metaplot footnote

[xiombarg]

As a footnote to my original rant and the thread about using metaplot as a tool, I picked up Orpheus yesterday, and I'm pleased by how they're handling the metaplot for that game, as part of the "limited series" game concept.

I have some quibbles about how the metaplot in Orepheus is being handled, but they're been very up-front regarding the structure of the metaplot, what each book is supposed to establish, and the fact that it's designed like a movie, with a deliberate beginning, middle, and end. It's very up front that the PCs are the star of the chronicle, and what sort of stories are being told here. As I said, there are some quibbles -- they're still hiding information they shouldn't, and mixing non-metaplot rule info with metaplot rule info in the supplements -- but Soulban is handling the Orpheus metaplot way, way better than the current "End of the World of Darkness" plot (which Orpheus isn't connected to). Never let it be said that I don't give credit where credit is due.

And speaking of the "End of the World of Darkness" metaplot, I appreciate that White Wolf had recently made some effort to make that plotline a little more flexible, as well as centered on the PCs. It's a touch "too little, too late", but worth applauding nontheless.

Any else seen any examples of "metaplot done right" (or reasonably so) lately?

[eyebeams]

Interestingly, one of the critiques being levelled at The Red Sign is that it didn't have a set canonical structure. I personally disagree, but it goes to show that there are plenty of people who do want a structured metaplot.

As one of the authors on Ascension, I can say that the options you'll have are pretty flexible, but using "metaplot" is nebulous here. I'd apply "story" or "adventure" just as readily to some of what's coming up. It's a pity that these distinctions are lost, but it's also useful to think about where one begins and the other ends.

There have been a lot of interesting experiments with ongoing storylines. One which doesn't appear to have quite succeeded was the one for DP9's Heavy Gear, which is a pity, because I quite liked it.

(To summarize, thin graphic novel style annual summaries and date coded supplements)

I think the future is probably in things like Exalted's Locust Crusade, where you have a metaplot "module" that talks about how things could turn out, but the base setting is static, with many changes suggested, rather than implemented. On the other hand, you can't really make a modern RPG "timeless," unless you actually make it an alternate universe (something CP 2020 did when it's history conflicted with reality).

[xiombarg]

And to follow up my own post, I really like the way Crusade of Ashes, in Orpheus, bends over backwards to present you with options for an alternative way of doing things -- most notably in the "Dude, Your Kung Fu Sucks" section. That section is an excellent model for other people to follow, though it could have been expanded.

The way game-mechanical information that should have been in the core rulebook (i.e. Merits and Flaws) is mixed in with a big wad of metaplot is bad, but at least tolerable given the "limited series" nature of the game.

One thing I DIDN'T like was the whole "Mysterious Antagonist 1" and "Mysterious Antagonist 2" thing. It looks increasingly like if you want to run a Orpheus game that uses the metaplot, you're going to have to wait for all the supplements to come out if you want to be able to plan at all as a GM. There's some nods to where to point the PCs, but there's bits where you're explicitly supposed to stymie the PCs until the next supplement  comes out -- Always Drink Your Ovaltine.

Again, this is somewhat -- but only somewhat -- mitigated by the limited series concept, in that I know everything WILL be covered eventually, that there won't be a treadmill of supplements that could change everything about the game at a moment's notice.

Interestingly, one of the critiques being levelled at The Red Sign is that it didn't have a set canonical structure. I personally disagree, but it goes to show that there are plenty of people who do want a structured metaplot.

Well, if you recall from our previous... discussions... I never claimed that no one likes metaplot. Just that I wasn't sure that it was the primary factor in sales and that even if it was, that didn't mean it couldn't (and shouldn't) be done better.

One of my major complaints about metaplot was always lack of support for people who aren't hardcore followers of the metaplot, and not just in White Wolf. And recent news that the Gehenna supplement will have stuff for canon-Nazis and less "canonical" campaigns alike pleases me.

But I digress. Getting back to the actual point of this thread...

There have been a lot of interesting experiments with ongoing storylines. One which doesn't appear to have quite succeeded was the one for DP9's Heavy Gear, which is a pity, because I quite liked it.

I think that's an example that bears more looking into, in terms of the reasons for its failure. I suspect, as cool as the plot was, it seemed a little too "set in stone"....

I think the future is probably in things like Exalted's Locust Crusade, where you have a metaplot "module" that talks about how things could turn out, but the base setting is static, with many changes suggested, rather than implemented.

I'd agree with that -- flexibility is key.

I don't see stuff set in the real world, as you imply, as requiring metaplot -- look at Feng Shui for a game still set in 1996 and doing fine. That's an example of "metaplot done right" in that the creators realize no metaplot is needed at all for that particular game.

[The Solecist]

Columbia Games did a sneaky but workable thing with Harnmaster.

All game supplements are set historically accurate to 720 TR.  No game supplements will refernece events more recent than that date, so the game master isn't forced to edit the world after each new supplement is released.  They are all background material.  The meta plot is laid out up to 720 TR and left to the imagination and inspiration of the play group from that point forward.

Creating an ongoing meta plot can work, but it needs balance, such that a play group's actions will not diverge so much that the next installment is useless to them.  If characters can effect the over all meta plot, than it needs to be flexible enough to allow for this, or supplements will not be taken well by players and game masters.  On the other hand, if players can not effect the meta-plot, then why include it at all except as flavour.

[xiombarg]

All game supplements are set historically accurate to 720 TR.  No game supplements will refernece events more recent than that date, so the game master isn't forced to edit the world after each new supplement is released.  They are all background material.  The meta plot is laid out up to 720 TR and left to the imagination and inspiration of the play group from that point forward.

I think this is an excellent method.

And, in fact, I think this method could have worked for White Wolf. They could have done the Feng Shui trick and frozen all their game timelines at (say) 1996, and then allowing individual campaigns to take it from there. If some developer really, really wanted to have more "modern" rules for something, he could put it out as an optional thing, e.g. "here's one way cellphone spirits might have evolved in Werewolf".

However, in a sense, it's not a metaplot at all -- it's just established history. Any game with some sort of "background" has this -- it only becomes a metaplot when it's being changed, dynamically, by the supplements.

[Mike Holmes]

Let's not overstate, Kirt. Metaplot can also all be presented up front, but with the expectation that the players will encounter it during the course of play. Precisely the difference between the superior and inferior versions you lay out above.

The difference between metaplot and background is that background is a jumping off point, and metaplot needs to be asserted later to make it have an effect. It's the side effects of that insertion that are of debatable usefulness/irritation.

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

The difference between metaplot and background is that background is a jumping off point, and metaplot needs to be asserted later to make it have an effect. It's the side effects of that insertion that are of debatable usefulness/irritation.

There are actualy two kinds of metaplot. There's the kind of metaplot that is intended to be the heart of everyone's, or at least most people's games, and then there's the rolling background kind of metaplot that's realy just trying to make the background 'breathe'. The orriginal regular news broadcasts from JTAS in the Traveller universe are an example of the latter. Of course this transitioned into a highly intrusive form of metaplot with the Rebellion and Virus outbreaks.


Simon Hibbs