Metaplot and Story Creation

[Mike Holmes]

Metaplot is world events and the like. What we've been saying is that if players are railroaded to these events then that's bad Metaplot. If they are just setting, that's good Metaplot. Or, if youlike Gareth, the point at which Metaplot is forced to become micro-plot (or game-plot, or whatever), is the point at which it is a "bad-thing" for most. However, if players found themselves drawn naturally to a Metaplot event or happened across it, thus making it part of the micro-plot, that is a "good-thing" for most.

I believe the term Meta is used here as it is plot that is determined before hand by out-of-game power as opposed to being the result of in-game events. Do I have that right everyone? Just like Metagame rules involve game forces that are external to the game "reality".

The Macro/Micro thing would make more sense in regard to the scope of the events. Macro-plot sounds more like wars and such, as opposed to Micro-Plot which sounds more like character actions, etc. The opposite of Meta-plot would be just Plot, I'd think.

Mike

[contracycle]

I think you are defining terms to meet your argument again.  

[Mike Holmes]

Oh boy. I am using the term Metaplot as I've had it defined to me (or as I remember that definition, I will stand corrected if someone will just correct me). I was only tring to clarify. I apollogize if I seem to be trying to impose a hierarchy of terms on you that you have not accepted. Not my intent. The Micro/Macro thing I was just trying to apply what I thought would be the common use of such a term for clarity again, but I have no particular authority here. Just trying to see if we could reach a consensus on terms. Obvioulsy that won't happen.

So who cares? What is your definition? I'll happily use that. It does not change my argument. There is printed material that has events in them that seem to be written with the intent that the GM run the players to the events. This is what I was talking about. This is what I said was bad, and I think that there is agreement about that it is bad. For most players. There is other similar printed stuff that just presents as setting. Most prefer this as it's easier to use in the method prefered by most.

Sometimes these events are world shaking events, and sometimes they are much more personal. But in any case, the GM can force the players to go to any event or become involved in any characters plot, and, to the extent that GMs do not want to do this, such stuff that is written this way is bad for them.

Now that I've stated my argument in a Jargonless mode, which part do you disagree with? Or do we agree? Or is there some other issue that I've not addressed?

Mike

[John Wick]

On 2001-11-11 18:33, Ian O'Rourke wrote:
I may be missing something, as I never got into 7th Sea, and I've not bought a Vampire supplement in a while, but does meta-plot as in bad meta-plot actually exist?
... is bad meta-plot just GM's putting the events of an ongoing world to a terrible use.

Does meta-plot actually exist? Yes.
Is what people complain about the improper use of a neutral tool? Again, yes.

But that's just me,
John

[Mike Holmes]

It's always the GM? The writer is never at fault? C'mon, John, I like the way that you write setting events, but would you say that nobody ever wrote such events with the intent of having them be central to play? Such that they were poorly informative, and hard to parse for better play? Nobody?

Mike

[Ben Morgan]

My experience with metaplot is that a lot of GMs get frustrated with it because they have to deal with players that don't understand that the GM, not the books, are the final arbiter of what is and what is not, in the particular game world.

I myself have had to deal with more than one person that, upon hearing that I ran a "standard vanilla" Vampire campaign (ie: Camarilla PCs, no Elders, no Minor Bloodlines, no really funky stuff) set in New York, exclaimed, "You can't do that! New York is Sabbat-controlled!"

I dread playing with these people, because they've bought and memorized all the X-By-Night books, all the ClanBooks, all the supplements, and I haven't; then when I mention that the Prince of Chicago is named Loretta, and they complain "No, Lodin is the Prince of Chicago! And he's got such-and-such Disciplines, and this and that and the other thing..."

The concept that this was *my* game, with *my* background, never even occurred to them. These people for whom the concept of running the game with only the basic rulebook (and maybe a GM's guide of some sort) and nothing else, is completely alien. These people that buy books like Children of the Inquisition, just so they could have Dracula's stats, and actually use him in a game.

[Ron Edwards]

John W,

I'm with Mike on this one. I consider a great deal of RPG material to be written in such a way that it is very difficult to use the material except to generate the large-scale outcome dictated by the authors. I was NOT parodying the material in Dark Sun - it is explicit and serious. And Mike's parody-material reads, to me, frighteningly similar to actual published supplements' text.

As I said before, this tends to apply to material in scenarios and sourcebooks, not to the basic rules texts.

Now, can a "good GM" overcome this? Sure - probably by not buying the friggin' supplement/scenario in the first place.

But that is not a valid defense, to me, of the writing practices in the first place. Certainly not for WW authors who are supposed to be promoting "story-telling" as they advertise all over the game covers.

Best,
Ron

[Gordon C. Landis]

As has been mentioned, there's always a way for a "good" GM to use the info in a supplement (and not just by ignoring it).  If, however, you thought the supplement was going to make managing the details of the world and your PC's interactions there easier . . . big mistake, at least that's what I found.  "Metaplot"-driven supplements can be full of cool, well-developed ideas, further expansions on the environment and etc.  They DON'T reduce the GM's workload at all (again, in my experience).  That's what *I* thought a planned-metaplot game like 7th Sea might offer, only to discover that such an expectation is a little crazy - if it HAD succeded, a lot of what's neat about RP'ing (the creativity, invention, imagination - stuff like that) also tends to get "reduced".

Also, I'd say there definately is such a thing as doing "good" (in intention, i.e., NOT the Dark Sun example used by Ron) Metaplot poorly -  making mistakes in the way you implement it.  Sometimes, those mistakes can cripple the ability to use the "neutral tool", so sometimes, it stops being a neutral tool and becomes a bad one.  Something like (I may not have the details exactly right here - it's been a while since my attempt to run 7th Sea) forgetting to mention in the "core" books that players who pick the Knights of the Rose and Cross faction shouldn't have sorcery, beacuse (as revealed in THEIR supplement) they HATE sorcerrors - that is really just . . . a mistake. Not an easily excusable one, either.

If I remember correctly, John and other game designers who work (or worked) in metaplot-driven game lines have mentioned elsewhere that sometimes, the reason info isn't revealed "earlier" (in publication terms) is because the writers themselves haven't invented it yet.  IMO, that's only an acceptable explanation SOME of the time, for certain kinds of information.  Other times, it's evidence of a failure to adequatly design/QA/think through the game line.  And I'm pretty certain that publishing lines have sometimes been known to intentionally delay revealing information . . . in the interest of selling more books.

Now, writing RPG books is a high-effort, low reward endeavor, and part of me is just happy anything gets published at all.  Who am I to complain about how they make their meager moola?  Another part of me says I should be expecting better - DEMANDING better, beacuse otherwise it won't GET better.

Uh . . . I guess the relevant point for Jesse's topic here is that even a background/setting-through-time, PC-story supportive (as a goal) Metaplot can be bad for story if it doesn't do its' job well - e.g., if it contains too many jarring, nothing-hinted-at-that "revelations".  Or . . . well, you get the idea.

Gordon, who figures RPGs oughta be like computer games - about 50-60 bucks for the initial release, and then the good ones get a number of 20-30 dollar expansion packs in various shapes, sizes, and flavors.  But if you've got too many "bugs" . . . expect the gaming media to tear you a new one.

[Laurel]

There are few phrases that make me cringe more than "the World of Darkness metaplot".  Its not that I'm opposed to the idea of RPGs having stories that are told in bit by bit through copious amounts of source books and other supplements so that in order to know the "metaplot" someone needs to invest $100 a month and 20-40 hours reading to keep up with it.  After all, what could be a finer display of market strategy that that?  WW is an industrial leader because its sucked thousands of gamers into believing that the metaplot is both interesting and important.  

No, what makes me hide beneath the covers is that fact that those gamers start taking the metaplot so ~seriously~.  Visit any WW forum and you will see what I mean.  Even though the writers and developers insist that the "metaplot" is not the be-all and end-all of WW role-playing, a disturbing proportion of WW gamers take the metaplot as Canon (insert pseudo-religious reverence).  He Who Is Not A Canon Player or GM is An Imbecile And Must Be Flamed goes forth the mantra.  

Everyone starts increasing their expectations.  God help you if you don't know what the metaplot is- and god help you if your character ~acts~ like he/she has read the source books.  Meanwhile, WW continues to spew out book after book that subconsciously puts the player more and more into the role as audience and observer and GMs pick up on the fact that its more important to observe Canon than it is to be creative and tell a story on their own initiative.  

The WW authors try and rally everyone back to player-as-creator but at the same time they continue to push out the metaplot because they like residual checks and metaplot sells.  They assuage their guilt with blurbs about The Golden Rule and STs making the game their own, but that doesn't really help.  The sense that metaplot is essential for a good game is ingrained simply in the fact that people keep buying the books.  Readers are just as good to a company like WW as players.    

[contracycle]

This is still a totally subjective problem, IMO.

Lets tackle the WW canon.  Here is a product line, produced over time, which necessarily contains lots of data.  Furthermore, there is an unknown number of players using this data and putting their own spin on it.  HOWEVER they all share one known resource which is the actual, physically published material which carries the WW imprint.

Should people stick to this canon?  I would say, of course.  To say "I want to play Vamp but without any of the established details" is a severe challenge to the players legitimate expectation based on the prior, known, record of the product/subgenre/whatever you call it.  Even worse, the above "problem" with players expecting canonical details implies to me a profound arrogance on the part of the GM.  Imagine I invited you to a game based on, say, the lord of the rings... and then I told you that, no, in MY game Suaron does not exist, in MY game elves are not elves, in MY game hobbits average 8 feet tall.  Don't you think you players would be a teensy bit disconcerted to discover that many of the expecatations they had - the reasons they agreed to play this game, arguably - have been utterly invalidated by GM diktat.

To place responsibility for this problem on the shoulders of the players is just an exercise in shifting the blame, IMO.  If what you want is to play Vamp withoutb the established facts, as it were, then surely it is your responisibility to create such an environment.  It's not as if WW have published data on EVERY vampire in the world in EVERY city; surely it is not beyond the wit of man to set such a game in some other city, or indeed, period.  But no, the primacy of the GM must not be challenged - the GM wants both to ride the coat-tails of a successful product with an established history, but not to be bound by that history.  In other words, to both have the cake and eat it.

If you don't like it, write it yourself.  If you buy into a product line, you are implicitly buying into a lots of its established detail, and your players have a reason, even a right, to expect that your work will be broadly in line with what has been established.  I'm equally unsympathetic to companies which produce such a history and then hand-wave any discrepancies or problems it has itself introduced.  Take some responsibility for your own product, for gods sake; the only thing that ALL the real games in the world have is the stuff you acxtually published.  To the extent that there is a common experience of Vmapire, it IS necessarily the printed product line - to then whinge that people are TOO canonical with your established work strikes me as gross hypocrisy - if you didn't WANT people to use it, why the hell did you publish it?  Sounds like a desperate excuse for poor quality and continuity control if you ask me.

There simply is nor excuse for injured martyrdom when your players object to 8-foot hobbits.

[contracycle]

So who cares? What is your definition? I'll happily use that. It does not change my argument. There is printed material that has events in them that seem to be written with the intent that the GM run the players to the events.

That sounds like PLOT to me.  I think the common usage of the term metaplot is pretty cvlear - its the Big Picture.  To conflate this with an actual railraoded game plot seems to reduce the concept to meaninglessness - all you have done is erase the distinction between the big picture and the little picture.  Which is necessary if you are to continue to denounce metaplot as game interference; you are implciitly redefining metaplot to lose is meta aspect and simply become Plot.

Sometimes these events are world shaking events, and sometimes they are much more personal. But in any case, the GM can force the players to go to any event or become involved in any characters plot, and, to the extent that GMs do not want to do this, such stuff that is written this way is bad for them.

But as has been repeatedly pointed out, there are PLENTY of metaplots that do NOT insists thta the player directly experience them, or are far to large for players to experience any buyt details, or are deliberately cryptic so that no perfect knowledge is possible, or which feature a cast of thousands and thus pretty much prevent the players from making a significant impact.  UNLESS you go out of your way to insist that EVERY piece of data in a product is there primarily for the characters to bump into it; that no god exiosts that the players will not meet, that no alien detah star is possible without the players being capable, nay obliged, to shoot the damn torpedo down the tunnel.

But at this point you are saying "aha, this is not actually metaplot, this is just setting" - so you have rationalised the actually existing implementations of metaplot out of existance simply becuase they do not meet your a priori imposition of metaplots as a Bad Thing.  Thus I say: you are rediefining the term to meet your argument, not describing the actually existing works which are metaplots.

[joshua neff]

Gareth--

Your White Wolf example pinpoints exactly why I have absolutely no use for most published RPGs these days as written--they don't just give you some firing pins for the imagination, they give you detailed setting & plotlines that are pushed as "canonical". Sorry, but if I want to read a novel, I'll read a novel. If I want to run a roleplaying game, in which my players & I create our own stories, than I'll run something that doesn't shove someone else's stories down our throats.

That being said, your comment on the "arrogance" of the GM regarding the discarding of "canon" is a bit off. For one thing, the Lord of the Rings example isn't quite right, because the Middle Earth stuff you mentioned wasn't metaplot, it was setting. But a lot of the White Wolf stuff isn't necessarily setting. Also, LOTR is a lot more established than the World of Darkness, so I would imagine player expectations regarding Middle Earth would be a lot higher than Chicago By Night. But when all is said & done, I think it falls to this: if I pay money for an RPG, including setting, than I'll damn well do with it what I please. Make the hobbits 8 feet tall? Ignore White Wolf's setting in favor of my own? Stop buying 7th Sea stuff after the initial books & have my group make our own Theah stories? Hell yes! Is that arrogant? I suppose. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so. If a player of mine looked at me aghast for daring to change the "canonical" setting of Vampire...well, I don't think they'd last long in my group, if for no other reason than I'd wonder at just how much of their own creativity they'd be willing to invest in the game. I don't think that buying a game means you also have to buy into the party line, get in step, & following what the game designers are doing. Forget the game designers--I bought the game, it's mine now, to do with as I please.

[contracycle]

Then don't buy it.  Problem solved.

[contracycle]

And then you can invite your players to a game of Band Of Brothers, your very own Private Ryan-based RPG, and set it in a small fishing on the coast of Java wheer all the characters are anthropomorphic animals.  Becuase, of course, setting a WW2 in WW2 would just have been SO uncreative, dahling... and if the player complain, dump em!  They just were'nt imaginative enough, obviously.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

If I'm not mistaken, this thread is getting away from debate and has moved into several "Well, here's ME" statements.

At one point the question concerned WHETHER a variety of role-publications practiced railroad-style metaplot tactics at all. (I'll call this Question #1.)

It seems to have shifted towards whether that's evil or tolerable or what-have-you, and THAT seems to have shifted toward "I create stuff like XYZ" and "I create stuff like ABC." This latter discussion has bred the unpleasant child of sarcasm.

When I see a question shift like this, it usually means that it was resolved, but the participants would not like to acknowledge that. If anyone can correct me about the following, I'd appreciate it, but I think that we HAVE established that the railroady-style metaplot DOES exist as a publishing style or tactic, and that it is recognizably distinct from "setting," even "changing large-scale setting."

Some may still disagree. I'm willing to keep up with that debate, as I'm far from done with it myself. The floor remains open.

However, I'm not willing to participate in "Well I game like THIS!" and "Oh yeah? Well I game like THAT!" exchanges. I have no qualms about exerting this value system in a dictatorial way, by shutting down the thread, if they continue.

Best,
Ron