Are you more into the lore than the players are? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Are you more into the lore than the players are? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Gryllmyre
10-15-04, 03:04 PM Many times when I would read through a module (especially in 2e with all of the unified storylines), I would grin and get excited about all of backstory about why things are happening the way they are, and the impact it is all leading up to.

Yet when it comes time to referee the actual campaign, the players don't seem the least bit interested in that aspect of it. They would pursue some other aspect to roleplay, or just roll their dice and look for treasure. Many parts of the lore go unused and unexplored.

Sometimes it makes me feel like I'm concentrating on the wrong aspects as I'm studying the dungeon.

One person told me that even though the players aren't really paying any attention to the lore or the meaning behind it all, that my passion for it comes out in the playtime and ultimately makes for a fuller experience for the players.

What's your take?
olshanski_home
10-15-04, 03:16 PM First, let me preface this by saying that it is my opinion. The original post asked for opinions, and I am giving mine. Therefore, you can disagree with my opinion, by my opinion is not "wrong"... (nor is it "right" for that matter). I am not trolling and not trying to incite flames. If you have an opinion different than mine, please say so without dragging me personally into it.

Ahem:

If the backstory does not have any impact on the current adventure, it is a waste and I can't blame the players for not being interested in it.

Example:
There is an artifact in the dungeon that the players need to recover.
The reason it is there is of no importance to the players, unless there are clues in the backstory that the players need for the mission... for example, if the entity that placed the artifact was amphibious, the players can expect that they may have to go underwater at some point, or that the artifact may be in a submerged room.

If an artifact was placed by King Leopold The IV, the illigitimate son of King Henry the XI... who was actually part of a red-dragon bloodline and who made a pact with an eyrinees.... but none of that extra information comes into play in the adventure, it is pretty much useless to the players.

One fault that some people (including me) found with 2nd edition adventures is that they had more back-story than adventure. A great backstory does not make up for a mediocre adventure, and it was a flaw of several 2nd edition adventures.

There are a number of companies that produced products that they claimed were "1st edition feel"... such as Necromancer Games and Goodman Games "Dungeon Crawl Classics" series... the appeal of these games is not only nostalgia, but the emphasis on the current adventure instead of fluffy and useless backstory.

For the most part, the 3rd edition adventures by WOTC do a good job of only telling as much of the backstory as necessary for the adventure. This is the way it should be. If you want additional backstory, you should be purchasing the WOTC novels.
Magnus029
10-15-04, 03:33 PM IMHO I can tell you that about half my group does care and the other half only want to kill something. I love the back story and history of the adventure.

Maybe that is why we are on the other side of the table.
PenderGrass
10-15-04, 04:01 PM First, let me preface this by saying that it is my opinion. The original post asked for opinions, and I am giving mine. Therefore, you can disagree with my opinion, by my opinion is not "wrong"... (nor is it "right" for that matter). I am not trolling and not trying to incite flames. If you have an opinion different than mine, please say so without dragging me personally into it.
I have to say this is funny.

Why the heck did you feel the need to preface your post like this?

Anyways, I don't think any Player is going to be interested in the Backstory of your World beyond what is affecting them - and even then, they may not be interested as they have no clue HOW it affects them.

The nuances of World History are known to the DM ~ and may have been detailed out in some 300 Gigabyte Database. But, woe to the DM that tries to expound this upon the ears of his Players.

Players show up at your table to play - not to find out the legacy of every nook and cranny of your world, Universe or plethora of planes (although that may happen incidentally).

By far, the DM will always reap the most benefit from knowing what is going on. That is why he will always be one step ahead of the Players. It is neither a waste of time for a DM, nor a requirement to run a game. But some of the best games seem to have some sort of 'living history' that it grows from.

But, never force the PC from his dark hovel or cave into the light - rather let them gaze with wonder at the shadows cast upon their walls. Shadows made from your own enlightenment illuminating the reality of your world. Let the Players squirm in their insipidly insisted-upon ignorance.

'Ware the Player forcibly removed from his darkened habitat - often his fear of reality will kill those thinking to rescue him.

PULL THE STRING! PULL THE STRING!! PULL THE STRING!!!!

****
olshanski_home
10-15-04, 04:07 PM My origional post used some harsh language, referring to loads of backstory which has no impact on an adventure as "crap" and things like that. Apparently I cleaned it up enough before hitting sumbit that my disclaimer was not necessary.

Backstory can be good for a DM who is uncomfortable making things up when the players go astray of a pre-published adventure, but I've seen useless backstory forced down players gullets more times than I care too. I also think that a lot of wanna-be fantasy novelists got thier entry into the market at TSR/Wizards by writing crappy adventures with great backstories.
There was a particular adventure trilogy in 2nd edition, the "Marco Volo" series. I thought that the backstory and writing were excellent, but it was the worst adventure I had ever read from a "playing" standpoint, and I would never subject my players to it.
Board_Rider
10-15-04, 04:13 PM It is my opinion that the backstory is put there for the DM and not so much for the player. The DM can use this info to create different storylines and perhaps go into sonmething else after the "main" adventure is completed. Secondly, it makes for good reading. I would personally want to read something that reads like a story and not stereo instructions. What I mean is reading nothing but diagrams, maps, stats and hooks just aren't that fun too me.

As far as the backstory goes towards the PC's it can be beneficial because the DM has "painted" a better picture for the story and just doesn't say,"Gem,in dungeon,south of here, the small hamlet your in, get,give to king...reward". The backstory gives names, contacts and color.
Gryllmyre
10-15-04, 04:24 PM As an example, I have an appreciation for the history behind how Ravenloft was formed by Strahd and the tragedy of his existence. The players, on the other hand, didn't seem the care the least about Strahd's backstory. So as the final scene played out and Strahd had a chance to join with his long lost love, and the mists took her from him once again and he bellowed out in pain, the players didn't even care.

Vecna Lives! made me really appreciate what followers do for a god, since they played such an important part in the battle between Iuz and Vecna at the end. That was an example of lore playing a crucial part in an actual situation that the PC's could impact.

But I have yet to DM a situation where players are curious to find out more behind why things happen the way they do. It seems the best lore to introduce is the kind where the PC's are caught up in it and they have a chance to make a difference in how the lore is being used. I don't know if that's because the players would rather roll their dice and collect points, or because they don't want to admit to having that kind of interest at the game table.
Magnus029
10-15-04, 05:28 PM I don't know if that's because the players would rather roll their dice and collect points, or because they don't want to admit to having that kind of interest at the game table.

I have to believe the first myself. Though you do sometimes get the Gem who does do the research to unveil why things happen. For example when I was running the freeport setting, I had a player who went and studied up on the history of the city and this intern helped the group solve the mystery.
MortalPlague
10-15-04, 06:15 PM My players have become steadily more interested by the history of my campaigns. I tend to throw strange NPC villains at them, or have nations with a strange culture that they can't help but wonder how it came about.

History is particularly huge in my current campaign, a pirate setting with shipwrecks playing a prominent role. Knowledge of history will help a player find those shipwrecks and discover what they're likely to face. It would also help them search out the long lost treasures of the fallen nations.

History ought to offer something to the players and the world, or else it's just not all that alluring.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gryllmyre 10-15-04, 03:04 PM	Many times when I would read through a module (especially in 2e with all of the unified storylines), I would grin and get excited about all of backstory about why things are happening the way they are, and the impact it is all leading up to. Yet when it comes time to referee the actual campaign, the players don't seem the least bit interested in that aspect of it. They would pursue some other aspect to roleplay, or just roll their dice and look for treasure. Many parts of the lore go unused and unexplored. Sometimes it makes me feel like I'm concentrating on the wrong aspects as I'm studying the dungeon. One person told me that even though the players aren't really paying any attention to the lore or the meaning behind it all, that my passion for it comes out in the playtime and ultimately makes for a fuller experience for the players. What's your take?
olshanski_home 10-15-04, 03:16 PM	First, let me preface this by saying that it is my opinion. The original post asked for opinions, and I am giving mine. Therefore, you can disagree with my opinion, by my opinion is not "wrong"... (nor is it "right" for that matter). I am not trolling and not trying to incite flames. If you have an opinion different than mine, please say so without dragging me personally into it. Ahem: If the backstory does not have any impact on the current adventure, it is a waste and I can't blame the players for not being interested in it. Example: There is an artifact in the dungeon that the players need to recover. The reason it is there is of no importance to the players, unless there are clues in the backstory that the players need for the mission... for example, if the entity that placed the artifact was amphibious, the players can expect that they may have to go underwater at some point, or that the artifact may be in a submerged room. If an artifact was placed by King Leopold The IV, the illigitimate son of King Henry the XI... who was actually part of a red-dragon bloodline and who made a pact with an eyrinees.... but none of that extra information comes into play in the adventure, it is pretty much useless to the players. One fault that some people (including me) found with 2nd edition adventures is that they had more back-story than adventure. A great backstory does not make up for a mediocre adventure, and it was a flaw of several 2nd edition adventures. There are a number of companies that produced products that they claimed were "1st edition feel"... such as Necromancer Games and Goodman Games "Dungeon Crawl Classics" series... the appeal of these games is not only nostalgia, but the emphasis on the current adventure instead of fluffy and useless backstory. For the most part, the 3rd edition adventures by WOTC do a good job of only telling as much of the backstory as necessary for the adventure. This is the way it should be. If you want additional backstory, you should be purchasing the WOTC novels.
Magnus029 10-15-04, 03:33 PM	IMHO I can tell you that about half my group does care and the other half only want to kill something. I love the back story and history of the adventure. Maybe that is why we are on the other side of the table.
PenderGrass 10-15-04, 04:01 PM	First, let me preface this by saying that it is my opinion. The original post asked for opinions, and I am giving mine. Therefore, you can disagree with my opinion, by my opinion is not "wrong"... (nor is it "right" for that matter). I am not trolling and not trying to incite flames. If you have an opinion different than mine, please say so without dragging me personally into it. I have to say this is funny. Why the heck did you feel the need to preface your post like this? Anyways, I don't think any Player is going to be interested in the Backstory of your World beyond what is affecting them - and even then, they may not be interested as they have no clue HOW it affects them. The nuances of World History are known to the DM ~ and may have been detailed out in some 300 Gigabyte Database. But, woe to the DM that tries to expound this upon the ears of his Players. Players show up at your table to play - not to find out the legacy of every nook and cranny of your world, Universe or plethora of planes (although that may happen incidentally). By far, the DM will always reap the most benefit from knowing what is going on. That is why he will always be one step ahead of the Players. It is neither a waste of time for a DM, nor a requirement to run a game. But some of the best games seem to have some sort of 'living history' that it grows from. But, never force the PC from his dark hovel or cave into the light - rather let them gaze with wonder at the shadows cast upon their walls. Shadows made from your own enlightenment illuminating the reality of your world. Let the Players squirm in their insipidly insisted-upon ignorance. 'Ware the Player forcibly removed from his darkened habitat - often his fear of reality will kill those thinking to rescue him. PULL THE STRING! PULL THE STRING!! PULL THE STRING!!!! ****
olshanski_home 10-15-04, 04:07 PM	My origional post used some harsh language, referring to loads of backstory which has no impact on an adventure as "crap" and things like that. Apparently I cleaned it up enough before hitting sumbit that my disclaimer was not necessary. Backstory can be good for a DM who is uncomfortable making things up when the players go astray of a pre-published adventure, but I've seen useless backstory forced down players gullets more times than I care too. I also think that a lot of wanna-be fantasy novelists got thier entry into the market at TSR/Wizards by writing crappy adventures with great backstories. There was a particular adventure trilogy in 2nd edition, the "Marco Volo" series. I thought that the backstory and writing were excellent, but it was the worst adventure I had ever read from a "playing" standpoint, and I would never subject my players to it.
Board_Rider 10-15-04, 04:13 PM	It is my opinion that the backstory is put there for the DM and not so much for the player. The DM can use this info to create different storylines and perhaps go into sonmething else after the "main" adventure is completed. Secondly, it makes for good reading. I would personally want to read something that reads like a story and not stereo instructions. What I mean is reading nothing but diagrams, maps, stats and hooks just aren't that fun too me. As far as the backstory goes towards the PC's it can be beneficial because the DM has "painted" a better picture for the story and just doesn't say,"Gem,in dungeon,south of here, the small hamlet your in, get,give to king...reward". The backstory gives names, contacts and color.
Gryllmyre 10-15-04, 04:24 PM	As an example, I have an appreciation for the history behind how Ravenloft was formed by Strahd and the tragedy of his existence. The players, on the other hand, didn't seem the care the least about Strahd's backstory. So as the final scene played out and Strahd had a chance to join with his long lost love, and the mists took her from him once again and he bellowed out in pain, the players didn't even care. Vecna Lives! made me really appreciate what followers do for a god, since they played such an important part in the battle between Iuz and Vecna at the end. That was an example of lore playing a crucial part in an actual situation that the PC's could impact. But I have yet to DM a situation where players are curious to find out more behind why things happen the way they do. It seems the best lore to introduce is the kind where the PC's are caught up in it and they have a chance to make a difference in how the lore is being used. I don't know if that's because the players would rather roll their dice and collect points, or because they don't want to admit to having that kind of interest at the game table.
Magnus029 10-15-04, 05:28 PM	I don't know if that's because the players would rather roll their dice and collect points, or because they don't want to admit to having that kind of interest at the game table. I have to believe the first myself. Though you do sometimes get the Gem who does do the research to unveil why things happen. For example when I was running the freeport setting, I had a player who went and studied up on the history of the city and this intern helped the group solve the mystery.
MortalPlague 10-15-04, 06:15 PM	My players have become steadily more interested by the history of my campaigns. I tend to throw strange NPC villains at them, or have nations with a strange culture that they can't help but wonder how it came about. History is particularly huge in my current campaign, a pirate setting with shipwrecks playing a prominent role. Knowledge of history will help a player find those shipwrecks and discover what they're likely to face. It would also help them search out the long lost treasures of the fallen nations. History ought to offer something to the players and the world, or else it's just not all that alluring.