D&D General Rules vs. lore preferences in D&D sourcebooks?

[Reynard]

I find the idea of considering a sourcebook, as a generic object, to be flawed.

I want the ratios of material to vary depending on the purpose of the book. A setting book can be heavy on lore. A book on how to generally do mass combat and war probably needs less lore, more mechanics.

I think the unspoken part of the question is "Do you want fluff/setting books or crunch/mechanics books", since 5E has done relatively little of one or the other. most of the books have attempted to straddle the line, at least compared to previous editions.

 

[J.Quondam]

Since the topic is D&D specifically, my answer is "more rules, less lore".

Most D&D lore is just not terribly inspiring to me, so I'm more curious about new mechanics, new tables, new options, even just new layouts and art can be useful. That said, some lore or setting specifics can be useful for context or example, especially if it's easily re-skinnable. Taken together, all that can help me add structure my own world-building ideas.

My answer might be different for a different game.

 

[Umbran]

I think the unspoken part of the question is "Do you want fluff/setting books or crunch/mechanics books"

I am not primarily driven by the fluff/crunch dichotomy, so my answer to the unspoken question is that it is the wrong question.

 

[RobJN]

If I wanted to read a Forgotten Realms novel, I'd have bought a Forgotten Realms novel.

 

[Reynard]

I am not primarily driven by the fluff/crunch dichotomy, so my answer to the unspoken question is that it is the wrong question.

I'm not inclined to read particularly long rulebooks or lore filled tomes. I think D&D can be presented perfectly in 64 pages -- 96 pages tops -- so I don't really have a dog in the race. But, when I do happen to find myself indulging in some RPG prose, it is usually setting information or other "lore" because nothing turns me off faster than long winded rules. I distinctly remember during 3.5 when WotC tried to "fix" polymorph. That one spell description had to have been 1500 words long. Get out of here with that nonsense.

 

[Malmuria]

Here's a lore-centric, setting-neutral product that I backed on kickstarter:

Herbalist's Primer - Double Proficiency

An illustrated guide to real-world magical plants. Full of science and whimsy, folklore and ethnobotany, occult and TTRPG material!

doubleproficiency.com

I backed it because a) it looks beautiful and b) the content can be placed in a game very quickly and to good effect. If a PC is looking around for plants, I can turn to a random page and have something interesting for them to find (and I learn something about the real world plant as a bonus).

 

[J.Quondam]

Here's a lore-centric, setting-neutral product that I backed on kickstarter:

Herbalist's Primer - Double Proficiency

An illustrated guide to real-world magical plants. Full of science and whimsy, folklore and ethnobotany, occult and TTRPG material!

doubleproficiency.com

I backed it because a) it looks beautiful and b) the content can be placed in a game very quickly and to good effect. If a PC is looking around for plants, I can turn to a random page and have something interesting for them to find (and I learn something about the real world plant as a bonus).

Absolutely! Backed that one, too, and it really is beautiful. When it comes to lore, it's exactly the sort of flavorful, easy-to-use, setting-neutral material I love.
I can't wait to get my hardcopy!

 

[JEB]

I would call that a novel.

As I said in the OP, please be respectful of the preferences of others in this thread. You don't have to agree, but don't denigrate.

 

[Azzy]

Depends on the type of sourcebook and also the game.

In a game where the lore and the rules are tied together (like Vampire, Star Wars, Cyberpunk Red, etc.) as opposed to setting generic (D&D, GURPS, Fuzion, etc.), the lore is what sells the game. Even then, though, not all sourcebooks are created equal. But since this is a D&D-specific thread, let's just talk D&D.

If it's a setting sourcebook, more the lore is the most important part (IMO, the only rules that a setting book should include are rules that facilitate playing the setting, like new races, subclasses, etc. as applicable). Rules expansions that aren't setting-specific should have more or less minimal lore that is generic enough to be easily replaced with some suggestions and examples of how they fit (or can fit) in different settings.

I'm not a big fan of thinks like Volo's, Mordenkainen's, which has a ton of lore that is supposed to be generic (but ends up contradicting the established lore of several settings—even the most generic settings). If I'm playing a specific published setting, much of that lore is useless to me (because it doesn't fit said setting), and if I'm homebrewing my own setting, I want to create most of the lore myself, so it's again useless.

 

[Li Shenron]

A product that adds additional material to the game outside of the core rules.

With that in mind, I voted "no rules" because I have enough, but I wish for good rules-agnostic fantasy campaign settings sourcebooks that could be used with any ruleset you prefer.