Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cerebral Paladin" data-source="post: 5318605" data-attributes="member: 3448">Umbran's point about expectations rings true to me.&nbsp; When I bought Dark Sun, I didn't expect a metaplot--I thus found the massive changes implemented in the first set of novels and supplements jarring and frustrating.&nbsp; Conversely, with Dragonlance, the progression of the War of the Lance is essential to the setting--in many ways, the initial setting and the initial metaplot were one and the same.From my perspective, one of the key issues is the role played by PCs.&nbsp; In many metaplots, the sourcebooks, etc., create the impression that the metaplot is something independent of the PCs that the PCs can't affect.&nbsp; In other cases (Torg leaps to mind, although some (but not all) of the Mystara metaplot was good about this as well), the metaplot is a baseline that is explicitly intended to create adventures for the PCs that may then derail the written metaplot.&nbsp; But allowing the PCs the ability to meaningfully affect the metaplot creates the likelihood that future metaplot will have no connection to the situation in a given home campaign, so publishers have incentives to try to put the metaplot on rails.&nbsp; If your next supplement is The Ruins of Abeced, then if you allow the PCs to prevent Abeced from being ruined, it becomes harder to sell the supplement to their GM.&nbsp; I think this contributes to the Dragonlance modules &quot;you're the heroes of the setting, but you have to do exactly what we expect&quot; issue.I prefer campaigns that have the feeling of having a real, living, changing history, where stuff happens.&nbsp; To that end, metaplot can be useful.&nbsp; However, it's essential to me that the PCs are capable of being part of the history of their campaigns.&nbsp; Most published metaplots don't serve that interest very well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cerebral Paladin, post: 5318605, member: 3448"] Umbran's point about expectations rings true to me. When I bought Dark Sun, I didn't expect a metaplot--I thus found the massive changes implemented in the first set of novels and supplements jarring and frustrating. Conversely, with Dragonlance, the progression of the War of the Lance is essential to the setting--in many ways, the initial setting and the initial metaplot were one and the same. From my perspective, one of the key issues is the role played by PCs. In many metaplots, the sourcebooks, etc., create the impression that the metaplot is something independent of the PCs that the PCs can't affect. In other cases (Torg leaps to mind, although some (but not all) of the Mystara metaplot was good about this as well), the metaplot is a baseline that is explicitly intended to create adventures for the PCs that may then derail the written metaplot. But allowing the PCs the ability to meaningfully affect the metaplot creates the likelihood that future metaplot will have no connection to the situation in a given home campaign, so publishers have incentives to try to put the metaplot on rails. If your next supplement is The Ruins of Abeced, then if you allow the PCs to prevent Abeced from being ruined, it becomes harder to sell the supplement to their GM. I think this contributes to the Dragonlance modules "you're the heroes of the setting, but you have to do exactly what we expect" issue. I prefer campaigns that have the feeling of having a real, living, changing history, where stuff happens. To that end, metaplot can be useful. However, it's essential to me that the PCs are capable of being part of the history of their campaigns. Most published metaplots don't serve that interest very well. [/QUOTE]

Verification