Metaplots - it wasn't just TSR that did them

[Umbran]

DL was a straight book adaptation and a different kind of thing, but the Time of Troubles did things like forcibly change character classes through in-world events.

Well, DL is different, but more because it's place in the timeline. It looks to me like every metaplot-heavy setting or game follows Dragonlance. It's the first example of real, solid metaplot - as the first example, it was executed somewhat differently than the others, but I don't think that makes it a fundamentally different beast.

The novels were wildly more successful than anyone would have imagined, making it a proof of concept. Metaplot became a bandwagon to jump upon.

 

[the Jester]

Metaplot is the single most common request/desire I hear from fans.

Really? Wow, that surprises me. I don't think I have ever known a gamer that was pro-metaplot, although not all are anti-metaplot.

The general song and dance I hear, when metaplot comes up, is "Metaplot ruined my ______!" (Fill in Dark Sun, WoD, FR, Greyhawk, etc. ad infinitum.) I can't recall ever playing in a game that was improved by metaplot developments either; in fact, I can recall a lot of bitching about things like the sudden total revision to Dark Sun (right after it came out!), the Dragonlance railroads (we gave up on the DL modules pretty quickly because of it), the weird "Fiends can't teleport anymore" crap that came from some PS module but was imposed on every setting in late 2e (screw that!), the Crash in Paranoia (never known anyone that used that particular bit of metaplot even once) and the fact that pcs' gods were suddenly dead after the Time of Troubles, and there were no 2e stats for their clerics anymore!

But that's just my experience, and I'm not a professional game designer, which the context of your post makes it sound like you are. So I'm sure you have had a larger "sample size" to work with than I have.

What system(s) do/have you worked on, just out of curiosity? Do you think fans of different systems prefer different levels of metaplot?

 

[lin_fusan]

I like metaplots.

I ran part of the Faction War adventure in my Planescape 3.0 campaign.

I utilized the Paradox Storm of Mage: The Ascension revised in my oWoD Mage game.

To tell the truth, my players had more potential to "ruin" any sort of plotting than anything a gaming company could produce.

 

[gamerprinter]

L5R 2e was just one massive meta-plot. I never really played, but bought the 2nd edition hardbound at GENCON 07, just to check it out - read the metaplot and went 'meh'. Though I liked the games concept.

I've heard there last version does somewhat put the metaplot away, though I haven't checked it out, and unlikely will, as it was only passing interest that I picked it up

I've always hated the concept of a land-locked Rokugan (Japanese like empire), so I doubt I'll look further.

But the 2e metaplot was enough to keep me from trying out the game.

GP

 

[Umbran]

... in fact, I can recall a lot of bitching about things like the sudden total revision to Dark Sun (right after it came out!), the Dragonlance railroads (we gave up on the DL modules pretty quickly because of it), the weird "Fiends can't teleport anymore" crap that came from some PS module but was imposed on every setting in late 2e (screw that!), the Crash in Paranoia (never known anyone that used that particular bit of metaplot even once) and the fact that pcs' gods were suddenly dead after the Time of Troubles, and there were no 2e stats for their clerics anymore!

Yes, but praise is rare, while griping is common. People who are happy with their game and setting generally move along playing it, and don't spend as much time talking about those things they like. Folks who are dissatisfied are the ones with motive to be vocal.

Thus, there can be a form of data selection or confirmation bias going on. Just because you don't hear from people who liked the metaplots, doesn't mean they don't exist. Doesn't mean they do exist, either, of course. Just means one has to be careful thinking about it.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

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.

<SNIP>

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.

Is this really new information? I think most of us that were playing back then were aware of it. I imagine people who hated it in TSR game lines mention it because they hated it in TSR game lines, regardless of the existence of other products doing the same thing. I don't know that I would say TSR created it, but maybe some people blame them for it. White Wolf was more widely known for it at the time IME.

As far as the hatritude towards them, I always thought most of it was overblown. I didn't like what they did with the Greyhawk Wars but since earlier campaign material was dated 576 and the wars were 591 I could set my games in between those times and not really have to worry about stepping on canon if it mattered.

Same thing with Battletech - the earlier material was set in 3025, the clans invade in 3050 so there's 25 years to work with before canon becomes an issue and the game technology changes. Unless your campaign was set in 3048 (probably on purpose to play through the invasion as it happens) then I don't see how one campaign could be impacted by it a whole lot.

Star Fleet Battles has had the same thing since 1980 when X-Ships were introduced to the game- vastly different technology enters the game universe at point X and games set before or after that point are dramatically different.

Heck ASL has had the same problem since before that - the Russians get a ridiculous powering-up about 1943 that really changes the game and upsets many fans, especially those who play Germans

A lot of the complaints about metaplot spring from just having a timeline. Unless the game is set at the end of that timeline, then you're going to have some issues with characters not having an impact, events happening offstage, countries springing up or disappearing over time and other related issues. I thought Shadowrun handled this well as every new edition of Shadowrun was set a few more years in the future -2050, 2052, 2060, etc. I assumed this was to not step on the toes of existing material and existing campaigns. If you keep track of time in your campaign, then it seems unlikely most of them will burn through 10+ years of gametime that quickly, so no conflict. If you don't keep track of time then it's still not a problem - your campaign is in "the time before" and that other stuff happens later.

I also think a lot of it springs from the collector/completist mindset more than a few of us suffer from. Just remember that collecting it, using it in a game, and liking it are 3 separate things. I have supplements that I don't like for games that I do and I suspect I am not alone.

 

[Psion]

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.

I was about to say. Amongst gaming circles I knew, White Wolf was infamous for this, though persolally it was Traveller's The New Era that caught my ire.

Contrary to what The Shaman suggest, in my circles, the Fifth Frontier War was well accepted and considered fun/inspirational.

 

[lin_fusan]

The general song and dance I hear, when metaplot comes up, is "Metaplot ruined my ______!"

I'm really interested to know how a metaplot ruined a game. I don't mean this in a confrontational manner, but in an informative way. Was it something akin to a GM running a campaign, and the players getting wind of the metaplot and thinking it canon, thus forcing a GM to push upwind against his/her players declaring "this must be so!"?

Or is it some form of sense of betrayal of one's time and loyalty? Like how one feels after 4 seasons of the new Battlestar Galactica? Or reading the first four books of Orson Scott Card's Ender's series and wishing one had stopped after the second?

 

[Umbran]

I'm really interested to know how a metaplot ruined a game.

One of the modes it can be a pain isn't actually about metaplot.

Metaplot has two basic forms: background plot development in successive supplements or novels, and major world-changes alongside edition-changes.

The Forgotten Realms' "Time of Troubles" is of this latter form. It really isn't the Time of Troubles (the metaplot) that forces people to change classes - it is the fact that the underlying engine switched from 1e to 2e. The Time of Troubles is merely the way they maintain some sort of continuity in the setting across that edition change.

 

[sadohara]

I play because of metaplot.

Metaplots add versimilitude to gameworlds, showing that things do happen around and outside of what the characters are doing. They can be affected by the metaplot and they can affect the metaplot. It adds more depth to a setting and lets me hook players into a game by letting them buy into something bigger and more detailed than a map of someone's sandbox with isolated adventure plots waiting for players to show up.

Yes, some aspects of metaplots are bad. Some are good. And like every other thing in this bloody hobby, if you don't like it, don't use it and/or don't buy it.