D&D General Do you care about lore?

[Fenris-77]

Nope. What an easy question.

 

[Sithlord]

I love lore for settings. I think the problem is the they should never update the timeline. Everything from this date forward is subject to change by individual campaigns and player choices imho.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't care about lore, at least not in the way some people do. D&D settings are laboursaving tools, but (as DM) the world is mine. I change whatever I like to suit the story I want to tell, and if there are conflicting versions choose whatever I like best. I also like ambiguity. I think it adds verisimilitude. In the real world no scholar knows what the true version of events was, I like to have the same uncertainty in my fantasy worlds.

Another thing I have noticed as DM, if anything is guaranteed to make players glaze over it's talking too much about lore (something I have used to comic effect roleplaying Professor Skant in RotFM).

 

[Reynard]

Lore definition?

If you mean lore, as in, here is the world, then yes. It is the literal framework of how the game should run. In fact, the rules should be grafted to the lore. Imagine if a show or author didn't care about their world building lore? Imagine Tolkien's world without meticulous care for lore? Or Martin's? (According to lore, dragons are extinct and there was once a bloodline could ride them. - Nah! Let's just pretend in the middle of the story it's not like that.) So, if you mean lore, as in the construct of the world, then it is a silly question. It has to matter. It's why a halfling is small. It's why dwarves have beards. It's why metallic dragons align towards good.

And before any begins a diatribe, yes there are exceptions. Always has been, and always will. But consistency and group thought are needed to make a TTRPG work.

I disagree with @Reynard that you wouldn't notice. Sure, if they altered a town a little, you wouldn't notice. Or if this one unknown god became a player in the deific world. But, if the lore changed, I believe you would notice right away.

I was pretty clear in what I was talking about in the OP. I meant lore as in the details. I don't think the details are fundamental to TTRPG play. You can enjoy a game with no particularly detailed lore, because the game is what's in front of the players, not necessarily what's under that.

 

[Disgruntled Hobbit]

The lore makes the game into DnD
You can take the rules and make other games. Pathfinder and Star Wars and Esper Genesis. They ain't DnD
While the lore should change and evolve over time, it should be iterative and evolve the lore and not toss out the old
Otherwise it ain't really DnD anymore. It's just a very similar knockoff

This conversation comes up all the time on Chans and forums. Bout Star Wars or Star Trek or comics
It always goes down the same. One group doesn't care about lore one way or another. Another group cares about the lore

Choosing to changing something you don't care about that someone else is attached is telling that person you don't care about them and their feelings opinions don't matter

 

[Undrave]

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.

This.

As time goes on I see 'canon' is being held aloft by general geeks as some sort of precious thing to protect at all cost and I disagree with that. Canon should matter only in so far as it serves a purpose. Canon for the sake of canon is boring and stifling. And just because something is canon doesn't mean I automatically respect it and consider it above other pieces of the franchise that are not (or no longer) canon. I don't care what Disney says, I still like the Ewoks movies.

 

[Reynard]

The lore makes the game into DnD
You can take the rules and make other games. Pathfinder and Star Wars and Esper Genesis. They ain't DnD

By that definition, if I change the lore for my campaign, it's not D&D either -- which is so ridiculous on its face that it hardly bears further comment.

 

[TwoSix]

Choosing to changing something you don't care about that someone else is attached is telling that person you don't care about them and their feelings opinions don't matter

It isn't just that (although, full transparency, I don't actually care about their feelings or opinions that much). It's that I feel trying to build decades-long consistent lore is actively detrimental to the development of new, exciting stories. I don't see a win-win position here that can be staked out by the IP developer.

 

[Istbor]

Fun to read, but everyone that I ever have much repeat play with (outside of some AL exceptions) runs homebrew. Lore ultimately ends up feeling like it is in the way whenever I have tried to run an AP or even just run a campaign of my own in like FR.

So changes in cannon, usually don't bother me.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What is lore?
Oh Realms, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

Elminster, don't hurt me, don't hurt me
No more
What is lore?
Yeah

No, I don't know nothin' 'bout Szass Tam
I tried to learn the lore, but I just don't give a damn
So is Spellplague right and sundering is wrong?
Gimme a sign

What is lore?
Oh Realms, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

What is lore?
Elmisnter, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, oh, oh
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, oh, oh