NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 8840441">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.</blockquote>

Verification