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

[urLordy]

Only to the extent of scouting out forums for a nice a summary of anything interesting, like with the Spellplague. (As the reactions are often just as interesting as the story itself) Speaking of which, where could I find spoilers about the Sundering?

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I find the concept of a metaplot fascinating; it would be right up my alley to be feeded background events.

But we play only every three weeks for 2.5-3 hours and don't cover a lot of ground. Every adventure takes so long in real time that it's impossible to align it with a dynamic external source.

I don't know a lot of the Sundering; seems to be the usual Realms-shaking event in time for the edition change.

 

[cimbrog]

It depends on how the end result is presented. For example I didn't get into Greyhawk until 3rd edition with the Living Greyhawk Gazetteer. While it was pretty standalone there were enough references like, "this is the result of some complicated thing that happened in X module" that made me want to go back to the original materials where there was less complexity.

The only other experience I've had is with Mystara and it's Wrath of the Immortals. I LOVE using the actual WotI timeline just to give the feeling of something big going on in the background. But I never start after war. Too confusing.

Oddly, when I read the Eberron sourcebook for the first time I felt like I was reading a post-event setting (I started with the 4e version) but it didn't feel as complicated as other post-event settings. I think this is because the war in Eberron was designed to create an exciting environment to adventure in rather than just shake up what had been a previously good adventuring environment.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I didn't care that much to begin with, and then I got angry when Dark Sun novels killed off Sorcerer Kings left and right until they had to redo the setting without most of them. 4e's assumed "points of light" theme never spoke to me, plus I felt they simplified things that weren't that complicated in the first place.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Involved? Not at all. I enjoy world building enough that I don't expect to ever run a game set in something I didn't write. I've read some Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms books, but I don't feel invested in them at all.

 

[TerraDave]

I have never been afraid to have plot in my games (and yes I know that makes me a bad DM and no, I don't care) but no, the meta-plot of FR, DL, DS...not that interested. Except in thinking that it has been a problem for those settings. I am using Sigil right now, and it is, of course, pre-faction war (because otherwise whats the point?) but again what will be important is the stuff I make up, and the plot it implies (there I go again).

D&D core does not have meta-plot, but it does have default setting assumptions that change with each addition, and stories connected to not-campaign specific entities (say Graz'zt). This can also be pretty annoying. But I can just keep ignoring and pushing my own plot.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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'm pretty much in your boat; the only published setting I still give two hoots about is Planescape, and I still pretend that the whole Faction War thing never happened. I liked the DL Chronicles when I was a kid, but never actually played DL. I read a few 2e-era FR novels, but rarely play the setting. I still don't know what the Spellplague is. The Realms had another cataclysm, Mystra died again, yawn.

I've never played in an organized event. If I'm playing a homebrew setting, the DM usually has a metaplot, and that's the extent of my interest in metaplots.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Oddly, when I read the Eberron sourcebook for the first time I felt like I was reading a post-event setting (I started with the 4e version) but it didn't feel as complicated as other post-event settings. I think this is because the war in Eberron was designed to create an exciting environment to adventure in rather than just shake up what had been a previously good adventuring environment.

Eberron doesn't have a metaplot. It's a deliberately static setting, in the sense that novels and splatbooks will not advance the setting and possibly hamper or complicate a DM's work. The starting trilogy of novels took place a year or two before the setting actually starts, and hints without answering the big questions (such as what caused the Mourning).

However, the setting is a powder keg with numerous factions at odds, which means war is possibly around the corner. This gives the DM the freedom to keep the factions snarling at each other, or make warfare break out at any time.

It also has an interesting take on psionics. There is psionics... but it's generally restricted to a single continent. If the DM wants psionics to be a big part of the setting, they provide hooks related to the continent (including human-seeming spies on the main continent), and if they don't like psionics, those spies aren't involved in anything the PCs are doing, and the PCs aren't going to head to an island continent for no reason. Something similar happened with the Underdark (Khyber) and Xen'drik (Australia). If you don't like Cthulhu, don't hook to Khyber, and if you don't like drow, stay away from Xen'drik (though most of the drow tribes have nothing in common with Forgotten Realms drow).

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

D&D has a metaplot?

Exactly my reaction. I've always considered WotC's annual themes to just be a marketing gimmick. Year of the Drow? OK ...

I like campaign settings, but prefer them static. I'll buy a new book for a rules update or perhaps different detail, but "advancing the plot" really makes me growl. FR has been horribly broken by the various plot-driven changes. Novel plots and RPG settings should remain forever divorced IMO.

Adventures and adventure paths are OK; I don't regard them as "metaplot". Plots in adventrues can be good or ill, depending on execution.

 

[Kinak]

If I'm playing a homebrew setting, the DM usually has a metaplot, and that's the extent of my interest in metaplots.

I'm right about here. My livingroom has a metaplot for each setting, but I don't want to be fed anyone else's metaplot.

On the other hand, I'm really excited to run Pathfinder's Shattered Star AP (which comes after Rise of the Runelords). But I wouldn't consider running it until after I ran RotR.

I guess that means I don't mind materials that build on my livingroom's metaplot, but don't want anybody else's metaplot poking at things. Which isn't to say I'd want a bunch more stuff like Shattered Star, but it's cool once or twice.

In all, I've been really, really pleased with Paizo for both keeping the setting fairly static and for pushing the novels off in their own corner. I like the novels (especially Death's Heretic), but I don't want them rewriting canon. That way lies madness.

Cheers!
Kinak