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

[zakael19]

Oh god do I feel the urge to cross the red line into current politics to refute that assertion...

Or just actual history, right? Im reading a fantastic book on medieval history and it makes a point of noting how often histories by various of-the-time sources make the effort to create mythical tie-ins for rulers and peoples (check out the Lebor Gabala Erann / "Book of Invasions" which more or less invents an entire history of the Gaelic Irish whole cloth, or many royal-tied writers drawing on religious and secular imagery together to create a chain running from Jerusalem and Rome twined to anoint their sponsor).

I was reading some fantastic posts the other day on Reddit about how perfectly messy The Elder Scrolls' in-game lore books are, because each one is written from the perspective of different peoples or even different sects or figures within a single people (and coupled with the fact that a bunch of the foundational stuff was Bethesda-fan-sourced or done by both employees and contractors!). It hits far more like the absurd mess of a real world than most fantasy stuff I've seen as a result.

If I wanted to point at a setting that sets more canon but is somewhere as messy, I might look at Dolmenwood. It has a pretty compact set of foundational lore to present players, but points out in the campaign book how each faction either knows different Truths or opinions about the world, and in some cases is actively suppressing things (eg: about certain bits of arcane lore, or the history of old gods of the wood, or the fact that the human and Breggle relationship is fairly Norman conquering the Saxons in vibe).

 

[Retros_x]

Never give them lore straight, filter it through a narrator, Grantus the sage said "...." and the like. Or you recall from your studies that "...."
History is often unreliable and contradicts.

I mean obviously, I don't just load as the DM some lore drops. The lore should always come from a gameable context, but especially if it came from a successful investigation/research/history check whatever, it feels cheap to excuse your DM mishap by telling the players their successful action was not so successful after all. In that regard I think its just better to stand up for your mistake.

And I prefer to give players reliable information in most cases, even if its "unrealistic". They misunderstand information all the time anyway, communicating the shared imagination is hard enough.

 

[Retros_x]

Factual history, such as who reigned when and what years the red comet appeared, should be fairly reliable in any society a) whose language has a written form and b) puts any value on recordkeeping.

That is plainly not true in the real world. Even with a question as "who reigned when" that seems to be "objective and factual" the answer in the history books is heavily dependent on if the lore keepers recognize a ruler as a rightful rulership. I think realism is not a good point here.

I would advise to tell players the truth about the lore not for realistic reasons, but pure gameplay reasons. Communicating the shared fiction between DM and players is hard enough. My advice is to keep it straight and keep red herrings, lies, wrong lore etc. to a minimum, especially if the lie itself is not an important plot point.

 

[pemerton]

I think some of this comes down to how we personally decide our expectations.

When I go out to dinner with friends, I'm not expecting to go to my favorite restaurant. I'm expecting everyone to have some opinions and we'll come up with an option acceptable to everyone. But I don't think the fact I'm not going to my favorite restaurant is a trade-off, because I'm prioritizing the socialization over the food experience.

Likewise with a game table. I go to the game table hoping to have a fun time with friends; if the game we choose is one of my personal preferences, all the better. But that isn't the point of the game. Socialization first, game second. So thinking of that game selection in terms of a "trade-off" simply doesn't enter into it, because I had no particular goal of what game experience I would be having.

This resonates with me, even though the game of the RPG is very important to me. Because the game itself is a social thing, in the sense that it's a joint creative activity. That's one way in which it's different from going out to dinner - the food I eat at a restaurant is (at least largely) a discrete good for me, which (at least largely) independent of the food my friend eats, which is a distinct discrete good for them.

But our RPGing is a collective good, that we create together.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Factual history, such as who reigned when and what years the red comet appeared, should be fairly reliable in any society a) whose language has a written form and b) puts any value on recordkeeping.

Not necessarily, the names of kings/queen have on occasion be chiselled out of the record (literally in the case of one Pharoh. at least the public facing record) and I have come across references that the archaeological record of contemporary writings on divinatory bone shards being at odds with the official histories as handed down (again suggesting some editing had occurred).
The history of the kings of Rome is regarded with suspicion by modern historians and there is some archaeological evidence that the Romans also fibbed about the early republican Gallic invasion.
Modern Japanese school history books concerning WWII and various Soviet histories during and post Stalin.

In a typical RPG setting, the longer-lived species would seem to make the best such lore-keepers. For play purposes, a player-visible document or webpage containing such basic factual info can be really useful.

Politics, my dear boy, politics and spin. Are the elven sages account of the history of the Elven Dwarf wars accurate or self-justifying. Their accounts of their treatment of the early human tribes are at odds with the human legends, are they accurate?

Then there are the effects of upheavals, both natural and sapient made, along with the difficulties of maintaining archives before modern climate control and materials. When was the history written and by whom and to what purpose.
If the only remaining written histories of medieval England were Shakespear's plays, that would put a different light in events than what we have from other sources.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I mean obviously, I don't just load as the DM some lore drops. The lore should always come from a gameable context, but especially if it came from a successful investigation/research/history check whatever, it feels cheap to excuse your DM mishap by telling the players their successful action was not so successful after all. In that regard I think its just better to stand up for your mistake.

And I prefer to give players reliable information in most cases, even if its "unrealistic". They misunderstand information all the time anyway, communicating the shared imagination is hard enough.

I never said to use unreliable lore to make a success into a fail but unless you really screwed up and misrepresented a vital clue or element of the main plot (in which case you should own up, but minor nitpicks, historians make mistakes as do DMs). You could even own to the mistake but still keep it in the lore.
I would never use something like that to screw with the players, as it is an abuse of DM power, but I have come to heartily dislike the general idea that lore should be completely consistent. This is neither realistic or useful and at best is useless pedantry, at worst it is used for gatekeeping.

My goto exemplar for lore usage is the main series of Stargate, SG1, where events (and decisions and expedients of the team) in filler episodes from seasons 1 and 2 came back to bite them in later episodes.
It is why I like that lore, in 5e is presented by in universe characters, it allows for loose edges and there may be stories in those discrepancies.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

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


...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.

Some people simply do not like lore, just like they do not like history. It is why so many that liked Lord of the Rings bounce of the Silmarillion.

That said, I think that rpgs are a bad medium for lore, especially for players. Unless the players are into lore themselves and do homework, reading up on the lore away from the table. At the table they have a pretty substantial cognitive load in responding to the situation presented by the DM, in maintaining character, managing their character sheet, following the clues and plot hooks to the next thing.
Contrast this to a book, where all you focus is on the book and all the information is presented to you. You, the reader can just read and experience the book and it the cognitive load get too much one can put the book down and just think about it.
Movies are even easier, because a lot of the elements that support lore and provide context are visually presented, in the acting and the background.

DMs are a different matter to player, they are more inclined to be attracted by lore, world building is often a thing that draws people into running game and they will sit down and read a book of lore as research to a game background.