Quote from: RPGPundit;748477But if you have Metaplot, where certain things MUST happen, then no matter what the PCs do they cannot avoid that "must" from happening, and that is very much an interference.  Its railroading on a larger scale.

I don't see it that way.

Let's, for instance, borrow an example from current politics.  The "metaplot" is, for the sake of argument, Russia's meddling in Ukrainian affairs.  What exactly could your average party of PCs do to affect that situation?  Whack Putin?  Presuming that they could get through his security and do so, whose to say there's no lieutenant eager to take his place and continue his policies?  Stop the takeover of the Crimea?  That involved an invasion and a wide swathe of support of the populace.  Start a shooting war?  There's been violence over there for the better part of a year, nothing new to see here.

However much the PCs do the missions PCs usually do, the forces of nationalism, jingoism, irredentism, sectarianism, factionalism, violence and fear, on an international level, are far beyond their ability to affect in any meaningful way.

I don't consider that "railroading."  I consider that being that the PCs are never going to be the ultimate movers and shakers in the world, and that the world will turn without them.  They might be able to start an avalanche, but they're not going to be able to drop a mountain.

Quote from: RPGPundit;748477No.  If you have a 'timeline', where certain things will likely happen, that doesn't necessarily cause interference.  If you have NPC plans where they will "likely" do A, B, and C if all goes according to their intentions, that won't necessarily cause interference.

But if you have Metaplot, where certain things MUST happen, then no matter what the PCs do they cannot avoid that "must" from happening, and that is very much an interference.  Its railroading on a larger scale.

I will say if the metaplot is done in the form of changes and updates to a setting in supplements or new editions, that can be a lot harder to ignore than a suggested timeline of events. When they released a new boxed set for Ravenloft after the grand conjunction for example, while the pcs could have theoretically prevented it from occuring, it grew harder and harder to run a game using current material if your party was on an alternate timeline of events.

It looos like we are all using slightly different definitions of metaplot perhaps.

Quote from: RPGPundit;748477No.  If you have a 'timeline', where certain things will likely happen, that doesn't necessarily cause interference.  If you have NPC plans where they will "likely" do A, B, and C if all goes according to their intentions, that won't necessarily cause interference.

But if you have Metaplot, where certain things MUST happen, then no matter what the PCs do they cannot avoid that "must" from happening, and that is very much an interference.  Its railroading on a larger scale.

Right.
That's why Metaplot should never be unchangeable.  One never knows what PCs can do.   I think that is one of the issues.  Many of are using the definition of, "Larger, over-arching, Setting-Level Plotline".  
And some people are adding the term, "unchangeable by player agency".  Which is wrong for most games, I agree.  But that's not part of the definition as used by many on the thread

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;748498It looos like we are all using slightly different definitions of metaplot perhaps.

Quote from: LordVreeg;748547Right.
That's why Metaplot should never be unchangeable.  One never knows what PCs can do.   I think that is one of the issues.  Many of are using the definition of, "Larger, over-arching, Setting-Level Plotline".  
And some people are adding the term, "unchangeable by player agency".  Which is wrong for most games, I agree.  But that's not part of the definition as used by many on the thread

Exactly.

However, I think Pundit has something in the difference between "will happen without Player interference" and "Must happen", especially with regards to a published setting.  If a major event is planned, then either it will happen or will not.  The "Official Timeline" can only pick one, so if the writers decided it did happen, and in your campaign it actually did not, then, as Brendan said, it leads to a case where now you are playing in a radically different alternate universe.

Ravenswing is right in that, if the change is big enough, there is probably no way for the PCs to stop it anyway, but most of the time I think it's GMs who are against metaplot, because it's a macro alteration of their world, and now they have a decision to make.

In my campaign, if I don't like something, I'll simply change it, but if the writers keep publishing stuff that not only includes the changes, but focuses on it, then I'm looking elsewhere for inspiration, because I stop buying their product.

Quote from: CRKrueger;748565Exactly.

However, I think Pundit has something in the difference between "will happen without Player interference" and "Must happen", especially with regards to a published setting.  If a major event is planned, then either it will happen or will not.  The "Official Timeline" can only pick one, so if the writers decided it did happen, and in your campaign it actually did not, then, as Brendan said, it leads to a case where now you are playing in a radically different alternate universe.

Ravenswing is right in that, if the change is big enough, there is probably no way for the PCs to stop it anyway, but most of the time I think it's GMs who are against metaplot, because it's a macro alteration of their world, and now they have a decision to make.

In my campaign, if I don't like something, I'll simply change it, but if the writers keep publishing stuff that not only includes the changes, but focuses on it, then I'm looking elsewhere for inspiration, because I stop buying their product.

As a slight digression, I admit that I look at published setting material as an inferior, sub group of gaming.  I am, as I have said before, mystified by the allure.
When I create Metaplot, it is with the express Idea that it is central to the adventuring plot, and if I am damn lucky, the PCs will eventually decide to start mucking with it.

I agree. Metaplot is something that must be followed or ignored. There aren't any other options. Or there is something like the Gehenna book with multiple possible Metaplots.

So now I see the Plot Point campaigns are indeed sandboxes. It's just like Skyrim. A lot of things to do and a main quest hidden inside it, but it is not necessary to follow the main quest.

Problem with the new wod is that it is really low key. So without any bigger story arc, it quickly becomes a monster of the week (hunter), spirit of the week (werewolf) or mystery of the week (mage) kind of game. This becomes old hat pretty quickly.

I don't like Metaplot, but the battle against the Wyrm in Werewolf could lead to campaigns to be played for months. New Werewolf needs some work to play campaigns. It usually turns out like just another day in the life of the spirit border patrol.

Gehenna and the Camarilla Sabbat war could lead to a campaign. Now vampire is another day in the life of a bloodsucker, who is plotting and scheming while holding on to his humanity.

Quote from: RabidWookie;747203That is metaplot, and metaplot has no place in my games. When I ran Deadlands or Shadowrun in the 90's I deliberately trampled on the metaplot.  Stone was killed immediately, as was that dragon asshole Dunkelzaurous.

Ironically, Dunkelzahn was killed in the metaplot too.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;748598I don't like Metaplot, but the battle against the Wyrm in Werewolf could lead to campaigns to be played for months.

I always viewed the Wyrm as a fairly ephemeral thing, kind of like "evil" or "the works of Satan"...

Quote from: Dodger;748600Ironically, Dunkelzahn was killed in the metaplot too.

I always viewed the Wyrm as a fairly ephemeral thing, kind of like "evil" or "the works of Satan"...

Well, you could use it as a black hat, a master schemer who is behind everything.

Quote from: LordVreeg;748574As a slight digression, I admit that I look at published setting material as an inferior, sub group of gaming.  I am, as I have said before, mystified by the allure. When I create Metaplot, it is with the express Idea that it is central to the adventuring plot, and if I am damn lucky, the PCs will eventually decide to start mucking with it.

Agreed.  The only times I've ever GMed with a published setting were doing playtests for books I was contracted to write for said setting.

But that being said, metaplots should evolve.  Using the Ukrainian example I gave uptopic, the situation isn't going to be static forever: the Russians might invade, they might back down, the nation might get tougher, the nation might disintegrate, there might or might not be meaningful Western intervention ... whatever.  Major movers and players might die, age out, retire, move on ... whatever.

I just wouldn't want to be a player walking in after five years' absence and see that NOthing's changed.

Quote from: Ravenswing;748602Agreed.  The only times I've ever GMed with a published setting were doing playtests for books I was contracted to write for said setting.

But that being said, metaplots should evolve.  Using the Ukrainian example I gave uptopic, the situation isn't going to be static forever: the Russians might invade, they might back down, the nation might get tougher, the nation might disintegrate, there might or might not be meaningful Western intervention ... whatever.  Major movers and players might die, age out, retire, move on ... whatever.

I just wouldn't want to be a player walking in after five years' absence and see that NOthing's changed.

There are two things that can go wrong while GM'ing an RPG. I can sum it up like this:

• There is a plot that dictates the outcome instead of the players.
• There is an open world and no plot, but nothing ever changes

Situation 1 is much like the old wod unless the GM deliberately changes or ignores the plot. Situation 2 is much like the new wod. There is no plot, but the setting is always a little status quo, unless the GM makes up a plot of his own.

I like the Savage World approach the best. It's a sandbox, but there is also a metaplot available in which the player characters are playing the mayor roles.

I found it difficult to let Hunter the Vigil be more than a case-by-case monster of the week type of game. It's all little conflicts and it could use a big conflict that could shake things up a little.

Quote from: RPGPundit;748477No.  If you have a 'timeline', where certain things will likely happen, that doesn't necessarily cause interference.  If you have NPC plans where they will "likely" do A, B, and C if all goes according to their intentions, that won't necessarily cause interference.

But if you have Metaplot, where certain things MUST happen, then no matter what the PCs do they cannot avoid that "must" from happening, and that is very much an interference.  Its railroading on a larger scale.

The only way that it's tolerable for me is if the Metaplot is not central to what the PCs are attempting to accomplish, and only indirectly impacts them.

If your Star Wars game is about bounty hunters on the Fringe, then the Galactic Civil War has an impact on the game, but it's not *central*.  The fact that Luke will eventually kill the Emperor is interesting, and it will certainly impact the PCs, but it's not directly aligned with the PC goals.

As soon as the goal of the PCs is "overthrow the Emperor" or "defeat the Rebellion" the Metaplot has moved into the area of infinite suckitude.

Quote from: robiswrong;748904The only way that it's tolerable for me is if the Metaplot is not central to what the PCs are attempting to accomplish, and only indirectly impacts them.

If your Star Wars game is about bounty hunters on the Fringe, then the Galactic Civil War has an impact on the game, but it's not *central*.  The fact that Luke will eventually kill the Emperor is interesting, and it will certainly impact the PCs, but it's not directly aligned with the PC goals.

As soon as the goal of the PCs is "overthrow the Emperor" or "defeat the Rebellion" the Metaplot has moved into the area of infinite suckitude.

I respectfully have the opposite opinion.
This is the ultimate use of metaplot, when the PCs want to go fucking with it.  I consider it the ultimate use of my setting metplots when the PCs go after them.

Quote from: LordVreeg;748926I respectfully have the opposite opinion.
This is the ultimate use of metaplot, when the PCs want to go fucking with it.  I consider it the ultimate use of my setting metplots when the PCs go after them.

I will create an awesome campaign, but it can lead to falling down a black hole after the campaign is finished.

If your players are more sandboxing as smugglers for example, it will lead to more random contraband of the week type of play. This can become old hat.

Quote from: robiswrong;748904The only way that it's tolerable for me is if the Metaplot is not central to what the PCs are attempting to accomplish, and only indirectly impacts them.

If your Star Wars game is about bounty hunters on the Fringe, then the Galactic Civil War has an impact on the game, but it's not *central*.  The fact that Luke will eventually kill the Emperor is interesting, and it will certainly impact the PCs, but it's not directly aligned with the PC goals.

As soon as the goal of the PCs is "overthrow the Emperor" or "defeat the Rebellion" the Metaplot has moved into the area of infinite suckitude.

Yep - if my PC is Victoria Nuland and her campaign goal is "bring Ukraine under Western/US control", then a "Putin wins" metaplot is going to suck immensely. If my PC is a low level street grunt in Right Sector, well I'd prefer it if my actions had the possibility to influence national events, but maybe I can live with metaplot it it's well done and I can at least make a difference at a local level. If my PC is an ethnic Ukrainean police detective in New York, then I wouldn't even count it as metaplot, it's more background colour.