Metaplot and Story Creation

[Mytholder]

No one, especially after reading and playing Orkworld, could imagine [John] as being a "puppetmaster" writer for role-playing games. The company plans and line developers for 7th Sea and L5R, that is to say, Not You, are responsible for the metaplot in their publications.

Hmm. That would be the metaplot he wrote for the CCG, right?
:razz:

I'm with Contracycle on this. Metaplot is just more ideas.

In metaplot-driven play, a great big story is pre-planned that encompasses a whole setting. The
player-characters' entire existence is for the purpose of viewing the story, and offering dialogue                   about it, or as Jesse puts it, being a courier for the REAL main characters.

That's just bad GMing. It's railroading by shiny supplement. A good gm takes the published metaplot and threads it into his game.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

I agree that metaplot is "bad GMing," but I object to the use of "JUST bad GMing." I read that "just" to mean "rather than bad publishing." I think that publication practices of various companies actually militate AGAINST the (effective) use of "large plot" as people are describing.

[Please note that the use of "bad" in this discussion is relative to the gaming styles of me, Gareth, Gareth, and others in the discussion. If you like metaplot, enjoy it and pay no attention to us.]

I do not agree with the idea that, "Since I am wise and skilled enough to avoid using the supplements as a straitjacket, then all is well with such practices."

I do not think that many publications of Tribe 8, Legend of the Five Rings, Dragonlance, Werewolf: the Apocalypse, Dark Sun, Vampire: Dark Ages, or many other games can be read as anything but pre-scripted adventures in the context of the authors' [line-developers'] complete, actual, and finished storyline. To fail to follow the storyline (well above the notion of "changing setting") is to fail to use the supplement.

In the Athas supplement of Dark Sun, for instance, one is literally referred to the pages of the accompanying novel (of the slave revolt) that one's character is permitted to WITNESS. Some NPC yotz frees the slaves and leads the revolt. Your player-characters enjoy the privilege of being an arena slave, being present at the revolt, and "fighting on the steps of the pyramid" near this yotz, who goes on to take over the city from the top of the pyramid. The actual play is LITERALLY INSTRUCTED to follow the novel, and the players' role is to revel in "being there, just like in the book."

Of course, as GM, you may ignore all this. I am not discussing what you may ignore, but what is published. People learn role-playing value systems from this stuff.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

I agree with Ron that, as written, most metagame supplements and such seem to intend to be used in the "poor" manner descrbed, and, since this is so, it is more difficult to use the metagame provided in the "good" manner also descibed above. A classic example is the CoC supplement that I just got done reading, the titanic "Beyond the Mountains of Madness". At 440 pages or so it easily comes in as one of the most voluminous gaming supplements ever. And it certainly reads as if the GM is supposed to railroad the players right through the text (as most CoC supplements do). Thus it will indicate what the PCs actions are supposed to do at every decision, for example.

Anyhow, if I ever use it (I intend to get my $35 out of it) I would simply use it as a sourcebook for an adventure, and let the PCs have much more control of the situation (probably going with a more Illusionist approach). One might possibly even use it as a narrative backdrop. If the book had been written to allow such, I think that it would have been about 100 pages or more shorter as it mostly involves dropping out all the references to what the PCs must do. As it is, it is a very dense refernce and very difficult to be used in the "good" fashion.

This is an extreme example, but I think that there are steps that writers can take to make the "good" method easy to use with the material. Simply presenting as setting is usually a good start. The Middle Earth supplements from ICE were pretty good this way. No timelines or anything, just placs to go, things to kill. :smile:

Mike

[jburneko]

On 2001-11-12 09:52, Ron Edwards wrote:

To fail to follow the storyline (well above the notion of "changing setting") is to fail to use the supplement.

In the Athas supplement of Dark Sun, for instance, one is literally referred to the pages of the accompanying novel (of the slave revolt) that one's character is permitted to WITNESS. Some NPC yotz frees the slaves and leads the revolt. Your player-characters enjoy the privilege of being an arena slave, being present at the revolt, and "fighting on the steps of the pyramid" near this yotz, who goes on to take over the city from the top of the pyramid. The actual play is LITERALLY INSTRUCTED to follow the novel, and the players' role is to revel in "being there, just like in the book."

Hello Again,

Okay this is where you begin to lose to me.  Here it doesn't sound like you're talking about a game sourcebook but rather a prepublished adventure.  I personally make a big distinction between these.

I wish I was more knowledgable about Vampire since that seems to be the grand-daddy of all metaplots but unfortunately the only games lines I follow 100% are Deadlands and 7th Sea, so I have to stick to examples from those.

The Deadlands universe started out in 1876.  There were basically then four kinds of products put out.  Character Books: These books had expanded rules and options regarding specific kinds of characters as well as some finer setting details that were relevant to these character types.  Setting Books: These books detailed certain regions of the Deadlands universe such as Back East: The North, Back East: The South.  Box Sets: These are a lot like the Setting Books, only they cover a larger area and usually come with poster maps and the like.  And Finally, Pre-Published Adventures.

Now, the first setting book put out was the Quick and the Dead which was a general overview of the weird west.  Then several setting books and box sets were put out going over those regions in greater detail.  Finally a setting book called Tales o' Terror 1877 was put out.  This book basically was either a "metaplot" book or a "setting evolution" book depending on how you look at it.  It detailed all the events that had happened in game year 1876 and how all those elements published in the setting books and the box sets have changed and evolved.

To me Tales o' Terror 1877 does just that.  It shows you the history of the setting in game year 1876.  It's just like the Dragon that will rise in Hero Wars.  This is different from The Devil's Tower Trillogy which is a pre-published set of adventures.  These adventures infact take the players through many of the events detailed in Tales o' Terror 1877 in just the "witness the story" manner you describe.  But you see, they're two seperate products in the same game line.  One is the evolution of the setting the other is LIVE those events.

So yeah, to not use the prepublished adventures as written is not to use the sourcebook.  However, Tales o' Terror 1877 is very useful in the evolution of the setting manner.

The kind of product you are describing sounds weird.  It sounds like a kind of prepublished adventure soucebook hybrid.  It's not complete enough to be an adventure but it's too detailed not use the events verbatim as actual in play events.  I have to admit I've never ecountered such a product.

Jesse

[Mike Holmes]

Jesse,

Well, adventures are supplements. Or rather, they are where you'll find the majority of the problems like this. But as an example of a pure source book with a published metaplot, how about the Shadow World Master Atlas Addendum by ICE for RM? It is purely source material, and in it you'll find a timeline that describes a list of many of the unfolding plots in the world. It's a perfect example of metaplot in a supplement. And, as written, you'd expect that the GM is supposed to ensure that the events in question happen on time, thus making it of the railroady variety.

Also, the Deadlands stuff you mentioned have a problem in that though they may seem like setting more than plot they do enumerate events that are revealed only through that product. The problem, of course, being that if you've already been into territory covered by the book you may have trampled on that supplements metaplot. Which makes you wonder why they didn't include it in the core book. The reason, of course, is marketing, but it's not a particularly good one.

Note that though I see the distinctions between these sorts of materials that I find that (possibly through all the practice that I've had) I can use these materials in the maneer that I like anyway. For example, the SWMAA noted above is easy to use as  setting product simply by saying something like the timelines are "what would happen if the NPCs got their way and the players weren't there to change things". Almost like a plan of actions for the bad guys. Anyhow, as long as you allow the actions of the PCs to affect the actual outcome, it's all good.

Note that this is easier for me to acomplish as all I'm looking for is Illusionism. I can secretly railroad things to occur on occasion. As opposed to Narrativism where these plans can only be held out as potential bangs. For the simulationist it is a bit easier to convert pushy metaplot into something useful than it is for the Narrativist.

And, for those who like it, metaplot is absolutely key to good old out-in-the-open railroad play. This is only "bad GMing" assuming that the players don't like this style of play. Which admittedly may be most players. I'm willing to postulate that there may be a few for whom this is not true, however.

Mike

[jburneko]

And, as written, you'd expect that the GM is supposed to ensure that the events in question happen on time, thus making it of the railroady variety.

But that's what my original point was.  Just because an event must happen on time does not mean that it is antithetical to Narrativism or Story Creation.  Look at my World War II example.  If I want to play a Narrativist game set during World War II, I as the GM do not have to account for the fact that the players may prevent D-Day.  D-Day will occur regardless of what the players do.  This is of course assuming that the GM is doing what Ron and I have been talking about which means that the War is part of the setting rather than the main event.

And so it is in the Deadlands universe.  Reverand Grimme's Bloody Sunday is going to happen.  Just because I set my scenario in the City of Lost Angels does not mean I have to account for the players preventing Bloody Sunday.  Again this is assuming that Bloody Sunday is an element of the setting rather than the focus of the story.  It depends on the scale of the scenario.

And of course there's Ron's Hero Wars example about the rising dragon.

Jesse

[Paul Czege]

People learn role-playing value systems from this stuff.

I couldn't possibly agree more strongly. For instance, I really believe that Dragonlance created a mental phase shift throughout the universe of RPG players in the way that they understood the nature of game scenarios. I'm unaware of any metaplot-driven AD&D scenario published prior to Dragonlance. In every single module published by TSR prior to Dragonlance, the characters were basically the center of the universe. And for all practical purposes, their actions were what the world reacted to. But Dragonlance was the opposite of that. It was a plot that dragged the players along for the ride.

It was a massive publishing initiative that had the effect of unconsciously educating gamemasters that this is how a campaign is supposed to be done.

And for years and years that's the way we did things. Even when we weren't playing Dragonlance, we emulated the structure. We created plots and pushed the players from event to event. Dragonlance was the template from which future campaigns were made.

Paul

p.s. There have been some great metaplot discussions in the Gaming Outpost Critical Hit forum, and I think that forum has just been made accessible to non-subscribers. Look for the "Vas is das 'metaplot'?" thread.

[Paul Czege]

Hey Jesse,

Just because an event must happen on time does not mean that it is antithetical to Narrativism or Story Creation. Look at my World War II example.

Check out the "Metaplot - the sequel" thread in Critical Hit on Gaming Outpost for a discussion of "underbelly" tactics.

Paul

[Mike Holmes]

Well, I think that there is a spectrum from the "good" style to the "bad". The deadlands presentation may just fit the bill of setting presented not as plot. But I assure you that the ICE presentation in SWMAA is presented as plot. In fact a couple of the published adventures then ascribe right to the meta-plot as written. After the players find the magic whatsis then lord so-and-so will send agents after them. That sort of thing.

Shadowrun has tons of this stuff. Is Dunkelzahn supplementary or an adventure? I don't know, but he sure has metaplot written all over him, and he is revealed across several books. Heck, to the extent that setting stuff is released as an "adventure" or "scenario" it is likely to be metaplot. To the extent that such stuff is released as supplements it tends to be more just setting. Perfect example is the MERP stuff. I can't ever remember them releasing anything that they called an adventure. It was all supplements that described the entire world. And they were great at introducing setting without plot. It was up to the players to go to these places intent on killing stuff to develop a plot from the material. :wink:

I ran the ICE Shadow World metaplot with so-so success. The game went for four years or so, but the largest part of the plots were never unravelled (perhaps I was revealing too slowly :wink: ). Always did want the players to get involved in politics with the demigods in that one. Oh well.

Mike

[jburneko]

On 2001-11-12 14:10, Paul Czege wrote:

In every single module published by TSR prior to Dragonlance, the characters were basically the center of the universe. And for all practical purposes, their actions were what the world reacted to. But Dragonlance was the opposite of that. It was a plot that dragged the players along for the ride.

Ah, ha, perhaps then this is the beginning of what I have come to call "The Bitter GM Revolution" theory.  That is that RPGs evolved from Wargames and that the earliest RPG scenario designs were based largely on the idea that each player was in control of a single "figure" and the purpose of play was to survive the scenario with as little effort and as much reward as possible.  However, these games needed a Game Master who would design these scenarios and therefore usually this job went to the most creative individual in the group.

Eventually these incredibly creative individuals would suddenly see the potential for great stories rather than just challenging scenarios.  The result has of course been parriodied in the comics of "Knights of the Dinner Table" and "The Dork Tower."  Namely, that the GM tries his hardest to fasciliate great emotional drama and all the players want to do is kill things and collect treasure.

The result is the Bitter GM Revolution.  We see historically an evolution from the non-railroaded adventure romp into the scene-based scenario.  The idea is these overly creative GMs started creating NPCs with compelling stories about these NPCs.  These GMs would then create a fairly typical adventure to link the actions of two NPCs.  So if one NPC needed a letter delivered to another NPC the first NPC would just hire the group to deliver it for them.  The group would then fight and adventure their way over to the second NPC and deliver the letter.  Finally, Some great dramatic thing would result as the second NPC acts on the content of the letter.  This is of course the well armed courier syndrome.

This way the players get their dungeon romp and the GM gets his compelling story.  The players feel as though they are part of grand epic story and all's right with the world.  The problem being of course that if the overarching story were written as any kind of decent novel the whole adventure would have been written thus.

"After his brother died NPC A dispatched a letter to NPC B who promptly...."

I.E. The players are no where to actually be seen.

This is of course a gross simplifaction but something that I suspect is not too far off target.

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

Jesse,

I pretty much agree with your summary. Oh, there are one or two nuances or versions of the process, but I think you're on target.

Best,
Ron

[contracycle]

plots in the world. It's a perfect example of metaplot in a supplement. And, as written, you'd expect that the GM is supposed to ensure that the events in question happen on time, thus making it of the railroady variety.

Hmm, still having major trouble seeing what the problem is with this, UNLESS the GM goes out of the way to place the PC's in the line of fire, so to speak.  I think such a "metaplot" is a virtuoous thing, shows far more attention to design and the internal logic of setting to lend it some dynamism.  In fact I'd go so far as to say that settings wiothout such dynamism are substantially weaker.

Granted, I have not read the product described above, but frex I am familiar with L5R's and that of Jovian Chronicles (Dream Pod 9, so prob similar to Tribe8), and this whole questions really does appear to me to be a self-imposed problem.  I don;t see how somethingh can be considfered "railroading" if it is essentially happening off-screen, in the background.

Sure, actul published suplpements may vary in their implementations, but I think that the development of metaplots is a strong developement; it takes us out os a solipsists, centre-of-the-world, nothing-happens-unless-the-characters-are-there-to-see-it mode of treating characters.  Reminds me of CRPG's, actually.  Instead we are recognising that no description of a social state is permanent, we know that everything changes all the time, and are starting to represent and realise that complexity in 9our games.  Onwards and upwards I say.

[Matt Machell]

Well, as a confessed background junkie I'll make a few comments here.

I know WW's Vampire metaplot quite well, and one of the things that they make very clear is that everything they give you is merely a starting point. Some of their books even go into details of "cool things you can change to diverge from what we say". It's all just background ideas, how you use them is up to you.

Course they then spoil all of this by writing scenarios (the Transylvania Chronicles being particularly guilty) where PCs are railroaded to a ridiculous degree, and turn up to witness NPCs doing the important stuff. Not in every scenario, some are open ended moral dilemas which are really nicely thought out, but enough exist to cause annoyance.

So, Metaplot is just a tool, it can be used for good or ill, just like any other tool. Often people writing for the same company have very different ideas of how to use that tool.

There's probably a comment that could be made here about corporate structures too, and indie designers being able to keep a more consistent personal vision in their games where bigger companies are simply unable to do so.


Matt

[Mike Holmes]

On 2001-11-13 04:55, contracycle wrote:
Hmm, still having major trouble seeing what the problem is with this, UNLESS the GM goes out of the way to place the PC's in the line of fire, so to speak.  I think such a "metaplot" is a virtuoous thing, shows far more attention to design and the internal logic of setting to lend it some dynamism.  In fact I'd go so far as to say that settings wiothout such dynamism are substantially weaker.

The problem is simply that you often have to parse your reading of the material. Certainly something presented as a simple background event that is unnecessary to attend falls under the category of good setting presentation. But that is often not the case. Too often I find myself reading ssentences like "When the characters reach Smemblin the volcano will start to erupt." Mentally I have to change this to "The volcano near Smemblin may erupt at some point." Worse is stuff like "after the characters obtain the whatsis they will go see Sponk the Seer as it is the only obvious thing to do."

I'm paraphrasing, obviously, but the worst of this stuff actually does the above, deciding what players will do. The stuff can still be used as background material ("IF they get the whatsis and then IF they go to Sponk..."). But it requires translation, and parsing out all the parts that indicate a style of play that I don't want to use. Which takes more effort than it sounds like. Too easy to fall back into using the supplement as written. I've made the mistake before.

Sure, actul published suplpements may vary in their implementations, but I think that the development of metaplots is a strong developement; it takes us out os a solipsists, centre-of-the-world, nothing-happens-unless-the-characters-are-there-to-see-it mode of treating characters.  Reminds me of CRPG's, actually.  Instead we are recognising that no description of a social state is permanent, we know that everything changes all the time, and are starting to represent and realise that complexity in 9our games.  Onwards and upwards I say.

Don't get me wrong. As I've said, I use this stuff all the time. I agree that making a world dynamic as opposed to the common "Steady-state" presentation is very important to SOD and plot development as well. I've always advocated that. But what I can't stand is writers who just assume that I'll want to force feed their plot to my players. Just give me the details, and we'll make a plot out of those, thankyouverymuch.

Mike

[contracycle]

is often not the case. Too often I find myself reading ssentences like "When the characters reach Smemblin the volcano will start to erupt." Mentally I have to change this to "The volcano near Smemblin may erupt at some point." Worse is stuff like "after the characters obtain

Sure, but that sounds like microplot rather than metaplot.  Metaplot should be something like the volcanoe will explode on such-and-such a day, which will have the following ramifications.  Certainly, L5R's timeline does not specify PC involvement anyway, and none of its events are predicated on PC participation.  Likewise, Jovian Chronicles metaplot outlines the rising tension between factions of the solar system, not a prescriptive series of hoops through which the characters must jump.  The first battle of Mars occurs on a specific date and any number of actual games could be structured around that event, from any number of perspectives.

After all, whats "meta" about the metaplot if the metaplot is in fact the actual plot which the PC's are playing through; surely the very team metaplot implies some distinction between the PC's direct experience and the Big Picture.

Perhaps we should re-examine those games with metaplots we have discussed to see if they are really netaplots or just microplot railroading.