Should Campaign Settings include a metaplot?
- Thread starter Klaus
- Start date
Trickstergod
First Post
I really liked the way Klaus termed it: a campaign setting should remain a snapshot. As such, I voted no on the metaplot.
So long as there are new places to detail, people to describe and organizations to flesh out, metaplot is a bad thing. I want a campaign setting to give me story seeds and plot hooks, but I don't want it to resolve a single one. I want adventures detailing these plot hooks, but I don't want the adventure to be canon. If the campaign setting says it's day one of year 1000, I want all the accessories and supplements to assume it's still day one of year 1000 (except for in the adventures, mind you, which aren't assumed to have happened yet, anyway).
So we get a look at the world that day. We see that, say, the Demon Lord Flub has been imprisoned for the past century in a statue within the holiest city in the world.
Then we detail the city that day. We find that he has cultists working to free him who have infiltrated the church hierarchy.
Then we get a look at the church. We discover they were formed 1000 years ago and there's a prophecy that one of their own will eventually herald the Age of Flub or some such.
At no point, though, does the timeline advance. Flub remains imprisoned. The cultists aren't routed out. The Age of Flub doesn't come to pass.
The setting gets detailed, but none of the plot hooks get invalidated. If you want to run a game around the release of the demon Flub, you won't find that, in the city book describing him, he's been released due to book X. When you read the book of cults, or whatever, that cult is still there, still doing its business.
I want a campaign setting to give me ideas. To get the ball rolling, then letting me take it the rest of the way.
Sure, I don't have to use metaplot elements. But the more metaplot there is, the harder it is to ignore. And that's when I stop buying books.
So long as there's more setting to detail, metaplot doesn't even serve the purpose of making new books. Once a setting has been described in full...which is effectively never...then start with the changes. Otherwise, leave them the heck out.
So long as there are new places to detail, people to describe and organizations to flesh out, metaplot is a bad thing. I want a campaign setting to give me story seeds and plot hooks, but I don't want it to resolve a single one. I want adventures detailing these plot hooks, but I don't want the adventure to be canon. If the campaign setting says it's day one of year 1000, I want all the accessories and supplements to assume it's still day one of year 1000 (except for in the adventures, mind you, which aren't assumed to have happened yet, anyway).
So we get a look at the world that day. We see that, say, the Demon Lord Flub has been imprisoned for the past century in a statue within the holiest city in the world.
Then we detail the city that day. We find that he has cultists working to free him who have infiltrated the church hierarchy.
Then we get a look at the church. We discover they were formed 1000 years ago and there's a prophecy that one of their own will eventually herald the Age of Flub or some such.
At no point, though, does the timeline advance. Flub remains imprisoned. The cultists aren't routed out. The Age of Flub doesn't come to pass.
The setting gets detailed, but none of the plot hooks get invalidated. If you want to run a game around the release of the demon Flub, you won't find that, in the city book describing him, he's been released due to book X. When you read the book of cults, or whatever, that cult is still there, still doing its business.
I want a campaign setting to give me ideas. To get the ball rolling, then letting me take it the rest of the way.
Sure, I don't have to use metaplot elements. But the more metaplot there is, the harder it is to ignore. And that's when I stop buying books.
So long as there's more setting to detail, metaplot doesn't even serve the purpose of making new books. Once a setting has been described in full...which is effectively never...then start with the changes. Otherwise, leave them the heck out.
wayne62682
First Post
My opinion is that a metaplot should be included, but should not HAPPEN as canon. I agree with what Trickstergod said, pretty much... include the plot hooks, and advance them if you want in supplements (e.g. "Age of Flub" book that deals with Lord Flub's release) but don't officially incorporate them and screw with MY campaign plots; I'm the sort of person who feels "dirty" if I have to retcon something in the campaign ("No, the Kingdom of Goodwil was NOT destroyed, I don't care what that book said") so I wish it wouldn't happen in the first place.
I've never had a problem with a meta-plot, but then I've always seen it more as a guide to running a campaign in a particular setting. Sometimes meta-plots can go to far sometimes (such as with Rokugaun, where I doubt that any DM could keep up with the constantly shifting plot).
As has been stated by others a DM should NEVER feel constrained by the meta-plot.
As has been stated by others a DM should NEVER feel constrained by the meta-plot.
GrumpyOldMan
First Post
The thing that drew me to Hârn, more than anything else, is the fact that CGI have stated that they will not publish anything forward of the year 720. Having 500 to 1000 years of history allows referees to set games in the Hârnic past, if they wish, and use the wars of the last few centuries as a background. Most people have simply started their campaigns in 720 and run with the hundred of plot hooks in the scenarios.
One example
King Miginath is old and apparently in ill health. He has never married and has three illegitimate sons, plus various nephews & nieces. I’ve read of campaigns where it turns out that he’s actually undead, others where he is assassinated, more where his death triggers a civil war, and yet others where there is a peaceful transition. But it’s up to me as GM to decide which one I’ll use.
One example
King Miginath is old and apparently in ill health. He has never married and has three illegitimate sons, plus various nephews & nieces. I’ve read of campaigns where it turns out that he’s actually undead, others where he is assassinated, more where his death triggers a civil war, and yet others where there is a peaceful transition. But it’s up to me as GM to decide which one I’ll use.
Chimera
First Post
I'm ambivalent about meta-plots.
I don't play a lot of published settings and I almost never read books based in them, so I don't give a rat's butt about what some book says about what may or may not have happened in the City of Buscuits.
I've played more than enough games where "X plans to destroy the world and despite all logic, your small group are the only ones who can stop it!". Yeah, all these higher level people sit around advising us and occasionally help us, but only WE can save the world. Uh huh.
I'm really tired of "end of the world" plots.
I prefer, as in my own settings, to have a large number of plots set in motion by a number of different parties. Some conflict, some don't know about each other, some are inconsequential, some appear evil but are actually beneficial, some appear good but are actually evil. They all move along of their own volition and none of them are going to destroy the world. Some move so slow or get thwarted by unknown events and thus, never actually materialize.
The players come across them as they move around. I don't force anything upon them, I don't have Random NPC X *assume* that these low level nothings are a threat and attack them simply in order to drag the party into the metaplot (I hate that!). If the party encounters a plot and doesn't bite, then it moves along without them. Sometimes the PCs can really lose out (such as a previous campaign where they didn't solve a Troll Invasion problem, then didn't tell one of their allies that a Troll Army was on his doorstep, thus making this good ally less than friendly after his settlement was destroyed...), sometimes the plot completes with no real impact on the party itself.
My thinking is: **** happens. All the time, whether you know about it or not.
I don't play a lot of published settings and I almost never read books based in them, so I don't give a rat's butt about what some book says about what may or may not have happened in the City of Buscuits.
I've played more than enough games where "X plans to destroy the world and despite all logic, your small group are the only ones who can stop it!". Yeah, all these higher level people sit around advising us and occasionally help us, but only WE can save the world. Uh huh.
I'm really tired of "end of the world" plots.
I prefer, as in my own settings, to have a large number of plots set in motion by a number of different parties. Some conflict, some don't know about each other, some are inconsequential, some appear evil but are actually beneficial, some appear good but are actually evil. They all move along of their own volition and none of them are going to destroy the world. Some move so slow or get thwarted by unknown events and thus, never actually materialize.
The players come across them as they move around. I don't force anything upon them, I don't have Random NPC X *assume* that these low level nothings are a threat and attack them simply in order to drag the party into the metaplot (I hate that!). If the party encounters a plot and doesn't bite, then it moves along without them. Sometimes the PCs can really lose out (such as a previous campaign where they didn't solve a Troll Invasion problem, then didn't tell one of their allies that a Troll Army was on his doorstep, thus making this good ally less than friendly after his settlement was destroyed...), sometimes the plot completes with no real impact on the party itself.
My thinking is: **** happens. All the time, whether you know about it or not.
Nuclear Platypus
First Post
Keldryn said:
Been there, done that. Sorta. I present Exhibit A: General Grievous. The guy fights like a freakin' 4 armed monkey in the Clone Wars microseries and sort of in RotS. But he's only been in maybe 2 novels (so far) and a miniseries comic (I think).
Metaplots? Eh. As has been noted, they tend to utterly frell with the setting like Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance and even Ravenloft. While I understand why they're good (to shake the dust off the setting), they can really tick some DMs (and players) off, not that the "official" version has to be the only version.
Ibram said:
This is doubly annoying in settings liek the Forgotten Realms where you constantly have to explain why the CR 40 characters aren't concerned about the end of their world. They do manage to do it, often enough, but it gets tired fast. The latest fashion -- make things important for a specific group -- seems to have been a better overall plan.
Similar Threads
