Metaplots - it wasn't just TSR that did them

[Beginning of the End]

Puts a lot of work on the GM in terms of bringing someting to the table if they've already decided how X, Y, and Z works, but at the same time, having any published material, meta-plot or not, can have the same effect if you've already taken a part of the campaign setting for yourself and it's all of the sudden detailed out.

There is a difference in kind, though: If I'm filling in something that wasn't previously detailed, I can fully expect that what I'm doing may get contradicted by later supplements. But since both me and the supplements are both building on the same foundation, there's a pretty good chance that whatever gets published will, in fact, be fairly compatible with whatever I've created on my own initiative.

Metaplot, on the other hand, goes after the "safe zones" and changes them.

Imagine if the campaign world described a house: If I were to start using that house in my campaign, I might redecorate the living room. I might even start building a new addition with a couple of extra rooms on the back.

If a new supplement comes along and describes that house in more detail, I might discover that they used a different couch. Or maybe they've put a swimming pool in the backyard where I was building my addition. These can be problematic, but I can shift the swimming pool into the side yard. And, heck, what's the difference between one couch and another, right? I can either add a second couch in the living room or ask the NPCs described in the supplement to sit in my couch instead. I can still generally get usefulness out of the supplement.

Drastic changes wrought by metaplot, OTOH, tend to be more like: "The house has exploded." "The house has been invaded by a roving gang of rapists." "The top of the house has been razed away by a cloud giant." Either I change my house to fit the radical re-design; or all future descriptions of the house are useless to me and I miss out on the nifty swimming pools.

(Perhaps I've stretched this metaphor too far.)

 

[Dausuul]

I must spread some XP around before giving it to Beginning of the End again.

The Forgotten Realms' "Time of Troubles" is of this latter form. It really isn't the Time of Troubles (the metaplot) that forces people to change classes - it is the fact that the underlying engine switched from 1e to 2e. The Time of Troubles is merely the way they maintain some sort of continuity in the setting across that edition change.

That was the underlying purpose of the metaplot, but IMO the Time of Troubles went far beyond the minimum needed to justify the edition change. This is 1E to 2E we're talking about--of all the edition changes D&D has undergone, only 3E to 3.5E was less mechanically disruptive (unless you regard Moldvay to Mentzer as a new edition). Was it really necessary to kill off the god of assassins and have all assassins die as a result, rather than just saying "Assassins use the thief rules now?"

As regards metaplot ruining games: It doesn't ruin them, but it makes later setting material less useful to the degree that the metaplot conflicts with the established events of the game world. If the metaplot involves radical changes and earthshaking events, that can mean later setting material is virtually useless.

Furthermore, once a new edition of the setting has been released with world-changing metaplot "baked in," you have to go to eBay to replace your old setting books or get extra copies for new players. And before eBay you were just SOL. It's ironic that the rise of eBay and other online resale outlets happened just as intrusive metaplot was going out of style.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Yup. Actually, I always assumed TSR decided to do it because their strongest competition (FASA, White Wolf) was doing it.

That sequence of events isn't right. FASA's metaplot didn't start until Shadowrun, which wasn't published until 1989. White Wolf didn't even exist as a company until 1991.

Dragonlance, in 1984, is the grand-daddy of metaplot. (There may be some inklings in that direction from Traveller, but generally the Traveller metaplot isn't seen as really existing until MegaTraveller in '87.)

Torg's player-driven metaplot (originating in 1990) also predates White Wolf, but I think between Dragonlance and the Time of Troubles, TSR can be firmly identified as the company which gave birth to metaplot.

Which I think is largely to their credit: There's really no question that metaplot drove sales in the '80s and '90s. And, despite my general dislike of the concept as it was typically executed, would almost certainly do so today. The desire to know "what happens next" has been used for centuries as a successful sales tool.

That was the underlying purpose of the metaplot, but IMO the Time of Troubles went far beyond the minimum needed to justify the edition change. This is 1E to 2E we're talking about--of all the edition changes D&D has undergone, only 3E to 3.5E was less mechanically disruptive. Was it really necessary to kill off the god of assassins and have all assassins die as a result, rather than just saying "Assassins use the thief rules now?"

Part of the problem, of course, is that the rule change was implemented by a management team that wanted those elements removed from the game: So the same motivation that wanted assassins out of the rules would also want them out of the Realms.

 

[Alzrius]

Just so we all have the same timelines in mind...

The first AD&D books came out in 1977.

Yes, but you'll notice I was also looking at OD&D and BD&D, which predate the release of 1E.

Tracy Hickman was hired by TSR in 1982, and the first Dragonlance novel and module came out in 1984.

Yes, but others have already expounded on why Dragonlance is a bit of a different animal in this regard. Admittedly, I didn't say that in my initial post though.

The Forgotten Realms started publication in 1987.

2e AD&D came out in 1989.

With the possible exception of the Bloodstone adventures, there's no real metaplot in the Forgotten Realms that I'm aware of until the Time of Troubles series of adventures was released in, IIRC, 1989 to serve as the 1E -> 2E transition material. That's also the most commonly regarded beginning of the FR metaplot.

Shadowrun came out in 1989, and the oWoD in 1991. Dark Sun came out in 1991 as well.

You do realize I didn't say that either 2E or its metaplots were definitively in reaction to other companies, right?

I don't think it's unreasonable to suppose that, even if 2E occured right before other game companies appeared, them becoming popular with metaplot settings influenced TSR to turn up the proverbial dial on metaplots of their own.

...just so we're all on the same timeline.

 

[pawsplay]

To me, there is a difference between metaplot that occurs as a result of an ongoing evolution of an established fantasy world, versus metaplot that comes along and collides with my game. It's one thing to read a Star Wars novel and say, "Hm, that's not how I would have written up the Mandalorians," and decide not to use it, versus buying new sourcebooks for Vampire for their content and finding them riddled with assumptions about campaign changes I know nothing about and do not find interesting.

Dragonlance is very much an evolving virtual reality. I appreciate the recent version that neatly divided it up into eras based on "metaplot," -- certainly a lot more when I was trying to follow the occasional novel and, in the middle of it, had no real idea what was going on.

Metaplot as campaign expansion by sourcebook = potentially good read and inspiration
Metaplot as stealth update to playstyle = almost universally obnoxious
Metaplot as planned obsolecence = Evil.

So for instance I don't mind a series of adventure arcs that follow each other, or even occasional updates to a campaign world when the whole thing gets an edition update. But I hated the Mage Revised revisions, because it eliminated the parts I liked best about the setting, and even with the rules improvements never actually got around to it. And I would probably not even consider using any version of Forgotten Realms that wasn't already out-of-print.

 

[MortonStromgal]

To me, there is a difference between metaplot that occurs as a result of an ongoing evolution of an established fantasy world, versus metaplot that comes along and collides with my game. It's one thing to read a Star Wars novel and say, "Hm, that's not how I would have written up the Mandalorians," and decide not to use it, versus buying new sourcebooks for Vampire for their content and finding them riddled with assumptions about campaign changes I know nothing about and do not find interesting.

/This

Good metaplot can be ignored. Using Shadowrun: The Horrors again, the main setting is set in Seattle and while they "blew up" Chicago and had the president die. Most people could ignore that it ever happened because life went on. Meanwhile all the people who played through the campaign got to find out just how close we all got to the end. I'm sure there are a percentage of people who set their game in Chicago who were annoyed.

 

[Wik]

Is this really new information? I think most of us that were playing back then were aware of it. I imagine people who hated it in TSR game lines mention it because they hated it in TSR game lines, regardless of the existence of other products doing the same thing. I don't know that I would say TSR created it, but maybe some people blame them for it. White Wolf was more widely known for it at the time IME.

If you look at Silverblade's thread on 2e's massive releasing of books, there are a few people who imply that metaplot was one of those awful things that called TSR, that TSR was the king of metaplots, etc. And, while that may be true (I disagree, but whatever), the fact is that other companies did metaplots - and they worked.

Shadowrun is the best example I can personally think of, having no experience with White Wolf. And I, for one, would never run a Shadowrun game because there's just too much going on for me to feel comfortable with it.

Same thing with Battletech - the earlier material was set in 3025, the clans invade in 3050 so there's 25 years to work with before canon becomes an issue and the game technology changes. Unless your campaign was set in 3048 (probably on purpose to play through the invasion as it happens) then I don't see how one campaign could be impacted by it a whole lot.

Battletech is an interesting case. Before the clan invasion, it could be played with the assumption of relative points cost (related to tonnage) and each side had access to the same mechs (more or less). The game was a combat sim, plain and simple. The clan invasion messed that up, as the clan mechs were, in all ways, better (I think the inner sphere had one or two things that the clans never figured out). Which sort of messed things up.

Really, two people could play in Battletech campaigns, one in pre-clan, and the other post, and they would be experiencing two entirely different games, with different mechs dominating the battlefield, different strategies for winning, and different styles of scenario.

Star Fleet Battles has had the same thing since 1980 when X-Ships were introduced to the game- vastly different technology enters the game universe at point X and games set before or after that point are dramatically different.

Really good point. SFB is a fun game, but damn is it complex.

***

Personally, as far as all this goes, I'm not a huge fan of metaplots, simply because I always feel cheated out of a product when it starts referencing stuff from another product that I don't own. And I hate it when there's so much information out there about the world, and it's constantly updating, because it makes me feel like if I want to have my own little niche in the game, I need to play in the fringes: I don't want to set my Shadowrun game in Seattle, because there's always some new event going on with the corporations that my players will act upon that I'm not aware about, so I'm going to set my campaign in, um.... Winnipeg!

 

[Hussar]

The idea of meta-plot as planned obsolescence I think is hitting the nail on the head. So many meta-plot concepts make it very difficult, if not outright impossible, to incorporate later additions into an ongoing campaign.

Now, if your campaign world starts out with books X, Y and Z and you have no intentions of ever adding another book, then who cares? You can take later books and add them into a later campaign, or not, as you wish. But, I think some people collect setting books and expect those setting books to be viable in current campaigns.

Look at the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the changes to 4e Realms. People were (and are) very upset about these changes despite the fact that these changes in no way actually invalidate anyone's campaign. Nothing FORCES you to use these changes. If you want pre-Spellplague FR, there's a mountain of books for you to use.

But, if you want your FR campaign to use the newest books, you have to go post-Spellplague and incorporate all those changes into your campaign.

I can see how that would get people upset.

 

[Chris Knapp]

To me, the original Dragonlance era (End of the Age of Despair aka. War of the Lance) wasn't so much metaplot as it was a shared experience between novels and D&D. Both (ideally) concluded the same with the war over and the heroes victorious. I agree that everyone pretty much knew what was going to happen if you didn't #v<k up the final encounter.

My frustration with DL's metaplot occurred after the original campaign arc: Chaos War, War of Souls, Second Cataclysm, Dragon Overlords, etc. and the SAGA rules system.

After that, it was a painful trip through 3E as MWP & Co reacted to each new novel that itself attempted to clean up the previous mess and either removed a god (or two) added a new one, killed off big baddies and finally left fans with a relatively stable gaming playground.

So for me, lack of support for DL as a published campaign setting means the metaplot train has taken a break for a bit and leaves fans with a bit of breathing room. Now I can finally finish my own personal campaign arc without worry of a metaplot arriving next month that either makes me either alter my worlds reality or pretend it X doesn't exist. I, for one, let out a sigh of relief that DL wasn't selected last year when Dark Sun and DL seemed to be the front runners of the next setting.

 

[Beginning of the End]

The fact is that other companies did metaplots - and they worked. Shadowrun is the best example I can personally think of, having no experience with White Wolf. And I, for one, would never run a Shadowrun game because there's just too much going on for me to feel comfortable with it.

"I would never play it" is a weird definition of "they worked" when it comes to a game, IMO.

Some stuff here reminds me that metaplot is frequently wedded to another bane of supplement design: Deliberately leaving out key information from your core rulebook (and thus leaving the GM in the dark regarding important tenets of the campaign setting) so that you can sell supplements.

This pretty much single-handedly killed Trinity for White Wolf: A game brimming over with potential campaign structures, but they deliberately obfuscated all of them so that you couldn't actually play any of them using the core rulebook without inventing so much stuff from scratch that you were obviating the usefulness of all future supplements. They tried to fix it with the softcover release, but it was too little, too late.