Quote from: Marleycat;743857That isn't metaplot that's just world in motion. NWoD is specifically built for this playstyle.

Metaplot can be world in motion. World in motion doesn't have to be metaplot, it can be made up by the GM.

I think I'm with Marleycat... 'metaplot' is a bit more than just 'world in motion'... it's world in motion on a pre-determined path that cannot be altered. Though, like some have pointed out... the PCs might just as soon ignore it and go on with other business.
If the GM won't allow for their ignoring it that's when it becomes a railroad... though sometimes it's the players thinking that if the 'story' is there it means the GM wants them to go play in it, which isn't always the case.
How hard was it to just ignore the metaplot in OWOD?
What about in the first edition of Tribe 8?
I mean besides just not buying the splatbooks... was there much on offer that didn't key into the metaplot?

Quote from: jan paparazzi;743863I think I meant canon. I like some canon. In the old games you knew the Assamites were big in the Middle-East so a regime there would be different from your default European or North-American Camarilla city. You knew the Lasombra have a bigger presence in Spain than in Hong Kong. Just like you have fantasy setting with area's you know there is an undead lord in charge for more than a century now. I like that.

I see, but nothing is stopping you setting up that very same distribution in the NWoD you just have far more flexibility to go other directions with no player push back by canon junkies. For example your NWoD setting could have 10 Paths/7 Orders for mages and so on.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;743864Metaplot can be world in motion. World in motion doesn't have to be metaplot, it can be made up by the GM.

No, metaplot is made by the writers while it's the GM that sets the world in motion respective and irrespective of player actions and agency.

Metaplot is "The Gangrel are no longer Camarilla because of poorly written Clan Novel. So don't bother to aspire being Gangrel primogen. We just have to deal with it now."

It's something that really only matters in Organized Play. Personal tables can toss that nonsense away easily. Once you fully relinquish your own power over your own campaign's time/space/actors to design-by-committee published canon, you deserve all the heartache you give yourself.

Ask yourself a simple question: who's the GM? If you find yourself whining that you are no longer in control, kick yourself in the ass and wake up. RPGs are products that serve you, not the other way around.

Quote from: Opaopajr;743876Ask yourself a simple question: who's the GM? If you find yourself whining that you are no longer in control, kick yourself in the ass and wake up. RPGs are products that serve you, not the other way around.

Bazinga!

I have never worried about metaplot material for a game world. I'm quite certain that my GMing life has been happier for it.

Meh. I've used metaplot as world-in-motion in a few games. Never really saw the problem. I think the reason for that is that when I did use it the situations involved were never something that was feasibly possible for the PCs to alter; it was truly background material. That's not to say that I wouldn't have let them change the metaplot, just that it was never likely to happen. And, it didn't.

It might be worth noting that the RPGs where I've used this were all hard-ish sci-fi. I can imagine the same kind of thing having much more trouble surviving contact with the PCs in a game like D&D, and hence, I've never really used it there.

The real problem IMO comes from "timeline", evolving metaplot over a variety of supplements. The GM then has to decide what's true, what isn't, whether to keep up with the game line or not, with the consequence in practice that the general audience of the game will become pixelated between those who consider this or that setting event to be true or not, in effect having different slight variations of the setting with each book, and issues cropping up in those long-running campaigns this style of setting development is supposed to catter to in the first place (howcome the Assamites are still under the Tremere curse in your game? It sucks! It's not the 'real World of Darkness!).

All this sort of game design accomplishes on the long term is the destruction of the shared experience it seeks to establish in the first place. There are better ways to accomplish the same sense of depth in the setting without conflicting with the referee's authority over his own personal setting in motion.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;743920Bazinga!

I have never worried about metaplot material for a game world. I'm quite certain that my GMing life has been happier for it.

I've only used metaplot when it has suited me. I don't understand why this attitude isn't universal.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;743829God, this is concise. I like it.

How do you do the "world"? Do you just stick to a city?

I have to admit that the city books (both old and new) create a (political) city in motion. But in the old games it was embedded into a world in which also shit happened.

I've been running the same campaign and setting since 83.  There are many such plot arcs (it is a "divest" setting, not a "conset"--diverse plotline setting as opposed to a single, consistent over arching plotline).

Larger arcs are broken down into smaller ones.

and to be WIM, they are happening with or without the PCs.  The PCs can affect them (we can hope to god they get a clue), but their Velocity needs to be felt and decided.  Some of my larger plots affect, to some degree, all three of my groups in completely different areas.  The Dreadwing plotline has been around since almost the beginning.  But the local arcs are very different...but if the players stick with them, they will move up the ladder and could actually intersect.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;743829God, this is concise. I like it.

How do you do the "world"? Do you just stick to a city?

I have to admit that the city books (both old and new) create a (political) city in motion. But in the old games it was embedded into a world in which also shit happened.

Depends on the game, of course; for Traveller the standard size is a whole damn stellar sector, but since star systems usually take very little statting up, they may be just as easy or easier to run than a WoD city.

For the WoD, old or new, I have it down to a friggin' science.

The Butcher's WoD Urban Sandbox Set-up Algorithm

1. Take a city. It can be wholly made-up, or a real city, or anything in between. Make good note of the real-world layout and especially of the population, culture, and current problems, as they're all crucial fuel for future adventures.

2. Optional: tag a "theme" and a "mood" on the city. Theme can be as highbrow as "the powerlessness of Man before the all-devouring Time" shit, or as straight as "vampires are vicious bastards who turn everything they touch to shit" or "werewolves are the only line of defense from fucked-up soul-eating spirits, but they can be real dicks about it". Mood is simpler: "trenchcoats-and-katanas action fueled by centuries-old slights" or "spy intrigue plus weird supernatural shit" or "the video for Prodigy's Smack My Bitch Up". You don't have to do this but it does help make things simpler; I suspect we usually end up doing this whether we realize or not.

3. With theme and mood in mind, decide on the city's supernatural community. 90% to 99% of the attention is to be lavished on the character's fatsplat (ie. vampires for a Vampire game); unless it's a Hunter game, to which I suggest 50%-75% monsters, and 25%-50% hunters. Werewolf and some Mage games also require a good deal of attention towards the local spirit ecology.
3a. Decide who the factions are.
3b. Stat up key NPCs.
3c. Decide how they fit together with each other (relationship maps optional) and with the city around them.
3d. Bury secrets around for PCs to find out about.

4. Have everyone generate PCs.
4a. Clue them in on what's good for your game and what's not, not only mechanically but fluff-wise, for whatever reasons. I'm usually laissez-faire with character generation, but I understand if you want your city not to have (e.g.) any Daeva Acolytes since Hedwiga the Cunning and her brood were purged in the Blood Hunt of 1889 (i.e. let them know that there's a reason, within the game world, that might serve as a future adventure hook). Also give them an inkling about the power structure, e.g. "sure, you can play a Sanctified, but the Acolyte Prince hates and persecutes them."
4b. If they have sires, mentors, etc. stat them up and fit them within the city hierarchy, or assign an appropriate NPC you've already created. Discuss this with the PC. In my game table, unless they take the Mentor Merit or somesuch, I feel fairly free to assign whatever sire I deem fit.
4c. Make sure everyone has a goal. It can be as simple as "to impress the elders" or "to get back at my sire for Embracing me". You can make it work for the aimless types because of the way the games are set (vampires have to hunt, werewolves get hounded by spirits, etc.).

5. Get the show on the road!

Hope that helps.

Quote from: Simlasa;743824But not really change to any significant degree? That's what I think of when I read 'metaplot'... a built in ending that can't really be altered... because it's a 'plot'... not a 'situation'.

Hell no. My players can change, or affect, any metaplot. If it exists they can change it.

How do they change it?
Killing certain NPCs.
Taking actions that mean the metaplot makes no sense.
Taking control of certain areas of the game, in effect become the agents of change.

Quote from: Old Geezer;743840"Metaplot" to me means "Luke Skywalker will fight Darth Vader, who will then kill the Emperor.  NOTHING the players do will, or can, alter that.".

Unless they turn Luke to the Dark Side, or kill him, or stop him from joining the rebellion.

The way I see it, the GM can say "Here is the metaplot, this is what is going to happen no matter what" and the steamroller happily flattens anything in its path. Or, the GM can say "Here is the metaplot, it is flexible and can be altered by player activity" and it becomes one of the many strands in the game.

I prefer the second approach.

Quote from: soltakss;743971Unless they turn Luke to the Dark Side, or kill him, or stop him from joining the rebellion.

The way I see it, the GM can say "Here is the metaplot, this is what is going to happen no matter what" and the steamroller happily flattens anything in its path. Or, the GM can say "Here is the metaplot, it is flexible and can be altered by player activity" and it becomes one of the many strands in the game.

I prefer the second approach.

Metaplot is not just flexible and permeable to the actions of the PCs, in many, many games, that is the hoped-for outcome. PCs are always supposed to be the agents of change and the difference makers, though the GM must be careful to give the opposite impression most of the time.  Because the PCs are the protagonists of the game.

In the 'Star Wars' example, Luke, Leia, Han, and theirs are all the PCs...the protagonists.  Harry Potter, Ron, Hermione are the same...etc.

Obviously.

Quote from: jan paparazzi;743829God, this is concise. I like it.

How do you do the "world"? Do you just stick to a city?

I have to admit that the city books (both old and new) create a (political) city in motion. But in the old games it was embedded into a world in which also shit happened.

Pretend you are there, listening to gossip, picking a newletter, etc. What do you see, what do hear? What will happen if you do nothing, what will happen if you did X, Y, or Z?

To me that is the essence of implementing a world in motion for a given setting. Standing at the viewpoint of the character and imagining what they would be seeing.