How involved are you in D&D's "metaplot"?

[lutecius]

One of the joys of play D&D for me is setting design, so I've never used a pre-published setting, although own tons and enjoy browsing and reading through them for ideas and entertainment value. The same with Adventure Paths - I generally don't run them (although am considering Rise of the Runelords for D&D Next, or at last part of it), but like reading them for ideas and fun. I will use a module now and then, but as a "module" - plugged into my world.

As for the D&D metaplot as a whole, I don't really follow it - I don't read the novels, haven't read an official D&D novel for, I don't know, 20 years? I found that my fantasy reading was best fulfilled elsewhere, although some of my favorite stories are heavily D&D-influenced (e.g. Steven Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen).

All that said, I enjoy the default D&D setting and take bits and pieces of it for my campaign world. I like the idea of being part of a network of D&D worlds - whether different variations of published worlds, like the Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk, or the thousands upon thousands of homebrew worlds.

Same here. Getting to design fantasy worlds (whether alone or collectively, as we sometimes take turns as DM in the same campaign) is one of the best things about D&D and even though we use some elements from various published settings (even non D&D) we don't follow any established continuity.

And to be honest I'm not even that fond of the "default" D&D lore and other elements that may be considered integral parts of D&D by some. I often redesign the default races, as well as iconic but goofy monsters and I can't remember when I last used the Great Wheel cosmology or the nine-point alignment. I'm also not a fan of many copyrighted, made-up names like eladrin, tiefling and such, so I tend to rename things a lot.

But somehow, despite all the world changes and the house rules, I still consider my games as heavily D&D

 

[Stormonu]

I hate metaplot. When I buy a campaign world, I do so with the desire to run my group's adventures and activities, not someone else's novel.

The only cavaet to that is something like the Dragonlance adventure modules, where the character's activities could have a dramatic, interactive result on the world. But then, I wouldn't want to be sold a campaign that follows those stories, assuming that my group had done X, Y or Z (because, most likely, they didn't).

 

[MJS]

So how about you? Do you get involved in the D&D metaplot? Or the metaplot of whatever game or setting it is you play? Do you participate in scheduled events by WotC or Paizo?

I think that things like "The Sundering" are tapping historical and mythological roots. Whatever it means in a WotC product, I've no idea. I seem to recall the term comes up in The Silmarillion.
But no metaplot for me. For D&D I prefer a sandbox.
I did enjoy the metaplot for the early Rifts setting/RPG, but even that is largely sandbox if only using the first few books.

 

[Shemeska]

For settings that I enjoy I do appreciate a well done metaplot/evolution of the setting through events in modules, the passage of time in subsequent sourcebooks, and material in novels. However it's something that's really easy to completely screw up if you don't have a continuity editor on staff and/or seriously make sure that designers and novel writers do sufficient research before writing on a topic. Errors happen obviously and it's more likely to miss something minor the more and more material that grows around a setting over time, but you can minimize it. Plus all that means little if at some point a current design team regime decides to blow a setting up for reasons known only to them.

I'm mostly a fan of various D&D settings by way of the 1e/2e/3e connection of them all (except Eberron) through the Great Wheel cosmology.

Metaplot made things interesting, but it also can kill interest in a setting when it goes off the rails. FR was my second favorite setting, except now after 4e FR jumped a 100 years forward, retconned large amounts of material to conform to 4e core, and had the Spellplague as the in-game reasoning... I honestly don't recognize it as a same setting.

It pretty much killed my interest in FR, and I'd been buying most every sourcebook and novel. As for the Sundering with 5e, since (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the Sundering isn't going to actually be retconning the 4e material and the changes it forced, at least for me it's sort of a non-starter for getting my interest back. It looks to be trying to retain as much of the 4e material as it can and just bring back some 1e/2e/3e elements that were removed in 4e, but it's still a century in-setting removed from the setting I enjoyed, and most every character and plot element is still long dead or no longer relevant. They're trying to backpeddle a bit and regain support for the setting since I suspect that 4e FR lost quite a lot of the fanbase and likely hurt RPG and novel sales as a result (no sales numbers obviously but it seemed that there were less novels published, some novels cancelled, some novels e-book only with no print edition, and I don't recall many or perhaps any hitting the NYT bestseller list but I could be wrong on that).

Of course one person's setting trampling arrogant and malicious metaplot is another person's awesome on toast: I enjoyed Planescape's Faction War. *ducks to avoid thrown objects* It just depends on how the majority of the fanbase feels about any sweeping metaplot-caused setting changes so handle such things with care, and probably best to treat it with kid gloves when discussing things you removed, because what you deride might be someone's favorite special snowflake, and now there's the internet.

Novels that take place on small scales without causing major world changes, or novels that aren't assumed to be canon within the setting by default are probably the way to go. Having an editor in charge of ensuring that an RPG line and novel line don't trample on one another is key. In this respect I'm really pleased with how Paizo has been handling their novels for Pathfinder.

 

[Gadget]

I must say I've like the game almost in spite of the 'meta plot' that has grown up around it. I never got into planescape and all the associated world (or multi-universe) building that surrounded it and was consequently surprised about the outrage around 4e's changes to the D&D meta plot when I thought it was in many ways more mythic and adaptable to more of a standard fantasy type model.

 

[pedr]

Greg Bilsland just asked Twitter what WotC can do to connect home groups to the D&D community, by which he seemed to mean groups that play Encounters, perhaps people who read the novels, get involved in meta-plot discussions etc. May be worth tweeting at him!

I like meta-plot: I have played a lot of organised play campaigns and enjoy them when the story moves forward. I'm running Encounters and The Sundering has done a good job of getting me to read the FR novels. Starting to play LFR did the same, as I'd not really been a Realms player before.

I suggested to Greg that perhaps one way to get home groups more connected to wider story developments would be low-key suggestions of elements which could DMs could include in home games which could tie their games to a meta plot. With The Sundering this could include information about Isteval, suggestions about what minor gods could get their followers to investigate which could run alongside the events of the published adventures and novels, etc. WotC's previous meta-thing, The Abyssal Plague might have worked even better for this, with suggestions for how to include its elements in home games and draw on material published for and supporting the overarching plot without having to use the wider material in its entirety.

 

[Aenghus]

The Forgotten Realms metaplot in the move from 1e to 2e, The Avatar Crisis, really annoyed me - I hate the concept of Wild Magic and the ludicrousness of e.g. all the assassins dying suddenly because the class was removed, I just couldn't stomach.

Since them I have never accepted such metaplots completely - I consider every change, every element on it's own merits and in the light of my own campaign.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Never bothered with metaplot, generally used settings to provide geography and NPC as background to whatever I am running an completely ignored setting history, novels, tie-ins and any ongoing changes in metaplot.
I don't have time to keep up with all that stuff.

 

[Derren]

The problem is that D&D, or lets say FR, doesn't do the metaplot really well. It is only known to those who read novels and most often so high powered that the PCs can't participate in it. It also stays in the closet much of the time and only really comes out when a edition change happens.

Want to see a well done metaplot? Look at Shadowrun (although they also have made several too high powered plots recently). A main difference is that the metaplot is in the rulebooks. You do not have to buy novels or anything not used for gaming to stay up to date. And if something big happens then a campaign book gets published, not only detailing what happens but also how the PCs can participate, either by a set of published adventures or just suggestions for creating your own runs.

 

[pemerton]

I don't mind setting but have zero interest in metaplot. If a setting has something happening in it I want that to be the key thing about the setting, and the reason I'm using that setting rather than some other setting - and the game will then be built around that for both me and my players. And once that thing is resolved, well that's the end of the setting for playing purposes!