D&D 5E Whatever "lore" is, it isn't "rules."

[Maxperson]

But does this mean it's not GH, or FR, or Eberron, unless it follows a script? And what if WotC publishes something tomorrow that changes the script?

I don't think a setting is a script. It's a bundle of names, places, tropes, events - more-or-less canonical, more-or-less paradigmatic.

The 5e DMG handles that question quite well.

 

[pemerton]

From the 5e DMG...

"Even if you're using an established world such as the Forgotten Realms, your campaign takes place in a sort of mirror
universe of the official setting where Forgotten Realms novels, game products, and digital games are assumed to take place. The world is yours to change as you see fit and yours to modify as you explore the consequences of the players' actions"

The game assumes that if you are using a setting, you are using the setting lore. You can change it as you see fit, but the base assumption is that the setting lore is being used.

It puzzles me that this is what you take away from "the world is yours to change as you see fit and . . . to modify as you explore the consequences of the players' actions". Nor is there any suggestion that such modification makes it not Forgotten Realms.

 

[Corpsetaker]

That isn't THE function of D&D settings, though. From the 5e DMG...

"Even if you're using an established world such as the Forgotten Realms, your campaign takes place in a sort of mirror
universe of the official setting where Forgotten Realms novels, game products, and digital games are assumed to take place. The world is yours to change as you see fit and yours to modify as you explore the consequences of the players' actions"

It's a shame that Wizards doesn't seem to follow their own advice.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I would have thought the opposite - they're just MacGuffins. It's elements like the frictionless corridor, the platforms room, the inverted ziggurat, etc that make it WPM, isn't it?


But does this mean it's not GH, or FR, or Eberron, unless it follows a script? And what if WotC publishes something tomorrow that changes the script?

I don't think a setting is a script. It's a bundle of names, places, tropes, events - more-or-less canonical, more-or-less paradigmatic.

Sure, but what you're describing is something tantamount to a lie.

Whereas if someone on these boards says "I'm running FR, but I ignore Elminster, Drizzt and the other over-powerful NPCs" it's pretty clear what they're talking about.

I'm sure there's someone out there who thinks that the Suel origins of the vikings is essential to GH being GH, but I can't imagine that's a very common view. Compared to, say, the Suel and Baklun having fought magical wars that culminated in an Invoked Devastation and the Rain of Colourless Fire - which is a core conceit that underpins the whole pulp/S&S tone of the setting (fallen civilisations and ancient empires whose ruins are still dot the world).

Well, each person will have their own expectations of WPM, R&J, GH, or whatever acronym we choose.

I think that the real point to all of this is:

Expectations and communication.

If I want to run an Alice-in-Wonderland themed Ravenloft, that's fine. As long as I communicate it. Others may not agree it is Ravenloft, but as long as the players know what they are getting into, then it doesn't really matter.

But when starting up a conversation about an established setting, such as Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Star Wars, or discussing something outside of RPG like Romeo & Juliet, the initial expectation is that you are talking about the same thing.The expectation is based on the published material of whatever sort.

So I put up a sign that we're going to be discussion and reading Romeo & Juliet, it would meet my expectations if during the course of that event we discussed West Side Story, but not if the entire event was about West Side Story.

If the event is noted as a discussion on West Side Story and its relationship to Romeo & Juliet, that's different.

Better communication, whether it be the title, subtitle, or supporting information, or the explanation that's given after you say, "I'm running an Ravenloft campaign" is what's really important. Because expectations can have a very powerful effect on how somebody perceives what follows.

Personally, I try to avoid having expectations when I go to experience something, because it's really projecting what you think onto the event, instead of experiencing the event as presented. But I'm also smart enough to know that most people will have expectations, and that with an established entity like a campaign setting, those expectations will carry some weight for those people.

Getting back to the original conversation, lore is important in the sense that it helps set expectations. It provides a framework for us to have a conversation, or run a game, without having to spend the time getting everybody up to speed. The more that the event or campaign differentiates itself from "canon," the more time you're likely going to have to address the differences, or at the very least set different expectations.

It's already been pointed out how Lore can have direct and indirect influence on the rules, and that it's also important for the rules to support and not contradict or undermine the lore.

The lore is what turns the game into more than just, well, a game. The lore can be as simple as a description of the dungeon around you and the monsters you meet. That provides the context that informs you that there is an encounter, and if/when a combat occurs, and then engages the combat rules.

MtG has lots of lore, but the lore isn't required to play the game. It can be played with just the powers of the cards themselves, much like a card game uses the numbers and suits. D&D on the other hand is really dependent upon lore to define the game. Sure, if you're using battle mats and miniatures you can just run a combat without any lore, and turn it into a tactical game that doesn't require any lore. But the description of the world around the characters, however minimal, creates a lore for that game.

Essentially, an RPG, at least in this context (video games would be different, for example), is about the actions of the characters within some sort of setting. That setting is defined by lore.

 

[Corpsetaker]

This whole debate, in my opinion, exposes the need to keep setting specific lore out of the likes of the PHB, DMG, and MM. MM less so because you can always include the little side bar. The rules themselves should be able to be plugged into any setting and off you go. Setting specific rules should be relegated to those books only.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Corpsetaker]

Well, reading a detailed rule book with absolutely no "fluff" or "lore" is an exercise in boredom.

There is certainly a balance in having too much detailed and setting-specific lore in a rulebook, but if you don't have anything fun in there ... well, people won't fully read it.

You can have "fluff" without it being setting specific "lore".

 

[TwoSix]

Well, reading a detailed rule book with absolutely no "fluff" or "lore" is an exercise in boredom.

There is certainly a balance in having too much detailed and setting-specific lore in a rulebook, but if you don't have anything fun in there ... well, people won't fully read it.

Yep, there's a reason most RPGs (that aren't D&D derived) are either built around an explicit setting or have an implicit setting. I don't have too many RPGs that are purely generic, but the one I can think of (FATE Core) has a fully developed campaign built into the book for all of its examples of play. It's just obvious that it's not intended to be something the reader would play in themselves.

 

[Lanefan]

... and that Strahd is more like the Cheshire Cat. ...

A vampiric Cheshire Cat.

Now you've got me thinking......

Lan-"...until only the grin was left, and then it bites..."-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Correct. You are free to create a Greyhawk game that is loosely based on Greyhawk. That's the result if you alter too much of the lore that makes Greyhawk what it is.

Where we differ, I think, is in how much alteration we accept before feeling the need to call it something other than Greyhawk. I know but little about Greyhawk's canon lore and thus as a player I don't really care what you do to it as long as the end result is reasonably consistent within itself. As a DM, not only do I not worry o'ermuch about sticking to the canon lore (see my Eberron examples upthread) but in fact I want to change it in order to make it new and different - and thus worth exploring and learning about - for anyone who's already familiar with that-setting-as-written who might wander into the game.

Lan-"loose canon on deck"-efan