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

[RenleyRenfield]

I generally despise lore as irrelevant self-aggrandizing microfiction. That's one of the reasons why I dislike World of Darkness and preferred other games like C.J. Carella's WitchCraft, New World of Darkness/Chronicles of Darkness, and Nephilim.

I adore WitchCraft for its broad flexible setting that more or less reflects how urban fantasy fiction was written, without all the weirdo baggage that I disliked about World of Darkness.
...

I thought Chronicles was pretty neat, even though I didn't agree with every creative decision. It wasn't WitchCraft, but it had its charms.

By contrast, I found my myself drawn to Nephilim for opposite reasons. That game has a lot of lore, especially in the original French version. Usually I dislike lore for being irrelevant self-aggrandizing microfiction, and to be fair a lot of the French lore seems to be exactly that.
...

This post brings up interesting points I was thinking about... not aimed at anyone in general, but as an aside to what makes lore matter to players... it also worth noting the way some people can become too hard-lined on lore.

Liking lore from one edition to another and not agreeing with all the changes is fine.

But nothing is worse than that kind of awful person who runs to scream from the hills of changes in lore they don't like. Or changes in lore that they think changes some aspect of the game they overly obsess over. As if their entitled opinion is the only that matters. They have nothing good to say of changes, even ones they would greatly benefit from.

I am not talking about morally or ethically problematic changes.

I am talking about the kinds of changes this person pointed out enjoying in their post. Ones that were made in earnest to make the game better, more fun, and involve a wider array of stories and player ideas.
Moving from oWoD to nWoD = there were good changes to the lore! Some of which greatly changes the games lore.

And with a little effort a player could bring back in older stuff they liked. Players and GMs alter lore often anyway.

It's ok to like old lore, it's ok to like the new lore.
It's ok for there to be changes to the lore.
Games need to evolve, and that means often changing the lore.

I just don't think its good or wise to disparage a game just because it is trying to improve - even if it misses a few spots that people liked. It will always have a lot more it improved on for sure.

Never disparage a game because you don't like the new lore. Other people like those changes, and we should respect that. Just talk about what you loved, find ways to bring it back in, and embrace the new that certainly has more benefits than the old did.