D&D General Influence of official D&D lore on your home games?

[Ath-kethin]

I voted "a lot."

I run a game set in Mystara, plus another that started in Zakhara and uses lots of Spelljammer material.

5e hasn't touched Brun, but provided me with a Spelljamming helm, giff, and neogi, so that was nice. I had to write the book on 5e Zakhara myself, though.

 

[Ancalagon]

A bit. There are some bits of D&D lore that I really like - some of the planar theory for example. However, my version is a mish mash of various editions. I'm really reluctant to move on from the 3e FR book also, which I thought was a superior product.

However, I don't hesitate to incorporate both my lore, and the lore of other games, which can be superior to D&D. Dragon Warriors ( see Dragon Warriors - Wikipedia , NOT the video game ) is great for this.

 

[Mercurius]

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about changes to other non-D&D shared IP?

Depends what type, but I think we're talking about different categories. D&D, as a roleplaying game, is not the same category of "shared IP" as, say, film, tv, etc. For instance, for me, the only really good Star Wars media is the original trilogy; everything else runs from "OK, I guess" to "I wish I could un-watch this." It is kind of a bummer, because even though I can choose to only re-watch the original trilogy, there is a feeling that the whole franchise is "tainted." (And just to be clear, it isn't a big deal to me - I'm just trying to form a comparison).

But D&D is fundamentally different, or at least the way I approach it. I don't see it as "playing within the Star Wars universe." It isn't watching movies. It is playing an interactive game of imagination, set within an imaginary world of the DM's making (to whatever degree, from homebrew to published setting).

Meaning, when I play D&D, I don't see it as being part of a shared universe, like watching a Star Wars film. I see it as playing within a universe (or world) unique to the game group and table. Closer to "alternate universes" than "shared universe."

So it really doesn't matter how WotC changes the lore, at least if I'm DMing (and world-building). I never use published settings, but even if I did, I would adapt it to suit my needs (e.g. if I were to DM the Realms, I'd probably go heavy on the gray box version with bits and pieces from the 3E "white books"). My homebrew is my own - I decide what is within it, with some input from the players. But the same would go for "my" Forgotten Realms or Dark Sun or Eberron.

In other words, I see everything that WotC publishes (or 3PP, or other DMs online etc) as being a huge toolbox--or, perhaps more aptly--a box of Legos, ideas that I can use however I want, but just end up going in the big box of Legos that I use to build my own stuff.

Actually, it is almost exactly like how I used to play with Legos. I would buy (or receive) a new set, follow the directions to make whatever the set was, play with it for a bit, then tear it apart and add the pieces to my big box of Legos, to build whatever I want.

 

[Grantypants]

As part of DMing a session zero, one thing I like to do is go around the table and have each of my players change something about the setting. It can be a big thing or a small thing, maybe something added to the lore or removed from it. I think this helps with player buy-in and makes each campaign feel a little different, even if they're in the same published campaign setting.

 

[Hussar]

I voted a little. I tend to use the baseline lore out of convenience, unless I'm trying to run something very specific. But, it's more inspirational stuff than what I will follow.

Thinking about it though, I would have to say that it does depend somewhat on the campaign. My current Candlekeep campaign is obviously drawing on lots of FR lore, but, I've also introduced a bunch of other stuff and I'm using a few non-WotC sourcebooks as well. It's just convenient because it's THERE. I don't have to make stuff up or remember what I've made up. I can just post the Wiki link and poof, now the players are up to speed on some esoteric point of lore that their Skill check picked up.

 

[JEB]

I answered "a fair bit". I like my campaign worlds to be consistent with the larger D&D multiverse, with the conceit that my worlds are part of the larger framework. But that doesn't stop me from finding ways to subvert the canon for my own purposes, especially when it comes to mythic events or cosmic/deity-level stuff where you can always assume the mortals got it wrong, or the official story isn't the truth of things.

 

[GreyLord]

That's very difficult to answer. In a campaign world that's official (Such as Forgotten Realms) I try to stick to it as closely as possible. Looks like I'm the lone vote for that currently.

In my homebrew games...not at all.

 

[dave2008]

Lore is for inspiration only, I don't take any of it as set in stone / canon.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm guessing this is one of those situations where ENWorld posters won't represent the overall broader D&D fan-base very well. I'm guessing the general D&D fan-base today, with the mega-adventures and Adventurer's League, will skew a lot more towards sticking to the official lore than we do here.

Personally, the option for "as close as possible" is philosophically correct for me, but since I hate the reinvention of lore with new editions, in practice it's more like "a lot".

Honestly, I think that people use more of the lore than they think they do.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly, I think that people use more of the lore than they think they do.

That's a fair point.

So much of D&D's lore gets internalized that I think we don't really even think about it when we follow along. I mean, how often do you (the plural you as in anyone reading this) have halfling empires in your game - to borrow from a now rather infamous thread. The core lore of D&D is important to a lot of people that even suggesting that it be changed can result in very strong opinions.