What makes setting lore "actually matter" to the players?

[Thomas Shey]

A lot of what I'm reading smells to me like thinking that a certain set of roleplaying preferences are correct, and that people who don't share those preferences are doing it wrong.

Well, I suspect this is effectively true, not in a broad sense, but in a "I don't want to play with people who have those preferences" sense. I suspect that applies to most people given some value of "set of preferences", this particular objection seems to be aimed at a rather large group and draws the line pretty heavily, though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because you want to play with specific people, perhaps for themselves, perhaps because you know they'll bring things to the game that curating them out would lose you. Even in the VTT days you don't have an infinite pool to access, and getting people who don't want things you might prefer not to have in the game can end up meaning getting people who bring things you do want in the game--strong self-motivation, say.

Not sure I understand. That all seems like a practicality issue to me. Do you believe this, or is this your "speaking on behalf of others" thing?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I gotta admit I don't fully understand...or maybe 'sympathize with' is a better way of expressing it...the importance placed on roleplaying non-human races in distinctive ways. I get that those races absolutely could have distinctive traits/behaviors, and it doesn't even have to be explained biologically, but why is it so important that other people roleplay it that way? What's wrong with someone just wanting to imagine their character look a certain way.

Two thought experiments:

1. In a humans-only campaign/game, or if somebody picks human among multiple choices, but then wants to describe their character as having highly distinctive (but plausible) physical features, with zero mechanic impact, would anybody have a problem with that? Then why not choose an elf/dwarf/tiefling/whatever just because they like the way it looks?
2. Similarly, take any presumed worldview/mindset of an imaginary race, due to the circumstances of their species (living underground, generations of servitude, etc. etc. etc.), and now imagine that somebody wants to play a human with those same traits, without necessarily having grown up underground or enslaved. Anybody have a problem with that? If not, then why is it a problem for a member of one of those races to act like a typical human?

A lot of what I'm reading smells to me like thinking that a certain set of roleplaying preferences are correct, and that people who don't share those preferences are doing it wrong.

If you choose to play a species that has a particular place in the lore of the setting in which you are playing, but you also choose to ignore that lore in your own characterization, I'm going to want an in-setting explanation why or I'm going to be irritated. Call that gatekeeping if you want. The player gets to decide to play in the setting and what PC in that setting they want to play. Once they do that the setting is real for that PC and they should have a good reason why they behave the way they do in it that makes sense. I'm open to ideas from that player, but I want more than just "I thought it would be cool".

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not sure I understand. That all seems like a practicality issue to me. Do you believe this, or is this your "speaking on behalf of others" thing?

It isn't practicality because you aren't compelled to do it out of, well, practical factors (that tends to be things like "who lives close enough" or "who has a place we can play" at least for people who still want to play in person). And yes, I've done it; there was a player I GMed for for years who had some seriously irritating things he brought to the table because I could also count on him to keep the game moving when other people stalled out.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It isn't practicality because you aren't compelled to do it out of, well, practical factors (that tends to be things like "who lives close enough" or "who has a place we can play" at least for people who still want to play in person). And yes, I've done it; there was a player I GMed for for years who had some seriously irritating things he brought to the table because I could also count on him to keep the game moving when other people stalled out.

Than ultimately what they brought to the table was desirable for you, because you valued it more than not having to deal with the irritating things they do.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah? Like, I don't see Session 0 Lines and Veils as a trade off. I wasn't planning to drop sexual assault on the group, nor does it harsh my fun to veil out harm to children or whatever comes up.

Well, the broader point is that trade-offs exist, in-general, even if none of the specific examples given apply to you or me or any particular person in the discussion.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

I gotta admit I don't fully understand...or maybe 'sympathize with' is a better way of expressing it...the importance placed on roleplaying non-human races in distinctive ways. I get that those races absolutely could have distinctive traits/behaviors, and it doesn't even have to be explained biologically, but why is it so important that other people roleplay it that way? What's wrong with someone just wanting to imagine their character look a certain way.

...

I can only speak for what I get out of the thread, so to answer your question I would say = This thread isn't about and for that person answer type.

That is to say, the topic of the thread is "What makes setting lore "actually matter" to the players?"

And if the person answers this with "Lore does not matter and reason for lore does not matter" = then nothing in this thread is going to be relevant outside of that. Nothing in this topic would address folks who just dont need or care about lore as a tool for character aspect purpose.

Flipping the question to be "why is someone saying lore must be important to everyone" = isn't correct, and isn't a valid opinion as its not the purpose point, or topic at all.

A better way to consider it would be "I dont care about lore or race purpose, so what would get me to think that does matter?" = that is on topic! That is a relevant part of the question.

There is nothing qualitative about the thread topic for those who dont think it need to matter. because all playstyles and interested in or lack of interest in, are valid.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I can only speak for what I get out of the thread, so to answer your question I would say = This thread isn't about and for that person answer type.

That is to say, the topic of the thread is "What makes setting lore "actually matter" to the players?"

And if the person answers this with "Lore does not matter and reason for lore does not matter" = then nothing in this thread is going to be relevant outside of that. Nothing in this topic would address folks who just dont need or care about lore as a tool for character aspect purpose.

But who is saying that "Lore does not matter and reason for lore does not matter"? I might have missed someone but as far as I can tell literally no one (and certainly not me) is saying that.

However I am outright saying that good lore engages players and bad lore loses them. And that a lot of lore, even quite highly praised and read lore (WoD metaplot I'm looking at you) inhibits rather than inspires players and lowers the stakes and thus investment in the setting. Also that allowing the players to add to lore rather than keeping tight control of it helps make good lore.

 

[Umbran]

If you choose to play a species that has a particular place in the lore of the setting in which you are playing, but you also choose to ignore that lore in your own characterization, I'm going to want an in-setting explanation why or I'm going to be irritated.

Leaving game-world history lore aside, for a moment...

Lore, typically, speaks in generalizations - it presents stereotypes. Insisting that stereotypes apply to all specific individuals seems, in terms applicable to your personal preferred style, like questionable simulation.

I'm open to ideas from that player, but I want more than just "I thought it would be cool".

You get to want what you want, of course. But, in the context of trade offs, "must abide by the GM's views on details of my character's behavior," would probably look like a notable trade-off to lots of players. When presented with stringent restrictions, they're going to want to get some payoff for it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Leaving game-world history lore aside, for a moment...

Lore, typically, speaks in generalizations - it presents stereotypes. Insisting that stereotypes apply to all specific individuals seems, in terms applicable to your personal preferred style, like questionable simulation.



You get to want what you want, of course. But, in the context of trade offs, "must abide by the GM's views on details of my character's behavior," would probably look like a notable trade-off to lots of players. When presented with stringent restrictions, they're going to want to get some payoff for it.

That's not what I said. I said I want more than, "I thought it was cool", if that characterization flies in the face of the setting lore for that species and the player can't be bothered to come up with a single in-setting reason as to why. And I'm to work with the player and help them find that reason. I personally don't think that's too much to ask.