RPG Settings

[evildmguy]

Greetings!

I have been re-reading my Dark Sun stuff and I noticed something. Now that the world is no longer supported, being able to read all about the setting and see what the designers had done and what they were going to do (usually through interviews after the line is canceled or done), it seems to be a much better world. It seems to be more cohesive to me. I am seeing tons of of ideas, starting before the timeline or coming up with my own timeline.

Now, this may be obvious, and if so, I apologize. I was just amazed at how much I liked it NOT supported. I have no problem changing "canon", doing my own timeline, etc. I use FR and that's what I do with FR. At one point, I had my own "future history" based on events in all of my campaigns.

I also liked having most of the information the designers had before starting a campaign. I liked knowing what they meant it to be about and having it all laid out before me, before I start.

Is it just me?

I have noticed this on WoD 1.0 and would love if WW would do this with Exalted. Does anyone know about Midnight? Would it be better to have an idea of what was planned? What about other campaign settings? Should designers tell GMs more? Is there a way to tell GMs without telling players? (Probably not but maybe a DM book?)

Just some random ideas.

Have a good one! Take care!

edg

 

[Ron]

Metaplots is one of the main reasons why I don't like published settings. I know that there are people who are thrilled following the metaplot in each new supplement being published. Me, I would rather read a good novel.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Likewise.

 

[Mark Plemmons]

What about other campaign settings? Should designers tell GMs more? Is there a way to tell GMs without telling players? (Probably not but maybe a DM book?)

In the D&D: Kingdoms of Kalamar campaign setting sourcebook (and other books), the DM-only material is stated as rumor or hearsay, not fact. Or, on occasion, there's a section in the back of the book labeled something like "DM ONLY."

We've also sworn that while new products may expand upon unknown parts of the setting, they will NOT change what's already been stated about the setting or advance the timeline. If we do novels, they'll be set in the past.

 

[Master of the Game]

I don't mind metaplots, but I hate when they take it too far. I absolutely loathed Shadowforce Archer until I read the Shop book, and by then it was too late, the line was canceled.

What was the difference? Nothing made sense until the Shop book came out. The designers kept too many secrets.

Then again, a good metaplot with wiggle room for the GM can be fun. The plot behind Shadowrun, for instance, was always a huge draw for me.

 

[evildmguy]

I am really torn on the issue of metaplots. I love FR but I finally figured out the need to follow "canon" for me. The maps. I love the maps but the maps always reflect what is happening with the metaplot and the designers ideas of the world. To use 3.xE FR, is to accept what they have done because the maps now reflect this. Sometimes they don't change a lot, but sometimes they do. In Dark Sun, the map from the revised set doubled the area!

I am also torn on the metaplot because I like the idea of a "living" setting that changes. What I didn't like about Greyhawk was the sparse information. (I think FtA updated things but by then, I was using FR.) I like that in FR, people have changed. There is a new king in Cormyr. The Lords of Waterdeep have changed. There are still recognizable faces but there are new ones as well. The Red Wizards are still selfish but I love the idea they are now merchants as well. That's a much better way to "invade" a country, with economics!

Hmm. I think I need to be more specific about what I like about metaplots and what I would like to see.

Cloak and Dagger really spelled out some things for groups in FR. While a few things are still a bit unknown or "rumor and speculation" they also firmed some things and said, "Group X is this and they are doing that." I loved that! I wanted more of that! I wanted to know end goals and what these groups were doing, instead of more than half being rumor and speculation or "up to the DM." It too often felt that either they didn't want to share or they didn't know and wanted to leave it open. It's much easier, imo, when we have answers to decide what works for us, rather than get half answers and no ideas why the groups/people are doing what they are doing.

To get back to Dark Sun, to be able to see what they had intended, to see the conflict they wanted, over the supplements, is very cool and rewarding. At the same time, I don't understand if that's what they wanted, why they didn't do it in the first place. Re-reading the first book, everything is so high level that it doesn't mean much. (Same thing for the first FR boxed set, back in the day.) What seems to be highlighted, and was a product of its time, is the ruins or obvious places of adventure. The DUNGEONS. However, I don't think the setting was described very well in terms of how to play the Sorcerer Kings and what you could do with them. Doubly for the dragon. Compared to what the dragon actually is, they lie about him in the first boxed set, instead of giving this really cool back ground and history of how he came about and what he is doing.

I recently came up with this analogy for Dark Sun. The SKs are the Go'auld and the Templars are the Jaffa. That makes tons more sense to me. Then it is just a matter of figuring out how they present themselves to their worshippers and how they interact. Without that kind of analogy, though, I, and my players, found Dark Sun tough to understand. To make big changes, you had to be high level, and how did you not get squashed until then? Now, it makes more sense about how to do things.

(Of course, Stargate hadn't come out when the first DS boxed set did and even after, it's not like they could use that description. I still think it fits, though.)

Further, in the original boxed set of DS, they say there are no gods. Yet, in the novel, they have a temple. What? It's makes sense now that it is explained, and there are a lot of adventures and ideas from it. It would have been nice to have that from the beginning, though. "Here is our idea of why there are no gods. Here are two ways we thought of that it could happen but would be epic in scope. Here are reasons for and against it. Do what you want to do." Is that too hard? Too much to ask?

It is just nice to be able to have lots of answers about major things (magic, SKs, dragon, defilers, etc.) when trying to run the setting, instead of just being told how things are and going from there. Again, that's obvious but it still seems as if designers/writers don't share enough with us. We have to figure out too much.

Again, does anyone know about Midnight? Has anything big happened that it would have been nice to know earlier?

What happened with the Metaplot in Shadowforce Archer that made it bad but then good when explained? (I don't mind spoilers myself.)

Any other settings?

Ron, Aus_snow, What about metaplots bothers you?

Do settings like Kalamar that don't change much, explain a lot to the GM? Do they talk about why certain decisions were made, what plots are happening and where things would go without the PCs interfering? That, to me, would be interesting and needed. "Here is the current timeline and here is the next five to ten years, unless you decide to change it by having adventures there."

Just a few more coppers.

Thanks for the replies!

Have a good one! Take care!

edg

 

[JVisgaitis]

I have mixed feeling on metaplot. In one way it can be good if its not all intrusive, but with the Realms for instance there is so much information to keep up with its a major headache. There is always a new novel or something else that's out and the players always used to know more then me about the Realms. I like the Realms, don't get me wrong, but I hate having to be a scholar to run games in it. That's why I like Greyhawk.

We planned on some metaplot for Violet Dawn and we have a cool way of letting the DM change what he wants from the setting at a whim without affecting anything adversely which I was pretty proud of. We need to get back and finish the Primer up already.

 

[Aus_Snow]

We need to get back and finish the Primer up already.

ETA?

 

[Ron]

u

Ron, Aus_snow, What about metaplots bothers you?
edg

I don't like the concept. My first experience with a setting was the World of Greyhawk boxed set and I liked the concept of showing a world frozen in one moment of time. Any developments were up to the DM, as the adventures, even the epic ones, such as The Queen of Spiders, did not invalidate the information there.

Subsequent versions of the setting advanced the timeline and created a metaplot moving the events from one direction to another -- probably the result of the work of different design teams along the years. The result is that the original box I like so much is now outdated by newer versions which, despite being very good, don't describe the same setting I liked in the past.

Overall, metaplots are ill thought. They lack consistency in the long run as different designers push it to different directions along the years. Is not much different from what happens with some comic book characters, in which they are very inconsistently drawn and written by different creative teams.

If I am looking for a setting, a prefer a reasonably complete one with interesting information but not bloated with details. If I want to read a story, I would do much better reading a novel. Usually, novelists write better plots than game designers.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I think White Wolf showed how NOT to do a metaplot with the oWoD. The primary purpose of a game book should be for people playing the game. When the major draw of a book is to see "what happens next," it should be published as a novel, not as a supplement. The power to change the setting should rest with the home group, instead of making them a prisoner to the publisher's every supplement.

(Caveat: I have no problem with the timeline being advanced every X number of years when there's a new edition of the game released. Major milestones are much different than multiple releases in a single year potentially affecting every home game and even creating material that is all but unusable with the core products as a result.)

Game companies all produce game novels of varying quality anyway. They should redirect their impulses to tell stories into the proper medium.