Metaplots - it wasn't just TSR that did them

[Wik]

One of the common complaints of TSR in the 2e era was their judicious use of so-called "metaplots" - essentially, keeping the game world's timeline moving and often changing established settings with new product updates. Often, these changes were brought about through actions in novels, although there were also game line products that could change the setting as well.

In some TSR settings, these product updates would scare away some of the casual gamers - it's hard to keep up with a setting, and they didn't want to spend the necessary money to follow a game's "canon". Many gamers would avoid TSR's settings because they didn't want to see their game be declared obsolete through some change made by TSR (silly thinking, I know, but a lot of gamers felt that way!)

Here's the thing.

It wasn't just TSR that did it. In the 90s, most of the major companies had metaplots (often tied to novels or even TV series!) in their RPG lines. And a lot of non-D&D games still have ongoing metaplots.

Shadowrun springs to mind - this is a game that has so much of a metaplot going on that the second you buy a sourcebook, you realize the setting is so damned deep that you feel the need to buy every sourcebook, just to stay on top of things. And this goes back at least as far as SR2E - I remember buyings books just so I could figure out was going on with "Hatchetman". New events happen all the time in the Shadowrun series - which can get damned confusing for casual readers into the line.

Earthdawn's setting made some big changes as the product line evolved, including the creation of an Ork kingdom and a huge battle against the Therans.

Hell, Mechwarrior/Battletech was awful for Metaplot - to the point that a humans-only "inner sphere" campaign was entirely different from a "Clan invasion" style of game. They were almost different products!

RIFTS and other Palladium games have ongoing meta plots that get woven into multi-product events, such as the Coalition's war on Tolkien (I think that was the name of the place).

Never played any, but I've heard that there were some pretty big problems with Metaplots in White Wolf games, as well.

And it's not just limited to games in the nineties, either. I've seen a small amount of Metaplot creep into Pathfinder (not a lot, but it's there - mostly when products reference the final events of adventure paths as canon). Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e had that Chaos War event about halfway through, if memory serves. And the D&D novel lines still occasionally have meta events that wind up getting referenced in game products.

Anyways. It's just a pet peeve when people point at TSR and mention how awful metaplots were, when there are whole lines that did it... and still exist today.

 

[The Shaman]

Traveller had the Fifth Frontier War reported through TAS bulletins in the pages of JTAS, and GDW offered a tie-in board game of the conflict as well as adventures set during and after the war - this was 1981.

The Third Imperium then dissolved as a result of civil war, which conincided with the release of a new edition of the game, MegaTraveller - this was 1986.

 

[Beginning of the End]

It wasn't just TSR that did it. In the 90s, most of the major companies had metaplots (often tied to novels or even TV series!) in their RPG lines. And a lot of non-D&D games still have ongoing metaplots.

And people complained about those, too.

A properly executed metaplot looks like Heavy Gear: You completely describe the baseline of the setting at time X and then advance the setting through a separate line of supplements. People who want metaplot get metaplot; those who don't want metaplot can skip it and still get a fully supported setting.

But that utilitarian design, unfortunately, defeats the reason companies use metaplots in the first place: The evolving narrative is a way to "hook" players into buying the supplements. Want to know what happens next? Buy the next supplement.

The stupidest part of most metaplot-driven product lines is that they never actually give you a complete set of supplements: Kingdom A is described at point X. Kingdom B is described at point Y. Kingdom C is described at point Z. But since half of Kingdom A was blown up and its radioactive remnants invaded by Kingdom C at point Y, you don't actually have a usable Kingdom C supplement for point X nor a usable Kingdom A supplement for point Z.

Congratulations! You've designed a product line for reading instead of playing.

The truth, however, is that this works.... At least up to a point.

The only reason the industry has moved away from this model (and not entirely so, as you note) is because players who hated that model in the '90s are now writing the supplements and designing the product lines.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The worst metaplots by far are those which eradicate core points of the world as the metaplot advances, and where the metaplot is effectively impossible for the PCs to interact with.

Darksun for example wiped out half of the sorceror kings and did it in such a way that PCs essentially couldn't have any impact on how things went: the best they might do is to show up in time to witness events.

 

[Morrus]

Many gamers would avoid TSR's settings because they didn't want to see their game be declared obsolete through some change made by TSR (silly thinking, I know, but a lot of gamers felt that way!)

I never really understood how TSR could declare my game obsolete.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I didn't realize that people thought only TSR did them.

Then again, the people who thought only TSR did them probably only played.... TSR games.

 

[prosfilaes]

I never really understood how TSR could declare my game obsolete.

They can declare that, for the purposes of new supplements, you're no longer playing in Dark Sun.

 

[JoeGKushner]

They can declare that, for the purposes of new supplements, you're no longer playing in Dark Sun.

Which doesn't address Morru's statement. It doesn't make his game obsolete.

Your point however, is that new product integration into the setting of an already established campaign may become more difficult the more a product veers away from its established setting no?

Puts a lot of work on the GM in terms of bringing someting to the table if they've already decided how X, Y, and Z works, but at the same time, having any published material, meta-plot or not, can have the same effect if you've already taken a part of the campaign setting for yourself and it's all of the sudden detailed out.

I recall part of TSR's 'promise' was that they wouldn't detail Sembia and right up to about 4th ed, they really didn't mess with it too much.

 

[Jhaelen]

I didn't realize that people thought only TSR did them.

Yup. Actually, I always assumed TSR decided to do it because their strongest competition (FASA, White Wolf) was doing it.

 

[Chris Knapp]

Luckily, as a Dragonlance fan, I've never experienced this.

Oh, wait. . .