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 think you misunderstand me.

If the metaplot insists that the universe plays out the way it does in the movies, then the players attempting to influence things won't be allowed.  This is infinitely sucky.

If the players try to influence what happens and *can* (violating canon/the Metaplot), then it's not really a metaplot thing, it's just setting.  And is awesome.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;749137I 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.

"xyz" of the week can get boring no matter what.  It's also not necessary, regardless of whether one is dealing with a metaplot or not.

(I actually think of the week is a good way to start campaigns, but that's a tangent)

Quote from: robiswrong;749153I think you misunderstand me.

If the metaplot insists that the universe plays out the way it does in the movies, then the players attempting to influence things won't be allowed.  This is infinitely sucky.

If the players try to influence what happens and *can* (violating canon/the Metaplot), then it's not really a metaplot thing, it's just setting.  And is awesome.



"xyz" of the week can get boring no matter what.  It's also not necessary, regardless of whether one is dealing with a metaplot or not.

(I actually think of the week is a good way to start campaigns, but that's a tangent)

we were on the same page; i did not read your use of 'suckitude' correctly.

Quote from: LordVreeg;749179we were on the same page; i did not read your use of 'suckitude' correctly.

It's understandable.  Suckitude is a highly technical, very nuanced term.

Quote from: robiswrong;749153"xyz" of the week can get boring no matter what.  It's also not necessary, regardless of whether one is dealing with a metaplot or not.

(I actually think of the week is a good way to start campaigns, but that's a tangent)

I made another topic about this called Plot, campaigns, backstabbing and evil masterminds. This will discuss campaigns and getting away from xyz of the week. Strangely because new wod doesn't have any metaplot it does become xyz of the week to me.

Quote from: Ravenswing;748489I 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.

I think we're talking about different things, somewhat.  There's a difference between "this is a huge event that is happening in the world, and the PCs at their current level of power and influence almost certainly couldn't do anything to really change it" (that's fine, its just chronology), and "Doctor Demento HAS to survive his battle with the PCs because later on he's crucial to the events that involve the invasion of Mordavia" (that's metaplot).

Trust me, I know a thing or two about this: I've run several historic campaigns, including one in the Roman empire, three kingdoms China, etc.  And in all of these there were moments when the PCs changed something I didn't expect them to change; but more often there were moments when they tried to change the short or long-term course of history and failed.  On a couple of occasions, this led to players accusing me of imposing a metaplot; but that wasn't the case.  Its not that they couldn't possibly change anything, just that since large-scale historical events occurred through a confluence and weight of several significant historical factors, some things would be very very difficult to change.  Other things could have been changed, but at a personal cost the PCs just weren't willing to pay (for example, Nero's reign could certainly have been cut short if a senatorial PC had gotten his trust, made his way into his inner circle, and then assassinated him; but this would almost certainly have cost that PC his own life, and so he didn't do it, and Nero lived for the same reason that he lived as long as he did in our real history).

The difference is that while its almost impossible for the PCs to be capable of doing anything to stop Putin's assault on the Slavic nations, or the Storm of Dragons that will lay waste to the strongholds of the dwarven kings, or whatever, it isn't metaplot if, by some miracle, they did figure out something to change or stop what's happening, and were ALLOWED to do so.
But when the GM or the Game Designer says "nothing at all, nothing the PCs do, or come up with, no matter how unexpected or amazing or clever, should allow them to prevent Event X from happening because it MUST happen for my grand novelistic designs", then that's the imposition of a Metaplot, rather than a chronology.

RPGPundit

Right.  That was well pointed out.  You have been using a different definition of the word than most of us.

Quote from: LordVreeg;749884Right.  That was well pointed out.  You have been using a different definition of the word than most of us.

Pundit's description fits with my understanding of Metaplot; it's the stuff in my '90s sourcebooks that says "This NPC can't be killed, because they're necessary to the events we'll reveal in future books."

BTW I love how Paizo strictly avoid Metaplot in their game world even as they advance the timeline. Some adventures assume previous adventures have happened, but (a) it's always the past or present PCs who are at the centre of stuff and (b) they are very good at providing alternatives, 'what if X happened in your game'. The result is that the passive reader of the APs gets all the satisfaction of seeing an evolving world, as with '90s metaplot worlds (WoD, Heavy Gear, et al), but OTOH PCs are pretty well never reduced to the status of passive observers. James Jacobs has some silly Politically Correct bees in his bonnet that do some damage, but overall he's a very talented line director/editor.

Quote from: S'mon;749151Yep - 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.

Any GM with a "Putin wins" metaplot is just asking for trouble. The metaplot should be "Putin wants to win", which involves a series of strategic elements that the PCs can get involved with or ignore. If the ultimate conclusion of the metaplot is "Putin wins if the PCs don't try and stop him" then fair enough.

"Putin Wins" = Bad
"Putin Wins regardless of what the PCs do" = Bad
"Putin wants to win" = OK
"Putin wins if the PCs don't try and stop him" = OK

Quote from: soltakss;749923Any GM with a "Putin wins" metaplot is just asking for trouble. The metaplot should be "Putin wants to win", which involves a series of strategic elements that the PCs can get involved with or ignore. If the ultimate conclusion of the metaplot is "Putin wins if the PCs don't try and stop him" then fair enough.

"Putin Wins" = Bad
"Putin Wins regardless of what the PCs do" = Bad
"Putin wants to win" = OK
"Putin wins if the PCs don't try and stop him" = OK

My understanding is that "Putin wants to win and will if PCs don't stop him" would be the plot, whereas metaplot is what goes on above & behind the plot and is not affected by variations in plot outcome.

"The metaplot is the overarching storyline that binds together events in a role-playing game. Major story events that change the world, or simply move important non-player characters from one place to another, are part of the metaplot for a game. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaplot
The term unchanging doe not come into it.  Especially in Homebrews, etc...

However, in many instances, the overarching story line became less mutable when canned setting came into the equation, as the later published works depend on the metaplot to remain consistent with the 'canon' version.   So I think Pundit's usage definition comes from the same as yours, it would make sense that 90's sourcebooks would mention that, since they are that...sourcebooks, depending on a captive audience.

I would agree that any GM that includes things that *Must* occur regardless of PC intervention is a jackass.

I don't think metaplot automatically includes the negative aspects that Pundit and S'mon are using, but I think that's the easiest way to look at it and here's why.

Published settings.

In a published setting, A can happen or B not happen.  The published campaign has to move on as if A or B occurred.  If the publisher moves on with A and in your campaign, it was B, now you have an alternate reality setting.  To be fair, most of the "Metaplot 90's" offenders I can think of really didn't put the campaign into the place where PC action could conceivably lead to the "Railroad Effect".

Sure, the Forgotten Realms has always been the big offender in this regard, usually as result of an edition change, and Deadlands had some railroad modules to service the metaplot, but all in all, I think the negative aspect of the term has been overblown.

As Soltakss says, all of these are metaplot:
"Putin Wins"
"Putin Wins regardless of what the PCs do"
"Putin wants to win"
"Putin wins if the PCs don't try and stop him"

I think the difference is, with someone like Lord Vreeg, who doesn't use a published setting, the "chronology" as Pundit puts it, comes from him.  Since he's the Metaplot author, there can be no divergence in campaigns, because there's only one.  If the PCs don't mess with anything, X happens, if they do mess with it, X may change.

In a published setting, this chronology comes from someone else, and is not dependent on what happens at your table.  There may or may not be divergence.  If there is divergence, no matter how skillfully presented in modules, etc... there still can be frustration on the part of the GM who sees the publishers as "fucking with his campaign".

Interesting discussion, here's some links.
Wikipedia Definition
RPGTheory Definition
Rant against Metaplot

If you look at the rant, specifically the White Wolf metaplot points he makes, there's really very little the PCs could do to affect change there to begin with, much like assassinating Nero.  So it's not that WW was preventing his PCs from stopping a Red Star from appearing in the skies, it's that he didn't want a Red Star to appear in the skies of his campaign.

That's always the tradeoff when using a metaplot other then your own.  If you use a published metaplot, you get all the "world in motion" benefit of using your own without having to create it, so you can focus on how events cause ripples at the micro level where the PCs are.  However, in the end, you are not the author, so the metaplot can go where you don't want it to.

To me if it changes the world it is metaplot. If it explains the world it is backstory. I love backstory, I don't like metaplot. To me backstory is everything happening from year zero till now. Everything after that is metaplot.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;752679To me if it changes the world it is metaplot. If it explains the world it is backstory. I love backstory, I don't like metaplot. To me backstory is everything happening from year zero till now. Everything after that is metaplot.

So do you consider current events story or metaplot? The background stuff? Like Master Janus of the Silver Ladder is rumoured to be an Archmage....he may help you for a price...if you find that out before the game but confirm in game? Or what?

Quote from: Marleycat;752811So do you consider current events story or metaplot? The background stuff? Like Master Janus of the Silver Ladder is rumoured to be an Archmage....he may help you for a price...if you find that out before the game but confirm in game? Or what?

I am not that familiar with Mage the Awakening. So I don't really know. Who is Janus?

Quote from: jan paparazzi;753110I am not that familiar with Mage the Awakening. So I don't really know. Who is Janus?

I was just giving an example basically he is just one of my NPC's. It would be like Stella Reed: Elder Deava of the Invictus.