Campaign Settings: metaplot or frozen?

[Keefe the Thief]

I want Campaign Settings who give both options really. I think 4e with FR as a metaplot-heavy setting and Eberron with a mainly frozen one is exactly to my liking.
The big secret of RPG design is that doing GOOD metaplot is damn hard and the whole thing can get out of hand quickly, however. So i absolutely understand people being leery about metaplot.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I'm with Beginning of the End.

Why the deletive expleted do people care about what may or may not happen in published adventures/settings/novels? If you want to use it, use it. If not, don't. The mere fact of publishing does NOT mean you HAVE to use it. It's YOUR game people!!!!!

 

[evildmguy]

I've never understood the fetishization of "canon" material, and this is an excellent example of why. The problem here is not the advancing metaplot, it's ANY additional details of the campaign world being published (because such details might contradict what you've already developed independently).

Isn't the problem that the DM was using the new material, or stuff s/he created, and refused to let the PCs influence events? Or am I being too simple?

edg

 

[Baduin]

I would note one thing - many settings describe a situation after a catastrophe - scattered settlements, ruins of ancient empires etc.

I think that in such a setting it would be best to treat the published original state of setting as the final limit, which cannot be passed. On the other hand, the next editions could reveal the history of the setting - they can describe what happened earlier. If the starting date is 9000, the next edition can be set in 8500.

That way the setting can be developed - the designers can reveal the glories of ancient times, devilish plots etc, but they will never intrude into your campaign. It would be relevant even for those who play in 9000 - they could discover tombs, last survivors waiting in stasis, ancient spellbooks and artefacts, ruins etc. New campaigns could start in 8500 or 9000. In both cases you would be sure that no one will introduce any changes into the setting - since the third edition would describe eg year 8200.

 

[sunmaster]

There is also a problem with ever ongoing metaplots: New players (may they be GMs or players) cannot find a simple point of "introduction" to most of them.

For example I don't know how I can read into the metaplot of FR in such a way that I can make adventures based on the metaplot of FR. The timeline in the handbook of FR 3e don't tells me (as a GM) enough to make decisions about adventures. And there is nowhere a "link" where I can get more informations about these "Years of ..." .

Ongoing metaplots can be much, much fun but only when there are easy entry points for all players - not only for those who are following it for more than two decades -.

So, my vote also goes to fixed metaplot.

 

[Bregh]

Frozen and static, absolutely.

Arnwyn's post above, actually, sums up my position perfectly.

 

[Phlebas]

I would note one thing - many settings describe a situation after a catastrophe - scattered settlements, ruins of ancient empires etc.

I think that in such a setting it would be best to treat the published original state of setting as the final limit, which cannot be passed. On the other hand, the next editions could reveal the history of the setting - they can describe what happened earlier. If the starting date is 9000, the next edition can be set in 8500.

That way the setting can be developed - the designers can reveal the glories of ancient times, devilish plots etc, but they will never intrude into your campaign. It would be relevant even for those who play in 9000 - they could discover tombs, last survivors waiting in stasis, ancient spellbooks and artefacts, ruins etc. New campaigns could start in 8500 or 9000. In both cases you would be sure that no one will introduce any changes into the setting - since the third edition would describe eg year 8200.

I like this idea - gives lots of options and history but without ever making the DM nervous of 'changing stuff that might get detailed later'

Personally i really hated the way FR continually changed as it never seemed to stay still long enough to develop a story without something major occuring (and i realise its as much my weakness as a DM for not being able to freeze the plot and ignore anything new that comes along that might contradict what I do)

so my solution is to use my own Homebrew(TM) world where I roll it forward a few years after every campaign, with half a dozen plots ticking along until i find a new set of victims players and can develop one of the plot hooks to fruition. Its also nice that players can look at the history and see the bits they helped to bring about (though so far the effects haven't always been too positive...).

 

[Thunderfoot]

<SNIP>
Essentially, turn the "metaplot" into "toolbox" supplements and let the DM cobble his own timeline out of them.

Great idea, its amazing what you can come up with when you're not 'fatigued'.

The idea of metaplot advancement without character participation is one reason I refuse to run published campaigns. While a lot of the material (crunch) is awesome and well thought out, the background (fluff) is often apparently cobbled together by monkeys on LSD, in the coffee room right before quiting time.

 

[Klaus]

I'm with Beginning of the End.

Why the deletive expleted do people care about what may or may not happen in published adventures/settings/novels? If you want to use it, use it. If not, don't. The mere fact of publishing does NOT mean you HAVE to use it. It's YOUR game people!!!!!

There is another angle, though.

Let's say you play in Greyhawk, as presented in the 1983 boxed set. You buy books, when suddenly, the metaplot of the Greyhawk Wars hit, and with it the From The Ashes boxed set. Every supplement afterwards will reflect that new status quo of Greyhawk. So, if you choose not to follow that metaplot and incorporate those changes, you're suddenly out of Greyhawk material to buy.

If every "event" becomes its own supplement that offers changes to the baseline, you can pick and choose the events and adapt the baseline to reflect them. If you choose not to buy the "Greyhawk Wars" expansion, you could still buy the "Vecna Unleashed" expansion, or the "Rise of Elemental Evil" expansion, etc...

 

[Thunderfoot]

I agree! If you absolutely have to bundle an expansion pack (so to speak), make it stand alone so that DMs can tailor the expansions that suit their personal campaigns. It also makes it much easier to fit something in that closely resembles where you were going with your plot line if all you have to do is change a few names, rather than entire sections of history. It also makes it easier for players to remember, because we all know players are great at remembering place names, NPCs and titles of organizations.