As a footnote to my original rant and the thread about using metaplot as a tool, I picked up Orpheus yesterday, and I'm pleased by how they're handling the metaplot for that game, as part of the "limited series" game concept.

I have some quibbles about how the metaplot in Orepheus is being handled, but they're been very up-front regarding the structure of the metaplot, what each book is supposed to establish, and the fact that it's designed like a movie, with a deliberate beginning, middle, and end. It's very up front that the PCs are the star of the chronicle, and what sort of stories are being told here. As I said, there are some quibbles -- they're still hiding information they shouldn't, and mixing non-metaplot rule info with metaplot rule info in the supplements -- but Soulban is handling the Orpheus metaplot way, way better than the current "End of the World of Darkness" plot (which Orpheus isn't connected to). Never let it be said that I don't give credit where credit is due.

And speaking of the "End of the World of Darkness" metaplot, I appreciate that White Wolf had recently made some effort to make that plotline a little more flexible, as well as centered on the PCs. It's a touch "too little, too late", but worth applauding nontheless.

Any else seen any examples of "metaplot done right" (or reasonably so) lately?

Interestingly, one of the critiques being levelled at The Red Sign is that it didn't have a set canonical structure. I personally disagree, but it goes to show that there are plenty of people who do want a structured metaplot.

As one of the authors on Ascension, I can say that the options you'll have are pretty flexible, but using "metaplot" is nebulous here. I'd apply "story" or "adventure" just as readily to some of what's coming up. It's a pity that these distinctions are lost, but it's also useful to think about where one begins and the other ends.

There have been a lot of interesting experiments with ongoing storylines. One which doesn't appear to have quite succeeded was the one for DP9's Heavy Gear, which is a pity, because I quite liked it.

(To summarize, thin graphic novel style annual summaries and date coded supplements)

I think the future is probably in things like Exalted's Locust Crusade, where you have a metaplot "module" that talks about how things could turn out, but the base setting is static, with many changes suggested, rather than implemented. On the other hand, you can't really make a modern RPG "timeless," unless you actually make it an alternate universe (something CP 2020 did when it's history conflicted with reality).

And to follow up my own post, I really like the way Crusade of Ashes, in Orpheus, bends over backwards to present you with options for an alternative way of doing things -- most notably in the "Dude, Your Kung Fu Sucks" section. That section is an excellent model for other people to follow, though it could have been expanded.

The way game-mechanical information that should have been in the core rulebook (i.e. Merits and Flaws) is mixed in with a big wad of metaplot is bad, but at least tolerable given the "limited series" nature of the game.

One thing I DIDN'T like was the whole "Mysterious Antagonist 1" and "Mysterious Antagonist 2" thing. It looks increasingly like if you want to run a Orpheus game that uses the metaplot, you're going to have to wait for all the supplements to come out if you want to be able to plan at all as a GM. There's some nods to where to point the PCs, but there's bits where you're explicitly supposed to stymie the PCs until the next supplement comes out -- Always Drink Your Ovaltine.

Again, this is somewhat -- but only somewhat -- mitigated by the limited series concept, in that I know everything WILL be covered eventually, that there won't be a treadmill of supplements that could change everything about the game at a moment's notice.

eyebeams wrote: Interestingly, one of the critiques being levelled at The Red Sign is that it didn't have a set canonical structure. I personally disagree, but it goes to show that there are plenty of people who do want a structured metaplot.

There have been a lot of interesting experiments with ongoing storylines. One which doesn't appear to have quite succeeded was the one for DP9's Heavy Gear, which is a pity, because I quite liked it.

I think the future is probably in things like Exalted's Locust Crusade, where you have a metaplot "module" that talks about how things could turn out, but the base setting is static, with many changes suggested, rather than implemented.

Columbia Games did a sneaky but workable thing with Harnmaster.

All game supplements are set historically accurate to 720 TR. No game supplements will refernece events more recent than that date, so the game master isn't forced to edit the world after each new supplement is released. They are all background material. The meta plot is laid out up to 720 TR and left to the imagination and inspiration of the play group from that point forward.

Creating an ongoing meta plot can work, but it needs balance, such that a play group's actions will not diverge so much that the next installment is useless to them. If characters can effect the over all meta plot, than it needs to be flexible enough to allow for this, or supplements will not be taken well by players and game masters. On the other hand, if players can not effect the meta-plot, then why include it at all except as flavour.

The Solecist wrote: All game supplements are set historically accurate to 720 TR. No game supplements will refernece events more recent than that date, so the game master isn't forced to edit the world after each new supplement is released. They are all background material. The meta plot is laid out up to 720 TR and left to the imagination and inspiration of the play group from that point forward.

Let's not overstate, Kirt. Metaplot can also all be presented up front, but with the expectation that the players will encounter it during the course of play. Precisely the difference between the superior and inferior versions you lay out above.

The difference between metaplot and background is that background is a jumping off point, and metaplot needs to be asserted later to make it have an effect. It's the side effects of that insertion that are of debatable usefulness/irritation.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: The difference between metaplot and background is that background is a jumping off point, and metaplot needs to be asserted later to make it have an effect. It's the side effects of that insertion that are of debatable usefulness/irritation.