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

[Bill Zebub]

I can only speak for myself, but my stake is that other species that are functionally treated as humans have a tendency to edge into becoming like analogies or allegories for real life ethnicities, which I find kind of questionable. A thought I had recently is that if a character comes from an analogue to a real life culture, I’d much rather they be human than otherwise. Making, say, a China-like nation majority gnome opens the door to way too many headaches in my observations.

This of course isn’t inevitable when using species for aesthetics, but I found it after goes hand in hand.

Ok, I hadn't thought of that, and haven't observed that happening, but let's say it can happen...it sounds like you are aware of and alert to that possibility. Isn't that enough to prevent it from happening at your table? What am I missing?

 

[Umbran]

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.

The, "can't be bothered" is a characterization loaded with presumptions.

I will repeat - the setting lore for a species is typically a stereotype. Real sentients vary widely in behavior. If this is supposed to be a simulation of something like real people, we should not expect individuals to adhere to a stereotype any more than we should expect humans to adhere to the various cultural stereotypes we have about them.

Not having a specific justification for playing other than the bog standard stereotype is less an indication of "couldn't be bothered" than it is an indication that the player doesn't feel a justification should be necessary or required.

I personally don't think that's too much to ask.

So, the base question of the thread is, "What makes lore matter to the players?"
You are the GM in this scenario. "The GM thinks it isn't too much to ask," is not a selling point to a player.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I will repeat - the setting lore for a species is typically a stereotype. Real sentients vary widely in behavior. If this is supposed to be a simulation of something like real people, we should not expect individuals to adhere to a stereotype any more than we should expect humans to adhere to the various cultural stereotypes we have about them.

This is the point I was trying to make with my thought experiments about playing humans in varied ways. We accept a huge variety of personality types with humans...in fact we encourage and even expect players to come up with something more interesting than standard tropes. And yet we expect non-humans to conform to expectations/norms? Seems like a weird double standard.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Ok, I hadn't thought of that, and haven't observed that happening, but let's say it can happen...it sounds like you are aware of and alert to that possibility. Isn't that enough to prevent it from happening at your table? What am I missing?

The history of D&D especially in the TSR era. oD&D and Keep on the Borderlands is basically a fantasy Western with the orcs and co standing in for Native Americans - and that's before we get into e.g. Mystara.

 

[Fifinjir]

Ok, I hadn't thought of that, and haven't observed that happening, but let's say it can happen...it sounds like you are aware of and alert to that possibility. Isn't that enough to prevent it from happening at your table? What am I missing?

Well, yes, I’d be able to counter it I think. The guideline I thought of earlier would be part of that managing if I implement it.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Hm. I am pretty sure you are wrong, in an "assuming the conclusion" sort of way.

I think you entirely misread my post. Like, entirely.

What is the point of the question? Why do we ask what makes setting lore actually matter to the player?"

I expect I speak for many when I answer: We ask, because in general, lore qua lore doesn't matter! Lore only matters to players in specific, rather than in general. We want to know what those specifics might be, so we can target our lore creation and use, rather than waste our time on lore that won't matter.

...Considering your reply is the same point I was also making. I think, in part, we are in agreement, you are just wording it different. Which is fine.

I am interested in what makes folks not like lore. I am also interested in hearing what makes folks resist getting into lore. And for those who never care about lore, what might perk their interest in lore... and much more.

I am not interested in convincing folks that that lore is required for all games and players.