D&D (2024) How Important Is The Lore

[Fifth Element]

If you broaden the definition of a word so much that it becomes useless, you have effectively undermined your own point in any discussion.

This is true. Fortunately for me, my point is that some people don't realize the things they say aren't lore are functionally no different than things they say are lore, because of how they're used to the game being presented. So I'm actually focusing on a more precise use of the term, rather than excluding some things ad hoc based on tradition.

 

[OB1]

I am glad it's there. I may not actually use the lore as presented in a campagin, but it's a wonderful inspiration to me as I put together adventures.

 

[Fifth Element]

But choosing to use classic D&D Tolkienism is a choice, and it's a particular decision a fantasy game doesn't have to make the same way D&D does. That does create a meaningful "lore" for that setting. But generally an aversion to "lore" is more about the "deep lore" of history and geography of the setting.

Yes, that's correct, people draw arbitrary lines as to what they call lore and not lore. That was my point.

 

[Retros_x]

I think the lore glossary in DMG is nice. The lore in MM is a bit bland from what I've seen. I am not in favor for the "generic lore" - because I already know all generic lore for known fantasy creatures. If I want generic lore I just use the wellknown tropes, no need to print them again. I prefer monster books that go a bit wild and experimental with lore and maybe interpret monsters a bit differently than the generic trope.

 

[Reynard]

I was reading the 2024 PHB last night and was surprised to see how wildly the species descriptions vary in terms of what I described earlier as "description" vs "lore." The dwarf and dragonborn are relatively lore light, but the elf entry is steeped in D&D lore.

 

[Remathilis]

I was reading the 2024 PHB last night and was surprised to see how wildly the species descriptions vary in terms of what I described earlier as "description" vs "lore." The dwarf and dragonborn are relatively lore light, but the elf entry is steeped in D&D lore.

I think it's based on how much they need to explain the D&Disms of their stuff. The PHB dwarf and dragonborn don't have anything too funky going on with them, whereas trying to explain why there are different flavors of elf without resorting to racial tropes needs a more lore-based explanation.

 

[KYRON45]

"An elf is a tall lithe humanoid with features humans consider ethereal and beautiful. They have exceedingly long lives and tend to live in the wild and remote places of the world." The end.

You declaring that your POV is the only POV makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously.

 

[KYRON45]

I think the lore glossary in DMG is nice. The lore in MM is a bit bland from what I've seen. I am not in favor for the "generic lore" - because I already know all generic lore for known fantasy creatures. If I want generic lore I just use the wellknown tropes, no need to print them again. I prefer monster books that go a bit wild and experimental with lore and maybe interpret monsters a bit differently than the generic trope.

We all need to remember that all of the books are written with the assumption that not every reader has all of the baggage from previous editions, or other systems or settings etc.

 

[Reynard]

You declaring that your POV is the only POV makes it difficult to take anything you say seriously.

I am not saying that. I am countering the argument that you MUST have huge walls of prose in order to define an elf.

 

[Remathilis]

I am not saying that. I am countering the argument that you MUST have huge walls of prose in order to define an elf.

I think there is a happy medium between "three sentences" and "walls of prose".