Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AFGNCAAP" data-source="post: 4476610" data-attributes="member: 871">To be brutally honest, I've typically gone for running homebrewed campaign settings over established settings due to issues of metaplot.&nbsp; Playing, OTOH, is another issue: it's more or less whether I enjoy that person's homebrew game or not over setting-specific (and metaplot-heavy) games they've run.For example, from my personal experience, I've enjoyed playing Eberron over Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance.&nbsp; Eberron has a metaplot of its own, but nothing in scale of the Realms.&nbsp; Then again, I got tired of dealing with a plethora of drow, Spellfire wielders, saurials, thri-kreen, sinister mages, and the Trickster-kenders that always cropped up in the FR or DL games.IMO, I think that a metaplot can work well as a good foundation for a game/setting, but can be a right awful pain as a script for future progression of that setting.&nbsp; The foundation is something a DM can work with &amp; build on; a script is something a DM either needs to keep track of or compete with.I can understand the need for changes in a game.&nbsp; However, FWIW, I think that FR dealt with its changes best by making the 100-year leap.&nbsp; There was just so much metaplot present that only advancing a handful of years really wouldn't have worked.&nbsp; What happened during the 100-year leap is up for debate, though.Conversely, Greyhawk (IMO) may work well by regressing the timeline back to a &quot;halcyon age&quot; of the setting.&nbsp; Greyhawk doesn't really have the supplemental material (such as novels &amp; the like) that establish big metaplot issues as settings like FR or DL do.&nbsp; Returning it to an earlier time may work best for the setting, and (hopefully) it'll help grab the interest of younger generations of gamers in the setting.Eberron, I think, is currently in a &quot;sweet spot&quot;—it has a decent metaplot to provide opportunities for games, but not enough a monolithic metaplot that doom it to progress a certain way.Dragonlance is going to be a tricky one, I think.&nbsp; It seems to be born &amp; raised in metaplot, and its association with metaplot/novels is much, much stronger than in other settings (even FR, IMO).&nbsp; I think it may benefit from a timeline jump much as FR did, and future novels could work in the void between where the old edition ended &amp; the new one begins, esp. with how world-shaking a lot of the DL novels &amp; the like can be.I can't say much about other D&amp;D settings metaplot-wise (like Ravenloft, Planescape, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, etc.).&nbsp; However, IMO, they are really games &amp; settings of the era they were introduced in (as full-blown campaign settings, that is)—the late 80's/90's.&nbsp; To me, they seem to have that aroma of trenchcoat &amp; katana stuck on them—the trend of their time.&nbsp; Because of that, I can understand why they may get a &quot;tip of the hat&quot; from time to time in online material, but they may not get the full 2-hardcover book treatment like other D&amp;D settings.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AFGNCAAP, post: 4476610, member: 871"] To be brutally honest, I've typically gone for running homebrewed campaign settings over established settings due to issues of metaplot. Playing, OTOH, is another issue: it's more or less whether I enjoy that person's homebrew game or not over setting-specific (and metaplot-heavy) games they've run. For example, from my personal experience, I've enjoyed playing Eberron over Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance. Eberron has a metaplot of its own, but nothing in scale of the Realms. Then again, I got tired of dealing with a plethora of drow, Spellfire wielders, saurials, thri-kreen, sinister mages, and the Trickster-kenders that always cropped up in the FR or DL games. IMO, I think that a metaplot can work well as a [I]good foundation[/I] for a game/setting, but can be a right awful pain as a [I]script for future progression[/I] of that setting. The foundation is something a DM can work with & build on; a script is something a DM either needs to keep track of or compete with. I can understand the need for changes in a game. However, FWIW, I think that FR dealt with its changes best [I]by[/I] making the 100-year leap. There was just so much metaplot present that only advancing a handful of years really wouldn't have worked. What happened during the 100-year leap is up for debate, though. Conversely, Greyhawk (IMO) may work well by regressing the timeline back to a "halcyon age" of the setting. Greyhawk doesn't really have the supplemental material (such as novels & the like) that establish big metaplot issues as settings like FR or DL do. Returning it to an earlier time may work best for the setting, and (hopefully) it'll help grab the interest of younger generations of gamers in the setting. Eberron, I think, is currently in a "sweet spot"—it has a decent metaplot to provide opportunities for games, but not enough a monolithic metaplot that doom it to progress a certain way. Dragonlance is going to be a tricky one, I think. It seems to be born & raised in metaplot, and its association with metaplot/novels is much, much stronger than in other settings (even FR, IMO). I think it may benefit from a timeline jump much as FR did, and future novels could work in the void between where the old edition ended & the new one begins, esp. with how world-shaking a lot of the DL novels & the like can be. I can't say much about other D&D settings metaplot-wise (like Ravenloft, Planescape, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, etc.). However, IMO, they are really games & settings of the era they were introduced in (as full-blown campaign settings, that is)—the late 80's/90's. To me, they seem to have that aroma of trenchcoat & katana stuck on them—the trend of their time. Because of that, I can understand why they may get a "tip of the hat" from time to time in online material, but they may not get the full 2-hardcover book treatment like other D&D settings. [/QUOTE]

Verification