D&D General Is "official" lore important to you?

[Reynard]

Every once in a while I see people on these forums remark how a change in the lore of a setting between editions or through some product or tie in media bothers them. To me that idea is a little alien, as I am just not a person that cares to much about adherence to continuity (what can I say, I grew up a DC comics fan in the post Crisis on infinite Earths era where there was a Zero Hour or other continuity altering even every summer).

So, simple poll you can expound upon in the thread: do you care about the lore of a setting (or the game as a whole) and think continuity is important?

 

[akr71]

I voted "No, never." If its a published setting, having lore handy is great when I need to fill in details in broad strokes. However, I really don't mind ignoring canon and substituting my own as I see fit.

 

[DEFCON 1]

No, never. Official lore only matters insomuch that it is a bunch of details written down that I can use as a jumping off point for what I give my players. As soon as they players start playing though, anything official can get changed or has to get changed to reflect what the players do. So getting hung up on what is or isn't official is a waste of my time.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yup, don't care. I like having it, it's super useful, but I have neither time nor patience for issues of 'canon' in terms official lore.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I find lore sometimes interesting and useful for inspiration. That said, I don't really mind alterations. 4e made some of the biggest changes to prior D&D lore (with the Dawn War, etc) but I really liked it and still use bits of it in my 5e games. In fairness though, I homebrew my campaign settings.

 

[Morrus]

I said no, but then I remembered Dragonlance. So I suppose it depends on the setting.

 

[Marandahir]

Yes, but only in regards to Eberron and when I say official, I mean Keith Baker's headcanon.

And even then it's a jumping off point.

 

[Maxperson]

I put down that it was too complex for your poll, but only because my answer was not there elsewhere.

Lore is important to me, because I just don't have time to create lore of my own. Without that lore my game would be lacking due to life responsibilities. I don't have any problem changing parts of the lore I don't like, though.

 

[R_J_K75]

Nope, not worth spending time ponder things my players couldn't care less about. Its like the equivalent of a bass solo at a concert, its unnecessary and after the first note I get up to get another beer.

 

[Oofta]

Well, I pretty much just run my home campaign so the only "lore" I have to care about is in my head or notes. Even then it's a bit untrustworthy because I forget stuff the histories are not always accurate.

In part I do that because if I did run an FR campaign I'd probably end up with a player that has a photographic memory and has read every bit of FR trivia ever published. Imagine my chagrin with I don't know that the owner of the pub X on street Y is really name Z and that he is secretly member of some organization I've never heard of. I'd also get into an argument about what it means to be a member of the Zhentarim and so on.

But it's also because I'd want to subvert the narrative and shake up people's expectations now and then. Turns out that Drizzt (don't ever make the mistake of putting an apostrophe in his first name you neophyte!) was really evil all along. He's been pretending to be a good guy so that drow are accepted into society all while convincing other rubes to help him take out his competition.

It would not go over well, I'm sure. On the other hand in my world King Bob is really the right hand man of the dead lich that has vowed to destroy the party. Once they take out his competition of course.