Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chimera" data-source="post: 2936269" data-attributes="member: 2002">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 &quot;X plans to destroy the world and despite all logic, your small group are the only ones who can stop it!&quot;.&nbsp; Yeah, all these higher level people sit around advising us and occasionally help us, but only WE can save the world.&nbsp; Uh huh.&nbsp; I'm really tired of &quot;end of the world&quot; plots.I prefer, as in my own settings, to have a large number of plots set in motion by a number of different parties.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; They all move along of their own volition and none of them are going to destroy the world.&nbsp; Some move so slow or get thwarted by unknown events and thus, never actually materialize.The players come across them as they move around.&nbsp; 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!).&nbsp; If the party encounters a plot and doesn't bite, then it moves along without them.&nbsp; 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:&nbsp; **** happens.&nbsp; All the time, whether you know about it or not.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chimera, post: 2936269, member: 2002"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification