Homebrew Metaplots?

[Umbran]

Depends upon the metaplot.

The problem I find with metaplots in published settings is that I cannot easily tailor them to my party - they're too big to shift very far - especially since I'm nmot privvy to the whole metaplot at game start. In addition, in long-standing published settings the players generally know as much about the Metaplot as the DM, which is a bit annoying.

Sure, in my own homebrew there's a metaplot, insofar as I've chosen some set pieces and those pieces are going to move forward. But the players have little idea what those pieces are, and since I made them up, I know where they are and where they are going, so if I choose to alter them, I'm fine. I won't suddenly find myself at odds with published material I was hoping to use.

 

[Mercule]

Metaplots should be under the control of the GM, not the game company. Which is to say they're dandy in a homebrew.

When they are developed with each new release of a source book, they suck rotten eggs. (Caveat: the aforementioned Orpheus, which is more a campaign arc than a setting.)

When a published setting sets some up, but doesn't knock 'em down, that can be fine, too. But, that's difficult enough to do that I tend to avoid published settings.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I generally don't like Metaplots that exist indipendantly of the characters. That is why I detest them in published settings, as there is no connection to the cahracter.

The way I rung things, the world is build and run specifically for the characters to adventure in, change and have influence on. Any plot, meta or otherwise, that is not tied, at least, semi-directly to the characters is useless. The world is there for me to change for the players to have fun, not to have a metaplot that changes what the characters would normally do because of metaplot.

 

[ThirdWizard]

This is my approach to metaplots: a sequence of events that affect the setting directly but the characters indirectly, events in which the characters may or may not choose to involve themselves and which may or may not be afffected significantly by the adventurers' involvement or lack thereof.

That sums it up nicely, I think.

I think of it as an actual part of the setting. It's something that happens regardless of PC involvement, and I think its a great thing because it shows that the PCs don't have to be involved for things to happen. There can be good metaplots and bad metaplots, but but then there can be good campaign arcs and bad campaign arcs. That doesn't mean I don't like campaign arcs. And, that doesn't mean I don't like metaplots.

 

[The_Gneech]

I like metaplots as long as I don't lose my free will to 'em. When my character wants to go out to sea, and the campaign keeps forcing him to go further inland (or vice versa), I start to get pretty edgy.

-The Gneech

 

[painandgreed]

Metaplots should be under the control of the GM, not the game company. Which is to say they're dandy in a homebrew.

Those are my feelings. I like a metaplot, but as a GM, I can't stand it when the game company comes up with their own metaplot which changes the world in ways I do not want in my games. Time of Troubles in FR is one example. While it was at least an excuse to have FR go from 1E ro 2E rules, it still changed the world in ways I didn't want it to in my campaign. Lately, Mulhurond, Unther, and other countries are all invading or occupied, which directly conflicts with the metaplot I had developed for my own campaign. WoD was even worse.

Once they do change it, you can try not to but you almost always have to. All new modules, setting books, and pretty much everything else all follow the new metaplot and the effort to convert them back to your own is usually more work than converting your metaplot over to theirs (which you're not happy with). If you do keep your own meta-plot then players, who may DM their own games, are constantly confused by the differences, thus again making it easier to convert to the official metaplot than trying to keep up your own.

Metaplots are the main reason I opt for a homebrew and to never buy premade setting material ever again. I like my campaigns to have backgrounds and setting information, but once the metaplot pops up and forces you to change years of work, it turned me off for good. My campaigns will now only advance how I want them to and the players only act upon the information that I give them.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I like metaplots in published settings; they give a good sense of scale, background information to make a setting feel alive, and plot hooks to snag PCs with. The only plot twists I have a major problem with are the "this, that or the other group was completely wiped out by x, y or z, or possibly all three." It seems like lazy storytelling and is bad for gameplay if the players have a PC of the destroyed group.

I like metaplots in homebrews for the same reason, and avoid the "this entire race/culture was wiped out" type events.

 

[shilsen]

This is my approach to metaplots: a sequence of events that affect the setting directly but the characters indirectly, events in which the characters may or may not choose to involve themselves and which may or may not be afffected significantly by the adventurers' involvement or lack thereof.

That's my idea of the perfect metaplot. If the element of choice is missing and/or the metaplot doesn't have a reciprocally interactive relationship with the PCs (PCs can affect it, just as it can affect them), then I start having problems with it.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I like metaplots as long as I don't lose my free will to 'em. When my character wants to go out to sea, and the campaign keeps forcing him to go further inland (or vice versa), I start to get pretty edgy.

-The Gneech

Heh, I never force PCs to deal with the metaplot.

But sometimes bad things happen if they don't. (Though one of my favorite scenes in a Vampire game was one of the players realizing that he didn't need to deal with the metaplot - that it in no way contradicted his own schemes... From that point on he would say 'Hmmm, I see that Quintus is up to his old tricks again... Better say hello while I am in the area.' whenever he ran into signs of the metaplot. )

The Auld Grump

 

[reason]

...

On metaplots: one thing that has stuck in my mind all these years is a group of players agreeing that the coolest thing about my long-running campaign-with-metaplot (from the days when it would have been called a "plot," and resurrected after all these years in the body of a new and strange species as the Enclave, funnily enough) was that "things happened when the PCs weren't there to watch."

I think this is one of those pressures; it's the pressure of change and time which, like the threat of PC death and damage, gives a certain frisson to the proceedings. It's worth expending what might have been potential PC interactions on change; the destruction of a village, drama offstage, murder most foul, etc, etc. It's a different form of coinage.

Reason
Principia Infecta