Metaplot and Story Creation

[Mike Holmes]

Gareth,

I agree with you Gareth. And I have since the start. Our only disagreement seems to have been with the use of the terms. Let's use your terms, then (I won't argue that you are shifting the definitions to suit your argument, that would just get us going in circles).

Given your definition of Metaplot, all Metaplot is good (in the context of this discussion). What is bad then is some (that is some, not all) of what you would call plot elements that are inserted in a railroady fashion. Some of these plot elements are large scale and resemble Metaplot in that they are on the same scale, and included interspersed with Metaplot, I contend. As in my Shadow World examples where players are expected to find certain world-shatteringly important magic items (my example was not Parody, Ron, the names were merely changed so I wouldn't have to include a spoiler alert). Or as in Ron's example where the party is required to be present at some event of massive importance. This sort of thing is what we find objectionable. And I only find those things objectionable in that I have to mentally parse the text to make the material usable in a fashion that is suitable for me.

Realize that I'm  Simulationist, though. For those who are Narativists, they will object to these events a bit more often (note: not always) as any pre-plotting tends to get in the way of Narrativist creativity.


On the topic of the WW or MERP canon, yes, the GM should not sway from canon without informing the players of where he has done so. That being said, a player could reasonably accept the idea that only the core book is cannon in a particular GMs game (that's how everyone played before all the other stuff came out, so certainly that's enough info). Or even only the core book with certain changes.

The problem with players is when one insists that the GM must adhere to canon after the game has started and such a declaration of limitation has been made. A player can always decline to play such a game if such deviations are actually that annoying to said player. Also, GMs may make mistakes, or be un/misinformed. Players should take that into acount before objecting, and seek to work with the GM on such matters. The player behavior described is dysfunctional, though, and is not a problem with well adjusted players (those willing to agree to a social contract). So, it is only really a problem with published metaplot or plot or whatever in that some players seem to want to adhere to it in unreasonable circumstances. The extent to which that can be blamed on the writing is uncertain. I suggest that it's more just a common dysfunction, or lack of player/GM communication.

Mike

[Nathan]

Metaplot DOES exist. It is a tool. It can be used in many ways - positive or negative.

I would like to see more game companies produce products that detail every important secret and the ultimate timeline of a game up front. Or better, game companies that shift away from metaplot to gm-assisting setting books. Unfortunately, this won't happen. Metaplots are basically the CGG-expansions and CGG-booster packs for RPGs. The inherent bad thing about selling RPGs is that metaplot is really the only way (IMO) in roleplaying games to build a demand or tension for a new release.

For Deadlands: Hell on Earth, I never was urgent and excited about their release of their Sykers character book. But on the other hand, I was waiting urgently for the "Boise Horror" adventure. In retrospect, the Boise Horror adventure is one of the worst adventures I own. *sigh* So do I have a point?

I don't know.

Thanks,
Nathan
nathan@mysticages.com

[contracycle]

Given your definition of Metaplot, all Metaplot is good (in

Thats something of an overstatement.  I'm supporting the position that is is not, as the initial post in this thread offered, inherently and automatically bad.

the context of this discussion). What is bad then is some (that is some, not all) of what you would call plot elements that are inserted in a railroady fashion. Some of

But, inserted into WHAT in a railroady fashion?  Surely this would have to be an actual game happening at the table.  In which case inserting anything is an action by the GM and, as was pointed out in the initial post, thats a self-inflicted wound.  It only ever arises as an issue if the GM makes it their business to put the PC's in a position where they are in direct control of the setting at the particular critical juncture.

these plot elements are large scale and resemble Metaplot in that they are on the same scale, and included interspersed with Metaplot, I contend. As in my Shadow

Well sure.  I'm not claiming that everything written by RPG publishers is necessarily good.  But I think there is a clear distinction between plot which the characters are expected to experience directly, and metaplot which provides a dynamic background.

wouldn't have to include a spoiler alert). Or as in Ron's example where the party is required to be present at some event of massive importance. This sort of thing is what we find objectionable. And I only find those things

Ok, but I still don't understand why you cannot work around the limitation.  Now this is much more closely written, not so much metaplot as plot IMO.  But even there, it seems to imply that no event should occur in a game which the players do not wholly control.  Granted, I have not read the Athas supplement in question, but I'm not sure what is inherently bad about exposing a group of characters to the dramatic its in what amount to social history.  Or at least, I cannot see whats necessarily bad about it merely because such an event is "scheduled" to occur.  Why can a character not be a participant in D-Day, as an event which occurs in the setting, and for the purpose of exposition of this setting-driven event.  What is it about the proximity of the characters to this Spartacus-type and the uprising they are apparanelt leading that turns this from setting into railroading.  It suggests that characters should never be participants in events larger than themselves, which seems unnecessarily limiting.

The problem with players is when one insists that the GM must adhere to canon after the game has started and such a declaration of limitation has been made. A player can

Yeah, sure, but I could imagine reasons that a GM might deliberately conceal some of the changes they have made.

contract). So, it is only really a problem with published metaplot or plot or whatever in that some players seem to want to adhere to it in unreasonable circumstances. The

Well that very much depends on whether you think you ahve been sold a pig in a poke or not.  If you feel - rightly or wrongly - that you have joined a game under what amounts to false pretences, you're likely to be a bit miffed.  All I am suggesting is that I don't think players are being radically unccoperative if they express a preference for playing in an established world as they understand it to be established.  I don't think that the GM has the right to simply say that its their game and they can do what they want - players have expectations too, and I think that the GM has a duty to discuss with them what the changes are and what ramifications these changes have.

[jburneko]

I think this whole thread has wandered away from my original post which simply asked if Metaplot was inherently antithetical to story creation in the Narrativist sense.  The answer that seemed to be derived very quickly and to my satisfaction was that "No, it is not inherently antithetical to story creation if the metaplot is used wholely as setting." or as Gareth prefers, "No, it is not inherently antithetical to story creation if the metaplot is not used as plot," since to him metaplot IS setting.

I'm happy with all this.  However, I thought I'd like to clearify the point with some more concrete examples from history and film.  Let's take a look at the film Titanic.

The sinking of the Titanic is for all intents and purposes a metaplot point.  It's going to happen regardless of what the players do.  This, however, is not antithetical to story creation in the Narrativist sense because the story is not ABOUT the Titanic.  The story is about the two lovers.  The iceberg is merely an event that is used to "spike" that conflict to use a term from down in the Sorcerer forum.

However, had the story been ABOUT the Titanic in some way then we would begin to have problems.  Let's say this was an RPG and all the players were the major crew of the ship including the captain and first mate.  And the whole point of play was that they were trying to beat their sister ship across the atlantic.  Now the story is ABOUT the ship.  In order for story creation in the Narrativist sense to take place the players MUST be able to influence the plot as they see fit.  If the GM, however, insists on railroading the collision with the iceberg despite anything the players do then the metaplot point has been used in a manner that is antithetical to story creation in the Narrativist sense.

To return wholely to the RPG medium lets look at the slave revolt from the Athas suplement.  It was a slave revolt wasn't it?  If the story at hand were about say two slaves in love or even more interesting a slave in love with her master then the slave revolt could be used in a manner similar to the sinking of the Titanic.  That is, the slave revolt can be used as a background setting influence with a large impact on the story at hand.

However, if the story is somehow ABOUT the slave revolt, then the focus shifts from being about the players who are simply slaves to being about the NPC who is liberating the slaves.  The story is now about the NPC liberating the slaves and the players are simply minor characters there to back that NPC up and "live out" the event.

What I think Ron objects to, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that a great deal of published material fails to present these events in the first manner but rather goes out of their way to present the material in the second manner.  And personally, I agree.

Hope this has been helpful.

Jesse

[Ron Edwards]

Gareth,

Reviewing all the posts on this thread, and most especially mine, I can see no evidence that ANYONE objects to a detailed, changing setting for play. (You call this "metaplot." I do not. No big deal.)

The only objection has been levelled exactly as Jesse describes it: toward published material that overtly, specifically, and clearly diminishes the role of the characters as protagonists in any sort of story at all.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

This is really starting to seem like argument for argument's sake at this point. I hesitate to go on, but being the beligerent bastard that I am... :smile:

Thats something of an overstatement.  I'm supporting the position that is is not, as the initial post in this thread offered, inherently and automatically bad.

And all that has been said that is contradictory to that is that Ron would call "good versions of metaplot" setting. So it's merely a semantic argument at this point. One which I have no opinion on.

But, inserted into WHAT in a railroady fashion?  Surely this would have to be an actual game happening at the table.  In which case inserting anything is an action by the GM and, as was pointed out in the initial post, thats a self-inflicted wound.  It only ever arises as an issue if the GM makes it their business to put the PC's in a position where they are in direct control of the setting at the particular critical juncture.

The problem is not the actual occurence of these things in the game. We're talking about the writing. In the writing there are sometimes plot elements that are not presented as neutral or as things that the players might encounter. They are presented as must be encountered. As we've said (Myself, repeatedly) a good GM can ignore the way that they are written, and play them otherwise. What we object to is that they are written this way in the first place which makes them hard to use.

I've given you a concrete example. And I've seen many more. In Beyond the Mountains of Madness, for another example, I remember a particular moment where the text says that an NPC mounts a rescue mission, and it says that the NPC then selects several people to go on the mission including the PCs. It never considers whether the PCs are actually there (it just assumes so as the rest of the text, written in the same fashion will bring the PCs to this point) or what the PCs want to do. It says they are selected, and that they go. Yes, it even makes up decisions for the PCs. The whole agonizing 400 pages of the book are written this way. The PCs do this, then the PCs do that. Eventually the PCs win if they don't die getting to the end. This is interminably annoying, and unnecessary. If I HAD just been given an itinerary of events then I could play through it neutrally. But this is not at all the case. I intend to use it some day, but I will have to alter the contents drastically to get it to play in the fashion that I would like.

Well sure.  I'm not claiming that everything written by RPG publishers is necessarily good.  But I think there is a clear distinction between plot which the characters are expected to experience directly, and metaplot which provides a dynamic background.

Then we do agree. Which has been my contention for a while.

Ok, but I still don't understand why you cannot work around the limitation.

Everybody has said that you can work around it. Just that it's a hassle.

Now this is much more closely written, not so much metaplot as plot IMO.  But even there, it seems to imply that no event should occur in a game which the players do not wholly control.  

Not the intent. No event should be forced to occur if it does not make good game sense to. Some supplements and adventuress do not consider this possiility.

Granted, I have not read the Athas supplement in question, but I'm not sure what is inherently bad about exposing a group of characters to the dramatic its in what amount to social history.  Or at least, I cannot see whats necessarily bad about it merely because such an event is "scheduled" to occur.

These events are not just scheduled to occur, but the characters are scheduled to participate. To Amthors credit he does say somewhere that the events may need to be changed given the way play goes (IIRC), but unfortunately he doesn't support this with the writing. This sort of thing becomes really annoying when secondary results are written. Like, if I don't get the magic whatsis, and the text then reads "the characters then use the whatsis to open the secret portal" what do I do then? Well, I improvise. A lot. These sorts of problems are really common. Problems that I've experienced in actual play.

 Why can a character not be a participant in D-Day, as an event which occurs in the setting, and for the purpose of exposition of this setting-driven event.  What is it about the proximity of the characters to this Spartacus-type and the uprising they are apparanelt leading that turns this from setting into railroading.  It suggests that characters should never be participants in events larger than themselves, which seems unnecessarily limiting.

Nobody says these events shouldn't happen or that the characters can't participate. Its fun when they do. Its just bad when the text tells you that, no matter what, the players must be maneuvered to these events. They're fine when left just as scheduled events. Ron calls these Bangs, but whatever.

Yeah, sure, but I could imagine reasons that a GM might deliberately conceal some of the changes they have made.

Sure, GMs play dysfunctionally as often as players. At the very least a GM has to contend with the fact that players might be disatisfied with his modifications if he makes them secretly.

Well that very much depends on whether you think you ahve been sold a pig in a poke or not.  If you feel - rightly or wrongly - that you have joined a game under what amounts to false pretences, you're likely to be a bit miffed.  All I am suggesting is that I don't think players are being radically unccoperative if they express a preference for playing in an established world as they understand it to be established.

Neither does anyone else. Its just not everyone's cup of tea. I think that being a GM for such a group would be very difficult in Vampire (though potentially rewarding from my Sim vantage).

I don't think that the GM has the right to simply say that its their game and they can do what they want - players have expectations too, and I think that the GM has a duty to discuss with them what the changes are and what ramifications these changes have.

As always, communication. Everyone playing has a responsibility to a certain extent to try and make the game enjoyable. To make that more likely ensure that everyone is as informed on what the expectations are as possible. I personally think that the only way anyone ever comes up with a game that everyone in a group wants to play is by compromise. So, in the circumstance that the players want canon and the GM wants freedom, yes, somebody will have to compromise. Quite often that compromise is for the players to just accept whatever the GM has for them. But, you're right, this often leads to player dissatisfaction.

Talk about it.

Mike

[Laurel]

Like Jesse, I think his original query has been pretty well satisfied, even if there's some disagreement between "metaplot" and "plot" for a few folks.  

The issue that Mike brought up, that metaplot supplements are hard to use because they usually make assumption that the PCs will behave in a predictable manner and follow through a predetermined order, is a good one.  I think the narrative process is done better justice by just leaving the supplements on the shelf and using them for inspiration rather than plot device ~if~ Simultionist-to-Narrativist Drift is the play group's intention.  

[contracycle]

I think anything detailing the behaviour of the *PC's* cannot be described as metaplot, but Plot, and that is why I find the "problem" rather strange.  How can a METAplot have anything to say about the PC's use of a whatsit?  But nevermind - I shall just put this down to the Forge's tendency for self-confirmation.

[Blake Hutchins]

Y'know, there are times when I've enjoyed a well-written metaplot, and it's spurred ideas for a campaign.

In WW's Trinity, they mention a mining colony that gets cut off from the rest of humanity when the teleporters (whose psi abilities provide the means of interstellar travel) mysteriously disappear.  In addition, the mining colony was under attack by a previously unknown alien species when it was cut off.  I thought, "Wow.  That mining colony would be a cool setting."  So far, it's setting.  But when WW released a pre-plotted adventure incorporating this colony, did it bother me?  Not at all.  I took what I wanted, discarded the rest, and absolutely didn't worry about official canon.

On some level, I'm not sure why the debate has reached the intensity it has.  Pre-plotted material of necessity tends to be on rails.  Setting expansions and pre-plotted adventures only qualify as canon if the GM/group goes along with it.  It's not rocket science.

Anyway, I'm rambling.

Best,

Blake

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Blake, it's clear that people are getting VERY confused about the difference between railroading (GM muscles in on player decisions) and just plain GMing (GM establishes or frames situations).

I will be posting eventually on some metaplot ideas, but this thread went into negative territory a while ago, so I'm not inclined to keep it going.

This is mainly in the interest of keeping forums in digestible chunks, and has nothing to do with stopping the discussion on the ideas. If anyone would like to continue, let's start a new thread.

Best,
Ron