Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8635710" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p><a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html" target="_blank">Edwards talks about that too</a>; he begins with a quote from his own RPG book <em>Sorcerer and Sword</em>:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"><p style="margin-left: 20px">The solution most offered by role-playing games is a supplement-driven metaplot: a sequence of events in the game-world which are published chronologically, revealing "the story" to all GMs and expecting everyone to apply these events in their individual sessions. These published events include the outcomes of world-shaking conflicts as well as individual relationships among the company-provided NPCs involved in these conflicts.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Metaplot of this sort, whether generated by a GM or a game publisher, is antithetical to the entire purpose of <em>Sorcerer & Sword</em>. Almost inevitably, it creates a series of game products that pretend to be supplements for play but are really a series of short stories and novels starring the authors' beloved and central NPCs. The role of the individual play group in those stories is much like that of karaoke singers, rather than creative musicians.</p></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Metaplot is central to the design of several White Wolf games, especially <em>Mage</em>; all AEG games; post-first-edition <em>Traveller</em>; <em>AD&D'2, beginning with the Forgotten Realms series; as well as others. Nearly all of them are perceived as setting-focused games, and to many role-players, they 'define</em> role-playing with strong Setting.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">However, neither Setting-based Premise nor a complex Setting history necessarily entails metaplot, as I'm using the term anyway. The best example is afforded by Glorantha: an extremely rich setting with history in place not only for the past, but for the future of play. The magical world of Glorantha will be destroyed and reborn into a relatively mundane new existence, because of the Hero Wars. Many key events during the process are fixed, such as the Dragonrise of 1625. Why isn't this metaplot?</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Because none of the above represent decisions made by player-characters; they only provide context for them. The players know all about the upcoming events prior to play. The key issue is this: in playing in (say) a Werewolf game following the published metaplot, the players are intended to be ignorant of the changes in the setting, and to encounter them only through play. The more they participate in these changes (e.g. ferrying a crucial message from one NPC to another), the <em>less</em> they provide theme-based resolution to Premise, not more. Whereas in playing <em>HeroQuest</em>, there's no secret: the Hero Wars are here, and the more everyone enjoys and knows the canonical future events, the <em>more</em> they can provide theme through their characters' decisions during those events.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">In designing a Setting-heavy Narrativist rules-set, I strongly suggest following the full-disclosure lead of <em>HeroQuest</em> and abandoning the metaplot "revelation" approach immediately.</p><p></p><p>So to summarise: the problem with metaplot is that (i) it is sole-authored (ie by the GM, or a publisher whose work the GM uses), (ii) it is secret from the players until they encounter it in play, and (iii) it is used to resolve, or generate consequences of, actions that players declare for their PCs. Because of (iii), it is further the case (iv) that those resolution and consequences, being independent of the players, cannot express players' responses to and judgements on whatever thematic questions play might be generating. Any answers to those questions follow from the unilateral pre-authorship.</p><p></p><p>There are multiple ways metaplot can be avoided.</p><p></p><p>One is to avoid pre-authorship. This is the "no myth" approach. It's fairly popular for "story now" play.</p><p></p><p>The other is to avoid secrecy from the players. This can be done by sharing authorship, but needn't be eg Glorantha, which Edwards discusses. An alternative is simply for the author to share their work. This happens in DitV, although the "setting" in DitV is really more like conflict-charged situation. Edwards discusses richer session-focused "story now" play in his "setting dissection" essay that I wayback-linked upthread. He emphasises sharing, and the fact that the participants all have to buy into the setting.</p><p></p><p>Elaborating a bit on that last point: once, in responding to a Forge poster who was having trouble with their scene-framing, Edwards gave <a href="http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=20791.0" target="_blank">this advice</a>:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">It's not the distributed or not-distributed aspect of situational authority you're concerned with, it's your trust at the table, as a group, that your situations in the SIS are worth anyone's time. Bluntly, you guys ought to work on that.</p><p></p><p>In other words, the real problem confronting that poster wasn't <em>who had authority over scene-framing</em>, nor <em>what principles governed its exercise</em> (such as taking suggestions), but rather <em>that their scenes weren't any good</em>. Edwards's advice: work on framing interesting scenes! (Of course a game can help with this: see my post upthread about using my powers, as a player, to steer BW play towards more interesting scenes than what the GM seemed to have in mind.)</p><p></p><p>The same thing applies to setting-based "story now" play: it won't work if the setting isn't engaging for everyone who is expected to be using it as the material for their play.</p><p></p><p>I think we also need to be clear about what it means to <em>use</em> a setting when RPGing. As some participants in this thread know, I use the GM maps and basic backstory (the Suel empire, Suel nomads in the Bright Desert, knights in Furyondy, etc) in my Burning Wheel and Torchbearer play. This doesn't push towards high concept simulationism. The goal of play isn't to explore the setting - it is a backdrop, to which we add as needed, and whose main function is to provide some organising coherence for things like <em>Where do Elves come from?</em> and <em>Where do we wash up when our boat sinks?</em> When I played a session of Wuthering Heights, my knowledge of London (plus a Google map) performed the same function. I've used Washington DC, and the US east coast more generally, in exactly the same fashion playing MHRP. And I've used Europe, North Africa and West Asia in the same way for Prince Valiant. In all these cases the setting is basically just colour and a bit of geographic and historical coherence.</p><p></p><p>This contrasts markedly with the role of the pre-authored setting in my 4e D&D play. This basically resembled what Edwards suggests for Glorantha: the setting information (the cosmological conflicts, the history of the Dawn War and the pending possibility of the Dusk War) was shared. It provided context - informed, meaningful context - for the players' decisions. Eg because they <em>know</em> who Kas is, and who Vecna is, they <em>know</em> what they are doing when they return Kas's sword to him, or when they implant the Eye of Vecna in an imp familiar.</p><p></p><p>And of course for <em>this</em> sort of play to work, it needed the players to buy into the setting, and the themes/conflicts it presents, so that they can use those as fodder for their decision-making during play. Which they did.</p><p></p><p>Hence the need for player buy-in to a setting that has been shared and is not secret. The connection to dramatic needs is established by the players picking up what they like in the setting (the Raven Queen, the good Primordials, the fall of Nerath, the sundering of the Elves, or whatever else it might be) and running with it.</p><p></p><p>I don't know if Stonetop is more like "setting as colour", or more like "setting as material" that the players need to buy into, or even if it has some of the problems Edwards sees in Over the Edge, of being "setting as karaoke" (in which case one can disregard it and thereby avoid the "curse)". But I assume it doesn't rely on metaplot, and that it works in play by being shared rather than secret.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8635710, member: 42582"] [URL='http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/narr_essay.html']Edwards talks about that too[/URL]; he begins with a quote from his own RPG book [I]Sorcerer and Sword[/I]: [indent][indent]The solution most offered by role-playing games is a supplement-driven metaplot: a sequence of events in the game-world which are published chronologically, revealing "the story" to all GMs and expecting everyone to apply these events in their individual sessions. These published events include the outcomes of world-shaking conflicts as well as individual relationships among the company-provided NPCs involved in these conflicts. Metaplot of this sort, whether generated by a GM or a game publisher, is antithetical to the entire purpose of [I]Sorcerer & Sword[/I]. Almost inevitably, it creates a series of game products that pretend to be supplements for play but are really a series of short stories and novels starring the authors' beloved and central NPCs. The role of the individual play group in those stories is much like that of karaoke singers, rather than creative musicians.[/indent] Metaplot is central to the design of several White Wolf games, especially [I]Mage[/I]; all AEG games; post-first-edition [I]Traveller[/I]; [I]AD&D'2, beginning with the Forgotten Realms series; as well as others. Nearly all of them are perceived as setting-focused games, and to many role-players, they 'define[/I] role-playing with strong Setting. However, neither Setting-based Premise nor a complex Setting history necessarily entails metaplot, as I'm using the term anyway. The best example is afforded by Glorantha: an extremely rich setting with history in place not only for the past, but for the future of play. The magical world of Glorantha will be destroyed and reborn into a relatively mundane new existence, because of the Hero Wars. Many key events during the process are fixed, such as the Dragonrise of 1625. Why isn't this metaplot? Because none of the above represent decisions made by player-characters; they only provide context for them. The players know all about the upcoming events prior to play. The key issue is this: in playing in (say) a Werewolf game following the published metaplot, the players are intended to be ignorant of the changes in the setting, and to encounter them only through play. The more they participate in these changes (e.g. ferrying a crucial message from one NPC to another), the [I]less[/I] they provide theme-based resolution to Premise, not more. Whereas in playing [I]HeroQuest[/I], there's no secret: the Hero Wars are here, and the more everyone enjoys and knows the canonical future events, the [I]more[/I] they can provide theme through their characters' decisions during those events. In designing a Setting-heavy Narrativist rules-set, I strongly suggest following the full-disclosure lead of [I]HeroQuest[/I] and abandoning the metaplot "revelation" approach immediately.[/indent] So to summarise: the problem with metaplot is that (i) it is sole-authored (ie by the GM, or a publisher whose work the GM uses), (ii) it is secret from the players until they encounter it in play, and (iii) it is used to resolve, or generate consequences of, actions that players declare for their PCs. Because of (iii), it is further the case (iv) that those resolution and consequences, being independent of the players, cannot express players' responses to and judgements on whatever thematic questions play might be generating. Any answers to those questions follow from the unilateral pre-authorship. There are multiple ways metaplot can be avoided. One is to avoid pre-authorship. This is the "no myth" approach. It's fairly popular for "story now" play. The other is to avoid secrecy from the players. This can be done by sharing authorship, but needn't be eg Glorantha, which Edwards discusses. An alternative is simply for the author to share their work. This happens in DitV, although the "setting" in DitV is really more like conflict-charged situation. Edwards discusses richer session-focused "story now" play in his "setting dissection" essay that I wayback-linked upthread. He emphasises sharing, and the fact that the participants all have to buy into the setting. Elaborating a bit on that last point: once, in responding to a Forge poster who was having trouble with their scene-framing, Edwards gave [url=http://indie-rpgs.com/archive/index.php?topic=20791.0]this advice[/url]: [indent]It's not the distributed or not-distributed aspect of situational authority you're concerned with, it's your trust at the table, as a group, that your situations in the SIS are worth anyone's time. Bluntly, you guys ought to work on that.[/indent] In other words, the real problem confronting that poster wasn't [i]who had authority over scene-framing[/i], nor [i]what principles governed its exercise[/i] (such as taking suggestions), but rather [i]that their scenes weren't any good[/i]. Edwards's advice: work on framing interesting scenes! (Of course a game can help with this: see my post upthread about using my powers, as a player, to steer BW play towards more interesting scenes than what the GM seemed to have in mind.) The same thing applies to setting-based "story now" play: it won't work if the setting isn't engaging for everyone who is expected to be using it as the material for their play. I think we also need to be clear about what it means to [i]use[/i] a setting when RPGing. As some participants in this thread know, I use the GM maps and basic backstory (the Suel empire, Suel nomads in the Bright Desert, knights in Furyondy, etc) in my Burning Wheel and Torchbearer play. This doesn't push towards high concept simulationism. The goal of play isn't to explore the setting - it is a backdrop, to which we add as needed, and whose main function is to provide some organising coherence for things like [i]Where do Elves come from?[/i] and [i]Where do we wash up when our boat sinks?[/i] When I played a session of Wuthering Heights, my knowledge of London (plus a Google map) performed the same function. I've used Washington DC, and the US east coast more generally, in exactly the same fashion playing MHRP. And I've used Europe, North Africa and West Asia in the same way for Prince Valiant. In all these cases the setting is basically just colour and a bit of geographic and historical coherence. This contrasts markedly with the role of the pre-authored setting in my 4e D&D play. This basically resembled what Edwards suggests for Glorantha: the setting information (the cosmological conflicts, the history of the Dawn War and the pending possibility of the Dusk War) was shared. It provided context - informed, meaningful context - for the players' decisions. Eg because they [i]know[/i] who Kas is, and who Vecna is, they [i]know[/i] what they are doing when they return Kas's sword to him, or when they implant the Eye of Vecna in an imp familiar. And of course for [i]this[/i] sort of play to work, it needed the players to buy into the setting, and the themes/conflicts it presents, so that they can use those as fodder for their decision-making during play. Which they did. Hence the need for player buy-in to a setting that has been shared and is not secret. The connection to dramatic needs is established by the players picking up what they like in the setting (the Raven Queen, the good Primordials, the fall of Nerath, the sundering of the Elves, or whatever else it might be) and running with it. I don't know if Stonetop is more like "setting as colour", or more like "setting as material" that the players need to buy into, or even if it has some of the problems Edwards sees in Over the Edge, of being "setting as karaoke" (in which case one can disregard it and thereby avoid the "curse)". But I assume it doesn't rely on metaplot, and that it works in play by being shared rather than secret. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top