Metaplots

[trappedslider]

As not side track another thread.....

It got me wondering.. I know a number of RPGs have metaplots The Dresden Files had a for a time the war between the red court and the Council and GURPS IW has the war between the two groups. And depending on what era there's always a bigger war going in Star Wars. So my question is do you tend to ignore the metaplot or do you use it and weave your players in and out of events ala Hero of another s tory?For me, I tend to either have the players off doing something else that also affects the metaplot, like using them to explain what happened off screen that let the main focus group accomplish the mission.

 

[Li Shenron]

I hate metaplots, thus I tend to ignore them.

My ideal fantasy setting is something that gets written once and for all, becomes a starting point, and then each gaming group takes off from that and determine future history. You know, a "setting" as the verb "to set" kind of implies

Oddly enough, my favourite published campaign settings are Rokugan and Forgotten Realms, both of which have strong metaplots. But in fact, I settled on one time in history and tend to play all campaigns at that time, happily ignoring subsequent history developments (which by extension, I tend to hate).

It's understandable to me that a lot of people like "living" settings, but the problem is that you have to keep up with them, and whatever your PCs do, especially if in your games they have achieved world-influencing results, you have to scrap them if they don't conform with the "official" history evolution and adapt your ongoing campaigns to them? No thanks!

 

[delericho]

I've done both. I got much better results when I ignored the metaplot and concentrated solely on telling my own story.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I can live with both versions, though a well written metaplot, which doesn't turn the whole world upside down is my optimum solution. The FR metaplot, example given, is way too much for my taste. Having the gods kill each other? No, please not. Changing the whole landscape nearly beyond recognition? No, thank you.

I would love something like a "newspaper metaplot". Outline the plot for the next, say, five years of the world and give me the kind of information I might fnid in a real-world newspaper. With such a metaplot it'd become easy to use it as background material, bringing the world to life.

 

[Lwaxy]

Depends on the group. I almost always adapt the metalot to some extend though. Faerun, for example, I tend to turn to Godswar into something else. And the landscape will definitely not change - I use the modified map for a Second World story though.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I have done both but I view a metaplot as an long term event that will happen or is happening that will impact the setting background. The players really can't change the event. What the metaplot does is generates game plots in the campaign timeline.

 

[Umbran]

Whether I am playing or GMing, I would generally prefer the main story to be about the PCs in my game. I don't want to run a Star Wars game set in the middle of the Rebellion, for example, because we already know the major issue will be wrapped up by someone else.

As a good example of what works, for me - I am also playing in an occasional Dresden Files game, set before Changes. But we are also set in Boston, so the detailed actions of Harry Dresden are not an issue. The Red Court is present, but isn't the Big Bad for our group, so the war isn't even so much a an issue. Meanwhile, the PCs have engaged one of the groups only mentioned in the books after changes - basically, our bunch has encountered a Big Bad *before* Dresden has. In addition, at least one of the characters (mine) includes the existence of a Fae power equivalent to the Winter and Summer Courts, but separate from them. Thus, actions in our game could thoroughly invalidate stuff after Changes. And we're cool with that.

 

[Selkirk]

I have done both but I view a metaplot as an long term event that will happen or is happening that will impact the setting background. The players really can't change the event. What the metaplot does is generates game plots in the campaign timeline.

i view metaplots this way too ...these are events that are happening and the pc's can get involved with various factions at some level (inter faction wars etc...). but i don't want a metaplot that makes the pc's feel as if they 'have' to get involved 'now' . i.e. no massive demon lord intent on destroying the land unless the pc's intervene .

 

[the Jester]

My attitude toward metaplot can generally be summed up as "Hate hate hate!"

But I use a homebrewed campaign world, partially so I don't have to worry about that kind of thing.

 

[gamerprinter]

Not my thing either, I remember when Ravenloft introduced the Grand Conjunction metaplot, which I absolutely detested. While I like a world that works independently of the PCs, as a living place, at the same time, I prefer the major changes to a setting (if any) done by PC interactions.