Loose Canon

[Invain]

Until the world blows up. Then it matters.

Of course the fall of the Red Moon is something like thirty years in the future, and even that isn't the end of the world.

From my experience, the "metaplot" stuff rarely matters, even if you play in Dragon Pass. This is because major events happen over the course of years, and I have a hard time advancing the timeline that quickly. We are managing about a 2-to-1 ratio of game years to real years in my campaign, despite my best efforts.

It wasn't all that hard to come up with stuff that seemed to fit the broad strokes of the timeline since I wasn't what you might call rushed. In my Carmania, one year the winds got stuck blowing down from Valind's Glacier for almost a year. A couple of years later some folks associated with Castle Blue raised the Boat Planet as part of some mysterious plot, possibly kicked into high gear by the Windstop. A couple of years after that, the Temples of the Reaching Moon all went haywire, which served the interests of the Boat Planet conspirators nicely. Now the PCs are becoming trusted by the conspiracy, and will be invited to perform increasingly important tasks - if they survive.

Is any of this canon? Do I care? :)

~Kevin McD

[Nick Brooke]

In my Carmania, one year the winds got stuck blowing down from Valind's Glacier for almost a year. A couple of years later some folks associated with Castle Blue raised the Boat Planet as part of some mysterious plot, possibly kicked into high gear by the Windstop. A couple of years after that, the Temples of the Reaching Moon all went haywire, which served the interests of the Boat Planet conspirators nicely...

Is any of this canon? Do I care? :)

You really don't want to know how important the Sog City Boat Race was to the Boat Planet Conspirators in the Cult of the Ship and the City. Of course, if they hadn't pulled that off, I don't know if the Waertagi Dragonships would ever have sailed back from the Seas of Hell...

What's that? You think the Boat Planet had something to do with events in Dragon Pass? Now, that's just weird...

Cheers, Nick

[Mike Holmes]

The point, Kevin, has to do with the use of the material. My point is that, yes, if you use the "metaplot" as just background, and do not require the PCs to go see it in action, then it's not a problem. This is why it's not a problem for a Lunar. Because the metaplot that's written up right now only requires Orlanthi PCs to go and see it. That is, the adventures written are for Orlanthi PCs, not for Lunar ones.

What I mean by "go and see it" is that the way that the adventures relating to the metaplot are written, the characters are required to get involved with the metaplot, but only as observers. That is, they get into positions where, theoretically they could change the plot, but since it's metaplot, they aren't allowed to do so. This is the important point. Events in a campaign are never bad if the character never has a chance to really change them. They're only bad when you theoretically put the character in a position to affect them, and then make it so that they can't affect them.

For instance, I happen to know that the PCs are not written as being the ones who are involved as destroying the Temple of the Reaching Moon in Sartar. But what if they were? What if an adventure were written in which they were responsible for destroying the temple? The problem is that such an adventure can't have any choices for the player to make. They must accept the assignment, and then go along the predestined path to success. In fact, they cannot be allowed to fail, or else the metaplot fails, and all subsequent material is useless. So there is no real challenge to succeed, there are no moral questions for the player to answer, they don't even get to decide how to approach the problem. They're merely window dressing in such an adventure.

This is when Metaplot is most problematic. When the adventure designer is really writing fiction in which the player is intended pretty much only to make up his character's dialog along the way. The other case is what Brand talks about. But there's a simple solution to that problem, Brand, knowing that large scale changes are going to occur, you just have to have the Heroes play on one scale smaller. Their decisions can, say, change anything about their village's politics, but they can't decide who it is that will be in charge of stopping the oncoming doom (the dragon in this case, but we don't have to know that).

Now, if you want to have your Lunar characters involved in world-shaking events (and I can understand the urge), then, yes, you have to pick a point in the metaplot, and start there, allowing for divergence at that point. So, yeah, to the extent that the metaplot is not known, it's limiting in that way. What I suggest for HQ is that you start characters as listed in the book which makes them unexperienced, and let them impact only lower scales. Then, have them get more powerful over the years with the Saga System, and other advanced experience rules. Then, once they've played through the 30 years, yes, the 30 years of the metaplot (I like to start people at 17, so that would be 47 years old - late Conan), and it's all over, then allow them to affect the portion of history that's unwritten. Or just start them there if that's what you want to see.

This is what I did in my HQ game as it came to a close on Monday. I decided that there was no way that the PCs were at all powerful enough to stop the curse that was about to befall the city, and that they would get to see it first hand, as well, but that they'd have decisions to make that would be relevant to their characters. Meaning that, obviously, how to stop the curse was not one of them. Instead, the characters got to decide things like whether they'd fight hopelessly against the curse, and, if so, what for? If they were going to flee instead, what would they be willing to risk their lives for to get those things?

BTW, for your character, Thomas, who I had to play out for you, he ended up trying to fight to protect the poor despite all odds, until Regina came and told him that she'd bargained for his safe passage out of the city, and convinced him that he couldn't possibly succeed (which was becoming pretty obvious at the time with hundreds of demons descending, and millions of bats, and worse). If you had been playing, you would have to have decided whether to go with her, or to stay and fight, possibly to your characters doom - I felt his honor made this as likely a choice.

So, here we have a nearby metaplot, with loads of direct effects on the players, but no incapacitation of the player decision making ability because I presented decisions to be made "underneath" the metaplot.

Put another way, the story continued to be about the Heroes, and the curse was just a background event, not the plot of the story. In point of fact, I did this intentionally to discover just how well it can work. Because the campaign world that I'm playing in has loads and loads of metaplot written for it. So I'm looking for the most effective way to use it, and not make it problematic for play. And I think that I was successful.

Mike

[Brand_Robins]

Put another way, the story continued to be about the Heroes, and the curse was just a background event, not the plot of the story. In point of fact, I did this intentionally to discover just how well it can work. Because the campaign world that I'm playing in has loads and loads of metaplot written for it. So I'm looking for the most effective way to use it, and not make it problematic for play. And I think that I was successful.

Sounds like you worked it just perfectly.

Though now I have endless sorrow that I couldn't be there for it.

[Mike Holmes]

The price one pays for matrimonial bliss, I guess.

Actually, I'm afraid that I may have been a tad heavy handed. Hard to know. I'll be asking about this on the Indie Netgaming list as we discuss things during the break. If anyone is interested, see my sig.

Mike

[Donald]

For instance, I happen to know that the PCs are not written as being the ones who are involved as destroying the Temple of the Reaching Moon in Sartar. But what if they were? What if an adventure were written in which they were responsible for destroying the temple? The problem is that such an adventure can't have any choices for the player to make. They must accept the assignment, and then go along the predestined path to success. In fact, they cannot be allowed to fail, or else the metaplot fails, and all subsequent material is useless. So there is no real challenge to succeed, there are no moral questions for the player to answer, they don't even get to decide how to approach the problem. They're merely window dressing in such an adventure.

I don't agree that this is a problem. If the PCs want to tackle such a thing then let them. If they succeed then they were the ones who did it. If they fail someone else does the job. One of the best examples of this I heard was where the players succeeded but the GM ruled that an NPC got the credit because they hadn't any decent relationships so no one believed they'd done it.

[ErrathofKosh]

I have never played HeroQuest...  Though the more I read, the more I would like the chance.  That being said, I've experienced this problem playing Star Wars.  (lots of metaplot)

If done correctly, both playing under the metaplot and getting involved in it can be woven together.  What do I mean?  The main story was about our characters, the background was the Galactic Civil War.  But, at one point my Jedi character ran into Darth Vader and managed to cut off his arm.  Vader hunted him for awhile for vengeance.  I would call that affecting the metaplot (in a minor fashion) while mainly being under the metaplot.

OK, now I'll shut up and just read your HeroQuest thread.  (Must resist... buying another game...)
:)

Jonathan

EDIT: BTW, I do have a really old (circa 1977, same as me!) Runequest game book.  Is that the same Glorantha?

[Mike Holmes]

Oy, Donald, if the players had the choice to do this, then it wouldn't be a problem, no, of course not. Have you been reading what I've been writing? It's when they're forced to destroy the temple that it's a problem.

In the adventures that this thread are about, the potential problem is that the players are put into the situation where they might theoretically be able to say no to doing something like destroying the temple. But then they are required to do so if any of the subsequent adventures in the series are to be able to be played, or, indeed, if you want any of the metaplot to hold.

That is, what would be problematic, in the example, would be if there were an adventure in which the PCs were sent to destroy the temple. Because they can't choose not to do so. The player participation is reduced to minimal, therefore.

Mike

P.S. Jonathan, same Glorantha, different rules by far. Your comments are precisely what I'm talking about in terms of using metaplot correctly.

[Invain]

In the adventures that this thread are about, the potential problem is that the players are put into the situation where they might theoretically be able to say no to doing something like destroying the temple. But then they are required to do so if any of the subsequent adventures in the series are to be able to be played, or, indeed, if you want any of the metaplot to hold.

That is, what would be problematic, in the example, would be if there were an adventure in which the PCs were sent to destroy the temple. Because they can't choose not to do so. The player participation is reduced to minimal, therefore.

Well, saying "no" to destroying the temple is essentially saying "no" to going on the adventure at all, isn't it? I think the problem with the Sky Ship adventure is that the players are not allowed to make any meaningful decisions at all. They are bystanders in what should be their own story.

The other problem with metaplot adventures is that the PCs are expected to be successful in the current adventure (Sky Ship) before moving on to the next installment (Dragonrise). This is a common problem with serial adventures - you are assumed to have been successful to some minimum standard in the current adventure before moving on to the next in the series. If your players fail (deliberately or otherwise) then they don't get to play the rest of the series, and that's OK in my book. You have the choice of using a deus ex machina plot device (an NPC steps out of the shadows and saves the day) or you just don't play the remainder of the published storyline. If you are creative, you might be able to scavenge ideas from future publications in the series, but you can't use them "as is".

Anyway, I am feeling a bit uncomfortable sitting here ragging on an otherwise pretty good game supplement. I haven't published anything myself (Yet. I have a minor article in a http://lokarnos.com/article.pl?sid=04/07/12/0632228&mode=thread"> con fundraiser book due out next week.) so I figure there is a limit to how much bellyaching I can do from the sidelines. :)

~Kevin McD

[Wulf]

EDIT: BTW, I do have a really old (circa 1977, same as me!) Runequest game book.  Is that the same Glorantha?

Yes, in theory. That is, lots and lots of details, and some big stuff, have changed, but less than the changes between the book and the movie (for any given book/movie). There's also several tons more source material in print by now...

Wulf

[Mike Holmes]

Well, saying "no" to destroying the temple is essentially saying "no" to going on the adventure at all, isn't it? I think the problem with the Sky Ship adventure is that the players are not allowed to make any meaningful decisions at all. They are bystanders in what should be their own story.

It's this adventure, and ones like it that I'm referencing. I was avoiding pointing fingers by using a hypothetical, but it's precisely these that are problematic. I've run and played through two of them (not saying which, so don't ask).

In my hypothetical, the PCs accept the task, get to the temple, defeat the guardians, but then have a philosophical discussion with one of the temple priests at that point. In that discussion, the players decide that they really like the idea of their characters going Lunar right then and there.

Something nearly like this happened in one of the scenarios that I ran.

If they turn and defend the temple successfully (maybe they're the only attackers, I dunno), that to me is a really cool decision. But the metaplot is out the window. As such, the adventure in question would not have any support for this "what if," and no adventure in the series that follows would be useable as you say. The real problem with this is that, in the mode I play, the metaplot would be off it's rails after about the second scene of the first adventure. Garunteed.

Now, I've been given to understand that many of the adventures actually do have support for "what if?" (certainly I can't imagine Ron's entry as following the problematic method of presentation, and I'm sure other authors avoid the problem neatly).  As such we shouldn't put all of these adventures in the same can and call them problematic. That's why I've been trying to remain hypothetical, and just saying that, in principle, having adventures where the PCs are expected to follow a certain plot, and make particular decisions with each turn, that these are problematic.

Mike

[Donald]

Oy, Donald, if the players had the choice to do this, then it wouldn't be a problem, no, of course not. Have you been reading what I've been writing? It's when they're forced to destroy the temple that it's a problem.

Yes, you appear to be arguing that a meta-plot or story arc is bad either because the players are forced to follow a particular line or they are reduced to passive observers. It's up to the GM whether that happens or if they are allowed to take over roles and the NPCs only step in where the PCs fail.

As far as the destruction of the Temple of the Reaching Moon is concerned canon says it is destroyed by a dragon being awakened underneath it. Unless you have a PC who's a dragon who has been asleep for several centuries the PCs don't destroy the temple. The PCs may be involved in wakening the dragon or may not, they may get the credit for wakening it or may not. The only thing you have to do as GM is have the dragon waken and the meta-plot carries on.

[Mike Holmes]

Yes, you appear to be arguing that a meta-plot or story arc is bad either because the players are forced to follow a particular line or they are reduced to passive observers. It's up to the GM whether that happens or if they are allowed to take over roles and the NPCs only step in where the PCs fail.

Change "because" to "when" above. That is, I've said over and over that metaplot doesn't have to be problematic at all, when you do it as you've proposed. I covered your case from my first post about the subject. Metaplot is only problematic when the Gm forces the players to follow a particular line.

The thing is that this is what the published adventures in question suggest doing, essentially, by making later material unusable unless the GM provides that force.

As far as the destruction of the Temple of the Reaching Moon is concerned canon says it is destroyed by a dragon being awakened underneath it. Unless you have a PC who's a dragon who has been asleep for several centuries the PCs don't destroy the temple. The PCs may be involved in wakening the dragon or may not, they may get the credit for wakening it or may not. The only thing you have to do as GM is have the dragon waken and the meta-plot carries on.

Donald, apparently you don't understand the meaning of the word hypothetical. Moreover, I couldn't care less about Gloranthan canon, I don't even play in the world. I'm just pointing out how certain publication designs might be problematic for the people who would use them. In fact, one reason I don't play in Glorantha, is so that I can avoid the pitfalls of the metaplot.

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

Published adventures generaly contain characters, events and situations. Characters and events are largely immutable, and seve to frame the scenario. they create the situation in play within which the characters can act. All scenarios contain some events that can't be affected by the actions of the players.

This isn't a problem. If you want to run the adventure as written, fine. If you want to use the location but change the characters and events, that's fine too. If you want to change the adventure so the players take the rles of NPCs in the adventure and the 'PC' roles are taken by NPCs, why not? It is inherently within the nature of roleplaying games that this can be done, and in fact it happens all the time.

You can't have playable examples of big epic plots that affect the course of history, and present them in a playable way, without providing stats for great epic characters and describing great epic events many of which will be immutable within the context of the scenario. Outside the context of the scenario as written, it's your game and you can't blame anyone else for the limitations you play within other than yourself.


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

You're saying that you can alter the material presented to make it useful? I don't have any problem with that. All I've said is that it's problematic as provided. Saying that it's not problematic because it can be fixed is like selling somebody a new car and telling them that with some repairs that it'll work fine. Why not sell a car that works?

Mike