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

[Ralif Redhammer]

Sometimes? I will gladly ignore lore that gets in my way, but I also love having lore to build on. But one thing I do love is when something in an adventure calls back to lore from the olden days. Like when I discovered that Naergoth Bladelord from The Rise of Tiamat is mentioned in Spellfire, or Arauthator in an old Wyrms of the North article in Dragon magazine.

 

[Reynard]

I voted « yes, always »

An official turn of events and background info is essential to a setting IMO. It is a huge part of what defines the setting and set it appart from other campaign settings.

However, I feel the underlying question, while not specifically spelled that way, is whether it is important (or not) to use that official content and if so, in what proportion. There, I would say that no official content should be taken as sacrosanct canon. The devs and authors themselves acknowledge that.

But still, the official info is important, if only to know what you think needs changing. No matter how much you alter a campaign setting, you need to start from something. That something is always important and relevant. It's one thing to mine a setting for inspiration, it's another to affirm playing in the said setting.

My initial question was more focused on whether it bothers (general) you if lore for a setting changes. For example, if a new edition of a campaign setting changes a historical timeline or shifts established events to accomodate new rules elements.

 

[David Howery]

have to go with 'sometimes'. Most of my GM campaigns were set in the WoG; I made good use of everything they put out at first, but ignored everything to do with the Greyhawk Wars...

 

[MGibster]

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?

If I'm playing in an established setting then the lore and continuity is important. If it wasn't important I'd question why I was even playing a game in that setting. I'm not going to run a Star Wars game where the PCs overthrow the Rebel Alliance, defeat Darth Vader, and spare the Emperor's life so they can keep him as an adviser. In my Star Wars games the characters and events of the movies are pretty much going to play out as presented and my PCs are going to be involved in other stuff during that time.

Even when I think the lore is silly I pretty much roll with it if I like the game enough. In Deadlands, the setting is an alternate history in the United States of 1876 where the dead walk the earth and the Civil War isn't over. I can buy demons, the undead gunslingers, and mad scientist inventing wild machines, but I have a hard time buying any alternate history where the South essentially wins the Civil War and is able to compete with the North when it comes to western expansion. There's only so much I can suspend my disbelief. Despite this, I never changed the lore but it was a rare game I ran that featured the conflicts between the CSA and USA.

 

[Charlaquin]

Doesn’t matter to me one bit. I’ve seen a lot of people get very upset by continuity changes, so I’m pleasantly surprised to see the majority voting “no, never.”

 

[billd91]

My initial question was more focused on whether it bothers (general) you if lore for a setting changes. For example, if a new edition of a campaign setting changes a historical timeline or shifts established events to accomodate new rules elements.

If it's a question of the timeline advancing, I'm usually fine with it. Time does march on. I can pick any point in the timeline for my campaign.

But major changes to established events or the essential character of things really irks me and will serve as a barrier to buying the new product due to lack of compatibility. I've never been a fan of the big "event" adventures or shifts in Forgotten Realms to coincide with rule structure shifts from edition to edition. If the rules change - no explanation is necessary other than, maybe, a sidebar to explain how some previous element of the setting operates under the new rules, if different. If said element is technically impossible under the new rules, then grandfather it in by using old rules.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I think I have said this in other, similar threads, but official lore is more important to me in a living, breathing setting that advances the timeline and has events that shape the lore, like the Realms. I go with the flow and adjust with the changes. However, changes in official lore in a setting that is mostly static, that is annoying and is more a retcon than an update of the lore. And a bad retcon can destroy a property, whether gaming world, comic book, or movie or tv series.

 

[cbwjm]

I see official canon as just the starting point of the game and if, like so many posts I've read over the years, I start a game in one edition and continued into another edition then changes with the new edition wouldn't matter if it doesn't fit into how the world has developed in that home campaign. A new campaign might take into account edition changes to lore or it might be a new group in the original campaign.

As is, I frequently homebrew a setting so edition changes to lore don't really matter to me, what does matter though is mechanics. Dragonlance after the chaos war had sorcerers that shaped wild magic using their intellect, many were previously wizards. When 3e came out, the sorcerer was charisma based so a wizard changing to a sorcerer (there was a rule in 3e dragonlance that allowed you to trade your wizard levels for sorcerer levels) would suddenly be much worse at magic due to conflicting spellcasting ability scores.

 

[Lanefan]

"Other" - answer varies widely depending on situation.

If it's something I and most others have no control over or input on, e.g. a movie or TV franchise, then hewing close to established canon is vital for continuity and - well, immersion's too strong a word, so let's say suspension of belief. Exception: franchises that intentionally thumb their noses at such things in the name of not taking themselves seriously. But it's either one or the other, no middle ground.

If it's something I do have control over or input on e.g. the setting for my game, then the only canon I care about is my own, be it established ahead of time or during play (by me and-or the players) and to which - obviously - I'll hew as close as I can.

If it's something I have some input on but ultimately no control over e.g. the setting for someone else's game I play in, then my expectation is that once something is established as part of that setting it becomes locked in.

 

[Ace]

I voted never as I almost never use or have used official settings and thus have little knowledge of lore.

Also D&D is a big multiverse so for all I know there might be tens of thousand Torils , Ebberons Oerths or whatever.