The heck is metaplot?

[NRSASD]

A phrase I often seen bandied about in these parts is metaplot, specifically published metaplot. The majority of the posters here seem to regard this as a bad thing, but I'm not really sure why...? I've been out of the loop with regards to Forgotten Realms, Eberron, and Krynn for a long time, but from what I remember metaplots gave a nice hook for adventures or a good spur for inspiration. I'm not sure if I disagree with the majority in this case or if I'm misunderstanding what a metaplot actually is, so I'd be grateful if the Playground could explain what a metaplot is and why it bothers them.

From my understanding, metaplots can be used well or poorly. Using Lord of the Rings as an example, a good metaplot example would be the ongoing hostilities between Mordor and Gondor. Mordor is constantly testing Gondor's defenses and trying to find a weak point, so thwarting raids, burning orc camps, and ambushing supply lines are all good examples of adventures provided by the ongoing metaplot.

A bad metaplot would be Gandalf's date with the Balrog. Refusing to let PCs challenge it because fate has dictated there will be a final battle between them in precisely 17 days, 5 hours, and 32 minutes, and that no amount of player agency can disrupt that timeline. That is most definitely a metaplot used poorly.

As always, thanks for any and all input!

[TurboGhast]

Just in case you were being literal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaplot)
Warning, this is a TV Tropes link (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Metaplot)

I think the reason that having a metaplot in a TRPG is considered a flaw is that it encourages the DM to railroad the PCs, give villains plot invulnerability, and engage in other hallmarks of bad DMing in order to let the metaplot resolve as the developers intend, while simultaneously giving them a nonzero level of excuse for their actions.

It's tough to differentiate between a good metaplot (as you defined it), and general setting details that set up adventures for the PCs.

[SethoMarkus]

Pretty much as TurboGhast said. It's too easy to slide into railroading events or denying the PCs any real agwncy ("Oh, cool, you fought in the battle and held the enemy back long enough for Elminster to show up and push them back!") Not saying that is guaranteed to happen, but definitely is a reason behind the Playground's response.

Also, I tend to have a differing definition of metaplot than you. What you describe as good metaplot I just consider setting and worldbuilding, while your bad metaplot is what I generally think of as metaplot. Nit that anything is wrong with wither if done well, and not that your definition is wrong, just putting it out there.

[Max_Killjoy]

"Metaplot" as used in gaming discussions typically refers to the game having an ongoing official story that effects setting details, published characters, and even the RAW if some major event "changes magic" or whatever.

The problem is that many GMs and players feel compelled to treat the published metaplot as the setting version of "rules as written", as established canon, and therefore to consider any deviation from the metaplot and its effects as "homebrew".

Just as a player might argue that a GM is "doing it wrong" for having a house rule regarding some damage type or special talent, they might also argue that a GM is "doing it wrong" if Bob the Major NPC continues to show up in the game despite being killed in an officially published update/event.

Likewise, GMs who become dependent on the metaplot can end up railroading their campaign to match up with the ongoing changes and updates in the published material.

[Eldan]

THing is, "Gondor and Mordor are hostile" is not a metaplot, really. That's worldbuilding. As I understand it, Metaplot is what World of Darkness had, or The Dark Eye. Where oficial adventures and later books would push the timeline ahead and world changing events would happen.

Like, in your example of a Lord of the Rings campaign, there's a campaign setting, set around the time of The Hobbit, where there's dwarves and elves and goblins and necromancers and human kingdoms, but then there's suddenly the new big adventure "Return of the Shadow", where the necromancer vanishes and Sauron shows up and all evil races work together now and all books from then on will excplitely assume that reality, until "The War of the Ring Adventure Path", which ends with supernatural evil almost ended and from then on, there's a King Aragorn and goblins are splintered and the main antagonist are the Easterlings.

[Velaryon]

Speaking only from personal experience, I like that a metaplot exists, but I feel absolutely no compulsion to stick to it. I simply use what I like and throw the rest out.

The problems with metaplot are no different than other DMing problems. The story needs to revolve around the PCs, who need to have the agency to affect that story in meaningful ways. If "following the metaplot" is an excuse for railroading the campaign in a certain direction, the problem is railroading, not metaplot.

[whisperwind1]

Speaking as a DM who gets very attached to established settings and even metaplot, i find that the best way to have PC take center stage in such a world is to elsworlds tale it. Operate under the assumption that this is an alternate reality, where the PCs can do everything they want and make the metaplot their own.

Its a technicality for sure, but that way you can have your cake and eat it too. Its also basically the only way to run games set in established settings like Westeros or Star Wars.

[Jay R]

Don't worry about strangers' vague and undefined opinions about vague and undefined notions like "metaplot".

If you enjoy the game, things are fine. If you don't, figure out the specific and well defined reasons why not.

[awa]

Their is an additional problem with meta plot first is it is often associated with fluff heavy settings so the farther you deviate from the metaplot the less use you will get out of your new supplements as now you are ignoring 90% of the material and you cant use any more published adventures.

[Eldan]

Yeah, that. To go back to the Lord of the Rings example I used above, imagine that you decided to scrap the metaplot. In your game, the Necromancer isn't Sauron. Instead, Mordor is ruled by an Orc King, the Necromancer rules a nation of Barrow Wights and the players already stopped Saruman's plan to forge a new ring.
In the meantime, the official publisher brings out a new book, about the wars between the sons of Aragorn and their wars with the Sauron-worshipping Easterlings.

You won't get much use out of that.

[BootStrapTommy]

Metaplot is synonymous with "campaign setting current events", with the caveat of "and all the history that preceded it and informed it".

So a better good example in LotR would be the battle between the followers of Melkor and the agents of Eru Ilúvatar. It is that conflict which informs the conflict between Mordor and Gondor, and which sets the place for the campaign missions possible.

The bad example would be whatever is going on in Forgotten Realms. Seriously, what is even going on in the Forgotten Realms?

The issues with metaplot have to do with metaplot that is created to justify mechanics or questionable creative choices, not that metaplot is bad.

An example from Forgotten Realms would be all of 4th edition. To justify WotC's creative choice to elevate Dragonborn from "interesting roleplaying opportunity" to "playable race", a metaplot by which the "death" of a god created some weird rift fusing the setting with its completely separate and as before unknown twin world resulted in a Dragonborn empire being dropped atop a previously existing nation, as well as a whole new continent appearing to replace the questionably colonialist "pseudo-New World" continent that already existed.

Basically, completely earth shattering changes to the political landscape were made to justify some changes in rules and mechanics.

[Segev]

Another example of metaplot would be if the Lord of the Rings published game setting released splat books set after the Ring is destroyed. All the books and rules now assume the Ring is gone. In addition, Gondor and Mordor have made peace, and a new threat arises from the Elves giving in to the corruption released by the destruction of the Ring leaking into their three Rings. Dark Elves are now a thing, and their civil war becomes a driving force.

Later books have the Dark Elves be the only elves left, save for a straggling, on-the-run wood elf here or there.

All the new material releases rules and mechanics, classes, feats, flaws, etc. which relate to this new state of the world. If you played a Lord of the Rings game where Gollum donned the One Ring and personally slew Sauron, and became king of Mordor...the metaplot would have the official setting look nothing like your game, and the new mechanics are largely useless without extensive adaptation.

[Grey Watcher]

I'm a little unclear on where world building ends and metaplot begins. I mean, running with the Middle Earth analogy, does all the stuff with, say, the Numenoreans or Arnor or the Silmarils count as world building or metaplot? If it's the former, does it suddenly become metaplot if I instead play a campaign set when the Elves settled in Middle Earth and and were dealing with Angband? :smallconfused:

[Segev]

"Metaplot" happens when a setting has time advance from its set point. It's inevitable if you have a setting where players can play at various times. It is inherent to any game "set in the past" of a setting.

It tends to be viewed as a bad thing primarily when the setting has a start date of X when the setting is released, but the story keeps being written and the timeline keeps advancing in official works, with official changes to the setting based on that advancement.

It's inevitable in any setting adapted from an as-yet incomplete novel series. It's a problem, but it's an expected and accepted one because, frankly, it's a novel series first, not a game setting first. In playing a game in it, you're expecting to either have no impact on the main plot or to diverge sharply anyway.

Thus, people tend to restrain their gripes about it to settings designed for RPGs first which have a plot written into future splat books that advances the timeline and alters the setting as it goes.

[jindra34]

World building is mostly dealing with how we got here and who is here. Metaplot is HARD(ish) where were going and who is going to be going there. Essentially history versus prophecy.

[awa]

dark sun is a good example of bad meta plot
We are presented with a very specific setting but then very early pre made adventures completely turn it on its head making massive setting changes with a single group of adventures doing everything

using lotr example it would be like if sauron was the settings big bad but then a bunch of npcs (the fellowship) solved every thing in the setting leaving nothing for the pcs to do.

[Tiktakkat]

Metaplot is like a conspiracy theory - if something big happens, "THEY" are responsible for it in some way, shape, or form.

War?
"They" started it, or "They" built up the bad guy the war was declared on.

Prophecy?
"They" want it fulfilled so as to seize power, or "They" want it averted so it won't stop them from seizing power.

Quest?
It is the only way to stop "Them".

Random goblin raid?
"They" are behind it!

Metaplot is not railroading, though it may seem that way when it comes to published materials with "secrets" about NPCs as has been described.
However that is more inherent to using someone else's campaign setting than metaplot in and of itself.

Metaplot can be overt, like say most of Dragonlance, or extremely subtle, like most of Planescape leading up to the Faction War.
Metaplot does not restrict events, it merely says they are all "secretly" related.

[Kosj]

Their is an additional problem with meta plot first is it is often associated with fluff heavy settings so the farther you deviate from the metaplot the less use you will get out of your new supplements as now you are ignoring 90% of the material and you cant use any more published adventures.

I've had a related problem with a few metaplot heavy settings, namely that I don't feel like I can find space in my games for my plot. With so much going on in the world, and very little room for me to insert things into the setting without having to make some sweeping changes, I have trouble coming up with ideas for games I want to run.
In cases like that I usually feel like I end up taking a hacksaw to the setting to get it into something I want to run (even if I liked it to begin with).

[Max_Killjoy]

Metaplot is like a conspiracy theory - if something big happens, "THEY" are responsible for it in some way, shape, or form.

War?
"They" started it, or "They" built up the bad guy the war was declared on.

Prophecy?
"They" want it fulfilled so as to seize power, or "They" want it averted so it won't stop them from seizing power.

Quest?
It is the only way to stop "Them".

Random goblin raid?
"They" are behind it!

Metaplot is not railroading, though it may seem that way when it comes to published materials with "secrets" about NPCs as has been described.
However that is more inherent to using someone else's campaign setting than metaplot in and of itself.

Metaplot can be overt, like say most of Dragonlance, or extremely subtle, like most of Planescape leading up to the Faction War.
Metaplot does not restrict events, it merely says they are all "secretly" related.


That's not typically what "metaplot" means in an RPG setting context.

In the context of RPG settings, it typically refers to ongoing events that change the setting as new materials are released.

Take for example Legend of the Five Rings, and how that setting has been changed by the ongoing plotline and official published "world events". Entire Clans come and go, rulers die and new rulers take their place, wars are fought, borders change, GODS die and are replaced...

And yes, in fact, in many cases this DOES restrict events, unless the GM wants to diverge ever further from the ongoing published materials over time.

If the players manage to make one of their characters into the new Daimyo of a clan when the previous one passes away... and then a new supplement is published detailing how that previously published Daimyo went insane and split the clan into warring factions and was finally killed and replaced by someone else... then the campaign is split from the published setting, and continues to diverge as new material expands from that event.

[awa]

I'm a little unclear on where world building ends and metaplot begins. I mean, running with the Middle Earth analogy, does all the stuff with, say, the Numenoreans or Arnor or the Silmarils count as world building or metaplot? If it's the former, does it suddenly become metaplot if I instead play a campaign set when the Elves settled in Middle Earth and and were dealing with Angband? :smallconfused:

Im not real familiar with that material but its only metaplot if the new books advanced the time line. So like if the source book about warriors is set during the war of the rings with all the mechanics assuming a fight against mordor and Isengard ect, But the book about wizards is set after the war and assumes a post sarumon wizard council or something

The biggest problem with this is they typical spends 80% of the book referencing material that would be of no value to a game where the war still rages.
edit
If the default game is set during the war of the ring all that other stuff is just history not meta plot

[Rysto]

I'm a little unclear on where world building ends and metaplot begins. I mean, running with the Middle Earth analogy, does all the stuff with, say, the Numenoreans or Arnor or the Silmarils count as world building or metaplot? If it's the former, does it suddenly become metaplot if I instead play a campaign set when the Elves settled in Middle Earth and and were dealing with Angband? :smallconfused:

It becomes metaplot if you, as the DM, insist that the events of the campaign correspond to the events of the Silmarillion. And that's why people get antsy about metaplot, because if the DM is just going to wind up walking the group through a predetermined plot, they don't really have any agency. If there is no metaplot, then the DM doesn't feel this temptation. If there is metaplot but the DM doesn't railroad the players into following it, then there wasn't really a point in having a metaplot in the first place. So to the players, at best a metaplot has no effect on the game, and at worst it has a profoundly negative impact on the game. As there's no upside for the players, I can understand why they would be wary of it.

[veti]

Metaplot is bad in so far as, and only in so far as, it limits player agency.

Anything that's happened in the past - can't be bad, that's just creating the environment, without which there'd be no campaign. Something that's happening in parallel with the PCs is probably fine. It can be annoying if it makes the PCs' actions irrelevant or trivial, but even in those cases it can be justified.

But anything that's going to happen in the future - that absolutely, positively, must remain fluid, so that the players have a chance to influence it. It gets a bad name when the DM is determined to tell their epic story, and the players either spot an enormous plot hole that allows them to stop the whole thing at level 2, or just aren't interested in it and would rather retire and raise goats than go on with this drivel.

If you use a published setting (which personally I wouldn't), then you have to allow for your world to deviate from the published one. You can start out in perfect alignment, but as soon as the PCs clear one documented dungeon, kill one documented character, build one undocumented settlement, whatever - the two diverge, and from then on the published setting is no more than "suggestions as to how it might work out" that absolutely must be strictly filtered for consistency with what's happened in play.

[Max_Killjoy]

https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Metaplot


A metaplot is an ongoing story taking place in a game world, told in installments via the supplements (https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php?title=Supplements&action=edit&redlink=1) provided for a particular RPG (https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/RPG). For example, the corebook (https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php?title=Corebook&action=edit&redlink=1) of an RPG may mention that a particular group of people are investigating a mystery; a later supplement (https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Supplement) may describe what they found, the impact that the find had on the world, and offer rules representing that impact. As another example, the corebook (https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php?title=Corebook&action=edit&redlink=1) may list a particular powerful wizard as the leader of a particular faction: a later supplement (https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Supplement) may announce that that person has defected, and then describe the faction in detail without the benefit of their leadership, possibly including loss of magical abilities as a result.


Metaplots are a favoured method used by RPG publishers, in particular White Wolf (https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/White_Wolf), to encourage the purchase of supplements. Many gamers enjoy the excitement of a continuously evolving game world, and the slow revelation of mysteries within the setting in a manner similar to serial fiction.


However, many players and GMs dislike metaplots. The most common criticism is that play groups are forced to follow the metaplot by the threat of losing product support if they don't. In the above example, if the results of a group's adventures logically mean that the wizard in their gameworld will not in fact defect from the faction, they will be left on their own to work out how the group's magical abilities would have developed, because no supplement will ever be provided covering this. If however the GM insists on forcing events to conform to the metaplot by declaritng that the party's actions had no real effect and the wizard defects anyway, then the PCs (https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/PC) have been railroaded (https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Railroading) and deprotagonized (https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Deprotagonization), potentially creating dissatisfaction.

[Thrudd]

I find that "metaplot" mostly seems to occur between different editions of a game, or from one major supplement to another. You pick the edition or the supplement you want to use, and start playing with whatever the current setting is for that set of rules. If you move to a new edition or a new supplement, you either start a new game or you ignore the published plot developments that conflict with your game. If you're playing D&D and want to play in Forgotten Realms, you don't need to keep up with all the changes the setting has gone through. You just play in the time period that matches the rules you are using.

I do think it is silly to alter a setting as drastically as has been done by WotC with the Realms between 3, 4 and 5e. With such a huge rule change, they should have just made a different setting. Then release a 4e and 5e version of FR, adjusting races and classes to represent the established setting. But then, you really can't convert a campaign between any of those editions, either, so it's sort of a moot point.
Since FR is now the "official" D&D setting, it is basically a non-setting. It is whatever the current rules of D&D say it is, so its continuity and coherence is trashed. Of course, no setting can survive rules changes as drastic as those in D&D over the last 20 years. Whatever edition you play, the FR of that time period is the one you play in, and ignore everything else.

[Mutazoia]

A good example of a "metaplot" would be Dragon Lance. All the modules were written around the events of the novels, so the events in the setting moved in a very specific pattern, and the players couldn't really influence the events of the war outside what was outlined in said modules. (Although TSR did warn players that attempting to play the modules exactly like the books could result in dead characters.) The only way to truly effect the events of the war, was to scrap the modules and make your own adventures, ignoring anything "officially" published for the setting (other than the general setting info).

[KillingAScarab]

THing is, "Gondor and Mordor are hostile" is not a metaplot, really. That's worldbuilding. As I understand it, Metaplot is what World of Darkness had, or The Dark Eye. Where oficial adventures and later books would push the timeline ahead and world changing events would happen.


https://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/MetaplotJust came by to support that metaplot was certainly an element of the Old World of Darkness games. On the one hand, it tied those games together further, which is something which the company had picked up on as their players wanting. There was this shared setting, but the games were designed in a more separated way. If you knew the rules for Vampire: the Masquerade you couldn't count on knowing how the supernatural side of vampires worked in a Werewolf game, where disciplines were instead emulated with gifts. Werewolves could go to the Dark Umbra, but it really wasn't quite the same as what you found in a Wraith game. But the metaplot meant Mages could something something Technocracy and blow up the entirety of the Wraith setting because someone woke up the Ravnos clan's antedeluvian.

[Tiktakkat]

That's not typically what "metaplot" means in an RPG setting context.

That is very much what it means.
Metaplot involves tying together events happening across a setting into an overarching whole, with a greater plot driven by the sum of the events.


In the context of RPG settings, it typically refers to ongoing events that change the setting as new materials are released.

No, those are an ongoing and active product line.
They do not require an actual metaplot, and can easily function without one. An example of that would be the early D&D modules set in Greyhawk, which had no functional connection until one was retconned onto them with the module collections.


Take for example Legend of the Five Rings, and how that setting has been changed by the ongoing plotline and official published "world events". Entire Clans come and go, rulers die and new rulers take their place, wars are fought, borders change, GODS die and are replaced...

Except the events in L5R are driven by the results of tournaments, and not by a specific plot with a pre-planned outcome decided on by the publisher ahead of time.
So L5R is almost the opposite of a metaplot.

[Acanous]

Metaplot occurs in a lot of places, but here's a good rule of thumb.
When describing a class, race, place, or thing, if the book says "Here's the starting point, what we designed it for, and a couple examples of how you can use this in your game", that's not metaplot.

When it's like "Here's what this thing is, the bits of the world it's tied to, the current state of affairs that lead to it being here" that's when you're looking at *Some* metaplot.

If it's going "Here is what this is, how it interacts with the world, and the way you use it in your adventure is X", you're deep in metaplot.


So things like "Rage Mage" are completely devoid of metaplot, "Rainbow Servant" has some, and "spellguard of silverymoon" is steeped in it.

[Max_Killjoy]

That is very much what it means.
Metaplot involves tying together events happening across a setting into an overarching whole, with a greater plot driven by the sum of the events.



No, those are an ongoing and active product line.
They do not require an actual metaplot, and can easily function without one. An example of that would be the early D&D modules set in Greyhawk, which had no functional connection until one was retconned onto them with the module collections.



Except the events in L5R are driven by the results of tournaments, and not by a specific plot with a pre-planned outcome decided on by the publisher ahead of time.
So L5R is almost the opposite of a metaplot.


Well, what has happened in L5R is exactly what almost everyone else means when they refer to "metaplot" in an RPG product line:



A metaplot is an ongoing story taking place in a game world, told in installments via the supplements provided for a particular RPG. For example, the corebook of an RPG may mention that a particular group of people are investigating a mystery; a later supplement may describe what they found, the impact that the find had on the world, and offer rules representing that impact. As another example, the corebook may list a particular powerful wizard as the leader of a particular faction: a later supplement may announce that that person has defected, and then describe the faction in detail without the benefit of their leadership, possibly including loss of magical abilities as a result.


Metaplots are a favoured method used by RPG publishers, in particular White Wolf, to encourage the purchase of supplements. Many gamers enjoy the excitement of a continuously evolving game world, and the slow revelation of mysteries within the setting in a manner similar to serial fiction.


However, many players and GMs dislike metaplots. The most common criticism is that play groups are forced to follow the metaplot by the threat of losing product support if they don't. In the above example, if the results of a group's adventures logically mean that the wizard in their gameworld will not in fact defect from the faction, they will be left on their own to work out how the group's magical abilities would have developed, because no supplement will ever be provided covering this. If however the GM insists on forcing events to conform to the metaplot by declaritng that the party's actions had no real effect and the wizard defects anyway, then the PCs have been railroaded and deprotagonized, potentially creating dissatisfaction.


The metaplot is the overarching storyline that binds together events in the official continuity of a published role-playing game campaign setting. Major official story events that change the world, or simply move important non-player characters from one place to another, are part of the metaplot for a game. For example, White Wolf Game Studio's World of Darkness was brought to an end by major events in the metaplot as part of the Time of Judgment. Because of events like this, many gaming groups choose to ignore the metaplot for a game entirely.


Metaplot information is usually included within gaming products such as rule books and modules as they are released. Major events in the metaplot are often used to explain changes in the rules in between versions of the games, as was the case in White Wolf's World of Darkness and in Wizard of the Coast's Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance.




A continuously changing game world, with ongoing events that alter the setting from what it was, as new supplements and materials are released. Not sure if you're using a definition from some other field, or just your own personal definition, or something else...

But feel free to tilt at your wildmill for as long as you like.



.

[Mechalich]

Aside from simply selling more books, metaplot is often a thing in settings because it is useful to present the setting as something other than completely static. Metaplot is a way of charting out how things would most likely happen over time in the absence of action by the PCs. That's useful, especially the larger a world becomes, since it isn't possible for the PCs to be everywhere at once and their adventurers will presumably take time so it's helpful to have a good idea of what things would look like 5 or 10 years down the road.

The problem is when the metaplot changes things too much, or when it includes significant rules changes and thereby undercuts players. The oWoD metaplot was extensive enough that characters could get written out of existence by metaplot changes (oh, your Hermetic was part of House Janissary? turn in your character sheet please), and it constantly changed the rules of the game as it emerged (what's this dementation thing? and what happened to my dominate?) which meant that any given campaign was constantly trying to hit a moving target in the timeline - especially since it was never clear exactly when certain events were supposed to happen compared to the current date.

Star Wars SAGA edition is, to me, a decent example of how to handle metaplot, in that the game delineated different eras of play and made note of how certain things would function differently in terms of fluff, for example the difference between playing a Jedi under the Old Republic versus the Empire, without actively changing the rules.

[Arbane]

One of the more egregious examples of a metaplot getting in the way of the game was the old TORG game. (Short summary: various alternate realities invade Earth, overlaying parts of it with their own genres and world-rules.) The Possibility Wars were wrapped up in the War's End module, which mostly consisted of the PCs getting to watch as the various arch-villains kinda self-destructed, climaxing in them.... getting to watch as an NPC showed up and saved the world. :smallmad:

TORG had another interesting element to its metaplot - the developers encouraged GMs to send in action reports on how their games were going, whether they'd won or lost modules, and which realities the players liked the most. This led to an oddity where the most dangerous and effective reality kind of stalled in its expansion (because nobody wanted to play in it), but most fun one kept expanding (despite legions of heroes handing its masterminds their heads on platters). Probably not the desired effect.

[Beleriphon]

Star Wars SAGA edition is, to me, a decent example of how to handle metaplot, in that the game delineated different eras of play and made note of how certain things would function differently in terms of fluff, for example the difference between playing a Jedi under the Old Republic versus the Empire, without actively changing the rules.

Eberron is even better, there is no metaplot. The setting basically says here's everything about the setting up to the day the game starts. No additional supplements advance that time frame, all they do is provide context for the covered material up to the day the setting has its current date.

[Mechalich]

There is no such thing as 'having no metaplot' in a setting. Every setting has a history and a geo-political setup built into the presentation of the current date, and that includes baked-in developments that will naturally occur as time passes. The idea that there is no metaplot implies that the setting is so inherently stable that nothing will ever change unless the PCs come along and change it, which is not only ridiculous, it's incredibly bad design.

Proper use of metaplot is a way to demonstrate the differences between starting your campaign at date X versus date Y versus date Z and also helps to build in consequential choices for the PCs. For example, if they choose to fight Evil Overlord A rather than Orc Horde B that might save Human Kingdom D while letting Elven Coalition E get horribly looted.

[awa]

that's not what meta plot means in the context of an rpg

[BRC]

There is no such thing as 'having no metaplot' in a setting. Every setting has a history and a geo-political setup built into the presentation of the current date, and that includes baked-in developments that will naturally occur as time passes. The idea that there is no metaplot implies that the setting is so inherently stable that nothing will ever change unless the PCs come along and change it, which is not only ridiculous, it's incredibly bad design.


Not Quite.

A Metaplot establishes that certain events are in motion, and WILL happen.


For example,

In my setting I have two nations, Slatvia and Gorban, in the year 100, they are at War, and Gorban, which has superior gunpowder technology, is currently winning.

If I stop there, then I don't have a Metaplot. If the PC's do nothing, it's likely that Gorban will win. If they intervene, they could turn the tide.

However, if I say "In the year 108, The Slatvia Surrenders, and the Gorbanite Empire is formed. In the Year 118, Slativian Rebels plant a bomb at an archaeological dig in order to assassinate Prince Oscar of Gorban, the bomb goes off, unleashing the Ancient Evil onto the world. But this game is set in the year 100"

Well, NOW I have a metaplot! The PC's can't tilt the war in Slatvia's favor, because if Slatvia wins, there is no Empire, no rebellion, no assassination plot, and no bomb to unleash the Ancient Evils.

I mean, they could find their way out some other way, but it's not the same.

"There is a war, and Gorban is winning. There is a tomb, if it gets broken, Ancient Evils will be unleashed". These are just parts of the setting.

"Gorban will win the war, in 18 years the tomb is opened and ancient evils are unleashed". That's a Metaplot.

[Max_Killjoy]

Not Quite.

A Metaplot establishes that certain events are in motion, and WILL happen.


For example,

In my setting I have two nations, Slatvia and Gorban, in the year 100, they are at War, and Gorban, which has superior gunpowder technology, is currently winning.

If I stop there, then I don't have a Metaplot. If the PC's do nothing, it's likely that Gorban will win. If they intervene, they could turn the tide.

However, if I say "In the year 108, The Slatvia Surrenders, and the Gorbanite Empire is formed. In the Year 118, Slativian Rebels plant a bomb at an archaeological dig in order to assassinate Prince Oscar of Gorban, the bomb goes off, unleashing the Ancient Evil onto the world. But this game is set in the year 100"

Well, NOW I have a metaplot! The PC's can't tilt the war in Slatvia's favor, because if Slatvia wins, there is no Empire, no rebellion, no assassination plot, and no bomb to unleash the Ancient Evils.

I mean, they could find their way out some other way, but it's not the same.

"There is a war, and Gorban is winning. There is a tomb, if it gets broken, Ancient Evils will be unleashed". These are just parts of the setting.

"Gorban will win the war, in 18 years the tomb is opened and ancient evils are unleashed". That's a Metaplot.


Exactly -- and I think that's the key piece that some aren't getting.

In the context of RPG product lines, metaplot is a sort of "future history" -- events that, per game canon, WILL happen in the future of the original starting point. A GM chooses to either deviate and make the ongoing product line less and less applicable to their game, or to adhere to the future history and reduce their agency, and even more importantly that of the players.

[Tiktakkat]

But feel free to tilt at your wildmill for as long as you like.


And you feel free to bold your comments all you like, but that doesn't mean casual redefinitions that ignore the function of the term, conflating it with other elements, actually changes what the term means or how it functions in play.

World of Darkness was a metaplot, as the events across multiple lines had a "secret" connection, leading to an inevitable conclusion. That is absolutely correct.

L5R is not a metaplot, as the specific outcomes were not established ahead of time, but were left to chance and player agency.

TORG was between them, as there was an overall plan, but various elements were adjusted based on player reports of adventure seeds they played out and reported on.

[Max_Killjoy]

And you feel free to bold your comments all you like, but that doesn't mean casual redefinitions that ignore the function of the term, conflating it with other elements, actually changes what the term means or how it functions in play.

World of Darkness was a metaplot, as the events across multiple lines had a "secret" connection, leading to an inevitable conclusion. That is absolutely correct.

L5R is not a metaplot, as the specific outcomes were not established ahead of time, but were left to chance and player agency.

TORG was between them, as there was an overall plan, but various elements were adjusted based on player reports of adventure seeds they played out and reported on.

Where are you getting this idea that "secrets" are a critical qualifier for metaplot?

Or that an unchanging internal plan for the story at the publisher is a critical qualifier for metaplot?

World of Darkness, L5R, and TORG, all had "future history" officially published, leaving GMs with to pick the least-bad option for the campaign (deviation or adherence, both of which have drawbacks) -- that's all that's required for RPG product-line metaplot.


(The bolding in the previous post was done to make the lines stand out from the surrounding quote boxes and signature sections and whatnot -- the default formatting on these forums is significantly cluttered, compressed, and low-contrast as to make parts of some posts hard to pick out -- see also the many instances in which I have a few line breaks and then a "." at the end of a post.)

[Segev]

Indeed. Metaplot only happens when the default game-start timeframe is in the "past" of known events. L5R absolutely has metaplot; it started with games' default starting point being under the reign of the Hantei; the dynasties have since changed, and new Clans have formed, and old ones have waned in power. It tends to get a pass on it more than, say, WoD did because its metaplot advancements happen on grand time-scales, often far longer than even lengthy campaigns will cover. But its problems still are present, if the game is set when the metaplot is occurring (and, sadly, the nature of metaplot is such that authors make those the most interesting times, because that's When Things Are Happening).

Metaplot's biggest sin is that it tends to deprotagonize the PCs. NPCs are making the big changes, because PCs can, at best, aspire to replace an NPC in that NPC's role. They can't hope to CHANGE the course of events. The story is actually about the NPCs, with the PCs getting to be the B-plot.

[BRC]

Indeed. Metaplot only happens when the default game-start timeframe is in the "past" of known events. L5R absolutely has metaplot; it started with games' default starting point being under the reign of the Hantei; the dynasties have since changed, and new Clans have formed, and old ones have waned in power. It tends to get a pass on it more than, say, WoD did because its metaplot advancements happen on grand time-scales, often far longer than even lengthy campaigns will cover. But its problems still are present, if the game is set when the metaplot is occurring (and, sadly, the nature of metaplot is such that authors make those the most interesting times, because that's When Things Are Happening).

Metaplot's biggest sin is that it tends to deprotagonize the PCs. NPCs are making the big changes, because PCs can, at best, aspire to replace an NPC in that NPC's role. They can't hope to CHANGE the course of events. The story is actually about the NPCs, with the PCs getting to be the B-plot.

That said, there is some interesting grey area that can be reached based on how you PRESENT the Metaplot.

Using my example of Slatvia and Gorban, I could go farther and say
"Slatvia loses the war in Year 107 at the battle of Kesburg when the Gorbanite's new artillery pieces devastate the Slatvian armies", but Presented in such a way as to say "unless the PC's change something". Now, everything after that has to change to account for these new events, but that's no different than a setting without any "Future" events changing in response to the PC's actions.

If the campaign goes to year 107, the PC's could sabotage the artillery, or they could have stolen the plans ahead of time, so both armies had the new weapons. Heck, they could even have negotiated peace so the battle does not happen in the first place. This gives both the sense that the setting is a living, changing world that isn't just waiting for the PC's to muck with it, while still giving the PC's a chance to muck with major events (I'm currently in a Deadlands campaign that's taken this approach. I don't know the Deadlands canon timeline that well, but I don't think we've messed with it too much outside of some changes our GM made. That said, we do rule California, at least it gets taken over by Emperor Norton, a race of peanut-monsters, or a sentient artillery piece named Napoleon Blowsapart.)

[Max_Killjoy]

That said, there is some interesting grey area that can be reached based on how you PRESENT the Metaplot.

Using my example of Slatvia and Gorban, I could go farther and say
"Slatvia loses the war in Year 107 at the battle of Kesburg when the Gorbanite's new artillery pieces devastate the Slatvian armies", but Presented in such a way as to say "unless the PC's change something". Now, everything after that has to change to account for these new events, but that's no different than a setting without any "Future" events changing in response to the PC's actions.

If the campaign goes to year 107, the PC's could sabotage the artillery, or they could have stolen the plans ahead of time, so both armies had the new weapons. Heck, they could even have negotiated peace so the battle does not happen in the first place. This gives both the sense that the setting is a living, changing world that isn't just waiting for the PC's to muck with it, while still giving the PC's a chance to muck with major events (I'm currently in a Deadlands campaign that's taken this approach. I don't know the Deadlands canon timeline that well, but I don't think we've messed with it too much outside of some changes our GM made. That said, we do rule California, at least it gets taken over by Emperor Norton, a race of peanut-monsters, or a sentient artillery piece named Napoleon Blowsapart.)


That's pretty much what a GM has to do with any metaplot if he doesn't want to railroad the campaign and "deprotagonize" the PCs.

[BRC]

That's pretty much what a GM has to do with any metaplot if he doesn't want to railroad the campaign and "deprotagonize" the PCs.

I mean, not necessarily, they could just keep the PC's well away from the events of the Metaplot, but that's not stable. The moment the Players express an interest in changing some event away from it's pre-determined outcome, the GM is forced to either let the Metaplot be mutable, or railroad things so it stays the same.

The issue is that Players want to play games in which they do The Coolest Things, GMs want to run games in which PCs do The Coolest Things, and Setting Designers want to write about The Coolest Things happening. So Players and GMs are inevitably drawn towards the events of the Metaplot, since nobody wants to kill Goblins #15-36 when The Dread Prince of the Dragonlands is over there being evil.

[Max_Killjoy]

I mean, not necessarily, they could just keep the PC's well away from the events of the Metaplot, but that's not stable. The moment the Players express an interest in changing some event away from it's pre-determined outcome, the GM is forced to either let the Metaplot be mutable, or railroad things so it stays the same.

The issue is that Players want to play games in which they do The Coolest Things, GMs want to run games in which PCs do The Coolest Things, and Setting Designers want to write about The Coolest Things happening. So Players and GMs are inevitably drawn towards the same events, since nobody wants to kill Goblins #15-36 when they could be off fighting The Dread Prince of The Dragonlands!

Having an established plot works in some instances, if the players are willing to be heroes of THEIR story, as opposed to being THE HEROES of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE.

For example, in a Star Wars RPG, it's possible for the PCs to be not just heroes, but Big Damn Heroes, without ever getting involved in the events of the movies, even tangentially -- because a galaxy is a very very big setting (at least 100000 inhabited worlds, and 100000 light years across... ).

[BRC]

Having an established plot works in some instances, if the players are willing to be heroes of THEIR story, as opposed to being THE HEROES of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE.

For example, in a Star Wars RPG, it's possible for the PCs to be not just heroes, but Big Damn Heroes, without ever getting involved in the events of the movies, even tangentially -- because a galaxy is a very very big setting (at least 100000 inhabited worlds, and 100000 light years across... ).

Right, but that requires either luck, or the Players understanding that they shouldn't be trying to mess around with Metaplot events, and since Metaplot events are usually the coolest things going on in the setting, players usually want to be involved with them.

[Max_Killjoy]

Right, but that requires either luck, or the Players understanding that they shouldn't be trying to mess around with Metaplot events, and since Metaplot events are usually the coolest things going on in the setting, players usually want to be involved with them.

I can see that.

My experience, however, is that across 4 different Star Wars campaigns, none of us was ever tempted to go anywhere near the events of the movies.

And my point, although a bit muddled, was that there's all that room to avoid the metaplot... which was made to seem even bigger than it was by the failure of scope and scale that tends to accompany stories like the Star Wars saga.

[BRC]

I can see that.

My experience, however, is that across 4 different Star Wars campaigns, none of us was ever tempted to go anywhere near the events of the movies.

And my point, although a bit muddled, was that there's all that room to avoid the metaplot... which was made to seem even bigger than it was by the failure of scope and scale that tends to accompany stories like the Star Wars saga.

That falls under "Luck". Not especially remarkable luck perhaps (There is a lot of galaxy to explore), but a Star Wars Saga GM cannot categorically declare that their campaign will never intersect with the Metaplot.

[Segev]

Having an established plot works in some instances, if the players are willing to be heroes of THEIR story, as opposed to being THE HEROES of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE.

For example, in a Star Wars RPG, it's possible for the PCs to be not just heroes, but Big Damn Heroes, without ever getting involved in the events of the movies, even tangentially -- because a galaxy is a very very big setting (at least 100000 inhabited worlds, and 100000 light years across... ).

If your Star Wars RPG doesn't have the metaplot interfere with the PCs' actions, that's probably fine. But if the struggle of the rebellion and the tyranny of the empire is impacting the PCs, they may want to do something about them. If they can't change things for their own benefit because that would interfere with the Death Star coming into being or with a kid from Tatooine destroying it on schedule, that might irk them.

If you've got a setting where the metaplot doesn't prevent the PCs from doing their thing, then it probably isn't really all that important metaplot. And that's fine.

[awa]

the worst meta plot is the stuff that cant be escaped and changes the setting on such a fundamental level that it basically cant be worked around dark sun springs to mind

[Max_Killjoy]

If your Star Wars RPG doesn't have the metaplot interfere with the PCs' actions, that's probably fine. But if the struggle of the rebellion and the tyranny of the empire is impacting the PCs, they may want to do something about them. If they can't change things for their own benefit because that would interfere with the Death Star coming into being or with a kid from Tatooine destroying it on schedule, that might irk them.

If you've got a setting where the metaplot doesn't prevent the PCs from doing their thing, then it probably isn't really all that important metaplot. And that's fine.


It's possible for the GM to set up a campaign in a setting like Star Wars where the PCs never have reason to know of or come across the Big Plot -- and then we get into another touchy meta -- metaknowledge, when the players know about the events of the movies, but the characters have no reason to know until after the fact.


Other GMs have (quite legitimately, IMO) said "Well, if my players do get involved, then maybe the farm kid from the desert planet doesn't blow up the first Death Star, and some things change about the setting and the ongoing story, and that's great. Maybe they blow it up instead, or maybe no one blows it up and the rebellion is set back several years."


Some settings are big enough to give that sort of choice... others aren't, or the metaplot is so all-encompassing that it leaves no room regardless of the size of the setting.

.

[Segev]

Honestly, Star Wars is one of those where it probably doesn't matter, since rulebooks and splatbooks are generally written to be timeline-agnostic. If the farmboy doesn't destroy the Death Star, but the unusually athletic hutt does, it doesn't matter that the setting is altered from the perspective of the players and that campaign, because it doesn't invalidate things.

Metaplot tends to be a problem because it does things like create new mechanics for the New Jedi Order, and now all of those mechanics are useless to the players because Luke never founds it.

It can be worked around. It tends to only be a problem when it injects itself into the table's game by forcing a choice to follow it or not.

[Tiktakkat]

Where are you getting this idea that "secrets" are a critical qualifier for metaplot?

If the DM is unaware of it until subsequent products are released, then the information is a "secret" up until that point in time.
If a company publishes a sourcebook with multiple adventure seeds with specific plans for those seeds, and particularly with specific outcomes for those seeds, but presents them as mere "seeds" for individual DMs to develop, then the company is keeping "secrets" from the DMs and players that will invariably lead to conflicts between home games as additional materials are released.
More, it will cause conflicts between the original designers and subsequent designers when the subsequent designers take the seeds off in completely different directions. This is heavily shown in Forgotten Realms, but also appears in Greyhawk, and made an appearance in Dragonlance when a character was yanked into Ravenloft.


Or that an unchanging internal plan for the story at the publisher is a critical qualifier for metaplot?

Where are you getting the idea I said that?
I explicitly said that the metaplot does not have to have a predetermined outcome, which is a form of railroading, in order for it to exist.

WoD had the apocalypse coming. Period. There was nothing individual groups could do to it avoid it no matter what they did in particular adventures. The apocalypse was going to affect every "setting". Period. There was nothing individual groups could do to avoid it no matter if they were vampires, werewolves, mages, ghosts, or faeries. That is a "secret" plot with a predetermined outcome.

TORG had a confrontation with the ultimate BBEG coming. Period. There was nothing individual groups could do to avoid it no matter what they did in particular adventures. The confrontation was going to affect every "setting". Period. There was nothing individual groups could do to avoid no matter what "realm" they played in or were from. However, the specific development of the story to that confrontation was modified in published products based on what did happen in particular adventures. That is a "not-so-secret" plot, as it was hardwired into the background descriptions from the beginning, with predetermined outcome, but a variable "path" to that outcome.

L5R had card sets released. They had yearly tournaments based on those card sets. The individual players made their decks and played them, winner take all - including next year's plot line. While there was nothing the players in the RPG could do change things, there was "everything" (subject of course to creating a good enough deck and playing it to win of course) players of the card game could do to change things. Events were almost as unknown to the designers as they were to the players. (At least theoretically - they may of course used a Magician's Choice all along.) That is an "unknown" plot, with "unknown" outcomes, and even an "unknown" path to that outcome, canonized ex post facto.


World of Darkness, L5R, and TORG, all had "future history" officially published, leaving GMs with to pick the least-bad option for the campaign (deviation or adherence, both of which have drawbacks) -- that's all that's required for RPG product-line metaplot.

See above for the differences in their "future histories".

As such, that is all that is required for predetermined outcome.

What is required for metaplot is interconnections between otherwise separate and distinct plot threads.

Note the differences between those two:
Predetermined Outcome
Interconnected Plots

One requires direct contradiction of individual group play.
The other merely constitutes general background.

One is invariably revealed in sections, often after events from adventures have played out.
The other is revealed at immediate point of use.

Neither inherently requires the others.
Both are frequently employed together, thus causing the confusion between the two, and the definition you are using.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'll go with the definition 9999999 other people are using, rather than yours. Language is about communicating, words function through shared meaning. I don't care how much someone thinks that the color of grass is called "purple", when the word needed to make that color understood for everyone else is "green".





Where are you getting the idea I said that?



Ahem:



World of Darkness was a metaplot, as the events across multiple lines had a "secret" connection, leading to an inevitable conclusion. That is absolutely correct.

L5R is not a metaplot, as the specific outcomes were not established ahead of time, but were left to chance and player agency.

TORG was between them, as there was an overall plan, but various elements were adjusted based on player reports of adventure seeds they played out and reported on.



It really doesn't matter if the L5R metaplot evolved out of the CCG event results, or a long-term plan.

If the game's setting has an official course of events that proceed through time into the future from the point at which the setting starts (rather than a timeline from the past to that point) -- if the game has "future history", if the product lines tells you what WILL happen -- then the game has metaplot. Everything else is tangential to that.

[Tiktakkat]

I'll go with the definition 9999999 other people are using, rather than yours. Language is about communicating, words function through shared meaning. I don't care how much someone thinks that the color of grass is called "purple", when the word needed to make that color understood for everyone else is "green".

Yes it is.
And "meta" is not typically used to refer to a release schedule.

So I will go with the definition of the word as meaning something about itself, thus a plot about plots.


Ahem:

So . . . not an unchanging internal plan, but a plot about plots.
Right.


It really doesn't matter if the L5R metaplot evolved out of the CCG event results, or a long-term plan.

Well, yes it does.


If the game's setting has an official course of events that proceed through time into the future from the point at which the setting starts (rather than a timeline from the past to that point) -- if the game has "future history", if the product lines tells you what WILL happen -- then the game has metaplot. Everything else is tangential to that.

Except that official course was not set ahead of time.
The product lines did not tell what WILL happen.
They told what DID happen.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes it is.
And "meta" is not typically used to refer to a release schedule.

So I will go with the definition of the word as meaning something about itself, thus a plot about plots.



So . . . not an unchanging internal plan, but a plot about plots.
Right.



Well, yes it does.



Except that official course was not set ahead of time.
The product lines did not tell what WILL happen.
They told what DID happen.


So... the setting was changed as new materials came out, and the canon future going forward set in stone... but that's not what WILL happen from the perspective of the original starting point of the setting?

OK, right... whatever...


You know, some people aren't worth trying to have a discussion with.


/plonk.


Meanwhile, everyone else will actually be using the word to mean what it means outside your little world. You enjoy being "right"... I have better things to do than to watch you piss into the wind and pretend you have the revealed meaning of a word while using it to mean something different from almost everyone else using it.



The metaplot is the overarching storyline that binds together events in the official continuity of a published role-playing game campaign setting. Major official story events that change the world, or simply move important non-player characters from one place to another, are part of the metaplot for a game. For example, White Wolf Game Studio's World of Darkness was brought to an end by major events in the metaplot as part of the Time of Judgment. Because of events like this, many gaming groups choose to ignore the metaplot for a game entirely.

Metaplot information is usually included within gaming products such as rule books and modules as they are released. Major events in the metaplot are often used to explain changes in the rules in between versions of the games, as was the case in White Wolf's World of Darkness and in Wizard of the Coast's Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance.





Metaplot refers to the timeline of major events in a given fictional universe, as published by the creator of the universe in various canon materials.




A Metaplot, broadly speaking, happens when there are multiple independent works coexisting in The Verse that aren't just sequels and prequels or supplementary expansions of a single primary story, and there exists a Story Arc for The Verse itself that impacts the plots of those separate works. The term originates from Tabletop RPGs, where it refers to the tendency popular in the 1990s for RPG companies to insert an overarching story incrementally advancing the timeline of the setting into the supplements for the RPG, with the aim of encouraging people to buy every supplement to follow along. In this case, it is the campaigns of individual Game Masters that are the "independent works." This idea was popular for a time, but caused a number of problems that made metaplots as controversial as they are (though despite fan outcry, many of the biggest games still have active metaplots).

First, Game Masters might not want to incorporate the plot twists, revelations and events of the metaplot into their campaigns. Suppose a GM was using Baron von Skullfist, head of Murder, Inc., as the Big Bad of his campaign, but Murder Incorporated: The Complete Guide had the Baron make a Heel–Face Turn and be replaced by his subordinate, Captain Killfoot, who in the GM's campaign had already been revealed as a Reverse Mole. Obviously, this new supplement couldn't be used as is, and the GM would have to declare his campaign world an Alternate Universe and do additional work to adapt the supplement's material to the campaign. Worse, as the metaplot continued, each future supplement from the point where the GM's campaign diverged would progressively become less and less useful to that campaign.

Second, the metaplot and its characters, often featured in the setting's tie-in novels, would tend to overshadow the player characters, particularly in the hands of a bad GM who would use the metaplot characters as deus ex machinas and refused to contemplate allowing the players to change the course of the metaplot. This got so bad in some cases that more than one game released adventure modules that primarily consisted of the players watching the non-player characters advance or resolve the metaplot.

Third, the use of metaplot encouraged metagaming. If the GM utilized the metaplot - as some GMs and players felt was desirable or even required to play the game "correctly" - players could become aware of the future course of the campaign and much theoretically "secret" knowledge just by reading the supplements, possibly even unintentionally if a supplement on their character type happens to be set late in the metaplot.



http://home.earthlink.net/~esasmor/blacklight/metaplot.htm


Or hey, look... https://www.google.com/search?q=Legend+of+the+Five+Rings+metaplot


.

[Takewo]

Yes it is.
And "meta" is not typically used to refer to a release schedule.

So I will go with the definition of the word as meaning something about itself, thus a plot about plots.

Sorry to step in, but I've got to say that it's a sort of "linguistic fallacy" to assume that the meaning of a word equals the sum of its parts or is somewhat related to its etymology.

A word's meaning is determined by how people use it. And that's one of the most important things that you learn in linguistics.

[Cluedrew]

A word's meaning is determined by how people use it. And that's one of the most important things that you learn in linguistics.Yes... sort of... I refuse to accept that "literally" means "figuratively" now. In that case I'm just going to have to draw the line. So it is correct to an extent as are most things.

Still meta-plot to me does mean the meta (connecting/over) plot (narrative). It doesn't have to be preplanned. If I run multiple campaigns and have events from one feed into others, that is still meta-plot despite the fact it was not preplanned, because it is plot that goes over/connects the plots of the individual campaigns.

Now I understand why people focus on the preplanned and published variety, because A) it tends to be more common and B) it causes more problems. But in like regular non-meta-plot in RPGs, it can be planned or organic, but the latter tends to work better.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes... sort of... I refuse to accept that "literally" means "figuratively" now. In that case I'm just going to have to draw the line. So it is correct to an extent as are most things.

Still meta-plot to me does mean the meta (connecting/over) plot (narrative). It doesn't have to be preplanned. If I run multiple campaigns and have events from one feed into others, that is still meta-plot despite the fact it was not preplanned, because it is plot that goes over/connects the plots of the individual campaigns.

Now I understand why people focus on the preplanned and published variety, because A) it tends to be more common and B) it causes more problems. But in like regular non-meta-plot in RPGs, it can be planned or organic, but the latter tends to work better.


In the context of RPGs, if someone is talking about "metaplot", they're very rarely talking about an overarching plot connecting multiple campaigns or fictional works.


(Yes, actually inverting the meaning of a word is a special case of sloppy... see also, "Can you borrow me some money?" to mean "Can you loan me some money?" and similar abuses. Or abusing the emphasizing, hyperbolic usage of "literally" until what one actually means is "figuratively". )

.

[Tiktakkat]

In the context of RPGs, if someone is talking about "metaplot", they're very rarely talking about an overarching plot connecting multiple campaigns or fictional works.

http://home.earthlink.net/~esasmor/blacklight/metaplot.htm

"So... A metaplot is a plot that is more important than other plots. A metaplot is a grand, over-reaching plot that affects and controls all other plots. A metaplot is the master of all subservient plots."

Plus:

"A Metaplot, broadly speaking, happens when there are multiple independent works coexisting in The Verse that aren't just sequels and prequels or supplementary expansions of a single primary story, and there exists a Story Arc for The Verse itself that impacts the plots of those separate works."

And:

"The metaplot is the overarching storyline that binds together events in the official continuity of a published role-playing game campaign setting."

Then Me:
"Metaplot is like a conspiracy theory - if something big happens, "THEY" are responsible for it in some way, shape, or form."

[goto124]

In the case of L5R, that's taking one campaign, writing its events as a plot, and then declaring that for every other L5R campaign in existence only that particular specific set of events (now called a metaplot) is canonically correct. Every other GM running their own L5R games either gets their own plot overriden by the official metaplot (leading to them railroading their own players to stick to the metaplot), or they ignore the metaplot anyway.


Is there a way to write a metaplot series of future developments in an already published setting, without overriding what the players have already done in their own campaigns?

[Tiktakkat]

Is there a way to write a metaplot series of future developments in an already published setting, without overriding what the players have already done in their own campaigns?

That depends on how long the setting has been published, and what you are determined to include.

Generally speaking though, no.
That option went out the door with the first products shipped, and trying to advance the setting at a later date is almost always going to wind up conflicting with something, someone, somewhere, has done.
That's why you can find a segment of fans for any setting who will vehemently protest any hint of advancing the timeline, not matter how many years have passed since the first sourcebook was published, or how many editions of the core rules have been done.

The best you can conceivably do is plot a limited setting.
Do it for 3-5 years then just move on.
Sure people will want to know what happens next, but if you do a good enough job on the first setting, they should be interested enough to follow you along to the next one.
If not, they were probably going to drop the setting anyway the moment you advanced the timeline in a way they didn't approve, so either way you were going to lose them.

[Takewo]

Yes... sort of... I refuse to accept that "literally" means "figuratively" now. In that case I'm just going to have to draw the line. So it is correct to an extent as are most things.

Still meta-plot to me does mean the meta (connecting/over) plot (narrative). It doesn't have to be preplanned. If I run multiple campaigns and have events from one feed into others, that is still meta-plot despite the fact it was not preplanned, because it is plot that goes over/connects the plots of the individual campaigns.

That's completely true. Here we'd be taking about language games or something like that, which at a very basic level means that a word's meaning is determined by the context in which it is used. And, indeed, the fact that "metaplot" normally (in RPG jargon) refers to the unfolding of the published material does not preclude it being used as "the plot behind the plot."


In the context of RPGs, if someone is talking about "metaplot", they're very rarely talking about an overarching plot connecting multiple campaigns or fictional works.

Exactly. It's not that it can't mean "overarching plot," it's just that normally it doesn't.


http://home.earthlink.net/~esasmor/blacklight/metaplot.htm

Then Me:
"Metaplot is like a conspiracy theory - if something big happens, "THEY" are responsible for it in some way, shape, or form."

In a sense, yes. I don't think that your definition of metaplot is that different from what's been said here. However, it seems to me that the emphasis is in how the published material changes the setting, rather than having one unified plot behind the scenes overarching the rest of the plots.

[Max_Killjoy]

In a sense, yes. I don't think that your definition of metaplot is that different from what's been said here. However, it seems to me that the emphasis is in how the published material changes the setting, rather than having one unified plot behind the scenes overarching the rest of the plots.



Except that the "conspiracy" element is completely tangential. There is absolutely no need for a "THEY" in-setting (or out) for a game line to have metaplot.

And the supposed "pre-planned" element is also completely irrelevant -- the course of events could be decided by a tiddeliwinks tournament in the publisher's office, and it wouldn't affect the metaplot or not question one bit.


For RPGs products, it's easiest to spot "metaplot" by effect -- when the GM has to choose between ignoring an increasingly large chunk of the published ongoing events, or railroading his own campaign, then you know you have a metaplot.

Most settings based on pre-existing works of fiction have a defacto metaplot, unless there's no more fictional work in that setting being made, and the game takes place after the end of the events in the books or movies or show.

[Cluedrew]

Exactly. It's not that it can't mean "overarching plot," it's just that normally it doesn't.Actually I think it does. Because I consider the meta-plot you are discussing to mean "overarching plot created by publishers and released through official modules". In turn I consider that to be a subset of overarching plot.

So the definitions are actually not that different from each other. I just think the word also covers some cases not often used.

[Takewo]

Except that the "conspiracy" element is completely tangential. There is absolutely no need for a "THEY" in-setting (or out) for a game line to have metaplot.

And the supposed "pre-planned" element is also completely irrelevant -- the course of events could be decided by a tiddeliwinks tournament in the publisher's office, and it wouldn't affect the metaplot or not question one bit.

Well, yes. Again, emphases a different, but both definitions understand it as something being behind the scenes of the campaign. One says that it's the reason why everything happens, the other says that it's the place changing regardless of the characters' actions. Are they the same? Well, no. But I don't think they are so irreconcilably apart.


Actually I think it does. Because I consider the meta-plot you are discussing to mean "overarching plot created by publishers and released through official modules". In turn I consider that to be a subset of overarching plot.

So the definitions are actually not that different from each other. I just think the word also covers some cases not often used.

Well, that's only if the published material includes and affects all the plots in the campaign, which is not necessarily the case. Published material can be used as a background noise, rather than that which is behind the other plots in the campaign. Again, I'm not saying that they are completely different definitions, just that they aren't quite the same.

[Tiktakkat]

Exactly. It's not that it can't mean "overarching plot," it's just that normally it doesn't.

I cited quote from three separate sources describing metaplot.
I did not bring up those sources; they are the sources others are using.
All three of them described it as an overarching story plot.
So normally, metaplot does mean "overarching plot".


In a sense, yes. I don't think that your definition of metaplot is that different from what's been said here. However, it seems to me that the emphasis is in how the published material changes the setting, rather than having one unified plot behind the scenes overarching the rest of the plots.

Again, from those multiple sources, the emphasis is clearly on the overarching plot and not the canon timeline advancement.
As such, my describing metaplot as a grand conspiracy theory is exceptionally more accurate and relevant than just talking about canon timeline advancement.

If, and only if, you want to focus on the most annoying use of metaplot - using it to drive campaign changes that were not reasonably foreshadowed, or come so far on as to make it likely that individual campaigns have done something to diverge from the canon version - then it is incumbent on you to note that you are talking about that specific subset of metaplot, and not metaplot as a concept in general.

Indeed past a certain point it is incorrectly conflating the two, as advancing the canon timeline may not require any coordination of plots over the setting. Events in widely separate places can be completely unrelated, and yet the canon timeline is advanced, creating both direct conflicts ("I thought Kingdom A conquered Kingdom B three years ago?") and synergistic conflicts ("If Kingdom B was overrun by giant space hamsters, why was Kingdom A worried about plots from the court of Kingdom B?") This is extremely common in Greyhawk, where the background is quite casual, clumsily layered, and rather inconsistent when cross-referenced.

[Segev]

Then Me:
"Metaplot is like a conspiracy theory - if something big happens, "THEY" are responsible for it in some way, shape, or form."Kind-of. Metaplot is something that the setting assumes has happened since your game began (presuming you began before the latest splat book came out), and thus your game either has it (regardless of PC actions) or is deviated and can't use everything the new books will release.

Or, looked at another way, metaplot is stuff that NPCs acting like PCs do that changes the setting in ways that impact your actual PCs, and of which the PCs can do nothing about except react and adjust to it.


Is there a way to write a metaplot series of future developments in an already published setting, without overriding what the players have already done in their own campaigns?

I think part of the reason L5R gets away with it as well as they do is that they tend to advance the metaplot only at edition releases.

If you advance metaplot by moving forward sufficient time that most campaigns run in the prior edition would not have reached that far forward, and you do it such that you expect a bunch of new campaigns to start (rather than old campaigns to continue), you can likely get away with it more easily. Because it won't commit the cardinal sin of invalidating individual tables' plots by forcing them to conform.

[Tiktakkat]

Kind-of. Metaplot is something that the setting assumes has happened since your game began (presuming you began before the latest splat book came out), and thus your game either has it (regardless of PC actions) or is deviated and can't use everything the new books will release.

Or, looked at another way, metaplot is stuff that NPCs acting like PCs do that changes the setting in ways that impact your actual PCs, and of which the PCs can do nothing about except react and adjust to it.

Metaplot is absolutely the stuff that NPCs acting like PCs are doing. Hence my comparison to a conspiracy theory. And as such the PCs must react and adjust to it.

However, it does not have to actually alter the setting.
The NPCs can plot and plan endlessly . . . AND be thwarted endlessly, having "achieved" only vaguely cosmetic alterations, if that much, to the setting as a whole.

Yes, that can start to strain credulity after a point, and thus be as annoying as railroading.
For which . . . comics, which endlessly cycle through hero stops villain-hero imprisons villain-villain returns-nothing is different.
Until readers are itching for someone to die horrifically just so SOMETHING changes.
And for which publishers give us "permanent" deaths that are reversed 3 issues later.
Then setting reboots and yet more angst.

[goto124]

I think part of the reason L5R gets away with it as well as they do is that they tend to advance the metaplot only at edition releases.

If you advance metaplot by moving forward sufficient time that most campaigns run in the prior edition would not have reached that far forward, and you do it such that you expect a bunch of new campaigns to start (rather than old campaigns to continue), you can likely get away with it more easily. Because it won't commit the cardinal sin of invalidating individual tables' plots by forcing them to conform.

Aaaah! So one way to avoid the problem is to release the material such that only new campaigns are affected by the new metaplot, while leaving old campaigns untouched.

[Segev]

Aaaah! So one way to avoid the problem is to release the material such that only new campaigns are affected by the new metaplot, while leaving old campaigns untouched.

I do'nt know that it solves all the problems, but I expect it avoids the majority of them.

[awa]

The biggest problem I have seen with the edition change metaplots is typically when they radically change the setting and most importantly mess with favored elements. But that seems less a problem of the metaplot

[Arbane]

Another annoying situation that may-or-may-not be a metaplot issue is when the first few books for a game set up a Big Secret(tm), but don't tell the answer... and then when the answer is revealed a few sourcebooks later, it derails the game. (7th Sea had a bad example of that, IIRC - turns out most of the magic in the setting is threatening to unleash the local equivalent of Cthulhu.)

[KillingAScarab]

I do'nt know that it solves all the problems, but I expect it avoids the majority of them.


The biggest problem I have seen with the edition change metaplots is typically when they radically change the setting and most importantly mess with favored elements. But that seems less a problem of the metaplotOld World of Darkness kinda tried to have both of these at the same time. In the update to 3rd edition versions of Vampire: the Masquerade and Werewolf: the Apocalypse there were "outsider" groups which were officially given different allegiances. Clan Gangrel left the Camarilla while the Stargazer tribe left the 13 tribes and joined the Beast Courts. You could still play a Gangrel or a Stargazer and just be one of the ones "left behind," technically.

[Kapow]

I'm a bit surprised, how much metaplot seems to concern People.
For the most time of my gaming life, I played games with metaplot (started with The Dark Eye, followed by about ten years of Shadowrun, some V:tM...) I and the people I played with simply never cared about it (or changed the parts we wanted to)

(e.g. when in the SR-metaplot Berlin stopped being this anarchistic enclave, we first thought it would be a nice development. But our runners relocated to Paris, where there was no official supplement for and later we had an arch, where we reestablished anarchy at least in parts of Berlin. I don't even know, what the official story says about this)

[awa]

its a thread specifically about why people dislike meta-plot so by its nature the metaplot is going to be the focus.

In practice it never really affected any games i was in becuase it rarely came up we largely ignored it and didn't buy many supplements so it never changed anything we couldn't just ignore.

[rayquaza]

From my point of view:
Consider a metaplot that is the grand idea behind the other plots with your game. It might not even be specifically defined, but it's there. It's the motivator, the defining limits, the subtle first step toward your game. It doesn't have to last forever, but it's going to be the dynamic behind a few campaigns.

Such as, let's say you will have a team of heroes get together to fix a criminal offense. They plan to team up. They discover these people have a lot in common and face many different mutual foes. This all is leading as many as the belief that one guy created them. They haven't been able to see it because they've spent the last two years running from adventure to adventure, although the clues have been there the whole time. That's the metaplot.

A great and (relatively) recent example certainly is the "Hush" series in Batman. He went from crime to crime considering just what the heck was materializing, and the whole time that it was one man pulling every one of the strings, someone that was completely unexpected, also it was all to get a specific reason. Because he was in the middle of all these little plots, subplots and mini-scenarios, although batman couldn't see it.

More than, that's what I've always think it is...