TheRPGSite

Do you like timelines and major events listed in an RPG? I personally like it, because I think it brings the setting into focus and it explains why things are the way they are.

However there is one downside about this. If the timeline is expanded upon in various supplements it becomes the controversial Metaplot. How do you feel about this?

The most common definition about Metaplot is "an overarching storyline that binds together events in an RPG". The White Wolf Wikia (http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Metaplot) defines Metaplot as "a timeline of major events in a given fictional universe, as published by the creator of the universe in various canon materials". Is this the wrong definition?

I think there is a difference between setting pre-history and ongoing officially prescribed history (a.k.a. metaplot).

I like the former, especially if it provides events, bygone places and people who can serve as adventure hooks. A timetable is often useful for this kind of thing, but when the setting warrants it I can also work with something more fuzzy (like the roughly defined "ages" in Mazes & Minotaurs like the Age of Heroes or Age of Sorcerers).

The latter is something I ignore for the most part.

If metaplot events don't require any effort or specific action by the players then I still use it.

For example if there is brewing uprising or civil war about to happen while the players are active then they certainly might choose to get involved but if not it isn't like it will fail to happen just because they chose to ignore it.

Such events can serve as merely backdrop or as a major focus of player activity depending on the players desires.

I like timelines, as they provide a framework for me to drop things into the game.

So, I can use a timeline to relate what is happening to the players, to drop scenarios in to create a continuous narrative and to know what is happening around the corner.

I don't slavishly use them, I often use the events but out of sequence, or in the wrong years, or even change what actually happens, but they are a useful tool.

It can be usefull to have a basic "what has gone before" timeline of the big events. These can be historical things, natural disasters, etc. Some the PCs might know. Some they might never know.

Sometimes a timeline can give you ideas. Like heres this invasion 100 years ago. Why hasnt there been another? Is another imminent? etc. Or some natural disaster hit a kingdom. Wat if it wasnt as natural as everyone believes.

Metaplot is just fictional history and it should be used in the same way. If a campaign starts in France in 1938, there's some pretty bumpy history just over the horizon for the PCs. Whether or not that's a problem largely depends on how you handle it.

Metaplot got stained with a bad reputation in the '90s primarily because companies like White Wolf released adventure material featuring plot-protected NPCs who got to do all kinds of awesome stuff while the PCs were railroaded into standing on the sidelines watching the metaplot happen to them. (The Harlequin adventure for Shadowrun was a classic example of this (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/32589/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-how-not-to-frame-a-scene).)

Properly executed metaplot, on the other hand, can be a great way to introduce new elements into the dynamic of the game. Dunkelzahn's Will for Shadowrun was an example of this: The death of the Great Dragon created a new mechanism by which 'runners could be hooked into jobs (completing missions funded by the will; seeking items from the will; etc.).

Far rarer is the properly executed adventure which puts the PCs in the center of the metaplot without railroading them. The published campaigns for Trinity were good examples of this: The PCs were put center stage for major developments in the Trinity universe... and then their choices directly shaped the future of the setting.

Timelines can be interesting and inspire gaming ideas... or they can be long-winded borefests that I ignore. Just depends. I like a who's who list of famous dead folks to riff off of... "This is the codpiece of Yellow Johnson, famed explorer and tavern owner"

Metaplots are the same... I like the idea of 'wars and rumors of wars' happening... somewhere. Seeing armies marching along a road... a shifting atmosphere of fear and paranoia... suddenly few young men of military age around to hire as lackeys. As long as it remains a backdrop for PCs... affecting them maybe but never forcing them to take part (YOU must save the world!).

Well ... okay.  So I work with my own setting, and have done so for decades.

And, well, I admit that I've published a timeline, so this might be a leetle bit hypocritical.

But: I'm unenthusiastic about them.  Too many timelines waste a heap of pages (the largest timeline I remember seeing was twelve pages) discussing obscure political events centuries or even millennia ago.  Hell, enough GMs complain that players don't pay attention to the NPCs and politics going on around them, never mind whether Empress Lynissia III was the last monarch of Vallia to personally lead troops in battle, at the Third Battle of Council Rock 276 years ago, or which archsorcerer backstabbed the rest of his council mates a thousand years back (info that, mind you, the players wouldn't normally know.)

My defense of putting one into Scarlet Pimpernel is that the timeline into which the activities of the League of the Scarlet Pimpernel fall involve just a couple years, and the Terror has an end date: July 27, 1794.

That, however, is the scope of timeline that's useful: something encompassing only a few years, events within the PCs' memory or which directly affect them.

Metaplots, like many, many things affecting rolepleainyg games, can be implemented very well or absolutly horrible. Good metaplots - like, for instance, the great Pendragon campaign, or the implied metaplot of HarnMaster - are great additions to these games and add a level of vitality and verisimilitude to a setting, that a static, metaplot-free setting usually lacks.
Unfortunately, most metaplots aren't done very well and are mostly concerned with adding more and more spectacular, world-shattering events by effectively have a new crisis every other year or so. I presume that the target audience of those metaplots (worst example that springs to my mind is Legend of the Five Rings) are not actually people who play the game, but those who mostly read it and thus continue to collect every new publication that expands on the metaplot to continue their insight in the drama.  
Since good writing actually requires some sort of effort and consideration, it is not very surprising that good metaplots are quite rare, leading to the conclusion that the idea of a metaplot is a good one, but its implementation is usually lacking.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;801588Metaplot is just fictional history and it should be used in the same way. If a campaign starts in France in 1938, there's some pretty bumpy history just over the horizon for the PCs. Whether or not that's a problem largely depends on how you handle it.

Metaplot got stained with a bad reputation in the '90s primarily because companies like White Wolf released adventure material featuring plot-protected NPCs who got to do all kinds of awesome stuff while the PCs were railroaded into standing on the sidelines watching the metaplot happen to them. (The Harlequin adventure for Shadowrun was a classic example of this (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/32589/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-how-not-to-frame-a-scene).)

Quote from: Simlasa;801609Metaplots are the same... I like the idea of 'wars and rumors of wars' happening... somewhere. Seeing armies marching along a road... a shifting atmosphere of fear and paranoia... suddenly few young men of military age around to hire as lackeys. As long as it remains a backdrop for PCs... affecting them maybe but never forcing them to take part (YOU must save the world!).

Das Schwarze Auge (The Dark Eye) also had numerous examples of how to not use metaplot. I remember an online discussion where suggesting the option of PCs ignoring a crucial military conflict in some published scenario just didn't seem to compute with the poster: the war was so important the PCs simply were forced to take part, even though their contribution was completely irrelevant to the outcome.:idunno:

Quote from: Skyrock;801574I think there is a difference between setting pre-history and ongoing officially prescribed history (a.k.a. metaplot).

I like the former, especially if it provides events, bygone places and people who can serve as adventure hooks. A timetable is often useful for this kind of thing, but when the setting warrants it I can also work with something more fuzzy (like the roughly defined "ages" in Mazes & Minotaurs like the Age of Heroes or Age of Sorcerers).

The latter is something I ignore for the most part.

That's how I feel about it too.

Quote from: Simlasa;801609Timelines can be interesting and inspire gaming ideas... or they can be long-winded borefests that I ignore. Just depends. I like a who's who list of famous dead folks to riff off of... "This is the codpiece of Yellow Johnson, famed explorer and tavern owner"

They must be relevant to the players. Otherwise it's just a waste of space.

I agree as well with Exploderwizard. It can serve as a backdrop or as a mayor focus. In both cases it is relevant. A good example is the timeline of Earthdawn. That history is relevant to the players wether or not they start fighting the horrors.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;801588Metaplot got stained with a bad reputation in the '90s primarily because companies like White Wolf released adventure material featuring plot-protected NPCs who got to do all kinds of awesome stuff while the PCs were railroaded into standing on the sidelines watching the metaplot happen to them. (The Harlequin adventure for Shadowrun was a classic example of this (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/32589/roleplaying-games/thought-of-the-day-how-not-to-frame-a-scene).)

I think Metaplot is an ongoing affair. It's a plot printed in continuous supplements. White Wolf killed the metaplot in the 2nd incarnation of the WoD. They killed the timelines with major events as well. I think that bothers me the most. I don't miss the metaplot, but I miss the timeline.

I mean Orpheus wouldn't be as interesting to me without all the backstory about the Great Maelstroms. You can recreate something like Orpheus using Hunter the Vigil. But that setting would be just some seperate building blocks. Pick one organisation, set them up against some ghosts and that's it. No backstory, no timeline, unless you would make that all up yourself. Which isn't easy to do properly.

At first I was thinking I liked timelines but I could kind of take them or leave them, but as I reviewed the bulk of my gaming, especially since the 1980s, I realized that I must really like timelines - at least for any sort of extended campaign. Which is pretty much everything I run. Timelines are an effective way of succinctly presenting the timing of events in game.

I've used timelines for Runequest in Glorantha, Pendragon (which provides and practically requires a timeline), Call of Cthulhu (which has a real world timeline) Star Trek (which needed a timeline to keep straight what the PCs did and possibilities for interaction or avoidance of interaction with TV characters and events), Star Wars (which over the years and including extended universe and various game versions has produced multiple and somewhat conflicting timelines), Honor+Intrigue (which is set in 1620s France and uses the historical timeline – at least until something significant changes due to PC action or inaction).

Here are some additional details for the Star Wars Timeline.

• Length: From about 25,000 years before the first films through 18 years after A New Hope. (I guess this might have to be expanded after Star Wars VII comes out.)

• Total Word Count: 21,973 words

• Total Page Count: 21 and ¼ pages.

• 2 pages of cover pre-movie history including founding of the Republic, foundation of the Empire, birth dates for key movie characters, birthdates for the player characters, and the dates of the prequel films Episodes I, II, and III (even though they aren't necessarily canon in our game).

• 18 pages of player generated events and brief adventure thumbnail write-ups interspersed with the dates for a few key events from various expanded universe stuff including the date for the movie, A New Hope.

• 1 page of post campaign possible history which includes the dates for movies Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi.

• About a quarter of a page of references to movie and expanded universe sources for included dates.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;801720They must be relevant to the players. Otherwise it's just a waste of space.

And really, genuinely relevant.

I've seen more than a couple threads about timelines where chuckleheads argue, often hotly, that Suchandsuch and Thisandthat incidents a thousand years ago were meaningful and relevant to the players.  Which is horseshit -- that's like saying that the Albigensian Crusade or the fall of Calais is meaningfully relevant to people of today, beyond that we're none of us Cathars or that if you're from Calais your native language isn't going to be English.

What players need are facts on the ground.  I can tell them the moral equivalent of "There've been many centuries of bitter and bloody sectarian strife between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland; the Catholics feel that the land is rightfully theirs, and the Protestants want to hold on to what they've had for centuries," without going into the details of the Battle of the Boyne, the Phoenix Park murders or the sack of Drogheda.

Quote from: Ravenswing;801835I've seen more than a couple threads about timelines where chuckleheads argue, often hotly, that Suchandsuch and Thisandthat incidents a thousand years ago were meaningful and relevant to the players.  Which is horseshit -- that's like saying that the Albigensian Crusade or the fall of Calais is meaningfully relevant to people of today...

I find that what is or could be relevant depends on what the campaign is about. In the real world I know about the Albigensian Crusade, the Cathars, siege of Cahors, and the back and forth ownership of Calais. So if a GM in an Indiana Jones style game had an adventure where the PCs search a cemetery in Cahors or a ruined Cathar castle for clues leading to the Holy Grail the possibility of the Cathar heresy, Crusade, ruins, and lost artifacts is known and is an organic outgrowth of real history. (And if I didn't know anything about the Cathars in the real world I could quickly get a surface knowledge via Wikipedia or reading one of several novels.)

In an RPG set in a fictional world where the players are on a similar quest for the lost Chalice of Life, a prior brief entry on a timeline mentioning the game world equivalent of the Cathars and their unique religious views or the Albigensian Crusade allows the later introduction of the quest for the lost Chalice of Life to appear (and be) an organic part of the setting rather than seeming or being just an unconnected ad hoc quest of the week. And as both a player and a GM I prefer the organic over the seemingly unconnected.

Quote from: Bren;801850In an RPG set in a fictional world where the players are on a similar quest for the lost Chalice of Life, a prior brief entry on a timeline mentioning the game world equivalent of the Cathars and their unique religious views or the Albigensian Crusade allows the later introduction of the quest for the lost Chalice of Life to appear (and be) an organic part of the setting rather than seeming or being just an unconnected ad hoc quest of the week. And as both a player and a GM I prefer the organic over the seemingly unconnected.

Great ... and exactly how many timeline items are you going to make me swallow so that you can hide that one historical nugget in?

Or you could, rather, have a PC find a book about the subject two sessions before.  Or a minstrel sing a sad old ballad about it.  Or, since none of the characters at the session have a History skill (or analog thereof), we wouldn't know jack about it anyway.

Think about it: there are a lot of background-hostile players in the best of circumstances.  How many threads have we seen over the years where someone bemoans that his or her players completely ignore the lovingly prepared background documents, and how many responses are from the "Fuck homework, I just want to roll the dice and play" crowd?  Even the most pertinent, short-term timeline's lost on them: they don't care.

Quote from: Ravenswing;801859Great ... and exactly how many timeline items are you going to make me swallow so that you can hide that one historical nugget in?

The Star Wars campaign that we ran for 10 years had 2 pages of bullet points organized by date. Some of them were possible hooks or backgrounds for adventures. Some were milestones for important NPC and the PCs themselves. Things like their own PC's birthdate are the sorts of things players do seem interested in.

In the games I run or play in History is a skill that some PC (usually more than one)has available. In a number of systems it is either an automatic or readily available skill. Of course one can toss a clue out there a session or two before the time that the PCs go after the lost Chalice of Life and hope that they will then go after the lost Chalice of Life two sessions later. Which is a bit better than tossing the information in the same session in which the information is actually needed.

Quote from: Ravenswing;801859Great ... and exactly how many timeline items are you going to make me swallow so that you can hide that one historical nugget in?

Or you could, rather, have a PC find a book about the subject two sessions before.  Or a minstrel sing a sad old ballad about it.  Or, since none of the characters at the session have a History skill (or analog thereof), we wouldn't know jack about it anyway.

Think about it: there are a lot of background-hostile players in the best of circumstances.  How many threads have we seen over the years where someone bemoans that his or her players completely ignore the lovingly prepared background documents, and how many responses are from the "Fuck homework, I just want to roll the dice and play" crowd?  Even the most pertinent, short-term timeline's lost on them: they don't care.

Couple of ways.

Make timeline items important.

I give the lovingly prepared background documents to you and you can't be bothered to read them while on the shitter.  How will you be able to make those oh so very important player decisions?  I wont help you.  I am merely an impartial referee.

Or

Just don't play with "Fuck homework, I just want to roll the dice and play" crowd

Quote from: Sommerjon;801873Just don't play with "Fuck homework, I just want to roll the dice and play" crowd

This too is an option.

Also I think Ravenswing's criticism misses my point. I suggested that some players prefer when events arise organically from the setting* and their knowledge of it and that for those players a timeline can enhance their experience by providing them with some information about the setting that would be available to their characters. To then point out that there are some players who won't read any information at all or who don't care about the setting outside of what is presented in game is irrelevant. Those players aren't likely to care much about the details of the setting so obviously a timeline isn't designed for them. Just as a book or story found two or more sessions prior isn't intended for those players who don't want to track clues across multiple sessions or listen to an NPC tell a story and then remember the story several sessions later. Different resources for different needs.



* EDIT: As an example, real Cathar ruins, artifacts, and mythology providing clues to the Holy Grail on earth is more fun for me than a quest on earth with entirely made up magical McGuffins and made up history and mythology. Similarly I enjoy things based on invented historical details already presented in an invented setting.

Quote from: Bren;801738Here are some additional details for the Star Wars Timeline.

This is what I would call an too extensive timeline. I like it the way Earthdawn did it. Roughly ten pages and overall very relevant for the players.

Quote from: Sommerjon;801873Couple of ways.

Make timeline items important.

I give the lovingly prepared background documents to you and you can't be bothered to read them while on the shitter.  How will you be able to make those oh so very important player decisions?  I wont help you.  I am merely an impartial referee.

Or

Just don't play with "Fuck homework, I just want to roll the dice and play" crowd

In my case it's mostly a GM thing. I like timelines (if relevant), because they gives me ideas what to do with the game. It makes it easy for me to come up with story seeds and work them out. Too much irrelevant info and I won't read it. Not any backstory at all and it won't appeal to me as much.

For example I won't read all of the Star War background, because a lot of stuff doesn't matter for my players. It's just dry history for the sake of history. The history of Revan and Malak and the Mandalorian Wars in KotOR is very relevant for the player and makes the setting in my opinion. That's the way to do it.

Another example is the new Werewolf game. The only backstory that game has is a tribe of werewolves kill Father Werewolf and get his job as the spirit border patrol, meanwhile pissing off another tribe. Presumably. Because in later books they question that myth and present other options. That is nowhere near enough for me to make it interesting.

Timelines are important for mayor events; you need to know when the next election is.



With that out of the way, the way I see it a timeline is a potential future barring PC action, a metaplot is what will happen in spite of PC action, so metaplot is always bad. Even worse is when later published metaplot negates what has happened in the campaign (not that the GM needs to allow it).


I.e, if in Ravenswing's "Scarlet Pimpernel" game the events of the Revolution were going to play out regardless of what the PCs did, up to and including trying to assassinate the leaders of the terror, to end it early (or prevent it in the first place), then it's metaplot. If the PCs can change the history of the Revolution, or knock off the Corsican corporal before he becomes a thing, or whatever, then it isn't a metaplot.

Note that this means that the timeline will have to change in response to the actions of the players.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;801720They must be relevant to the players. Otherwise it's just a waste of space.

The GMs are also players. If it's useful or fun for GMs, but the players never interact with it, it's still relevant.

Quote from: apparition13;802091I.e, if in Ravenswing's "Scarlet Pimpernel" game the events of the Revolution were going to play out regardless of what the PCs did, up to and including trying to assassinate the leaders of the terror, to end it early (or prevent it in the first place), then it's metaplot. If the PCs can change the history of the Revolution, or knock off the Corsican corporal before he becomes a thing, or whatever, then it isn't a metaplot.

It's a matter of agency, I expect.

Now those events -- barring the butterfly effect -- have a direction in mind.  One of the things I put into the SP timeline, given that I knew players would be curious, is that Napoleon just wasn't there; he spent the first years of the Revolution in Corsica, and the rest of it in southeastern France and Italy, and up until 13 Vendémiaire only a handful of people knew who the heck he was.  (The amusing bit is he was never a corporal; he was a military academy graduate directly commissioned as a second lieutenant.)  Certainly no one in 1794 knew that a young artillery brigadier serving in a frontier army would wind up being the dictator of Europe, and neither would the PCs.

Quote from: apparition13;802091With that out of the way, the way I see it a timeline is a potential future barring PC action, a metaplot is what will happen in spite of PC action, so metaplot is always bad. Even worse is when later published metaplot negates what has happened in the campaign (not that the GM needs to allow it).

You can sum it up that way. The way I see it a timeline tells us how it came to be. A metaplot tells us what comes next.

Another thing I like about timelines is that it brings some cohesion to the setting. In Earthdawn everything leads back to the Scourge. It explains why the surface is destroyed, why there are monsters, why there are dungeons and who made them and it explains the human culture and mentality. Following stories or quests should focus on rebuilding civilization.

Quote from: Ravenswing;802151It's a matter of agency, I expect.

Now those events -- barring the butterfly effect -- have a direction in mind.  One of the things I put into the SP timeline, given that I knew players would be curious, is that Napoleon just wasn't there; he spent the first years of the Revolution in Corsica, and the rest of it in southeastern France and Italy, and up until 13 Vendémiaire only a handful of people knew who the heck he was.  (The amusing bit is he was never a corporal; he was a military academy graduate directly commissioned as a second lieutenant.)  Certainly no one in 1794 knew that a young artillery brigadier serving in a frontier army would wind up being the dictator of Europe, and neither would the PCs.

Is that "would" inevitable, or could the PCs stop it should they (in character) decide to "do something" and succeed?

Quote from: jan paparazzi;802212You can sum it up that way. The way I see it a timeline tells us how it came to be. A metaplot tells us what comes next.

People have been using "timeline" a coupe different ways in this thread, both as "backstory" and as "potential future events". I'm using it here in the second sense, as GM scripted futures that may or may not happen, depending on PC actions, which I'm contrasting with metaplot, or scripted futures (GM or official publications) that will happen, no matter what the PCs do.

As far as I'm concerned, when the PCs start acting, even in a "historical" game, history is potentially out the window. So if the CoC PCs decide to take out what they think is a cult, who happen to wear brown shirts and have among their leaders some guy with a Charlie Chaplin mustache, I'm not going to prevent them from doing that, even if it winds up tossing the rest of 20th century history out the window.

Some backstory is useful to the players, more to some than others. More backstory is useful to the GM. Timelines (future) can help with the feeling of exploring a living world, as events happen in the background, but also in response to PC actions. Metaplot goes on the garbage heap; I'm not acting out parts in someone's novel*.


*There's a lot to like in Pendragon, but while I know there are people who like the Great Pendragon Campaign, I have negative interest in running or playing through it.

Quote from: apparition13;802341Some backstory is useful to the players, more to some than others. More backstory is useful to the GM. Timelines (future) can help with the feeling of exploring a living world, as events happen in the background, but also in response to PC actions. Metaplot goes on the garbage heap; I'm not acting out parts in someone's novel*.

I completely agree with your entire post. Backstory is helping me immerse in the setting, because it feels like the world is in motion. That's my beef with the new WoD games. They axed the metaplot, but they threw out the baby with the bathwater by axing the backstory as well. Without backstory the world feels static to me, no matter how many supplement they make for it.

A lot of people see a Timeline as a juggernaut that moves slowly along, crushing everything in its path.

I see a Timeline as a guideline, giving the GM and players a skeleton on which to hang a campaign.

In a campaign set at the time of Robin Hood, people generally know that Richard the Lionheart is going to go to the Crusades, be captured, be ransomed, return to England and pardon Robin Hood. If the campaign follows that timeline, does it make it a bad campaign? Will it crush the players' creativity? No, of course not. The PCs can take part in the Crusades, maybe help Richard avoid capture. If he is captured, they can do a Blondel and try to find him. They can oppose Prince John and help raise the ransom. They can help Richard return to England. They can do a lot of other things in the meantime.

Quote from: soltakss;802464A lot of people see a Timeline as a juggernaut that moves slowly along, crushing everything in its path.

I see a Timeline as a guideline, giving the GM and players a skeleton on which to hang a campaign.

And discussions can occur at cross puposes as you have people with very different points of view about gaming. For example in a game set before and/or during WWII (or any fantasy event of similar magnitude) you may have any of these points of view.

A) A game shouldn't have events like WWII. The setting should be defined by what the players want their PCs to do, not by macro events that are out of PC control.

B) Having events like WWII is fine, but the game should totally be about the PCs literally punching Hitler in the face and ending WWII nearly single-handed. Because they are just that good.

C) Having events like WWII is fine, but the game should be totally about punching Nazis in the face and saving America [or insert your country or even the whole world as you choose]. Punching Hitler in the face should be possible, but it is not required. The PCs may try to change the course of the war, but generally they won't be able to control events of that scale and scope unless they are playing Churchill, Stalin, Eisenhower, etc. Even Captain America doesn't end WWII.

D) Having events like WWII is fine, the game should totally be about characters in that setting. While character level events (squad, platoon, or company) should be in the control of the players, macro events like the entire course of the war or a major campaign generally are not in the control of characters. You may have a pivotal roll at Stalingrad or Normandy, but you aren't going to make or break the invasion. PCs are probably no more competent or powerful than very skilled humans or the heroes of WWII TV shows like Combat! or the Rat Patrol and the events they influence are on that squad, platoon, or company scale.

Quote from: soltakss;802464I see a Timeline as a guideline, giving the GM and players a skeleton on which to hang a campaign.

Totally agree with this.

Quote from: soltakss;802464In a campaign set at the time of Robin Hood, people generally know that Richard the Lionheart is going to go to the Crusades, be captured, be ransomed, return to England and pardon Robin Hood. If the campaign follows that timeline, does it make it a bad campaign? Will it crush the players' creativity? No, of course not. The PCs can take part in the Crusades, maybe help Richard avoid capture. If he is captured, they can do a Blondel and try to find him. They can oppose Prince John and help raise the ransom. They can help Richard return to England. They can do a lot of other things in the meantime.

This is the potential future scenario as apparition13 described. This is (luckily) not metaplot, but I still like a timeline best when it's part of the backstory. Again just like in the "How it came to be" chapter in Earthdawn.

Backstory + timeline = world in motion = immersion

For published settings, I want little history beyond some vague allusions.  I do not want ant set in stone timelines.  I pretty much only want the present described.  Set history limits the scope of adventure.  As GM, I will create my own history as needed and focused upon such aspects as I am interested.

Star Wars A New Hope is a wide open setting wherein the GM can go in a bazillion different directions.  Star Wars of today is a more calcified setting with fewer stories my group could tell than what we were doing in the early '90s.

Greyhawk '83 boxed set was already pushing the line of too much official history.  But it still had enough leeway for me to bring my own interpretation of its history with the destruction of Vecna causing the Bright Desert, etc.  All the historical tidbits that I crafted according to my own interests were invalidated by later development of the Greyhawk setting.

Most history written in published settings is irrelevant to gameplay.  None of my Deadlands games have ever gone in the direction of Raven mattering; they focus upon what the players choose to do.  The book space would be better served further describing another Weird West region in the here and now, some place the players can actually explore.  

So, published setting history is pretty crappy in my opinion.  My personally crafted history as based on the present of a published setting by way of me exploring my own interests is good stuff.

Quote from: Old One Eye;802697All the historical tidbits that I crafted according to my own interests were invalidated by later development of the Greyhawk setting.

You know that can only happen if you say it does. I have made up stuff for Greyhawk, Mystara, FR, Yrth, etc. and none of it was invalidated by later material as far as MY campaign was concerned.

Published stuff is just suggested history. Actual history is up to the DM, which is why I don't mind how much crap gets published for a setting. If I lke it, then perhaps it will get used, if not then my own stuff gets used.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;802704You know that can only happen if you say it does. I have made up stuff for Greyhawk, Mystara, FR, Yrth, etc. and none of it was invalidated by later material as far as MY campaign was concerned.

Published stuff is just suggested history. Actual history is up to the DM, which is why I don't mind how much crap gets published for a setting. If I lke it, then perhaps it will get used, if not then my own stuff gets used.

While true, it also means half the Living Greyhawk Guide is wasted space for me.  Whereas, if the LGG had focused on making more adventure locations instead of making more history then a substantially larger portion of the book would be useful for me.

Aren't most D&D settings without backstory? Dark Sun doesn't have much of a clue what has lead to the Desert Age. It simply is and the book encourages you pick up a character and just play. In that way it is similar to the new WoD games. It invites playing. So there is something to be said for such an approach. It just isn't my taste. I don't mind playing such a game. I just don't get a lot of ideas from such a game as a GM.

The only way I like to see (or do) timelines in RPGs is front-loaded.  In the sense that you don't have a series of sourcebooks that advance a timeline, but that in the very first or only book you make for the game, you have a whole outline of what CAN happen, under two conditions: one, that the GM wants it to be how things will likely run; and two, that the timeline only represents what will happen in the case that the PCs don't radically alter events through their actions.

That's how I did it for Arrows of Indra, and how it will be one for Dark Albion.

Quote from: RPGPundit;803460...you have a whole outline of what CAN happen, under two conditions: one, that the GM wants it to be how things will likely run...

I guess there are people for whom this is not an underlying assumption and thus needs to actually be said.

Quote from: RPGPundit;803460The only way I like to see (or do) timelines in RPGs is front-loaded.  In the sense that you don't have a series of sourcebooks that advance a timeline, but that in the very first or only book you make for the game, you have a whole outline of what CAN happen, under two conditions: one, that the GM wants it to be how things will likely run; and two, that the timeline only represents what will happen in the case that the PCs don't radically alter events through their actions.

That's how I did it for Arrows of Indra, and how it will be one for Dark Albion.

This. So much this. +1, or whatever the kids are calling it nowadays.

I've found with a lot of folks these days that this is not a common way of looking at things. I know people who, for instance, slavishly feel they have to follow the Star Wars timelines and storylines for their games to the point where the PCs only get to do meaningless crap or act as observers for events.

I want my PCs to have as much effect on the world as they want and are capable of. As a player, I want the same thing.

Quote from: Atsuku Nare;803489I know people who, for instance, slavishly feel they have to follow the Star Wars timelines and storylines for their games to the point where the PCs only get to do meaningless crap or act as observers for events.

Some people want to overturn the movies. Some don't.

There are plenty of important things to do in the Star Wars universe besides what we see in the films. Being relegated to doing meaningless crap has more to do with the GM and the players than it does a timeline.

The best Star Wars game I ever had was one where we assumed that the movies (the original three - that was shortly before the first prequel aired) were basically in-universe propaganda products and not particularly accurate. It eventually became silly the other way around - praising the Empire at each opportunity and what not - but it was fun as long as it lasted.
Metaplots (and setting material in general) is an opportunity. You can use them, and they can add to a game. If they become restrictive, it's probably time to emancipate from them.

Quote from: RPGPundit;803460The only way I like to see (or do) timelines in RPGs is front-loaded.  In the sense that you don't have a series of sourcebooks that advance a timeline, but that in the very first or only book you make for the game, you have a whole outline of what CAN happen, under two conditions: one, that the GM wants it to be how things will likely run; and two, that the timeline only represents what will happen in the case that the PCs don't radically alter events through their actions.

That's how I did it for Arrows of Indra, and how it will be one for Dark Albion.

Agreed 100%. This is how it should be. Have you ever done or do you want to do an RPG without any timeline? I know this shouldn't really matter to the players, but like front-loaded timelines. It gets my creative juices flowing.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;803593Agreed 100%. This is how it should be. Have you ever done or do you want to do an RPG without any timeline?

Yes, plenty.  But being a historian, I kind of like timelines.

I like sci-fi timelines but not fantasy timelines. I have no idea why. I even wrote one for a Justifiers RPG game that never got off the ground. I still enjoy reading it every few years. the one in Cyberspace is quite good.

Quote from: Tetsubo;804148I like sci-fi timelines but not fantasy timelines. I have no idea why. I even wrote one for a Justifiers RPG game that never got off the ground. I still enjoy reading it every few years. the one in Cyberspace is quite good.

Maybe because fantasy timelines can be cliche and bombastic?

I like timelines. To me it all starts with a timeline. I don't like it if a setting falls right out of the sky. Here it is, now play. I was incredibly annoyed by the God Machine for example. The most interesting part about the damn thing (What does it want and where did it came from? What did it do the last couple of centuries?) isn't in the book. Wait, let me do frustrated anger shout: :rant:
So that's better.