D&D (2024) How Important Is The Lore

How important is the lore?

  • I actively do not want the lore.

    Votes: 6 4.9%
  • I could take it or leave it.

    Votes: 42 34.1%
  • I am glad it's there.

    Votes: 48 39.0%
  • It is essential.

    Votes: 24 19.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 2.4%

But the "lore" as established in classic D&D onwards being changed just feels weird.
I agree, but it is your game not TSR or WotC's. Also, the worst lore change, IMO, happend back in 2e with the introduction of the Blood War. Lore changes have been happening since day 2, if it feels strange to you only now, I don't know what to tell you!
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I feel much more inspired when the lore gives me options instead of dictates on singular truth.

For example, I would like it if the Troll entry in the MM presented a few ways for a DM to include them in a campaign: as solitary lurkers in the dark, more legend than anything; as a unified kingdom at war against dwarves and gnomes; or as a once-thriving civilization cursed by the gods and forced underground.
 

How many times has the lore changed already. I seem to like or get why some things have changed like kobolds and 3e. They used to be more dog-like and the designers wanted something more dragon focused and there were already enough small bad guys. I could see it and did not mind.

Other changes I do mind more. Some changes do not seem to have a game-related reason to change.
 

[QUOTE="DragonLancer, post: 9555008, member: 11868]Lore is unique to each table out there but the changes will have an effect. It doesn't feel right. I will adapt and as I'm writing my own setting for my campaigns, I can easily use what we have from D&D these days. But the "lore" as established in classic D&D onwards being changed just feels weird.[/QUOTE]

The thing is, the lore was never really set in stone. Edition to edition, world to world, supplement to supplement. Pick any iconic D&D element and I will find you at least two contradictory parts of the lore that were viewed as canon. It's the nature of any property where time and multiple people are involved.
 

Lore is there to be ignored. If it turns out you actually want to use it, great! But otherwise... you're going to be making up your own world's lore anyway, so ignore the lore the book puts in and install your own. It's not that big a deal.

This is just one more place in Dungeons & Dragons where I think too many players have their egos tied into this game so tightly that if they don't get the pat on the head wherein the book is written to give them exactly what they want (regardless of what the millions of other people in the playerbase might need or want)... then they get bent out of shape and say that the designers are bad or lazy or stupid.

(General) you want the old AD&D lore about goblins and not what appears in the 5E24 MM? Then use it. You own the book... you have that lore at your fingertips... (general) you don't need it reprinted in the new Monster Manual again. That is unless of course (general) you just can't stand the thought that this game wasn't made specifically for you anymore and you've been "left behind" (a rather ridiculous attitude if I do say so myself.)
 

I marked I'm glad it's there.
I enjoy the lore immensely, even if it conflicts sometimes between editions. It helps with the creative process, trying to make it work or use it as a springboard. I'm the kind of person that loves to tie-in lore from the various setting wiki's, various edition lore, internet ideas + my own sauce.

Published settings work for me...
 

Like, Legend of the Five Rings is pretty intrinsically tied to its setting. Could you use it to play a game in feudal Japan? Sure, but you'll spend so much time ripping out Rokugan that you might as well just play GURPS.

Same with Heart. The game directly revolves around you being in that game world. There's basically no way to change the lore without rewriting the majority of the game.
And generally, I prefer games with a strong setting voice, where the rule set helps to bolster the unique setting elements.

Just not for D&D.
 

And generally, I prefer games with a strong setting voice, where the rule set helps to bolster the unique setting elements.

Just not for D&D.
I've argued that D&D should have gone the Pathfinder route and had one setting it builds towards, but with a light enough touch it could be used for other purposes as well. However, I have begun to feel the time for that was 40 years ago, not now. D&D is inseparable from its settings now, and there is no way to reconcile them all. So D&D must walk the fine line of supporting them while also having its own voice.
 

The games that draw my attention are frequently in huge part because of lore specifically, so I can't imagine discarding it. Vague or fragmentary lore is terribly dissatisfying unless what happens to be there is the platonic ideal of interesting.
 

I like/want generic lore that is phrased like “Vecna is often said to be/have/do X, Y, and Z,” where at least two of X, Y, and Z are contradictory. Anything definitive or more specific should either be specific to an adventure (not even a setting book) or homebrew.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top