Should Campaign Settings include a metaplot?

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I am confused by the term metaplot.

Do you mean events that take place in the world that are independent of the PCs' actions?

I wouldn't say independent. Any change to the setting affects the PCs to some degree, especially if they read about it in a player's sourcebook.

I voted "no", primarily because of the FR, DragonLance and Dark Sun examples. FR actually seems to have made a positive metaplot change from 2e to 3e (eg bringing back Bane and killing off the wimpy son of his, etc). But the novels ripped apart all three settings.

From the WotC boards

In my opinion, the novels should serve as inspiration, not restriction. The novels should open doors rather than close them - allowing DMs to say "My party could have an adventure like that" instead of "Oh, someone else has already done that." As yrogerg says, you CAN choose to use the heroes of the novels in your campaign and to take everything that happens in them as canon. But the intention of Eberron is that your PCs are the heroes of the world.

A key example of this appears in Secrets of Xen'drik. The book includes statistics for the docent Shira. In The Shattered Land, this item falls into the hands of the warforged Pierce. If you want, you can say that Pierce is somewhere in your world and that he has Shira. Or you can let YOUR players get Shira, and use the novels as inspiration about how the docent behaves.

Essentially, if Eberron was Middle Earth, I'd want you to feel that you had the option to go through the entire War of the Ring with YOUR characters taking the place of Aragorn and Frodo... as opposed to watching on the sidelines.

But at the end of the day, the choice is yours! Treating the novels as canon has the advantage of creating NPCs that your players can recognize as peers, and there's something to be said for that as well. There's no right or wrong: it's all a question of what best suits your play style.

Hellcow is Keith Baker, designer of the Eberron setting.

 

[Umbran]

Other.

Settings should not have a metaplot. They should have several metaplots.

Invariably, with one big overarching metaplot, the entire setting must undergo overhaul when that metaplot resolves. All the previous campaign information goes out the window. It stinks for those who want to continue with new products, but don't follow the metaplot.

With several smaller metaplots, I expect one could still drive development of new products, which is necessary for the business success of the setting. But we would gain the added bonus of giving individual GMs more flexibility and choice. We could more easily pick and choose which metaplots to use or ignore, and resolution of a plot we were not using wouldn't change the setting facets we are using.

 

[shadow]

In theory I like the idea of a metaplot, but metaplots are annoying in practice. I like the idea that something is happening in the world, rather than a setting simply being a static collection of NPCs and locations. However, to often the metaplot requires a DM to keep up with supplements, and forces things to go the way that the game designers want them to go.

 

[Odhanan]

Other. Settings should have numerous campaign seeds for GMs and players to explore through their campaigns and characters.

After, whether I'd like these seeds to be explored throughout the whole setting collection or not and become actual metaplots, that depends on whether the actual metaplots are usable for actual games or not, and whether or not they imply a "canon" (which sucks if they do, as far as I'm concerned).

 

[Psion]

I think that often start out on the right foot, but eventually, as the setting passes through the hands of the wrong author, the author gets a wild hair, whatever, it ends up trashing the setting.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

I think that often start out on the right foot, but eventually, as the setting passes through the hands of the wrong author, the author gets a wild hair, whatever, it ends up trashing the setting.

Wasn't there an FR writer who hated the setting, and thus trashed it purposefully?

 

[Odhanan]

Wasn't there an FR writer who hated the setting, and thus trashed it purposefully?

Who? Pardon my language, but this would be such a jackass!

 

[A'koss]

I'm also of the opinion that having a (or several) metaplot(s) running can be a healthy thing, they can really help shape the tone of the campaign. I think they are good for introducing homebrews to new players (it gives them a focus in your campaign). When the metaplot(s) are resolved, the players should now have a good feel for the campaign and DMs might feel relaxing the reigns some in the aftermath will work better going forward.

On the other hand, having none seems to work just as well for some campaigns (Greyhawk and Planescape are two of my favorites and 100% metaplot free)...

 

[Hussar]

Other. Settings should have numerous campaign seeds for GMs and players to explore through their campaigns and characters.

After, whether I'd like these seeds to be explored throughout the whole setting collection or not and become actual metaplots, that depends on whether the actual metaplots are usable for actual games or not, and whether or not they imply a "canon" (which sucks if they do, as far as I'm concerned).

QFT

The other option is for the metaplot to be only hinted at and easily ignored. I know in Scarred Lands, by and large, you could ignore the metaplot very easily. The metaplot was the return of one or anther Titan as well as the return of the Elven god. Ignoring either or both was not difficult, so, it didn't bother me overmuch.

Then again, I've never been much for setting canon anyway.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Who? Pardon my language, but this would be such a jackass!

Just something tickling the memory. From back around the TSR days.

Oh well, probably mis-remembering.