General setting question - Metaplot or not?

[Tuerny]

I kind of like the way they've said they are going to do it with Exalted. All the sourcebooks will use the same point as a baseline, and will have self-contained metaplots. For example, the adventure book "Time of Tumult" describes a sixth kind of Exalted that have been hiding in another world for a long time, and are now entering Creation to invade and gather supplies. The book has a timeline for what happens when they do this (assuming no PC intervention), but apparently future material will not assume that this has happened. It is one possible future, but it isn't the TRVTH.

Well the main reason they are doing this is because the PCs are on a power level that they could basically destroy most metaplots within a few years after a campaign is started so they sort of have to keep the metaplot factor down.

I think how they are handling it (by basically presenting a number of different partially fleshed out campaigns for GMs to work with) is definitely a good way to go.

 

[Nightfall]

Wow! I had no idea!

Yes amazing no?

Yeah this version of Metaplotting is fine. At least as long as they don't bring back any Titans JUST yet.

 

[Cake Mage]

Neither

Make my own world. Figure it out as I go along. If I run into a proplem, ask you kind folks for advise. I tend to let the players try and change the world/environment. Though I do have control over what goes on and I do try and point them in the right direction. (some of them can be a litle to chaotic for me however)

 

[Sholari]

Given a choice between purely metaplots and no metaplogs, I would lean to "no" metaplots. Too often metaplots like Forgotten Realm's Time of Troubles or Dragonlance's Dragons of Summer Flame essentially hijack what is interesting about the original game world and replace it with a set of dynamics that do not compare. Furthermore, it renders new game world material less useful. If you do not like the major changes made to the game world, then you may have to customize any future material just to use it.

In my opinion, best solution for metaplots vs. non-metaplots is actually combination of the two. Keep metaplots small and regional (i.e. affecting just a couple countries within a game world). If a "regional" metaplot does not mesh with your own game, you can always figure out a reason to transition the game to another region that is unaffected. Furthermore, maybe 80% of the material is still relevant even if you decide not to go along with the metaplot.

Ideally, I would like to see a publisher keep certain parts of the game world stable. That doesn't mean only publish one sub par guide on that region. Instead, continue to publish modules and detail supplements for that region. Contrast this with other parts of the game world would be more dynamic with regional metaplot development. It would be the best of both world so to speak.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

Metaplots..metaplots..wherefore art thou?

I'm of a mixed mind, like everything else, about metaplots.

Everytime I see some metaplot thingie, I think "do I like this?" If so, I use it. If not, I don't and mine any associated crunchy bits for my own use.

So long as the metaplot doesn't get in my crunchy bits, I'm fine. Ergo, I was cool with Vampire's metaplot (and the stuff that did change crunchy bits I liked). I was UNCOOL with Mage Revised metaplot (which was used as an excuse to change way magic worked in the game). In the same manner, I'm cool with the FRCS metaplot (although I haven't seen much of it yet, and I IGNORE THE NOVELS [there's an idea for ya], except in that everything listed in the FRCS book has happened). I love Exalted's metaplot (mostly because it's there, but pretty danged transparent).

So, as a short answer to your question: yes, and no.

 

[Gallowglass]

Let me preface this by saying that, to date, the vast majority of my published work has been for Vampire, a very metaplot heavy game, so take what follows with however many grains of salt you feel appropriate...

I think that it's vital for gamelines that plan to run more than a year or two to have something in the way of a metaplot. After a time, there's only so much you can do, publication-wise, with a static setting. Yes, you can expand "horizontally," yes, you can keep adding more detail, but eventually things get--well, static. And static books often (not always, but often) lead to static campaigns.

Now, all that said, I think it's important that metaplot not become the lead factor of a setting. It's okay to change the setting somewhat due to plot events, but not drastically. (Unless, of course, you were planning to do a drastic revamp anyway, and are simply using the metaplot as an excuse.)

Let's take Vampire for a moment. A few years ago, they did a very metaplot-heavy year of products. Some people objected, and that's understandable. I, personally, think they came pretty close to going too far.

But you know what? In the year or two since, they've cut back a great deal. The core book can still be run as-is, without acknowledging the metaplot at all. And while some of the "chronicles" (read: modules) and related products were impacted by the metaplot, most of the books to come out since then are equally useful whether your follow the metaplot or not.

My point, assuming I have one? Settings have to move forward, but they don't have to move forward drastically at any given time. I don't want a static setting, but I don't want one that dictates my game to me either. When you can find a path somewhere in the middle, that's where you're nigh-perfect game setting lies.

The biggest mess ever perpetrated by a Game company on a setting and its fans was IMO Traveller: The New Era. Not only was the game system changed, but bits of the underlying technological assumptions were not just alterd but ret-conned in and the new line took a stance positively hostile to what had gone before. But even worse, the great sweeping metaplot was hidden up the publishers sleeve, doled out in miserly quantities and never "objectively" explained. I find each of these failings irritating on it's own: together they killed my interest stone dead.

In fantasy, I have generally worked with Home brew settings or worlds like Michael Moorcocks Young Kingdoms (where part ofteh point is knowing the world is going to end... hehe) or worlds with a defined timeline: I like Glorantha for this reason. BUt in general, an objectively , concisley explained metaplot that I can take or leave is fine. It adds interest and keeps things from getting too stagnant.

Just don't re-created the whole world whilst I'm not looking... And if I am buying an RPG supplement, I am buying and RPG supplement, not a novel, so don't give me subjective single POV cr*p as an excuse to flatly contradict everything in the next supplement. RPG books are reference tools, and should be written as such...

 

[Ace]

In my homebrew I use !BANG! points, there is a meta plotted timeline but exactly who did what is up to the players.

Basically I can put players in anywhere, depending on what type of game they like.

At that point they get to be the heros.

Basically itsa meta plot with no more than one or two NPC names per evenrt cycle.

An analogy

My "Meta plot" might be World War 2 1939-1945 Axis and Allies fight. Allies win. The rest is up to the players. The might be namless grunts or General Patton

Otherwise I never ever ever use Metaplots.