• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Metaplots

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
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.

That phrasing made me realize I should be more clear.

I don't mind if there are major changes to a setting that aren't done by PC interactions. But, I would really like the players to have the option to play a role in those events, if they so desire. As a GM, I want to choose those events, rather than have them dictated to me by some other writer, especially after I've already started my campaign.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

GMMichael

Guide of Modos
The OP boils down to a simple question: Game of Thrones, or Lord of the Rings?

In GoT, each character is a smaller part of the whole cast, and each character has a small part of the world going with (revolving around?) him. With few exceptions, no one character or party is responsible for the events of the world at large.

In LotR, well, if Frodo doesn't make it to Mount Doom, game over.

My personal answer is GoT, because that allows space for one PC party to screw up, or TPK, and not destroy mankind as they know it.

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.

Metapost:
[sblock]
I notice that Umbran doesn't use the term "metaplot." He may be thinking what I am: this thread is about story background. Let's call a spade a spade, and reserve the term "metaplot" for plots about plots.[/sblock]
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
My personal answer is GoT, because that allows space for one PC party to screw up, or TPK, and not destroy mankind as they know it.

Well, if the party's dead, what happens tot he rest of the fictional mankind is pretty irrelevant, now isn't it?

I don't mind having the LotR goig on in my game. Just so long as the PCs are Frodo, Aragorn, and company, and the GM isn't inserting it just because the newest world supplement says that's what is happening in the world.

I notice that Umbran doesn't use the term "metaplot." He may be thinking what I am: this thread is about story background. Let's call a spade a spade, and reserve the term "metaplot" for plots about plots.

Actually, I think "metaplot" is an okay term for this. "Metagaming" is using the fact that you're in the larger framework of a game to make in-game decisions. "Metaplotting" then, is using the fact that you're in the larger framework of a world-plot to make your plot choices.

I ahve no problem with a game that has a story background - if that is background in the sense of "history".
 

Abbasax

Explorer
I adore metaplot in games, I feel they often add a weight and dynamism that can be missing from static settings, but I rarely have the players get actively involved in the metaplot. Instead, it's normally used as a backdrop or a spring board for our own stories.
 

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
I think one also needs to seperate Metaplot from Background story in order for the focus to be the PCs. So for instance the events of the SW Rebellion is Background story to the metaplot of Rise of the Sith.

NB it seems Umbran beat me to my point, oh well I agree:)

In my last homebrew the Metaplot was the settlement of uncharted islands vs the encroachment of a militant cult seeking 7 lost artifacts to open a gate for their dark god. That was the metaplot but I didnt specify when the artifacts would be found (I didnt even know what they all were initially).

The PCs started by hunting ducks for a wedding feast, inadvertly tresspassing on a gnome sacred site and being sent to recover a talisman that happened to be one of the seven artifacts sought by the cult
 
Last edited:

Celebrim

Legend
The best books make terrible RPG settings. The best RPG settings are things that don't make for (IMO) good books, because they are sprawling, unfocused, and not really about anything in particular. As novels, they sometimes work well page by page, but not taken together as a whole, because they almost always drift off into slow moving muddled messes. A metaplot is useful for a novel, or a series of novels where the plot and the metaplot are largely one and the same. It's not useful for an RPG where the plot is created at least in part by the protagonists and not any single author. It's a pretty good bet that if the novel involves saving the universe, that it's a bad setting for an RPG.

A good RPG setting isn't about one particular thing. It is big enough that there are many equally important things going on all over the place. Some or most of them probably aren't related. A setting with a metaplot is almost always a setting where there is only one important story to tell, everyone knows what it is, and your characters aren't in it.

The only way to dodge that problem is to move the time frame and space of the setting to somewhere that the metaplot is rendered irrelevant, which almost always requires massive secondary invention so that the setting is now no longer actually the setting of the book but rather a sprawling, unfocused, setting that no longer has a single metaplot. Arguably the Star Wars RPG is a good example of this sort of secondary creation. The equivalent literary creation would be the Han Solo trilogy set in the same universe as the movies, but having a rather different metaplot. So for example, you could probably write a decent Middle Earth campaign setting, if your setting involved nothing to do with Sauron, the Noldor, the Numenoreans, or the Rings of Power but resolved something unhinted at of similar stature offstage of the main plot. Afterall, Morgoth had many servants... Or you could probably do a decent Hogwarts campaign, that wasn't set in Europe in the 20th century and hense probably wasn't about Hogwarts. Sadly, the average player is sold on a setting by its familiar peices, and secondary invention of the same quality as the original inspiring work is very difficult and rarely done well.

While I don't like metaplot for a setting, you can get away with it if the entire point of a setting is an adventure path. The best example of the use of metaplot in an RPG is the Chronicles of the Dragonlance adventure path. It's also a terrible setting for a RPG that isn't 'Chronicles of the Dragonlance'. But while a good inventive DM can use that AP as the basis of a campaign (and a bad one can use it as a pointless railroad), it's pretty much just a highly extended 'one shot'.

MMORPG's I think make a huge mistake in trying to give their settings big lore building Metaplots particularly ones driven by NPCs. It's impossible to make that convincing because nothing ever changes and everyone is that hero, so in fact no one is. The mistake is driven by the fact that as a society are far better, more experience, and more mature in the art of writing novels than we are in the art of writing RPGs. People keep doing what they know works in other mediums, and failing miserably I think as RPGs. I think much of the appeal of Mass Effect was going to be that it merged successfully the appeal of a novel with the appeal of an RPG, but the third installment failed when it was revealed that that promise was never going to be made good on - something that should have been more obvious from the plot of the second installment than it was.

I'm curious to see if the forthcoming Numernera cRPG manages to avoid this. The original 'Torment', while a very good game, didn't and as a result the ending was one of the few parts of the game I felt really cheated by. Additionally, the original 'Torment' isn't really an RPG as I understand the term, because you can't really create your character (much less change anything by your choices), but rather a traditional Adventure game (similar to Grim Fandango) with an RPG combat engine tacked on to it. Fallout II did a better job IMO of being an actual RPG, but probably the best example of good design for an RPG in a cRPG format was the old Exile titles by SpiderWeb, particularly Exile III. Still, even then you have a single NPC driven metaplot.
 

DrunkonDuty

he/him
I was just posting in the "Shout Out to L5R" thread about what I like about the game. I considered mentioning the metaplot but didn't. I'm glad as it gives me an opportunity to rant about it here.

The Setting of the game (using the term setting as it was defined above, a thing that has been set, past tense is important) is pretty cool. Yeah it's a bit cliched but I can live with that. One of the things in the setting that most appealed to me back in 1e L5R was the whole Crab Clan sitting on the Kaiu Wall, watching for the next Shadowlands invasion. Just as they have done for a thousand years. The Crab hate the Shadowlands with an all-consuming passion. It's got great potential for some dark and desperate role play situations.

Go forward a few years and 2 editions. I'm happily flipping through my shiny new copy of L5R 3rd Ed. I'm reading the extended timeline and what's one of the first new things I notice: The Clan Wars (or whatever the hell it was called) has the Crab Clan allying with Shadowlands to invade the Empire. This is a serious WTF? right here. Any of the Clans allying with the Shadowlands would have been a bad joke. That they had the Crab do it was just... so utterly crap. Terrible terrible metaplot. Some years later I am still stunned when I think about it. And the scary thing is: this was written by fans. If some idiot company exec had done it that would at least make a sort of sense. "Oh an idiot who didn't know the game and didn't care about it made the decision." No, this came about from play by fans. OK, play in the card game but still.

I start all my L5R games in the year 1000 or before (i.e.: before the metaplot started to happen.)

A metaplot I didn't mind and have been willing to use an adapted form of is the Greyhawk Wars. I mean I sure wouldn't use all of it. I've never liked Iuz all that much. The whole "Iuz is the great mover and shaker of the Flanaess" is a bit trite for me. But the idea of a general war engulfing the whole continent is one I'm cool with. The original published setting had the Flanaess on the edge of just such a conflict and having it move forward is fine.

Champions Universe has Doctor Destroyer as it's #1 evil megalomaniac. He faked his death in 1992 when he wiped out Detroit. Personally, I hate the character (he's just boring!) and I re-write the metaplot as him having died in 1992. Really. Irrevocably. Not in some "it's a comic book he'll be back" sort of way. The guy is dead dead dead.

So in answer to the OP: I guess metaplot is something I can take or leave. That is I will take some parts of it, leave others.

As an aside: I think a game's back story is metaplot too. It's just that it's metaplot that was already in place before we started playing our games in the world setting.

As an aside to my aside, I have a distinct feeling of having written pretty much exactly this in a previous thread some years ago.

Cheers all.
 

Li Shenron

Legend
As an aside: I think a game's back story is metaplot too. It's just that it's metaplot that was already in place before we started playing our games in the world setting.

Exactly! This is a critical point.

Past history provides your starting point -> GOOD

Metaplot forces you to reset -> BAD

I suppose that it isn't entirely bad. Someone might be bored by the setting, and appreciate a serious change.

Personally, if I'm bored by a setting, I change to another setting rather than revamp the current. My opinion is that if a setting is great, it shouldn't be changed at all. IOW, the best a campaign setting could do is stay faithful to itself and those who like it, not cater to those who are bored by it.
 

DrunkonDuty

he/him
Agreed. If we (players in general) like a setting we will buy into it. Literally. With cash. If that setting is then messed up by some later metaplot... Well I feel we have a right to not only not buy into it anymore (obviously) but we have a right to be annoyed by it.

If, as has happened, the metaplot is used as a ham fisted way to "encourage" players to move over to (i.e.: buy) new edition... That's not just annoying, that's infuriating.

I reckon there's a whole lot can be written about this. But maybe in another thread.

cheers.
 

FuLai

First Post
metaplot is a tool

I found metaplot useful to frame: goals, antagonist, obstacles, big event
and such. If your players dont care about it, it become background story.

It is very simple for me, it juste another tool to tell good story. If it
got in the way I change it, ignore part of it or stop using it. When i play,
my first concern is if my players have fun and i don't have to much work
to achieve this.

sincerly
 

Remove ads

Top