Now a friend and I recently had a fun discussion/debate on meta plot in RPG's. I'm not going to discuss necessarily what side either of us are on, but it did pique my interest. (He does haunt the boards here, as do I so if he want's in on the discussion here he can.)
How do the folks that frequent the boards here in Paizoland feel about meta plot in their campaign settings? From both (or either) a DM's perspective, or a player's perspective?
|
As a GM, I usually find metaplots highly interesting. They add... "purpose", as currently I can't find a better word.
However, it's also very true that an overbearing or (even slightly) poorly designed metaplot can wreak havoc on the most interesting setting/campaign.
So, a very careful application, with some in depth considerations are mandatory elements.
As a GM, I usually find metaplots highly interesting. They add... "purpose", as currently I can't find a better word.
However, it's also very true that an overbearing or (even slightly) poorly designed metaplot can wreak havoc on the most interesting setting/campaign.So, a very careful application, with some in depth considerations are mandatory elements.
Now to further add to the discussion, what's an example of a meta-plot that works in RPG's? Further more, what's an example of one that is poorly designed or overbearing?
(I can think of examples on my own. I'm curious what others opinions are, this isn't even something that I'd considered in great depth until just recently. The structure of meta-plot and how present it is in an RPG or setting wasn't something I that even occurred to me but now I realize that it is one of the primary basis for what settings/rpg's I enjoy most.)
When it comes to metaplot I say that at it's best it can be something for a Dm to hook his story into the greater whole of a world. It can give the give the players that feeling of being true legends and heroes within the world itself and not just this one story. I think my personal favorite example of well done metaplot was in the Iron Kingdoms Campaign Setting for 3.5. There was a great deal about the varies wars and machinations of different factions and monsters but it created a background within which the players could very well change the course of history. I felt the same way about the Dawnforge setting (though who knows how many would actually know that one).
But that's metaplot at it's best. At it's worst it stifles potential creativity and forces plays to act not in the way they intend or want but in the way that is dictated by the metaplot. The bad example I always saw was within Werewolf the Apocalypse. The Old World of Darkness. There you had one of the more powerful and terrifying entities within the world and they're losing the war. And there's nothing to be done about them losing the war. All you can do as a player is run around plugging leaks on the titanic. Within this metaplot you as the player don't have that much say even when you've shown or embraced your heroic status/destiny. The world will end because of things you have no control over.
I guess at the end of the day I think of Metaplot within a game the same way I think of railroading players. If they like the rails their on and are having a good time, then it's fine and hell even fun for you as a gamemaster cause you know where they're going. But if they aren't having fun, why are you keeping them on the rails?
|
You know, I'm not sure I've come across a metaplot I like. Mainly because once it's set in motion... it's no longer my story as GM nor my players' story. I typically ignore any metaplot in any game because it just invades our playspace.
TORG was metaplot heavy, but I didn't care. My campaign started pretty much when theirs was wrapping up, with the PCs are all Core Earthers who happened to be in Atlanta for the 1996 Olympics. The Living Land invaded there, just in time for the lighting of the torch. It was great! My players didn't know anything about the world, and I had a hedge magician, a Russian CDC researcher, an Olympic athlete... it was a great group. Thanks to the Russian, I was able to get everyone back to Moscow in time to be the ones thwarting the Tharkold invasion. Oh, when they realized that they just spent about everything to defeat a single low-level Tharkoldu scout, they were so happy that they could keep THAT world from landing!
When I start a new campaign, I usually have 2 to 3 political storylines going on in the background. I introduce them one by one and see how the players react to them. The plotline the players are interested in, is developed further and becomes the metaplot. This way I can be sure the players want to play this plotline. The other possible plotlines recede in the background, and are e.g. solved by other heroes (or not solved at all if they are less urgent).
An example: in my Savage Tide campaign I introduced the concept of official, tolerated and illegal faiths. Promptly all my players chose an illegal faith as their religion. On the basis of that I developed an inquisition plotline, which led to PCs and their allies being hunted by the inquisition. Farshore has become a haven of religious freedom, and therefore the players have extra reasons to protect it. They are also setting up a rebellion with some of their allies. All in all this has made for some interesting roleplay.
Another plotline was a conflict between the Olman and civilized society, which was not picked up by the players. It has receded in the background. Sometimes they hear rumors about it, so they can still react to it if they wish, or leave it as it is.
In this way I try to prevent railroading. I never write an ending to the metaplot in advance. I just see how it goes and react to what the players do with it.
It's been a few days, and I thought perhaps I should give my thoughts on the topic as the OP.
I'm not a big fan of meta-plot in published campaigns/RPG's. Specifically on going meta-plot that develops through a constant releases of products. Things like TORG, OwoD, Dragonlance, to a lesser extent ShadowRun, and pretty much anything based around a franchise (Star Wars being the biggest example) are typically things that I don't enjoy running games in. Some of the meta-plot is easily ignored, such as in ShadowRun's case. Others are difficult, especially when you have players that are well versed in the advancing meta-plot (StarWars being the largest beast and culprit).
Now this isn't to say that I hate all meta-plot. I don't mind it when it initially defines a setting and is given as a tool for me to develop without the help of the publishers. It's what attracted me initially to both Golarion, and to Eberron, the RPG products of the Iron Kingdoms (and a few other settings I have in my collection). Doing this makes it much easier to ignore the meta-plot, and also makes it feel like less of a race to get the most up to date information.
As for my own campaigns? There's always a meta-plot going on. When I run a home-brew I do pretty much what you do Luna Eladrin, come up with a few potential story-lines and then follow the players down the rabbit hole. I also run AP's, which always have an overarching meta-plot, this requires steering the players a bit. (I don't really like seeing AP's as being railroad tracks. I prefer to view it as a highway and it's my job to keep the players on the road. They certainly can veer off at any time, but it's my responsibility to get them back.)
How do the folks that frequent the boards here in Paizoland feel about meta plot in their campaign settings?Quoting myself from an old post:
I discussed Meta-Plot a bit with another fellow HERE, the first post of which contains a link to our preceding discussion of the issue.
Personally, I have several regional and continental meta-plots and even a world-wide "uber-plot" running in my homebrew. It gives purpose and structure to the world and storylines. However, as a DM you need to be careful about giving away too much too soon, and also avoid railroading your Players into your metaplot. In my case, the metaplots evolve entirely in the background, and I allow the PCs the chance to nibble on various hooks. If the Players/PCs express an interest then we pursue it. If they do not, then I don't force them that direction.
Granted, my style of Storytelling is entirely Player-driven. I determine what the background plots are, while they determine their level of involvement with those plots as well as the resultant storylines.
FWIW,
Rez
Thanks for the link. I'm going to read through it, and probably a chunk of the original thread. I had thought this topic had come up in the past here on the boards.
I had thought this topic had come up in the past here on the boards.Pretty much every topic has come up in the past here on the Boards. The Archives are a great resource, and after much effort by Vic are now well-indexed and highly searchable as well.
R.
LOL. I think what I should have put was, I remember seeing a thread on this (specifically meta plot in published settings). I've been around the boards for quite a while, I just don't post very often. Typically because others' have covered what I want to say.
That being said, the link you provided has some great advice. The link from the originating thread with in that thread (does that makes sense?) will have to wait another day. It's time for bed.
The nice thing about a well-used metaplot is the recognition factor for the players. They really get the feeling that they are in a world where things happen and that there is a sense of continuity. I have been using my campaign world since 1988 and some of my players are playing in it from the beginning. They even recognise family names, etc. It is also a nice device to play with their expectations.