General setting question - Metaplot or not?

[Deadguy]

Names Matter

One of the main reasons that I never bought into Kalamar and I can't warm up to Harn as much as I'd like is the silly names on the maps. I mean when I look at both worlds most of the names, especially for towns and such look like a bad name generator was allowed to run amok.

Well, I am glad to find I am not alone in thinking this! Yes, I do find that Hârn in particular eally spoils its setting by an appallingly poor use of naming. It's not just that the game adopts say a non-Romance pattern of naming (I can handle Indonesian and Malaysian style naming, for example). But as you say we get bad random name generator words. And it really makes a mockery of haing so-called different cultures that all seem to use the same incomprehensible names.

I know that for some people this complaint will seem silly. But for me at least it really undermines the suspension of disbelief required. It's not hard to get around the problem, it just takes some planning.

Ah well, homebrews avoid this problem (no village of Gujxath and the city of Opsibtukl)!

 

[Terradyne]

Re: Names Matter

Well, I am glad to find I am not alone in thinking this! Yes, I do find that Hârn in particular eally spoils its setting by an appallingly poor use of naming. It's not just that the game adopts say a non-Romance pattern of naming (I can handle Indonesian and Malaysian style naming, for example). But as you say we get bad random name generator words. And it really makes a mockery of haing so-called different cultures that all seem to use the same incomprehensible names.

I know! It's too bad to because the map is a beauty. But if I have to scan it in and Photoshop out all the bad names replacing them wiht my own - well that could take years. Not to mention that I would have to update the Harndex if I want to refer to it later in campaign context. Bah...too much bother. This is one of the main reasons i haven't use dHarn to date. If they were going for an "England in the Medieval period" flavor why not use more recognizable naming conventions too? Ah well...

-Terradyne

 

[the Jester]

Metaplots: god, I hate them.

Oh boy, do I hate metaplots.

Granted, not always. I guess what I really hate is supplementary material that assumes you're following the metaplot.

Especially stuff that references novels. FR is the WORST EVAR because of all the damn crappy novels! What if (back when 2e first arrived) I had been running FR (wasn't) and I hadn't wanted an Avatar crisis (speaking of worst evar)?

Since those stupid, stupid novels came out, EVERYTHING released for FR has, in some sense, required the dm to acknowledge them. There are dead gods (what if I don't want them gone?), all the silly wild magic and dead magic stuff, etc, etc. Sure, you can tweak all that stuff- but then why use the supplements, modules, and whathaveyou in the first place? Write up your own. Heck, if you're going that far, write up your own campaign world.

/rant off.

 

[Wicht]

Hmm, I must be strange, I have actually grown to like the Kalamarian names. There is an internal consistancy to them that makes it fun to create your own.

originally posted by Avatar
So if I want the Red Wizards of Thay to be overthrown, fine, it's MY world, even if WotC published it.

Thats a fine sentiment, but then what do you do if WotC decides to do their next three supplements around the Red Wizards?

Answer - Don't buy the published material.

In effect, by ignoring the metaplot, you make at least a portion of the supplements useless to you. The more of the metaplot you ignore, the less use you have for the subsequent products.

 

[Wicht]

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.

The problem business wise with this is they lost part of their support base (namely me) by relying too heavily on their metaplot and thus now that I recognizing my world view and theirs are too drastically different and recognizing that I don't need anything but the core-book, I don't buy World of Darkness supplements anymore. Their meta-plot was one of the main factors in making that decision.

 

[Buttercup]

I like the scarred Lands.

Wow! I had no idea!

But back to the question. I prefer a static setting. I don't want the publisher to change the rules in the middle of the game.

 

[trix]

Setting in equilibrium.

I think a world that is in equilibrium is a static setting.

Yes, there should be an intriguing metaplot,

but it should be up to the DM to stir the pot and have his own ideas.

Different... but not static.

-Tim

 

[Dakeyras]

I'm only been Dm'ing for a couple of years but I've never run into any problems with Metaplot stuff. When 3e came out my players wanted FR and had read most of the books and I didn't have a problem with that. I did tell them that we'd only be using the maps, races, names and feats (minus Spellfire) since there was just way too much stuff to remember. Oh and of course the gods. I didn't want to wonder way so-and-so didn't solve the problem well before the PC's got there. And if my FR divurges too far from the base I don't really see it as a problem, if Wotc comes out with something I want to use but (like a good red wizards supplement after I've destroyed Thay) I can always make off stage adjustments to allow for the new material. I also asked my players if they was some plot element they really wanted to be part of since we were in FR cause they liked the books. So far I haven't had any problems.

Dakeyras

 

[Katerek]

Neither. I run a custom setting and plot it out one campaign at a time.

I also agree with the previous poster about names. Kalamar and Harn names both bothered me, too much of an attempt to sound 'real'. My opinion is, if you do not have a degree in linguistics then don't try to create your own languages. That is why Tolkein names rock, and so many derivative sources eat butkus.

As a quick aside, I like the scarred lands naming conventions. While I don't play the setting, there has appeared in my campaign an elite cadre of jedi like undead hunters known as the faustian guard.

 

[Graf]

I like the scarred Lands. Sure we have metaplot, but so far it's like having a blind and deaf halfing trying to find an invisible stalker.

Though this is a weird way of putting it have I to agree. Good metaplots are myths or mysteries or rumors the players and the PCs don't know if they are true or to what degree or whether somebody's been starting the rumor for their own purposes.

(the real deal when explained at all, is hidden away in a DM only book players don't get to see.)

Worked with Vampire and S&S is using it well in SL.