Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
RPG Settings
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="evildmguy" data-source="post: 3358044" data-attributes="member: 6092"><p>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! </p><p></p><p>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! </p><p></p><p>Hmm. I think I need to be more specific about what I like about metaplots and what I would like to see. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>(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.) </p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Again, does anyone know about Midnight? Has anything big happened that it would have been nice to know earlier? </p><p></p><p>What happened with the Metaplot in Shadowforce Archer that made it bad but then good when explained? (I don't mind spoilers myself.) </p><p></p><p>Any other settings? </p><p></p><p>Ron, Aus_snow, What about metaplots bothers you? </p><p></p><p>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." </p><p></p><p>Just a few more coppers. </p><p></p><p>Thanks for the replies! </p><p></p><p>Have a good one! Take care! </p><p></p><p>edg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="evildmguy, post: 3358044, member: 6092"] 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
RPG Settings
Top