D&D General The Purple Dragon Knights are tied to an Amethyst Dragon (confirmed)

[Remathilis]

It doesn’t, but from the perspective of the game’s creators, the idea of there being a diegetic explanation for it is appealing. I think much more appealing than the idea is from the perspective of people actually playing the game. It doesn’t make any difference to me if your campaign and my campaign happen in parallel worlds to each other or not. But I can see how the lead designer (whoever that is now, I forget) might think that having a piece of lore that allows every DM’s campaign to be “canon” simultaneously would seem like something that would be good for the game.

I think it also was done to foster a certain shared "community" aspect to D&D. Most players can tell stories about facing Strahd or saving Waterdeep and this is D&D's way of saying "all of those stories are valid." It also explains why Metaplot is a dying element of world building (because it fosters the notion of a true cannon continuity) and the more "there is no one cannon answer" to a lot of dangling threads (such as what became of Azalin in Ravenloft or the Day of Mourning in Eberron).

What I truly appreciate is that, unlike some people on this thread, you cannot argue from a strict perspective of what is correct lore and what is not anymore. If I decide to make Drizzt a serial killer, you can't really say my version is invalid. Just different. It's a small thing, but the fact that they have pushed the notion that we're all part of the same Multiverse despite playing different games and using different versions of the settings (or our own personal ones) is kinda comforting.

 

[Necropolitan]

The real question is, you seem to be only able to contemplate on how it can only be bad. Can you, just as an experiment, contemplate on how it might turn out to be good?

That's a strawman.

It's on WOTC to prove it's good and since you're defending it it's on you as well. Otherwise all the evidence is currently on it not making sense.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think it also was done to foster a certain shared "community" aspect to D&D. Most players can tell stories about facing Strahd or saving Waterdeep and this is D&D's way of saying "all of those stories are valid." It also explains why Metaplot is a dying element of world building (because it fosters the notion of a true cannon continuity) and the more "there is no one cannon answer" to a lot of dangling threads (such as what became of Azalin in Ravenloft or the Day of Mourning in Eberron).

What I truly appreciate is that, unlike some people on this thread, you cannot argue from a strict perspective of what is correct lore and what is not anymore. If I decide to make Drizzt a serial killer, you can't really say my version is invalid. Just different. It's a small thing, but the fact that they have pushed the notion that we're all part of the same Multiverse despite playing different games and using different versions of the settings (or our own personal ones) is kinda comforting.

Yeah, I think there is a certain allure to the idea of a metaplot. In theory it could foster a strong shared cultural experience among fans, in much the same way as a good TV serial can, especially in the pre-streaming era. But, I think in tabletop RPGs it ends up clashing with the promise of each table being able to make the game their own. You can’t have a monoculture and have each group have their own private micro-culture. One will inevitably end up invalidating the other. And I think prioritizing the individual micro-cultures is the right call for the medium.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Yeah, I think there is a certain allure to the idea of a metaplot. In theory it could foster a strong shared cultural experience among fans, in much the same way as a good TV serial can, especially in the pre-streaming era. But, I think in tabletop RPGs it ends up clashing with the promise of each table being able to make the game their own. You can’t have a monoculture and have each group have their own private micro-culture. One will inevitably end up invalidating the other. And I think prioritizing the individual micro-cultures is the right call for the medium.

The way that Metaplots in various TTRPGs have turned out have left a bad taste in general. They lost their appeal sometime between 2000 and 2010. What happened with the various D&D campaign settings is one of the strongest examples of why they were a bad thing, but also White Wolf deciding to end all of their heavily metaplot-driven games was another factor that killed the appeal of metaplots in RPGs. It got ridiculous in the expectation that all groups would follow such a thing. I think currently think the best thing is broad strokes on lore, presented possibilities and hooks.

 

[Parmandur]

It doesn’t, but from the perspective of the game’s creators, the idea of there being a diegetic explanation for it is appealing. I think much more appealing than the idea is from the perspective of people actually playing the game. It doesn’t make any difference to me if your campaign and my campaign happen in parallel worlds to each other or not. But I can see how the lead designer (whoever that is now, I forget) might think that having a piece of lore that allows every DM’s campaign to be “canon” simultaneously would seem like something that would be good for the game.

More interestingly, and I think this is what excited James Wyatt when he sprang it upon the game in Fizban's and helps WotC commercial goals: it provides a diabetic reason for just mixing a d matching stuff, like placing classic module in Eberron
Tht is, it provides a metaphysical in-fiction reason for how people already play D&D a d e gage with game products. It's fun.

 

[Parmandur]

The way that Metaplots in various TTRPGs have turned out have left a bad taste in general. They lost their appeal sometime between 2000 and 2010. What happened with the various D&D campaign settings is one of the strongest examples of why they were a bad thing, but also White Wolf deciding to end all of their heavily metaplot-driven games was another factor that killed the appeal of metaplots in RPGs. It got ridiculous in the expectation that all groups would follow such a thing. I think currently think the best thing is broad strokes on lore, presented possibilities and hooks.

I feel comfortable in saying that metaplot in RPGs has never, ever, worked out. And is often straight up disastrous.

 

[Charlaquin]

The way that Metaplots in various TTRPGs have turned out have left a bad taste in general. They lost their appeal sometime between 2000 and 2010. What happened with the various D&D campaign settings is one of the strongest examples of why they were a bad thing, but also White Wolf deciding to end all of their heavily metaplot-driven games was another factor that killed the appeal of metaplots in RPGs. It got ridiculous in the expectation that all groups would follow such a thing. I think currently think the best thing is broad strokes on lore, presented possibilities and hooks.

The World of Darkness metaplot also had to end eventually. It was written with the premise that that the world was going to end, in the near future. Every individual game line had its own end times prophecy, the signs for which were appearing with alarming frequency. The coming apocalypse was like the main source of conflict, and you can only tease something like that for so long without payoff before it starts to get old. I don’t know how the heck NuWhiteWolf dealt with that when they resurrected the old lines, or if they just decided to agree to pretend none of that happened. One of the many reasons I generally prefer the “new world of darkness” (or “chronicles of darkness” I think is still what NuWhiteWolf calls it) lines.

 

[Demetrios1453]

That's a strawman.

It's on WOTC to prove it's good and since you're defending it it's on you as well. Otherwise all the evidence is currently on it not making sense.

Doesn't matter if it's a strawman or not, doesn't matter who needs to prove if it's good or not - the question has been posed. Can you contemplate the mere possibilty of it being good? Yes or no?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Yeah, I think there is a certain allure to the idea of a metaplot. In theory it could foster a strong shared cultural experience among fans, in much the same way as a good TV serial can, especially in the pre-streaming era. But, I think in tabletop RPGs it ends up clashing with the promise of each table being able to make the game their own. You can’t have a monoculture and have each group have their own private micro-culture. One will inevitably end up invalidating the other. And I think prioritizing the individual micro-cultures is the right call for the medium.

I think, the biggest issue with metaplot, is that overtime, it becomes intractable, difficult to impossible to avoid paradoxes and contradictions.
It is both a barrier to entry for the new fan or writer and difficult to keep it all straight, I think making it soft and the delivered narrative unreliable and repudiable is probably the best for anyone other than a single author or a small team.

 

[Umbran]

... unlike some people on this thread....

Mod Note:
Hey there.

The frequency with which your posts in this thread, and elsewhere, have been against people is becoming a little hard to ignore. Maybe think about that before posting replies going forward, hm? Thanks.