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

[GobHag]

Part of the problem with races other than human is that there are no players that are non-human.

The issue is that I--the circus troupe character player--don't see this as a problem at all.

 

[TiQuinn]

The issue is that I--the circus troupe character player--don't see this as a problem at all.

Yeah, I’m not that much of a role player to concern myself with whether I can get into the head of a non-human character, and I’m not gonna really try. I’m going to have fun playing the character I want to play, first and foremost.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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".

When you're talking about it--as that poster appears to be--in the context of what the players are doing and why--of course it is. Otherwise you're just projecting your wants on other people and being annoyed they're not supplying what you want.

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?"

And my suggestion is "If you want other people to start playing in a way that will suit you, for the most part you are doomed to disappointment." Most of them don't care about the same things you do, and you trying to tell them they should is not going to change that.

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...

No. I will quote the bolded line from the first post:

"And it got me thinking---what qualities must lore possess to rise to the level of "actually mattering" in play?
Or perhaps put another way, what qualities must players perceive about lore for them to consider it as "actually mattering" in play?"

One doesn't have to like that the answer to that for many people is "For many people it simply won't" for that to still be true. The fact Innerdude followed that up with his own feelings did not change the actual question he posed at the start of the thread, which was not dependent on others sharing his position. If he--or you--wanted the thread to be framed only in terms of people sharing your views, it needed to be asked in that way.

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).

I don't think it says any such thing. And I've explained why over the course of the thread. If you disagree, you do.

 

[SableWyvern]

A lot of this conversation seems to be begging the question, to me.

If I like a setting, if I'm inspired to run a game in that setting, then I will do so. If I, as a GM, count as a player for the purposes of this discussion, then I can't really answer the question with anything more than saying that what makes the lore matter is the fact that it inspires me to want to run a game. But there is no set list of things that will do this -- I take each game on it's merits. Once you dig down at all, the things that interest me about Mythic Bastionland and the things that interest me about the 1e Savage Frontier have almost no crossover.

My players trust that if I'm inspired to run a game, they'll almost certainly enjoy playing it. I don't really make any effort to ensure the lore "matters" to the players, but if they buy into the game and participate in it, then the aspects of the lore that are relevant to the campaign that eventuates will matter because they're relevant to the campaign we're participating in.

If the question is what ensures they matter or are relevant ... I don't get it? If you're playing in a setting, the facts of the setting are going to matter when the PCs interact with the world. How can they not?

If the question is more like, "How do you make the dramatic pre-historical events the author has poured their heart and soul into describing, matter?" then my answer is, you either ensure during the design process that they're relevant in some way to what's happening right now, or they aren't aren't going to matter to the players. And that's OK. Why does it need to matter?

 

[payn]

For me (trying to explain my own insanity here, lol) , and this is just my own thoughts of why Forgotten Realms/Golarion very much made matters worse....

Let's look at the Tengu.

There is absolutely nothing about their lore that could not be swapped out with humans from country X. The fact they lay eggs, and have feathers = absolutely of no consequence or value to their 1000+ years of culture, evolution, and purpose in the world.

You can remove this race entirely and nothing of the world even notices.

You can say the same for every species in every setting in every genre.

So the game has to become more generic, such that Tengu can live amongst humans, fit into human architecture, and have no function aside from whatever other people are up to.

This incredible lack of limitation or defining purpose is the very thing I rail against in fantasy.

They just don't matter.

And adding a hundred new things that don't matter is not adding depth or fun to a game. to me.

To you, is pretty key. You seem to ignore quite a bit of whats available. Though, I think that outlines a large missing piece of the puzzle. A lot of what makes species unique is what folks bring to the table. I dont think the setting material itself can actually deliver something that matters.

....

Entire ecosystems are build around how birds seed habitats, how eggs create predatory chains, how feathers determine species practices and habits - all surface things that underlay what should come next but never does for fantasy = ok but why?

Why Tengu? because we want humans decorated to look like birds, that's why.

If thats what you got, then you didnt look closely enough.