D&D General Do you care about lore?

[Reynard]

Marvel Comics tries to keep things broadly consistent with past events, and when changes do become necessary, they favor retcons and reinterpretations and additions to past lore, over simply rebooting from scratch. Even their most reboot-y event, 2015's Secret Wars, didn't delete any substantive portions of the past. And Marvel Comics seems to do fine. (They certainly seem to be doing better than DC Comics, which reboots so often now that repetitive reboots have become part of their lore...)

Until now, D&D 5E largely did this as well, and it's been the best-selling edition since the 1980s, and possibly the best-selling ever.

In short, while lore certainly can become a straitjacket, it's also totally possible to have a win-win position, where lore is respected but the IP still thrives. Though it's certainly harder than doing a reboot from scratch, of course...

The comparison to Marvel is good for, say, Forgotten Realms or another specific setting, but not really applicable to D&D in general. D&D isn't generic per se, it's kind of its own subgenre, but it is more of a general framework. There's no "continuity" in D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The comparison to Marvel is good for, say, Forgotten Realms or another specific setting, but not really applicable to D&D in general. D&D isn't generic per se, it's kind of its own subgenre, but it is more of a general framework. There's no "continuity" in D&D.

There used to be broad strokes continuity. 1st and 2nd edition, and to a lesser extent 3rd, had a roughly continuous story in its lore for all campaign settings. As time has gone on, more and more lore has been reinvented by new authors, sometimes for creative reasons, sometimes for business or even political reasons. And as the demographics of D&D change, this becomes acceptable and even welcomed by the fans WotC care about. Since I am no longer one of those fans, it does hurt a little. But there are still useful things in the new stuff, so I'm trying to look at the bright side.

 

[Umbran]

Why?
If you change enough of the rules you eventually stop playing DnD and start playing a home brew RPG
Why is lore different?

Because, broadly speaking, you can change lore more without changing the core play experience.

 

[billd91]

Because, broadly speaking, you can change lore more without changing the core play experience.

Or can you? What constitutes the core play experience? And for whom? Is it just the mechanics? Or is play experience also bound up with the lore you play with?

 

[jmartkdr2]

Or can you? What constitutes the core play experience? And for whom? Is it just the mechanics? Or is play experience also bound up with the lore you play with?

The idea that anyone using a homebrew setting isn't playing DnD, even if they use all the core rules, is not well established in the community.

In other words, you can say it, that's now how the community uses the words.

 

[Reynard]

Or can you? What constitutes the core play experience? And for whom? Is it just the mechanics? Or is play experience also bound up with the lore you play with?

The play experience is certainly tied up with what lore you use -- or don't use -- while playing. But that doesn't change the game.

For example, let's talk about trolls. Trolls can only be finally killed by acid or fire damage. THIS IS NOT LORE (even if there is lore about trolls in the game). This is a game mechanic. If the trolls in your world can only be finally killed by electricity, for example, you have changed a game mechanic. it's impact on any "lore" in your world is incidental. But having made that change, you aren't suddenly not playing D&D. To assert otherwise is baffling in its pedantry.

I mean, it is probably a bad idea to head down the rabbit hole of "what is D&D" but I don't think it is a controversial statement to say that making tieflings the product of a union between a human and a fiend, not a true breeding race (just by way of example) does not make the game suddenly not-D&D.

 

[Remathilis]

Or can you? What constitutes the core play experience? And for whom? Is it just the mechanics? Or is play experience also bound up with the lore you play with?

I prefer the term "stock".

WotC sells a stock car. All WotC parts, all WotC design. They also sell official parts, upgrades, and accessories made explicitly to be compatible with thier stock. However, their is no reason why you can't take your stock car and fill it with custom and aftermarket parts. You can repaint it, replace the tires, even replace the engine if your brave enough.

I think the issue is that people use the term "D&D" to refer to a lot of things: out of the box stock, lightly modded, customized aftermarket, heavily rebuilt, and even other similar products (ie Pathfinder). Further, people disagree what stock should even look like; some people want a fully usable car requiring no modifications and others want a box of parts they can make a car or a bicycle or whatever out of it.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Almonds are terrible.

I will not be taking any further questions at this time.

I'm allergic to them, so I have to agree.

 

[billd91]

The play experience is certainly tied up with what lore you use -- or don't use -- while playing. But that doesn't change the game.

Do you (and Umbran) get to declare that for people? Is that somehow less problematic than considering the lore part of the core play experience?

 

[Malmuria]

And as the demographics of D&D change, this becomes acceptable and even welcomed by the fans WotC care about. Since I am no longer one of those fans, it does hurt a little. But there are still useful things in the new stuff, so I'm trying to look at the bright side.

5e has been an intensely nostalgia-driven edition. Over half of the adventures are call backs to classic modules, and even PHBII and MMII type books are titled with the names of famous greyhawk and fr npcs. I mean, they're publishing 3 "classic" campaign settings in the next couple of years. So I don't think it's the case that wotc doesn't care about older players. Maybe they fail in their attempt to be all things to all people.