In principle, I don't like metaplot at all.  There are some, however, that are far more damaging while others are basically ignorable.  Metaplots that end up fundamentally changing the nature of the world/setting are usually the worst kind, particularly because all too often they make no sense (changing those things that suit the present game designers but otherwise trying to maintain the status quo to the point of the absurd in everything else).

RPGPundit

I hate metaplot.

Ironically the Shadow World line has developed a creeping Metaplot.

Probably my falt for writing the theatrical adaptations. But hey I had to get in there first and do them right.

I don't mind metaplot if it is interesting and I can use it. However, I like in in one big dose, not sprinkled over time in a 15 books I have to buy. And I usually view them as 100% optional.

I know a lot of people didn't like it, but the Grand Conjunction was something I enjoyed (even though it was sprinkled over several modules) running. And I felt that the effects of the grand conjunction improved the setting (though it was a blatant example of using story to revise unworkable elements of the game).

I think that you can probably divide metaplot into "history metaplot" and "story metaplot".  History metaplot is really an attempt to create a sense of time going by in the setting.  Story Metaplot is a metaplot related to a particular story the game designer wants to tell.

History metaplot may or may not be bad.
Story metaplot almost always is, especially if its a personal story. (that is, a "story metaplot" about "nation x goes to war with nation y" is bad enough; but a "story metaplot" about "NPC X has an awesome adventure" is much much worse).

RPGPundit

Those seem like fair divisions to me Pundit.

I guess the gray area is when personal stories effect the flow of history in the setting.

The best metaplot I've seen was Heavy Gear's prior to the bombing of Paxton Arms and the transformation of the default game from "gritty hard sci-fi mech pilots" into "planet-hopping action hero mech pilots".

They did a pretty good job of giving GMs enough information about the important players in the ongoing history of the setting to use or ignore it as they pleased. They used a chess piece system, and it was fairly sensible, so that a GM knew that if they killed off the Emir, of course their Terra Nova was going to diverge from the baseline. This was presented in fairly neutral language, neither encouraging nor discouraging one from doing it.

They packed most of the actual metaplot into a set of small books published separately so that you could ignore them if you want to. Each one covered a couple of years in the setting, and focused on the most important political and social events of that year from an IC perspective.

Of course, that was great until they changed the default game-style. I've never really been a fan of metaplot since, though I don't mind occasional updates in settings.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;420984Those seem like fair divisions to me Pundit.

I guess the gray area is when personal stories effect the flow of history in the setting.

Yes, but all too often the "personal NPC story" metaplots are precisely the ones that end with a huge Reset button in terms of the bigger history. That's one of their greatest flaws (aside from, you know, turning the PCs into either helpless agents or powerless cheerleaders for the game designer's pet NPCs).

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;421592Yes, but all too often the "personal NPC story" metaplots are precisely the ones that end with a huge Reset button in terms of the bigger history. That's one of their greatest flaws (aside from, you know, turning the PCs into either helpless agents or powerless cheerleaders for the game designer's pet NPCs).

RPGpundit

You know, the best dragon lance game I ever ran started in the Spring before dragons of autumn twilight, and the first game took place in Solace. The party met one or two of the heroes of the lance, but noted that they took off and wouldn't have anything to do with the war. They even traveled with Tika for a while.

Probably my favorite stand alone game is Palladium's Nightbane. It is full of every kind of metaplot you have mentioned. It gives specific important NPCs and their activity. Sunfire, Lilith, the leaders of the ADA... tons of it, too much to remember.

But playing it was fucking awesome. I'd keep and use all of the metaplot I found, not that the party always came into contact with it.

I guess I don't see anything wrong with metaplot, other than I'm not likely to run Nightbane again, because I'm tired of it. Games with a lot of metaplot have a short lifespan because there isn't a lot of reason to go back to them, but, I think they are hot while they are hot.

Quote from: RPGPundit;421592Yes, but all too often the "personal NPC story" metaplots are precisely the ones that end with a huge Reset button in terms of the bigger history. That's one of their greatest flaws (aside from, you know, turning the PCs into either helpless agents or powerless cheerleaders for the game designer's pet NPCs).

RPGpundit

I agree that PCs as helpless viewers of the designers unfolding plot is not desirable. I don't mind, if the PCs have the option of going against the NPC and being his enemy (that usually makes for a better adventure anyways), but killing him should be a real possibility.

Quote from: Cranewings;421647Probably my favorite stand alone game is Palladium's Nightbane. It is full of every kind of metaplot you have mentioned. It gives specific important NPCs and their activity. Sunfire, Lilith, the leaders of the ADA... tons of it, too much to remember.

But playing it was fucking awesome. I'd keep and use all of the metaplot I found, not that the party always came into contact with it.

I guess I don't see anything wrong with metaplot, other than I'm not likely to run Nightbane again, because I'm tired of it. Games with a lot of metaplot have a short lifespan because there isn't a lot of reason to go back to them, but, I think they are hot while they are hot.

Sorry, but was that "Metaplot" or just Characterization?  Because Palladium tends to often create great NPCs with their own agendas and activities in all their games, but its not actually "metaplot" unless you are talking about something that creates big "events" in the game setting that affect future books.  In that sense, the only "metaplot" I've ever seen Palladium do has been the Tolkeen War.  

I don't follow Nightbane, though, so it may have the same thing.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;421835Sorry, but was that "Metaplot" or just Characterization?  Because Palladium tends to often create great NPCs with their own agendas and activities in all their games, but its not actually "metaplot" unless you are talking about something that creates big "events" in the game setting that affect future books.  In that sense, the only "metaplot" I've ever seen Palladium do has been the Tolkeen War.  

I don't follow Nightbane, though, so it may have the same thing.

I don't know about Nightbane, but Rifts did have some minor metaplot other than the Tolkeen War.

They did tend to move the time period forward with each book, eventually changing out all the Coalition standard weapons and equipment (and plans to do the same for Triax stuff last I heard).

Also, future books in the lines did often assume you read the previous books in the line and did keep building on the background plots (or in some cases, made mentions about background plots from previous books having resolved themselves already).  Granted, this kind of thing was pretty minor.

There was also that Megaverse battle between Hell and Hades thing in the last couple of years (not sure if that ever finished).

The "war in hell" thing has not finished yet.  And yes, there are a few other instances, but the others were more a general advancing of the timeline; there's nothing really in it that is a "personal metaplot" type of deal the way Tolkeen was, where the PCs who participated in those books would theoretically be directly involved in the metaplot itself and theoretically unable to change it (without invalidating the books).

RIFTS actually gives a very good example of both types of metaplot: books like the coalition updates, the stuff on Archie, and the relatively horrible RIFTS Africa were all examples of "history metaplot".  RIFTS Africa, in spite of not being very good, at least does metaplot in the least harmful way possible, it assumes that the PCs themselves would be the architects of stopping the the Four Horsemen.  Likewise the RIFTS: Mechanoids sourcebook.
On the other hand, the Tolkeen war and the "War in hell" stuff is much more "metaplot as story" of the kind that is meant to "create vast changes" in the setting which the PCs really can't do much of anything about. This to me is by far the worse kind of metaplot.

RPGPundit

I guess with Nightbane, the plot didn't really move forward, other than to become more stable. The game is suppose to take place a few years after the big event, and as far as I know, no other big events occur.

I don't mind history for a setting. I don't really consider that to be Meta Plot. Meta Plot tells us how things should develop or proceed in the setting rather than how things were up to the point the game starts. Forget that. I want my PCs and NPCs to make things happen in the setting - Not someone's Meta Plot.

The worst Meta Plot I've encountered was in the Legend of the Five Rings RPG. They actually allowed players of the card game tourneys to impact how the supplements for the RPG were being developed. If it happened in the card game, they found a way to bring that over into the RPG as canon historical material. It was ridiculous. The Lion Clan using Blood Magic? Absurd.

You can always ignore Meta Plot, but if Meta Plot is heavily marbled into the meat of the supplement you are trying to use, you have a lot of fat to cut out of it. I'd rather not have it in there to begin with.

I was never into L5R but seriously? That sounds fucking awful.

RPGPundit