guides.
That said, every edition of D&D brings new rules and new assumptions, and settings should adapt to those edition's assumptions if they are going to support the game. I would be very cross if (for example) a 5e Mystara setting didn't allow dwarves to be wizards because "they weren't wizards in Basic". That is lore that needs to adapt to the 5e paradigm of any class, any race. Similarly, I'm fine with any WotC setting introducing tieflings and dragonborn in them even if they didn't have them prior to 4e because that's what's in the PHB. Settings serve the game, not vice-versa.
In specific examples like Ravenloft and Dark Sun, extra concern is warranted as both settings are very genre dependent and what is/isn't acceptable in those genres have changed. It doesn't bother me that these two settings are more spiritual successors than direct continuations. I imagine Dragonlance and Greyhawk would get similar (if not as radical) reboots to their classic eras with an eye for modern audiences. While I may not agree with every change, I agree that these products need to evolve, innovate, and meet the demands of newer audiences. If something in the lore has to shift to accommodate, I'm willing to accept.
I find lore to be helpful inspiration. I am currently playing three D&D games set in Forgotten Realms. I don't LOVE the Realms. But what I LIKE about the Realms is the reams of lore. What I like, I take and repurpose. I throw away all the rest.
By the way, the 1-20 campaign I recently finished basically broke the Realms. And what came out of that is really interesting. Hoping one day we can play again in the version of the Realms that my players and I wrecked.
By the way, the 1-20 campaign I recently finished basically broke the Realms. And what came out of that is really interesting. Hoping one day we can play again in the version of the Realms that my players and I wrecked.
el-remmen
Moderator Emeritus
I feel the opposite. Those choices are part of what make a setting feel like a distinct setting. So a version of Mystara that didn't have straight up dwarf or halfling wizards but maybe the former could be some kind of artificer, would be cool.
In fact, I prefer for all non-standard D&D peoples (everything aside from human, dwarf, elf, halfling, maybe gnome) be connected to specific settings. I never have dragonborn in my games (I do allow a lizardfolk variant to fill that gap because of the environment). But if I ran a game in Krynn I'd allow some kind of Draconian race, because Dragonlance - but would replace halflings with kender.
The idea that a setting must include all possible core lineages seems off to me. Changing, adding to, and/or eliminating that kind of basic "lore" (if you can call it that) is what different settings are for - they change the flavor of the game.
Heck, a friend of mine is starting up a "nothing but humans" D&D game in a homebrew and even though originally I thought I'd play a gnome next, I was happy to change my idea because I like the sword & sorcery feel of humans only in a world of monsters and newly re-born magic.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
Depends on the lore. Some is good, some is bad.
And with respect to changes in lore, sometimes when changes get made, they improve things, sometimes they don't. But whatever changes are in the offing from one publication/edition to the next, lore continuity is a lubricant. It eases changes, particularly if you're going from one edition to a similar one (1e to 2e AD&D being good examples, virtually any edition change of CoC, Classic Traveller to MegaTraveller). Discontinuity is grit that will inhibit transition because it's another potential factor that could turn someone away. The shift from MegaTraveller to Traveller: New Era came with massive changes in setting and rules (and even more militarization of both, if you can imagine it). You had 2 humps to get over rather than just one.
And with respect to changes in lore, sometimes when changes get made, they improve things, sometimes they don't. But whatever changes are in the offing from one publication/edition to the next, lore continuity is a lubricant. It eases changes, particularly if you're going from one edition to a similar one (1e to 2e AD&D being good examples, virtually any edition change of CoC, Classic Traveller to MegaTraveller). Discontinuity is grit that will inhibit transition because it's another potential factor that could turn someone away. The shift from MegaTraveller to Traveller: New Era came with massive changes in setting and rules (and even more militarization of both, if you can imagine it). You had 2 humps to get over rather than just one.
Similar Threads
