The Lore Web

[squakhawk 7877]

The Lore Web

This thread discusses the concept of “The Lore Web” and how we can do our best to maintain it.

 

 

The Lore Web is a concept coined rather recently, but one which has been in effect for years. The Lore Web is the idea that all lore is like a web- it interacts with one another in an exchange. There are two states of the lore web that we can really be in. Out of the lore web, and in the lore web. 

To be in the lore web means you are tangled and lost- most lore does not add up to one another or it often contradicts, and reading one piece often leads to reading multiple others. 

To be out of the lore web means that you do not have to run in circles to find lore interactions, and that these actions are often presented to you easily. Oftentimes, writing broad statements such as the grounds for an effect to occur, rather than specific examples, gives one relief that they don’t have to bounce around from piece to piece.

 

Here’s an example of the two.

 

In The Lore Web

In the Druidism lorepiece, it states that Druids cannot learn Necromancy, Naztherak, and Mysticism. This sounds a lot like Druids can’t learn dark magics, or magics which alter the soul, but it doesn’t say that directly. But now there is a hypothetical new rewrite for a new soul-altering darkmagic. Druidism doesn’t say it isn’t compatible with this, even though it is trying to in the original lore. This leads to a discrepancy where it doesn’t make sense for druidism to be able to learn this new soul altering magic, when they now arbitrarily can’t learn those others. 

 

Out of The Lore Web

In the druidism lorepiece, it states Druids cannot learn soul altering magics. In a new submission for a soul altering magic, it does not need to specify it is incompatible with Druidism specifically. It could even counter and say that it is incompatible with deific magics, and still be fine- just that the magic is soul altering. This way, lore is effectively future-proofed, allowing for less headache when both reading and writing new lore.

 

 

---

 

“...Unless otherwise stated”

All lore and lore rules operate under a “...Unless otherwise stated” clause, in which that specific thing applies, until it doesn’t. An example, Aurum is capable of inflicting great pain upon any CA creature. However, some creatures may have reasons to not be weak to Aurum. In their lore, it should specify they are not weak to aurum. If it were not written, the “Unless otherwise stated” clause would kick in, and Aurum would be an effective weakness. 

 

Another potential lore interaction is “Magic Stacking”. A very old term but one with a lot of weight to it. Magic Stacking is a scenario in which a player gathers as many lores as possible (MAs, FAs, CAs) to increase their playerpower. Not quite minmaxing, but along those same lines of bad faith. Magic stacking is a potential when lores are under-costed in slots, or when compatibilities aren’t quite written in. When working on your lore, make sure to include compatibilities or incompatibilities with other lores. It is best if you remain specific on the reasons why, rather than the specifics themselves. For example, you shouldn’t say “My dark magic is incompatible with paladins, druids, shamans, etc etc…” but rather “My dark magic is incompatible with any deific magic EXCEPT xyz because it gives a tainted soul.”. This allows the piece to be future proofed, where say if a new deific magic comes out which allows for tainted souls to connect, you don’t need to write an amendment specifying compatibility. There’s a lot to account for, which makes it best that you focus on power sources and slotting, rather than trying to figure out how to tangle and untangle webs of compatibilities which can be fringe and niche. Overall, make sure your lore is appropriately slotted and with a good compatibilities list to assure a prevention of magic stacking.

 

Magic Targeting is another potential lore interaction. Magic Targeting is when one lore piece may target another lore, either written as a weakness in one piece or as a strength in another. An example of this could be is how Paladinism’s magic is highly effective against dark creatures, which include Azdrazi. While this magics thematic sense and the purpose of that magic, be careful with how you do so. Magic targeting can seem unfair when one group seems to have a massive advantage over another- and while advantages are okay, things should not be entirely one-sided. Rather than shutting down your opponent, focus on exploiting a weakness and a vulnerability to take them down with a fighting chance. We also advise speaking to members of that targeted lore, to make sure that you are fully aware of how to write that target to develop your lore and theirs in good faith and in the interest of good spirited roleplay. 

 

An example of magic targeting, put very shortly, can be something like this.

Paladinism has Xannic Mists which are incredibly effective against certain creatures, Azdrazi being one of them. How do you state in both lores the same thing, perhaps written or even amended at different times, while still maintaining accuracy and being outside the web? Here is how our lore currently tackles this issue.

In the Azdrazi lorepiece, it states Azdrazi are susceptible to Xannic mists, causing extreme pain and fear when wounded, and in touch anxiety and discomfort. This gets to the point, and directly describes what is important for the Azdrazi to know. Chiefly, how their character is affected and how they should roleplay it.

In the Paladinism lorepiece, the lore may not even state Azdrazi directly, outside of mentioning they are one of the creatures affected. It includes information pertinent for the Paladin to know, such as casting, emotes, limitations on their own spell or casting, etc… Only telling them how they apply the effect, and what it should do.