I think the ongoing discussion of metaplots is pretty counterproductive. Metaplots are tools, and they can serve a purpose. They can provide a more dynamic background for a game world, allow game designers to introduce changes to their game world, and provide a consistent framework for ongoing adventures.

As I see it, people always have two choices for dealing with metaplot: They can ignore it or include it. If they ignore the metaplot, the problem is solved. If they include the metaplot, they have two choices: Use it as a campaign vehicle or use it as campaign background. If people use it as a vehicle, their problems are solved; the GM knows where the game is going and maybe so do the players. Then, the how and why become more interesting than the what; and the outcome can always change from group to group. If people use the metaplot as campaign background, then the problem is also solved. The events in the metaplot play in the background, show up on the news, and influence the real adventures indirectly. Alternately, the metaplot events form campaign history or present the possible future. I'm afraid that's not as clever as the old joke, about having only two things to worry about, but it serves my point: Metaplot is a tool, and it can serve many purposes.

I don't know about all this hostility between gamers and groups regarding metaplot. It sounds like some sort of dysfunction, but that doesn't mean that metaplot is evil. Ralph mentioned the metaplots in Pendragon as an example of metaplots done right, so obviously someone can do something beneficial with metaplots. I think the idea of metaplot as a potentially positive element is an avenue worth more exploration, and I am interested in hearing more ideas about "metaplot done right." Assuming you were going to write a metaplot, how would you present it so that it could effectively serve a game group?

Well, aside from the suggestions in my original rant, I have a few of other ones:

* Don't include important rules information exclusively in a metaplot supplement. This point was originally made by Alexander: "I don't want to have to buy "Invasion of the Hot Pink Cockroaches from Outer Space" to get those spacecraft rules for the World of Kool."
* If the signature characters are supposed to be placeholders, say so, or don't use them at all. Again, I'm not the first person to say this.
* If you do use signature characters as placeholders, make sure they're generic enough that a PC CAN replace them.
* Make sure you point out that it's okay to deviate from the metaplot, and have tips for doing so. As mentioned in the rant, flexibility is key -- and communicating that flexibility is important in not creating problems.
* Related to the above, don't assume anything. Don't assume people are going to throw out the metaplot. Don't assume that people know that signature characters are placeholders. Don't assume that the way you play is the way others play. Hell, this is good advice for most writing, though it can be taken to absurd lengths.
* Again, connected to the above, communicate how you think the metaplot should be used, while making it clear (as mentioned above) that there's nothing wrong with modifying it or not using it.

From my point of view, a good Metaplot and a good Scenario are the same thing. In one instance, all of the characters presented as involved are NPCs, while in the latter, some of the characters involved are PCs.

Most of my problems with Metaplot are that the overwhelming preponderance of those I've been exposed to are too much like linear railroaded scenarios.

So, to do it well, don't write your metaplot like that. Use the same techniques you would use to write a non-railroading scenario, but apply them to the metaplot.

I think it's really that simple.

So, don't railroad the metaplot. Provide alternatives. Provide guidance about important NPC motivations. Don't require a fixed ending. Don't make the characters into observers of NPC heroics. Don't keep secrets from the GM about the metaplot. Lay out what sorts of things need to be secret, but don't mandate the actual values (ie, Explain that the Identity of the Ancients is a secret that will be revealed in the metaplot, but then provide for multiple options for who the Ancients will be, and allow the GM to make up his or her own mind).

Respect the story of the individual players and GM. Don't make the metaplot plot more important than the gamer's plot by invalidating large parts of the setting without providing guidance on options.

(As an aside, Call of Cthulhu is the best example of this I can think of. There are many campaign supplements where failure results in the destruction of the world in some way, shape, or form. But you can always reset at the beginning of the next campaign.)

For myself, I like to have a seperation of System, Setting, and Scenario. Metaplot, IMHO, tends to be a blurring of Setting and Scenario. That blurring can be useful, but it has to be handled in such a way that the game doesn't turn into 'choose your own adventure'-style dependence on the external metaplot. Self contained and internally consistent metaplot is the kind I enjoy best, a la The Boy King for Pendragon, The Traveller Adventure for Classic Traveller, and The Realm of Shadows or The Masks of Nyarlathotep for CoC.

All IMHO, as always.

Thanks for your replies.

I'll expound a little bit on how Pendragon did it right IMO.

1) the entire metaplot revealed in advance beginning to end in a single book.

2) the metaplot was laid out 1 year at a time with 2-4 pages per year broken into common sections about what was going on. In the case of Pendragon the sections were along the lines of: Military Campaigns that year, special events, the arrival of new NPCs, a rough look at what the important NPCs were doing at the time, and a section on rumors and gossip. There was also a section of adventures that ranged from 1-2 paragraph hooks, to a column long expanded hook, to a full fledged multi page scenario. The adventures fit with the events of the year, involved the PCs with the NPCs. Offered suggestions on how to replace significant NPCs with PCs in certain adventures drawn right from the literature and so on.

3) The "splat books" then were not based on character class or advancing metaplot but were all regional. Here the game fell down a bit. Ideally, you'd look at your metaplot, see what regions were featured in each section of the metaplot and release the regional books in rough order to their importance in the metaplot. Given Pendragon's publishing issues they were released haphazardly at best.

However, they were excellently done. In Pendragon the principle occupation was traveling around and finding quests to go on, so the focus of the book was on elements designed for that. Obviously other formats and focus would be required for other priorities. For Pendragon you had maps and you had a gazeteer giving thumbnail sketches of each location many, if not most, with a potential plot hook idea or mini adventure associated with them. Then you had a good number of expanded adventure ideas in the region (that would need to be developed by the GM) and maybe 3 full fledged regional scenarios. Typically these would come with notes as to where they fit in the time line of the metaplot and occassionally even with notes on how to adjust them to other periods in the timeline.


Meanwhile the metaplot just advances tick by tick and PCs can intersect with it or avoid it as much as desired. They could become hugely involved in it, or it could just remain as background. But since the GM knew exactly what was going on in the whole thing he could make whatever changes he wanted and know immediately how that change would effect the rest of the timeline.

The new Deadlands Rebooted release gets a big thumbs up from me for releasing its entire metaplot in one book in this fashion.

As I recall the last time we went around this loop we settlked on distinguishing between meta plot and changing the setting. Establishing a situatin in which the setting changes in known ways that the users of the product can usefully exploit is a good idea. If you know that X nation will conquor Y in such and such then you can figure out your own game with this as an input. Interestingly theres a bit that RPG could take from its own origins here in that wargaming routineoly produces supplements and expansions based on periods and places en bloc, rather than specific moments. Most RPG products tell us what the situation IS rather than what it will be; the borders of this kingdom are here, and thats all. Perhaps giving a whole period with several maps of border changes and the like and the freedom to insert play anywhere.

Ralph, Gareth,

Very cool! Thanks!