Should Campaign Settings include a metaplot?

[RFisher]

I'm not entirely comfortable that I understand what is meant by "metaplot", but here goes it...

My first reaction is, "No!" A setting should be a backdrop to the PCs adventures & nothing more.

But...I recently read the statement that Tékumel was a world with a mystery. I'd never found anything I'd read about it particularly compelling until I read that. The idea that there is there is something about the world that doesn't quite make sense & that the PCs can discover why...that's interesting. (Although, I'm immediately less interested in what Tékumel's mystery might be as what mystery I could create for my own setting.)

But...I think that tends to be problematic for a published setting. For one thing, it's hard to keep the secret for long.

I have very sharp differences of opinion about published settings versus a particular group's "living" setting--whether it be fully homebrew or based on a published setting.

A published setting should be static. There shouldn't be an ever growing canon that keeps new players from feeling like they can never be as conversant with it as long-time players. The canon should be static.

Supplements for published settings (if such are truly necessary at all) do not need to be consistent with each other beyond the static starting point. Since each group's living version diverges from the published core with the first session, the DM is going to have to adapt any supplements to their version anyway. And not every supplement need be useful to every group. Supplement authors should be free to explore any direction they'd care to.

 

[DragonLancer]

I voted no.

IMO having a metaplot seriously hurt Dragonlance and Dark Sun.

 

[bento]

I like metaplots because they show me the kinds of stories the setting has an affinity for.

I know that in the end, it's what I do with the plots (ignore them, adopt them whole cloth or tailor them to the group) is between me and my group. I come up with my own adventures and use metaplots to flavor where I see fit.

I like the metaplots in Eberron and Kara-Tur because they show me the possible games I can run and what power groups there are. At the other extreme, I do not like Faerun because none of the plots interest me.

 

[Klaus]

Note that Eberron has *no* metaplots. It has tons of campaign seeds, but products released since the ECS came didn't move any of those plots forward. If you buy Player's Guide to Eberron, the assumed setting is still the one described in the ECS, making no mention of the adventures, novels or whatnot.

 

[Elfdart]

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

That's what David Cook and Carl Sargent did to Greyhawk. The result was turning the best campaign world into the worst.

 

[Staffan]

I like metaplots because they show me the kinds of stories the setting has an affinity for.

I like the metaplots in Eberron and Kara-Tur because they show me the possible games I can run and what power groups there are. At the other extreme, I do not like Faerun because none of the plots interest me.

Metaplots are not the same thing as novels (though they are often correlated). Metaplot is something like "One of the leaders of the Zhentarim has all his backup clones awakened, and starts fighting with himself, thereby plunging the Zhentarim into chaos. One of the other leaders take advantage of this, strengthening his own grip on the organization, dedicating it more to his evil god, and increases its influence on the nearby cities." Another example would be "The Sorcerer-King of Tyr is planning a ritual to kill off his entire city and turning himself into a dragon, but a small group of heroes kill him before he can complete the ritual, and free all the slaves and turn Tyr into a fledgling democracy." Those are things that actually change the settings in question, as opposed to showing something that could happen there.

 

[Agent Oracle]

Okay: I voted in favor of the metaplot, but I want one thing made clear, the metaplot should not drive NOR inhibit the characters actions.

I remember feeling helpless as an unregistered wizard in dragonlance. I had to sit back and watch while an entire army was addresed by the evil female dragon rider who had the helmet of the golden general (or something like that), when we had been playing called shots. I KNEW I could have one-shot killed her right from where I stood by firing a single arrow into her skull, but I couldn't act because the GM said we couldn't.

I also remember running a campaign with a metaplot, the players never realized it, despite the fact that they set off several of the main events. (Think of that one Star Wars comic, where tow rebel loosers are present aat nearly every important event in the first trilogy, what was it called "Tag and Bink are dead?")

 

[Infernal Teddy]

That's what David Cook and Carl Sargent did to Greyhawk. The result was turning the best campaign world into the worst.

Actually, I quite liked the "new, darker" Greyhawk of After the Ashes. But then, I was told that Gary had been building up to a war in his Dragon articles...

 

[The Shaman]

I'm not fond of metaplots in published settings, but I don't get annoyed since I'm always free to ignore the changes and establish my own timeline from the point of departure.

 

[rounser]

Actually, I quite liked the "new, darker" Greyhawk of After the Ashes. But then, I was told that Gary had been building up to a war in his Dragon articles...

Agreed. I also like the way Paizo seems to be continuing in this vein to an extent with Age of Worms.