Lore Isn't Important

[Reynard]

Unless you feel it is.

But broadly speaking "lore" is just some stuff someone thought up at the moment. Unless it's Tolkien, it probably isn't even particularly well thought out. You should absolutely feel free to change it to suit your game.

Brought to you by Dragonlance and Eberron threads...

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Funny that you mention Eberron, because that's its take on "Lore" too. It's specific to the table and Eberron should be different for everyone that plays it. Two different tables might have the same solution to who caused the Mourning (in my campaign, it's Lady Illmarrow), but they probably won't have the same answer for if the gods exist (in m campaign, they don't) or where Warforged get their souls from (my answer is that they're Quori spirits).

So, Keith Baker agrees with you. The world should be specific to the campaign and any broader "lore" or "canon" should only be a tool that the DM and players can use when running and playing the game. Not a holy bible of what the setting "truly" is that later books or campaigns have to be restrained by.

 

[Richards]

I bet Data would argue with you about that - Lore seems pretty important to him, being his "brother" and all....

Johnathan

 

[pointofyou]

You are right that whatever lore there is that hasn't been established at your table should be open to being changed. That applies whether it's from inspirational material or from published setting material or from notes the GM has prepared.

 

[Remathilis]

Just the day to find this!

 

[TerraDave]

I see lore like a tool to be used as desired.

And it goes well beyond setting canon. Monster and artifact descriptions, modules (especially) can have all sorts of tidbits to use.

 

[Umbran]

Lore should not be confused with dogma.

 

[MGibster]

The first thing I said when I ran a Rogue Trader campaign: "The Warhammer 40k universe is a big place and you can find tons of information about the setting. Some of that information contradicts itself, and like I said, it's a big place, so even if the lore is applicable in that part of the galaxy it doesn't go to follow that it's applicable in this part. If something in this campaign doesn't match the lore as you understand it, just roll with it and accept that it's different in this part of the galaxy."

I'm one of those people who likes lore. Er, when I like the lore. But the primary purpose of lore for a game is to serve the needs of the participants. It's nice that I can play a Star Wars game and we're all pretty much on the same page. I don't have to explain what the Empire is all about, who the guys in white armor are, or what a Tie-Fighter is, I can just hit the ground running.

I'm not one of those people who demands fidelity right down to the smallest detail, but if I'm invested in a setting, big changes will leave me unhappy. If I sit down to play a Star Wars game with you, and you tell me the Force is caused my some sort of bacteria that lives inside you, and the more of this bacteria you have the stronger in the Force you are, it's just going to piss me off. But I'm not going to give a damn if you tell me Commander Jord is the Moff of Omicron Persei VIII when in setting it's actually Lrrr.

Star Wars is probably a bad example given it's ubiquity in popular culture. For most games, the sad truth is that most players don't really care all that much. A lot of GMs might care, but players? Not so much.

 

[Teo Twawki]

Unless it's Tolkien, it probably isn't even particularly well thought out.

The pitch for a hagiography. And, like such things, very untrue.

Lore should not be confused with dogma.

Too often, they are. The only Canon is what happens at the table.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

I think lore is incredibly underrated.

I think some people think of lore as that superficial worldbuilding that the stereotypical failed novelist shoves into his campaign. It can be that, but it's also much more.

If your players are moving around adventuring, and they eventually go through a few villages. What sets them apart? What makes them interesting? The events surrounding them, the characters living there, the things to do around there. All these things can be fixed in the world with lore and they become so much more interesting. Instead of just being a generic third medieval village, this one is a fishing village. What do you find around in a fishing village as opposed to other villages? What kind of unique problems might they encounter? Who sticks around in these villages?

Same with inn number #367. Who's the owner? Where is he from? Then take lore from that place and bring it into the inn for flavor. He comes from that dark gothic part of the world. The inn has bats and were wolves head carves into the cauldrons. There's a bouquet of wood, incense and other ingredients burning next to the door to push away evil spirits.

Once you start writing lore, it's really easy to pull threads from it and make every element you're player interact with (places, people, objects, events) much more flavorful. They also tend to remember things much better when there's a coherence! A well though-out naming patterns of places or individuals of a culture makes remembering these names easier and can connote that they are from that culture.

There's so many interesting things that can be done with lore. But lore for the sake of lore, especially when it's communicated through exposition dumps, often through long winding descriptions is pretty tedious in my opinion.