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

[Lanefan]

The thread title drew me in but I wasn't expecting the OP to focus so closely on species-based lore and differences. On that front I agree with the OP in that I too am happy to stick with just the Tolkein basics as far as PC-playable species goes, and while the species have their own lore in my setting it's almost never relevant in play (other than divine stuff, see below).

Instead, IME the lore "really matters to the players" in two very common instances:

--- players who wish to play Clerics or Paladins (or similar) need to interact with the setting lore in order to decide on their deity or pantheon and then roleplay their worship of that deity; ditto perhaps for classes or characters that come with a Patron of some sort. This one's pretty obvious.
--- when the lore directly informs the current story, adventure, mission, or what-have-you and the players in-character thus need to research into that lore. Usually, this means looking into the in-setting history of how and why things got to the point they're at now in order to provide a better or clearer idea of what best to do next, and can be on a micro or macro scale. Sometimes instead it means looking into the lore in order to (try to) assess what future effects their current actions might produce.

The only other time setting lore tends to rear its head is in fits and starts during downtime activities, when the PCs interact with elements of the non-adventuring population and-or places in the setting.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Rightly so! That was really my point. A player who chooses "elf" as a heritage in a Tolkienesque world, without using that character choice to dramatically inform the character's personality traits and worldviews, is doing the exact same thing as the person choosing the turtle.

Which of course begs the question, why have races/heritages at all if they're just window dressing and a stat bonus, with zero dynamic representation from the player with regards to the setting lore? Which was @RenleyRenfield 's contention just up thread.

Well, the simple answer to that for at least some people is that they like the set dressing and stat bonus. They don't need another reason. (And of course not every game ever does bother with races and heritages, or at least make a big deal out of them. D&D historically has, but that's as much tradition as anything else. I've run fantasy games with no player-character nonhumans at all).

His point mirrors mine---I'm to the point now where I can barely tolerate races/heritages AT ALL---even the Tolkienesque ones. They're all equally lazy without A) player-backed consideration of what a choice of race/heritage means to their portrayal, and B) a setting that makes the lore behind that race/heritage meaningful in a way that directly impacts play.

Since my players can't be bothered to creatively construct and portray unique character traits based on race/heritage, and 99.9% of campaign settings don't provide the proper context/background/cultural relevance to make heritage differentiation matter, then let's just get rid of the construct entirely. Doesn't matter if it's the Tolkienesque "defaults" or Daggerheart's "frog people" / "turtle people" / "mushroom people". The construct doesn't serve the purpose. If it's varying stat bonuses the players want, then just let them mod the stat bonuses as a human character.

The answer to this is "You're not wrong, but your wants aren't all that's in play here."

 

[payn]

Yeah, I may not have given good explanations around the examples I shared.

I mentioned race/heritages because for me they represent one of the main points, which is that I find that they ultimately don't matter in play.

It's basically me putting forth the proposition of, "The races/heritages included in a given setting should have some kind of representation and meaning within the fiction of that setting---stylistically, thematically, and culturally."

IMO, most fantasy settings fail at establishing that proposition in a way that's meaningful to either players or GM. (A further contention might be that establishing thematic/cultural significance through "alternate humanistic views" can often be futile/fruitless anyway, since most compelling themes are based on universal abstractions of a moral property, but that's neither here nor there. )

I think there is a lot of relying on the tried and true recipes and not trying to step in it when constructing a unique species and it's culture. Like the D&D setting with formerly enslaved monkey minstrel people. I mean, good god who thought that up even in the 80's or 90's? I think more effort is making the setting an interesting place for anyone to be and let the players themselves fill in the uniqueness. Which, yeah, raises a chicken and egg question about who should supply the spice.

Though, a lot of folks play these games for white hat vs. black hat gaming. They just want a small town with a mayor named infodump and a neon sign saying "dungeon that way." You need to somehow appeal to both those singular midned players but also those interested in lore becasue its a mistake to assume everyone wants lore beyond commonly trodded tropes.

Long story short, species are often boring becasue they dont need to be interesting to get some/many people to play.

Could it be more...
"if you are playing MERP" then tolkien is not a trope, it is the 'thing', its origin.

but if you are using 'elves' in Golarion, yeah, totally 100% trope shallowness.

Which is funny because species such as Kitsune, Tengu, and even changlings exist within Golarion. Part of that I believe is the trope shallowness is an on ramp to the casual player with Tolkien-ish species, where these other species are lesser known and thus ripe for Paizo's own interpretation. Players naturally tend to gravitate to the rare ones with interesting lore and away from yesterdays same ol same ol. Pathfinder provides both the comfort of the well trodden and known, but also the spice of variety and uniqueness.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

The answer to this is "You're not wrong, but your wants aren't all that's in play here."

This isn't a valid point in any way. Every argument ever made always comes with a caveat of "there is some exception somewhere."
And, the point never was to say "everyone must agree to this need".


The question is boiled down to: "why are things this way?" and "how did we get here" and "Are we stuck here or is there opportunity?"

The topic came up as "Here are reasons to avoid Golarion/Forgotten Realms" esque settings... generic fantasy settings. Even more so (maybe?) in the "D&D mechanic" arena...

ergo... "why are things this way?" and "how did we get here" and "Are we stuck here or is there opportunity?"

Again, as I stated earlier, there is by and large the most desired part of ttrpg can be seen as Lore... which not only isn't refuted, but is backed up by an overwhelming majority of games having Lore (and some even having mechanics to back it up).

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Which is funny because species such as Kitsune, Tengu, and even changlings exist within Golarion. Part of that I believe is the trope shallowness is an on ramp to the casual player with Tolkien-ish species, where these other species are lesser known and thus ripe for Paizo's own interpretation. Players naturally tend to gravitate to the rare ones with interesting lore and away from yesterdays same ol same ol. Pathfinder provides both the comfort of the well trodden and known, but also the spice of variety and uniqueness.

A thought here though = since the question was against favor of generic fantasy, the idea is that "slapping on some more races like kenku" = didn't fix the problems suggest with generic fantasy. So... why didn't it?

How did we get more stuff, and less value?

How did we get more spells and races, but the worlds got more generic to accommodate them?

 

[payn]

A thought here though = since the question was against favor of generic fantasy, the idea is that "slapping on some more races like kenku" = didn't fix the problems suggest with generic fantasy. So... why didn't it?

It did for me. I cant speak for the OP. My view is that Paizo was able to suit both the generic and unique setting lore.

How did we get more stuff, and less value?

I dont know, I got a lot of value out of it. I'd need to better understand why you didnt to answer beyond that.

How did we get more spells and races, but the worlds got more generic to accommodate them?

I found the opposite to be true. Golarion is able to both encompass the generic same ol Tolkien stuff, while also giving some pretty unique and expanded ideas. It serves many kinds of players.