As OP but only speaking for myself, I was specifically talking about how precise details and deep dives are largely unnecessary, especially as it relates to fights over changes to that lore. Specifically, again in context of the OP, changes in lore don't matter and folks should probably chill about this character being race or gender swapped, etc.So four pages in, do we even have a working definition of lore? Because I think of any setting information as lore.
Okay, I think I can get down with that. Even in an established setting like Star Wars, it's not like I'm going to get all pissy if we go to Tatooine and Tour Aryon isn't the Imperial governor. (I had to Wookiepedia that information. I love Star Wars, but I'm not married to it.)As OP but only speaking for myself, I was specifically talking about how precise details and deep dives are largely unnecessary, especially as it relates to fights over changes to that lore.
For my own settings, I don't bother with lore I don't think will matter in the game. I was running a Hell of Earth campaign set in Little Rock, and one of my players kept asking me questions about the demographics; How many people, how many children, old people, men, women, etc., etc. I kept answering her questions until she looked at me and asked, "You're just making this all up, aren't you?" The only question I had answered was the number of people, 5,000, and I hadn't given a thought to demographics.More generally, as a GM I much prefer a shallower, more ephemeral lore because, frankly, I'm not trying to build an incorruptible second world fantasy
EXACTLYOkay, I think I can get down with that. Even in an established setting like Star Wars, it's not like I'm going to get all pissy if we go to Tatooine and Tour Aryon isn't the Imperial governor. (I had to Wookiepedia that information. I love Star Wars, but I'm not married to it.)
For my own settings, I don't bother with lore I don't think will matter in the game. I was running a Hell of Earth campaign set in Little Rock, and one of my players kept asking me questions about the demographics; How many people, how many children, old people, men, women, etc., etc. I kept answering her questions until she looked at me and asked, "You're just making this all up, aren't you?" The only question I had answered was the number of people, 5,000, and I hadn't given a thought to demographics.
Okay, I think I can get down with that. Even in an established setting like Star Wars, it's not like I'm going to get all pissy if we go to Tatooine and Tour Aryon isn't the Imperial governor. (I had to Wookiepedia that information. I love Star Wars, but I'm not married to it.)
For my own settings, I don't bother with lore I don't think will matter in the game. I was running a Hell of Earth campaign set in Little Rock, and one of my players kept asking me questions about the demographics; How many people, how many children, old people, men, women, etc., etc. I kept answering her questions until she looked at me and asked, "You're just making this all up, aren't you?" The only question I had answered was the number of people, 5,000, and I hadn't given a thought to demographics.
The participants may have different roles or responsibilities but they're all still players.explicitly false by the definitions in many rulebooks.
Obviously it's all made up at some point in time. What she was getting at is that I was making it up on the fly rather than having thought things out ahead of time.What’s interesting is that there is no scenario where you wouldn’t be just making it up.
Whatever authenticity might be or it's importance, I don't think that's the salient point here. Generally speaking, if you've had time to work on something it's going to be better than whatever you come up with on the fly.It’s interesting how many peopleseem to think if something is made up two weeks ago versus just now it’s somehow more authentic or whatever.
I am more on the side of flexibility with lore, and that probably works best for most groups, but I wouldn't denigrate folk who love a specific lore and engage in the play because they want to explore a specific preexisting lore. I'm thinking of something like ICE's MERP. Or Bushido or RuneQuest as I have mentioned. Perhaps an ACW group who do not want anything anachronistic in their game.So I can offer an example that actually happened in my group.
One of my friends wanted to run Star Trek Adventures, the 2d20 system from Modiphius. He’s a huge Star Trek fan. The rest of the group are much more moderate in our enjoyment of Star Trek.
The GM selected our starting time period to be around the time of the Next Generation. He explained it would be around season 2. This meant very little to the rest of us beyond a very basic grasp.
So one of the players said he’d like to play an android. The GM said he could not because there was only one android in Starfleet at that time, Data.
And that’s about as good an example I can think of where lore gets in the way of play.
I agree with @Reynard and @pointofyou - the facts that constitute the solution to a mystery frequently will not count as lore in the sense it is typically used (and in the sense it was used in the OP as best I can tell).If one is running a mystery scenario discovery of setting information will be very important, indeed the primary goal of play. Even when playing Brindlewood Bay you have to take risks to discover clues even if there is not canonical solution to the mystery.
In the context of GMing a RPG this is actually quite contentious, I think.Generally speaking, if you've had time to work on something it's going to be better than whatever you come up with on the fly.
I would quibble with this in the following way: the DM doesn't get to settle lore vs plot vs backstory unilaterally. These different baskets into which our fiction can be placed have their parameters established by the play of everyone at the table.What is considered lore vs plot vs backstory vs etc. is going to vary from DM to DM, but I definitely heavily agree with the bolded.
Unilaterally, sure, no.I would quibble with this in the following way: the DM doesn't get to settle lore vs plot vs backstory unilaterally. These different baskets into which our fiction can be placed have their parameters established by the play of everyone at the table.
Generally I agree it has to be somewhat related to the framework of play (though, that can simply be its presence helping to set tone) I will note that it usually isn't clear to me going in what lore will be relevant and what won't.Exploits and struggles are not confined to the PC's internal life. I think in most RPGing, the internal life of the PC is not all that vivid - it's the external life - the fighting, the sneaking, the looting - that tends to be the focus of play.
But this is nevertheless quite different form learning the abstract or impersonal details of an imaginary place.
If as a player you are trying to learn something through the vehicle of your PC - the classic example is a PC exploring a dungeon, but obviously there are indefinitely many other possibilities - then discovery can be exciting. But as @Reynard says, I don't think it normally matters whether what is discovered is profound or relatively shallow.
In my most recent Torchbearer session, the players via their PCs discovered a throne that lets the one who sits in it project their point of sight out into the world, "flying" about to spy on the landscape. This was literally a discovery, in that they (and their PCs) did not know about this throne until they found it and then experimented with it (during the experimentation one of the players did conjecture its purpose, based on some features of its layout and the room it was in).
This sort of thing can be exciting discovery in a RPG.
But it doesn't depend on lore at all. In the fiction, the throne has a creator, but that creator has a name and two lines of backstory (most of which the players have learned, by having their PCs undertake research). If more backstory is needed of course it can be authored, but that will be in further relationship to what the PCs are doing. I'm not looking for a chance to just drop in some lore that does not bear upon or follow from the players' play of their PCs!
I have GMed games that have been regarded as "lore rich" and "lore driven" by those who play in them and by those who observe them. What I learning GMing those games was that lore works well as a context or framework for play. But it is the players' play of their PCs which is key. This also informs what counts as "good" lore: it should be relevant to play, and potentially be driving of play. This is why I think 4e's default lore is great - it is laden with conflicts that players can easily by into just through building their PCs - whereas, say, genealogy that is not relevant to establishing conflict or driving action (eg JRRT's genealogies of the Kings of Rohan and the Ruling Stewards of Gondor) is in my view pretty optional.
In the late 80s or very, very early 90s, one of my friends said they liked Star Wars more than Star Trek for gaming because the former's universe was so wide open compared to the latter. For any younglings reading this thread, there was a time just a few years after Return of the Jedi where there was nothing new coming out for Star Wars other than what was produced for WEG's role playing game.So there are two ideas about lore that I find mutually awkward. The lore I hate, and I mean I hate it with a passion, is the lore that accrues from a longstanding IP of any kind, whether that be Star Wars or Forgotten Realms. That lore tends to be deployed like a stick by players who have invested an inordinate amount of time in memorizing it and then feel like they be able to wield that subject mastery like a stick in game, and use it to correct both the GM and other players. So, yeah, no, not in my game. Then there's the 'good lore'. This is pretty much everything that's not the first example. Knowing things about the setting makes he game better, generally. It adds depth and interest, and this can and often does, come from some level of lore investment by the players. But it isn't a weapon, or a contest.
That made me think - does the lore imply interesting answers to the players' questions?I think a good way to think of it is this… does the setting ask or imply interesting questions?
When are those questions answered? Beforehand? Or during play?
Well, both I would say. Depends on the question. Players could uncover some secret related to lore, and then decide what that means to them. Is it something to exploit, hide, destroy? Perhaps a reason to befriend or betray?I think a good way to think of it is this… does the setting ask or imply interesting questions?
When are those questions answered? Beforehand? Or during play?
Well, both I would say. Depends on the question. Players could uncover some secret related to lore, and then decide what that means to them. Is it something to exploit, hide, destroy? Perhaps a reason to befriend or betray?
Generally, larger themes work this way because they inform how the world will work when certain things happen-- for instance "What Happens When You Die?" is answered by my setting "You are taken to a place in the spirit world for about a year to come to terms with it, then immersed in special water that dissolves the bonds between you and the energy / memories produced by your soul, which can be reincarnated as a new person, and the separated residue is used to create gods and spirits" its interesting because it suggests a process that can produce a lot of stories depending on how it's interacted with.What would be a good example of an interesting question implied or asked by a setting that’s answered beforehand?