Lore vs Writing
Video Statistics and Information
Channel: Matthew Colville
Views: 198,884
Rating: 4.9339108 out of 5
Keywords:
Id: EJTGc3w93MU
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 59min 14sec (3554 seconds)
Published: Sun Dec 03 2017
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.
Post-surgery, Matt talks about the importance of driving drama in D&D and how lore serves your game, but isn't the main course.
From a Saturday evening live Twitch stream.
Would have liked to have been there in the chat when someone mentioned making new characters together, and Matt said he feels characters should always be created together at session 0. Then he says that making a character alone is "unsportsmanlike".
To which I was completely bewildered. I would have liked him to expand on that position.
YouTuber Seth Skorkowski described injecting too much lore into a campaign as "Excessive World Building," and listed it as #7 in his Seven Deadly Game Master Sins.
https://youtu.be/NLB8GjRNMFE?t=52
I sort of think after watching this one that he calls lore useless to be provocative. Because everything he is saying is good is also lore.
This should be the difference between useful and useless lore.
Lore floating around in your own mind, lore for the sake of detail is useless. But the name of a flower and the fact that it grows on the tombs of the kind etc is still lore. It is just presented in a way that makes it actually meaningful.
Matt made some excellent points about not needing to fill in all the blanks on something (i.e. the Kessel Run). As the GM I have detailed answers to the lore questions that may pop up, but knowing that you can just let the players imaginations be what answers the question was a refreshing bit of advice.
This video is going to help a lot. I've seen all of his videos up to this one (except for the Critical Role finale) and one thing I had been trying to figure out was how much more to have written down. But I learned that instead of writing a novel for my players to play in, I should write a few major events to reference, some local lords, and the environment they play in. I guess I'm still wondering if there is any other pieces of info I will need for the players, or do I already have too much?
In my world, lore is generally created on demand for each session. So when we go to a town, the lore for that town is written as part of those campaign notes. I've never been at a table when the world-builder had spent more than a couple of hours writing the area's backstory and been able to have fun. In fact, most of my DnD horror stories involve excessive troves of notes on the history of the world. K.I.S.S., KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID! DMing requires flexibility. If you write 800 pages of lore, then you are pigeon holed into those explanations. A good, on the spot DM idea should not be accompanied by internal conflict and a ten minute research expedition into all the DM's ramblings and writings looking for any paradox that might result from inconsistencies with created lore which hasn't even been introduced at the table.
I classify lore into three types: Basics of the Setting, Organic Lore, and Hubristic Lore.
Basics of the Setting is self explanatory. These are the facts of life everyone would and should know. Mostly these are session zero type reveals. Which gods are worshipped, how common magic and technology are, which races are common, climate, and more fall into this group. These are rarely revealed through writing and are generally given to the players up front.
My favorite "Lore" is that which comes from previous campaigns played in the same world. I call that "organic lore". I eat this stuff up, especially if one or more of those players are at the table. Most DM's have references to past characters and in game events show up from time to time. To me, these are the best, and I eat them up. They come across as memories and personal stories rather than fan fiction, and I've seen whole tables on the edge of their seats over it.
I think what Matt is cautioning against, and I could not agree more, is Hubristic Lore. This is written because the World Builder THINKS it is important or just as cool as what the PC's do. He/she thinks the history of seven generations of the servant of... (See, you already stopped caring)... is necessary to appreciate the campaign. This is subtraction by addition. The DM is not the star. The World Builder is not the star. The brooding half demon disposed prince with a thirty page back story who gives quests is not the star. The players are the stars.
Do we have the links he posted in Twitch for !lore and !writing?
Basically: Writing is what makes a setting interesting. Lore is writing's Skeletal System.