D&D General "In My General Experience Playing D&D, DMs Care More About Setting Lore Than Players Do" (a poll)

[Ruin Explorer]

But the question is about D&D not Star Wars, RIFTS, or Marvel games.

Sure, but I'm putting it in a broader context.

The issue is more that D&D's specific IPs don't attract the same level of obsessive fandom that Marvel or Star Wars does. Star Wars is a good example because with Star Wars d20, Star Wars basically had D&D rules, but still had obsessive fans, which shows the rules aren't the issue, it's the specific settings.

If D&D acquired a Marvel setting or the like at a later date, I daresay then a lot of players would care more about the setting than the DM.

I bet too that, with the right group of FR grogs, I'd be being constantly out-lore'd and out-care'd on the lore. They could correct me on all the amazing Greenwoodian turns of phrase, like the 91 different euphemisms for hooker (male, female, of various different grades and locations and so on).

 

[Oofta]

Some players care more than others, but in general it's only in terms of how it affects their backstory. Maybe they care about things that affect the current campaign. There are definitely those that love going through stuff.

However, I've also had players be very appreciative that I had significant lore and background for my campaign. It makes it feel more real and lived in, even if they don't bother reading the majority of my lore. Which, admittedly, a lot of is just stuff I have for reference and isn't exactly designed for a quick read.

 

[Cruentus]

800%+ the DM cares more about the lore than players.

Only ever had one player in 40+ years who knew anything about the campaign world before I used it (FR - he read the Driz’zt books). Otherwise, players hardly even remember the names of NPCs, much less locations, countries and everything else.

Most of my table is like this. As a DM, I have to create a setting and have it make sense to me, in order for me to enjoy the journey.

My players:
1) Doesn't interact with the lore, doesn't say much, but observes and can recount all the hints and connections, even though you think he is not paying attention
2) Ignores the lore, is only interested in maxing his character, maximizing DPR/avoiding damage/gaining the next magic item
3) Interacts with NPCs in an attempt to engage, but is aware that doing so causes boredom in #2 who will then hare off and attack something or push the game along
4) Engages with the lore, but has to do it "off-screen" due to #2. This character gained a javelin of lightning from a tomb, but also recovered the body of the prince interred there, and gave him a proper burial along with the javelin. He had to do it off screen because #2 would have had a fit. But that earned #4 more XP and Inspiration.

I'm also finding I have to constantly refer back to NPCs by name, remind them of name locations, remind them of connections between events, etc. Its a lot more work, and when the players don't want to engage with the world, it makes it hard to put in the work.

 

[Shiroiken]

It's obvious that most players aren't going to care as much as their DMs, especially with homebrew worlds. Occasionally you'll find a player who's obsessed with a setting (particularly if they also DM it), but it's pretty rare. It can be a pain in the butt when it happens, because they sometimes nitpick the DM.

I voted false. In my experience there are four sorts of players.

1. The player that loves the setting lore and reads up on it so he can recognize it when I use it.
2. The player that really appreciates the lore, because it gets used in the game and adds to its depth. He can tell from description and use that the setting lore is in play.
3. The player that doesn't care all that much about lore, but likes it better than nothing. He's just not very invested in seeing it happen.
4. The player that couldn't care less about lore at all.

I've found that most players are either a 3 or a 4, depending on what their game preference is. I'm a 2, and about half my current group is as well, with the other half a 3. Being a 1 requires the DM to run a published setting, and that player has to be a fan (this happens with one in my group when the other primary DM runs FR). I used to play/run with some 4s, but I prefer not to at this point.

 

[aco175]

I did not think this was worthy of a poll until I saw some people think players do care.

 

[Hussar]

I think that's pretty much a given.

GMs are in a position where players might ask them questions about what exists and doesn't in the world around their characters, and how some things work specifically so they can work that into their next plans, and GMs typically want to be ready to give answers to these things.
For players, it's that anything you need to know about the world will either be revealed to you when it becomes relevant, or you just ask the GM if you need information on something in a specific situation. As players, you can let the setting come to you when it's relevant. You don't need to put any thought into it beforehand.

Some players can be really curious about a setting, but that's a personal preference and curiosity. GMs have to be informed about the setting of their campaign as a necessity of running the campaign.

That's a very fair way of putting it.

But, by the same token, there are a lot of players who cannot be bothered to put any effort into setting lore whatsoever. As in, you hand them a one page overview of the setting and they don't read it. I had a player, when asked what god his character worshipped when he chose to multiclass into cleric honestly ask me what setting we were playing in.

This was seven or eight levels into the campaign.

Or the player who plays exactly the same character, regardless of setting. No matter what, it will be exactly the same character, over and over again. Or the player who will go entirely off to do all sorts of backstory that has absolutely nothing tied to the campaign or the setting you're actually playing in and then gets annoyed when you're not referencing their background in the game. On and on and on.

Hey, I'll be the first to admit that proper nouns often escape me. I just have the absolute worst memory for proper nouns. So, there's quite a bit of "whatsisname" or "whosits" or "That guy .. y'know, that one we met in the ... town with the ... other guy.... Someone help?" Its not that I don't care about the lore, it's just that sometimes it can get a it tricky remembering details. I've gotten better about writing stuff down though now. Not great. It's a work in progress. But, I am trying. . . honest...

 

[jgsugden]

In my experience, in a well run game, the DM loves his lore... and the players love it almost as much, overall, but there will be a spectrum. If the lore of a world is going to be intriguing, captivating and exciting, the DM must be in love with it. They have to feel like an artist making the work they'd be proud to show. Players usually can't match that interest or passion ... overall. However, they can become very tied up in the portion of the lore that centers around their PCs. And you can have a spectrum of interest from your players in any campaign.

Take Vox Machina as an example. Matt loves crafting his world - and worked really hard to make a complex and interesting world for his playeras to experience. Ashley, bless her heart, followed along but never really got into much of the lore outside of her relationship to Grog and her Goddess. Meanwhile, Taliesin worked with Matt to etch his character's backstory into a fundamental element of the campaign world that impacted Campaign 1, 2 and 3. Travis played a dumb character so that he didn't have to know anything about the game or the setting ... but he took a huge interest in his tribe and knew when to shine in the story that was about his character. As the campaign moved forward, Liam dug deeper and deeper into the lore and explored elements that had not been part of his origin but that Matt had exposed - like the Raven Queen. Sam mostly just 'followed the bouncing ball' until after Scanlan returned ... but in the tail end you could see him paying attention in new ways and appreciating his bard all the more - and I think it came when he realized that there was going to be a Campaign 2 soon, and what they did to close Campaign 1 would impact that new Campaign.

I talk with people that DMed for me in the 80s and early 90s and we tell war stories about the campaigns they ran for me - and they share with me how those events still impact their campaign setting today. My campaign setting has been rebooted a few times now when I've brought new players to it ... and each time I steal elements from the prior campaign run throughs ... and just this last weekend I have a former player a recap of 20 sessions of the new group going through a section of the campaign that takes places somewhere his group never explored.

Note: I read this as a question of whether DMs care more about the lore than the players care about the lore. If the question was: Do DMs care more about the Lore, or the people playing the game ... The DM has to care about the players more. I've reworked entire campaigns because a player went through something that made one of the storylines take on a different meaning for them, and I refused to expose them to it and put them in harm's way. Every DM should be willing to make those changes.

 

[toucanbuzz]

DMs Care More About Setting Lore Than Players Do

But sometimes for all the wrong reasons. If the lore allows you to bring the world to life, such as the superstition of throwing a pig snout over a house by a citizen you just rescued or customs about house domovoi that creep into the DMs routine descriptions, it's good.

If the DM is waiting to lecture players for 6 paragraphs on all the cool histories they've invented for the centaurs of Darkwood, perhaps not so good. The motivation is less for making the game world come to life and more to show off your hard work. Suggestion, hide the hard work within tidbits tossed in here and there.

 

[tetrasodium]

But sometimes for all the wrong reasons. If the lore allows you to bring the world to life, such as the superstition of throwing a pig snout over a house by a citizen you just rescued or customs about house domovoi that creep into the DMs routine descriptions, it's good.

If the DM is waiting to lecture players for 6 paragraphs on all the cool histories they've invented for the centaurs of Darkwood, perhaps not so good. The motivation is less for making the game world come to life and more to show off your hard work. Suggestion, hide the hard work within tidbits tossed in here and there.

That's not without its toxic inverse though. We've all seen the player who shows up with an ill fitting "backstory" they really really really care about & expect to be integrated as desired Many of us have also seen players with some form of main character syndrome where they expect to yoink solutions from hammerspace claiming their character's history justifies it even though they are out of line. GMs are just expected to treat it like it's okamd told to "work with the player" in a no win catch 22 for the gm

 

[Burnside]

I mean, DMs kinda care about everything more than players. It’s how they ended up being the DM.