Lore Isn't Important

[Aldarc]

The sort of adventuring presented in my copy of EotPT (the pink cover one from 1987) is weirdly (at least it seems weird to me) close to OD&D - ie dungeon crawling and looting. The social possibilities are kind-of adverted to, but not really developed.

Which is honestly weird to me since Barker devoted so much thought and ink to detailing the cultures and societies of the setting. How much of that is needed for what is ultimately rote dungeon-crawling?

 

[pemerton]

Which is honestly weird to me since Barker devoted so much thought and ink to detailing the cultures and societies of the setting. How much of that is needed for what is ultimately rote dungeon-crawling?

Your guess is as good as mine - I share your puzzlement.

I guess it wouldn't be the only example of a GM's indulgence in world development outstripping what was needed for play. But maybe Barker was also doing something different at his table, at least some of the time with some players, from what seems to be suggested in the rulebook.

 

[clearstream]

Which is honestly weird to me since Barker devoted so much thought and ink to detailing the cultures and societies of the setting. How much of that is needed for what is ultimately rote dungeon-crawling?

We played it in an OD&D style at the time. The setting had impact and was memorable even given that style. To me, WWN has some of the same feel. A distinct setting that matters, even given an intent toward an OD&D style of play.

As already noted, a love of world building - possibly not all that far from Tolkien's given the language development - and perhaps a markedly different approach at the author's table also seem plausible.

 

[Aldarc]

We played it in an OD&D style at the time. The setting had impact and was memorable even given that style. To me, WWN has some of the same feel. A distinct setting that matters, even given an intent toward an OD&D style of play.

As already noted, a love of world building - possibly not all that far from Tolkien's given the language development - and perhaps a markedly different approach at the author's table also seem plausible.

WWN seems far more transparent than Tekumel about its design goals and how the author imagines play in the game world.

ETA: I would add that the lore of WWN is not really all that important to the setting. It has a loose skeleton of lore and some major conceits, but the rest of the setting is incredibly loosey-goosey when it comes to lore.

 

[Dioltach]

Lore, to me, is only important as a source of inspiration.

 

[Fenris-77]

What standard are we using to judge whether the world building is good or not? As far as games go, a good world is one that is condusive to gaming. It provides some direction and inspiration for both players and GMs and helps make the game compelling/fun. You could have the greatest world built, but that doesn't mean it's good for gaming purposes.

And I'll give you an example of a fantastic setting that wasn't the best for gaming. Blue Planet. Blue Planet's sourcebooks were simply a pleasure to read, and actually provides both GM and palyers with all sort of inspiration. Oh, you mean I can play an uplifted killer whale armed with torpedos fighting against Earth government backed corporations trying to ruin this plant like they did the old planet? Awesome. What it lacks is direction. There's so many different types of campaigns, there's no default for campaigns.

I suspect that at least some part of the OP question has to do with significant lore that ends up being a burden and not an asset in terms of RPG play. I've had this problem with the Forgotten Realms, Star Wars, 40K, and Tolkien at one time or another. There's a certain kind of player that wants to treat their lore mastery as some sort of meta or uber skill in terms of playing in those IPs. Personally, I have no time for that nonsense. The first time a player wants to correct me on a matter of lore is probably when I have a serious talk with him about whether or not he wants to play in my game. It's a play aide, not a stick to be wielded.

 

[overgeeked]

I have the opposite view. The lore is the only thing that matters. It's what differentiates this setting from every other setting. You're still free to change things to suit your table, but there shouldn't be an expectation that lore is always changed to make every setting a generic kitchen sink. What I like about Dark Sun is the lore that makes it different from FR and other settings. The lore isn't holy writ, but neither is it toilet paper.

 

[overgeeked]

I like lore a lot, it's the cornerstone of my GMing (and one of the primary causes of it too), a lot of the positive feedback I get is that it feels like everything in my world goes deep, like if they question something, there's a good reason and set of connections that underlie it. Similarly, I really value exploration conceptually-- I like secrets and uncovering mysteries tucked into the game world and setting material. I like the idea that my players can trust that they can ask questions authentically, confident that there will be an interesting answer for them.

Same. Lore makes the world feel real, even though it isn't real. Lore helps immersion. Without some solid lore, there's no immersion to be had.

If anything, I think people get too wrapped up in plot, but the medium actively works against well-structured storytelling, I think games largely succeed more as spaces rife with narrative, where the story is a series of events that happened in retrospect as we interacted with that space.

Exactly. Unless you railroad the life out of the game, there's no structure to be had.

 

[pemerton]

Unless you railroad the life out of the game, there's no structure to be had.

This is not true at all. I give you Dogs in the Vineyard, Agon 2nd ed and Burning Wheel as some of the more obvious counter-examples.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I have the opposite view. The lore is the only thing that matters. It's what differentiates this setting from every other setting. You're still free to change things to suit your table, but there shouldn't be an expectation that lore is always changed to make every setting a generic kitchen sink. What I like about Dark Sun is the lore that makes it different from FR and other settings. The lore isn't holy writ, but neither is it toilet paper.

I am sort of torn on this one. On the one hand, lore is clearly important. If you take Ravenloft and rewrite the history of the setting, that is a radical alteration but it might also not be so bad if you want the players to experience it again for the first time.

Also I think there are games where lore emerges through play. A game like Hillfolk isn't necessarily going to start a campaign with massive lore, but I could see having sometime that plays out over a long time, sort of like the Bible or something, where the lore builds as the drama unfolds session to session.

Something I have noticed about lore just from a design perspective is it gets to be as weighty as history after a while. If you ever try to do a historical campaign or design historical RPGs, it feels like every little detail is the product of hours of research sometimes. It is part of what can make history RPGs fun but also something that can make them very challenging on the GM and designer side. But the same kind of thing happens in a fantasy setting with lots of lore. I have a setting that started out as a core book with a good amount of lore in it. Then the lore grew as I put out more supplements, and got even bigger when someone wrote an official novel (and the novel was huge). Now when I work on the setting, even though I made it, I have to do tons of research in my own material to make sure I am not contradicting myself. I have a setting bible but sometimes I still need to go in and look at stuff. My point is you see this happen with game lines all the time where the lore itself becomes a deterrent to entry and can even make things hard for long time fans.