Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

Please, not the metaplot!

74 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fri, 2009-09-11 14:25
#1
Ramidel Ramidel's picture
Please, not the metaplot!

I have to say that after looking at the GM section, I was extremely surprised to see that you intend to be progressing the timeline with new metaplot in each book, a la the Old World of Darkness.

I'd like to request that this not be done, if such an alteration to the plan is possible. While I'm all a fan of secrets of the setting, a rich backstory, and adventure seeds left and right, progressing time is going to damage the campaignability of the setting for the same reason as it damaged the old World of Darkness and Planescape, and continues to damage Rifts.

1. Obviously, the metaplot circa 30 A.F. will be rather different from the status quo of a campaign that started in 10 A.F. and progressed twenty years. If you had a plan to reveal the Jovian Junta's plan to annihilate transhumanity with their new superweapon, which will wipe out half the setting and make nothing be the same anymore, but in 22 AF the PCs of that early campaign overthrew the Junta and established the Jovian Autonomous Commonwealth, no setting books after 30 AF will be of use, because they detail a Locus made of gray goo and not a Locus at the center of the new Renaissance.

2. A lack of an "absolute now" means that as the setting changes, and the rules change, Mars' toys and developments may be at 18 A.F. while Venus is at 25 and the Jovian Junta is at 30 A.F. post-superweapon. And, of course, all of this interconnected disjunction can be set off by the campaign events, requiring GM patching just to be able to use new sourcebooks.

Sorry if I got too high on my soapbox there. I just think that this is one of those parts of gaming tradition that makes games harder and harder to use and locks out new players. Having all your sourcebooks set in and detailing the world of 10 A.F., with the plans and attitude of every organization and all the various threats to transhumanity that might pop out of the shadows in the near future (for Firewall to hit with a whack-a-mole bopper) would make the game better, and I'd be thrilled to see this happen instead of an advancing metaplot.

Top
Fri, 2009-09-11 15:31
Admini Admini's picture
As a guy who writes his own

As a guy who writes his own stories and sets his own scenes, I agree.
Top
Fri, 2009-09-11 19:30
jackgraham jackgraham's picture
Oh, man... this is a tough
Oh, man... this is a tough one.

Here's the thing: It's not just that EP has a lot of secrets. There is also simply more material than we can spill the beans on in a single book. I hope you guys feel that the model we went with in Core -- presenting a bunch of different possibilities for how & why the TITANs/Exsurgents/ETI/et.al. do what they do -- was a good start. I can't speak to whether this will be the paradigm going forward, as it would limit our ability to really develop things in one direction or another, but your concerns are noted.

—
J A C K   G R A H A M :: Hooray for Earth!   http://eclipsephase.com :: twitter @jackgraham @faketsr :: Google+Jack Graham
Top
Wed, 2009-09-16 07:44
Cardul Cardul's picture
I do not see why the whole
I do not see why the whole griping about Metaplot...
I mean, Battletech, Shadowrun, and CthulhuTech all have
mapped out and planned Metaplot. Even the New World of
Darkness has some instances of Metaplot creeping in.

You cannot have a detailed and rich setting with secrets
without *some* form of Metaplot.
Top
Wed, 2009-09-16 17:25
Slith Slith's picture
Battletech is a perfect

Battletech is a perfect example of the problem.

Have you ever wondered how many battletech sourcebooks there are? It's well over 100. Probably over 200, even. Each of these books provides information about the setting, from what year a mech was made on which planet, to when that planet was bombed and the factory destroyed.

"Now what's wrong with that?" You might be wondering. Well, imagine you've got 200 sourcebooks to read through, each one at least 100 pages long, and you want to find out what mechs were produced between 3030 and 3060 on the planet Rasalhague for your new battletech campaign. Well, in that time period the planet's gone from Draconis Combine, to the Free Rasalhague Republic, to Clan Wolf. So you've probably got at least three different sourcebooks to read through, looking for information on what the factories are making.

Then you run into issues where the sourcebooks don't even explicitly say that such and such mech was used by, or produced on the planet, even though it's present in some other fluff about a regiment on that planet using those mechs in a fourth sourcebook. Then you get an issue where a fifth sourcebook states that such and such factory was destroyed in 3035 and a certain mech was no longer produced there, which is in turn contradicted by a sixth sourcebook so you then have to look for which one is considered more 'canon'.

All of this information is presented in fluff. There are no tables that states "These are the mechs that were produced on this planet during this time period". You have to read through everything, double and triple checking to make sure you got it right. AND THAT'S JUST FOR ONE PLANET. Imagine trying to do that for ALL of them.

This isn't even remotely easy, everyone just says "Fuck this" and makes something up. Which in turn introduces more problems because the fluff assumes this or that happened, and it just creates headaches all around, for both the designers and the players.

Top
Thu, 2009-09-17 00:42
jackgraham jackgraham's picture
kinder, gentler metaplot

I've e-mailed with Rob a little on this issue since this thread kicked off. You can't please all of the people all of the time, but as an old FASA hand, I think he's keenly aware of the continuity issue you cite above with Btech. I don't think anything as extreme as the scenario you gave is going to be allowed to develop, because it would make developing and training new writers a nightmare.

—
J A C K   G R A H A M :: Hooray for Earth!   http://eclipsephase.com :: twitter @jackgraham @faketsr :: Google+Jack Graham
Top
Thu, 2009-09-17 03:00
Aleksander Aleksander's picture
Re: kinder, gentler metaplot

I agree with Ramidel - there should not be a metaplot running through all the handbooks. But I think that after establishing a solid "base" at 10 AF - with the EP Core, Sunwards, Gatecrashing & 1-2 more, you can try making next books going further in the universum's future.

I don't know how it would work, but I think that "story modules" would work the best, so we can easily drop some things we don't like from the setting, making it more our way. I know it would be very hard due to one event inflicting another... But this is the way that will please the most people - and that's the point of the game, isn't it?

Top
Fri, 2009-09-18 17:36
Radiun Radiun's picture
Re: kinder, gentler metaplot

Don't the Pandora Gates offer a good excuse to keep up the status quo in the confines of the Solar System while making most gear, mataplot, and expansion developments easy to integrate with a simple "Another team gate-crashed into that area, you were off pillaging Earth" as explanation to players?

Mind you the players may themselves shake up the status quo of the solar system, but that would be confined to individual games.

Just my 2 cents

Top
Sat, 2009-09-19 21:45
Graf Graf's picture
Metaplot sucks

I haven't read the GMs section (since I get to be a player now!).

Having said that... big 'M' Metaplot sucks.

As a producer of content I understand the appeal...
It's -fun- to tell stories. You fell like you're doing something. Making up a cool situation and ten exceuting it and getting the attendant praise is a wonderful high.

All the most sucessful brands are Metaplot universes. White Wolf and large chunks of DnD make an absolute killing producing virtually the same content over and over again; often with attendant press/web-board attention; every time they produce another book on Vampires/Dragons.

Having said that... personally I think it's horrible. I hate it when people do it.
Every time a book writer takes a cool NPC (because they always want to take the cool NPCs) and resolves their plot/situation it's a loss for me the GM.
As a fanboy the rabid hatred I have for Metaplots often spills out uncontrollably. Changes in a setting that I've bought into very rarely "work" for me. Usually I see the original idea as being far superior and in-tune with the theme. New stuff is basically somebody picking low hanging fruit that I, as a GM, wanted to use in my game.

Especially in a game like Eclipse Phase you can easily produce a lot of awesome content that is "secret". Adventures that -tend- to resolve themselves without becoming fully public; supplements that build on the books that people already have instead of tear them down.

I don't mean this the wrong way but you're a small studio; eclipse phase is going to be a niche game; you may get to Delta Green/Iron Kingdoms size. If you're extremely lucky you may get to CoC size but it will not happen quickly and (not to put to fine a point on it) you will probably need to carefully tend your fan base.

Revealing more about the world is great. At least for the near term you should think carefully about changing it.

Let DMs who want to bring back the TITANs/incite revolution on Jupiter/introduce new alien contacts do so on their own terms. Provide books that support that and you'll get a lot of kudos. Mandating that everyone slavishly follow your personal campaigns implies that you don't have confidence that the world of Eclipse Phase, as written, is sufficiently interesting/compelling.

Top
Tue, 2009-09-22 01:37
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!

Problem here is that now you simply have a static universe, which does nothing for players who desire a metaplot. It's as someone else said: you can't please everyone. However, a static universe is easier to pull from a dynamic one than the converse: if I wanted to run a 4th Edition Shadowrun game that was based in a perpetual 2070, or a Battletech game in perpetual 3025 (which many players do, in fact, play), it is far easier than taking a game with a static setting and advancing it 3 years into the future.

I have no doubt that they have plenty of plans for book material that is set in 10 AF. In fact, if most other games are an indicator, the largest majority of material is going to be relevant for 10 AF, with new plot sourcebooks and update books being the only material that will matter beyond that. Hell, I've seen someone run a Shadowrun game where Dunkelzhan never died; books that appeared after that were appended by him, with most of the used material being technological breakthroughs and non-contradicting events. It is fully possible to use material for new books even if your game runs foul of the metaplot.

I want metaplot books, as well as books on updating technology, and I'm not even using the core setting. Despite the fact that Earth is still populated and aliens haven't been discovered in my setting, I can still see how metaplot information can be used to improve my game experience. Don't take it away from those of us who want it, just make sure it isn't the only material you release for those who don't.

—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Wed, 2009-09-23 05:13
Ramidel Ramidel's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
That's actually not always correct. I give you the Old World of Darkness, where the laws of physics and game rules changed every couple of in-story years, and there was no "absolute now" where even the -clanbooks- could all agree on. That's mainly what I'm worried about happening. You -can't- just throw out the metaplot there; if you don't buy every supplement, you're locked out of new material, and if you do, and your PCs stop the Assamites from breaking their blood curse, that will ripple down through every other book's material. Also, I disagree with you about the "it's far easier to staticize a dynamic setting than to dynamicize a static setting," but I speak as an Exalted hand here. An Exalted ST goes into his game expecting that the game's starting point will be nuked from orbit by his PCs. They -will- move the setting, as will several other power players, to the extent that the campaign will diverge from the metaplot the first time the PCs decide to break something. Now, I realize that for Eclipse Phase, the PCs aren't expected to take the entire Solar System apart and rebuild it in their own image by mid-campaign, and technological breakthroughs are less event-dependent than alterations to the nature of the world itself, but that doesn't mean that the PCs turning Venus autonomist when the metaplot says "Venus is co-opted by the hypercorps" won't make a lot of future material at least require debugging. (P.S.: Battletech is something of a poor example, as BattleTech's core game is a wargame, not an RPG. That's comparing apples to oranges.)
Top
Wed, 2009-09-23 15:40
saaxilk saaxilk's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
Well, this is going ot be a hard one. I do like metaplots....that give me time to do it if i want to. I mean, you can have information on several factions through several books, and explain the interest of those, maybe some past or background metaplot of WHY we are like this right now, and make that part interesting, and let very little of the future to be already planned, lets say, there is a new sourcebook that talks about some revenge of a faction which was explained some books ago that wanted the revenge...and let the players participate or not in that story. I think it will not be fair to say "oh, the Titans wins the war and you are all dead" i mean, we can push the stress through the stories, and let the final decision be made by the players. Although, i would really like to see the major plan of the biggest factions, that really helps to materialize and flesh out characters and NPC, but if says "big bad NPC wants to eliminate NPC X", well, we do not need to play all the stories if we already have one do we? BTW, can i order my printed book now???? :-D see ya!!
Top
Wed, 2009-09-23 21:20
browwiw browwiw's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
Well, this seems like a simple enough fix. Whenever relevant, just add a sidebar describing how to modify new info or rules if you don't wish to adhere to the metaplot. That uses a minimum or real-estate in the book without derailing the larger flow of the book.
—

"Let’s face it: Most of us are just here to shoot stormtroopers." - Gary M. Sarli

Top
Sat, 2009-10-03 11:24
Decivre Decivre's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
Ramidel wrote:
That's actually not always correct. I give you the Old World of Darkness, where the laws of physics and game rules changed every couple of in-story years, and there was no "absolute now" where even the -clanbooks- could all agree on. That's mainly what I'm worried about happening. You -can't- just throw out the metaplot there; if you don't buy every supplement, you're locked out of new material, and if you do, and your PCs stop the Assamites from breaking their blood curse, that will ripple down through every other book's material. Also, I disagree with you about the "it's far easier to staticize a dynamic setting than to dynamicize a static setting," but I speak as an Exalted hand here. An Exalted ST goes into his game expecting that the game's starting point will be nuked from orbit by his PCs. They -will- move the setting, as will several other power players, to the extent that the campaign will diverge from the metaplot the first time the PCs decide to break something. Now, I realize that for Eclipse Phase, the PCs aren't expected to take the entire Solar System apart and rebuild it in their own image by mid-campaign, and technological breakthroughs are less event-dependent than alterations to the nature of the world itself, but that doesn't mean that the PCs turning Venus autonomist when the metaplot says "Venus is co-opted by the hypercorps" won't make a lot of future material at least require debugging. (P.S.: Battletech is something of a poor example, as BattleTech's core game is a wargame, not an RPG. That's comparing apples to oranges.)
Battletech is a better example than Old World of Darkness, considering that Old World of Darkness is a series of semi-related games mashed together into the same universe, while games like Battletech and Shadowrun are cohesive settings built around a functioning timeline that is pushed forward at a relatively gradual pace. Moreover, you very well can ignore metaplot. I again point to a player who has used a completely altered version of the Shadowrun universe for years, and has only bought the books for new tech and mechanical benefits, only using aspects of the story which can mesh with the setting as his group has changed it. You are forgetting about the concept of selective amendment; you don't have to take all new material into your game... only the crap that fits. As I've also said before, my upcoming homebrew setting will use virtually 0 of EP's setting, but use practically all of its technology. I will be using all future books for the latter, while ignoring the former, and that's just fine. Books don't have to be an all-or-nothing affair when being used by playgroups. If future supplements contradict your canon, then assume your canon always takes precedent, period. You can use anything that doesn't just fine.
—
Transhumans will one day be the Luddites of the posthuman age. [url=http://bit.ly/2p3wk7c]Help me get my gaming fix, if you want.[/url]
Top
Wed, 2009-10-07 03:34
Bloodwork Bloodwork's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
No one is forcing anyone to use new material. But it's nice to have the option. Citing examples of games like WoD and Battletech is not ideal as those games are huge. Try to draw comparisons with a smaller, more focused game like Cthulhutech. Which has a metaplot book and is pretty good but not essential to enjoyment.
—
That which doesn't kill you usually succeeds on the second attempt.
Top
Wed, 2009-10-07 22:01
Thantrax Thantrax's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
So, what do people think of this idea then? 1) Do the source books and such as the year 10 AF. All the current books, expansions on custom morphs and equipment, ect. Do it all as the year 10 AF so that everyone gets to use it for their game as they wish. Set up the organizations, set up NPCs, give suggestions as to what might happen next and give story seeds. 2) Do a line of books that are specifically a metaplot. When you separate the metaplot from the rest of the game, you make it so that the only people who want it get it. They could be released to represent certain units of time passing, such as one for each year, or every five years, or whatever works best for the designers. I understand the points of not wanting to be locked into a metaplot and having to reference dozens of books. I also however think that it can be a godsend to the person running the game to not have to run the entire universe. A metaplot lets things happen that don't directly involve the players and can make great background things. Those background events can be brought into the main story as much as the individual group wants to involve them.
Top
Fri, 2009-10-09 18:55
Cosimo Il Vecchio Cosimo Il Vecchio's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
I'd much prefer the rules and setting material to be separate from the metaplot material. Some people love the overarching story, but I just don't get it. To each their own. Publishing the two separately would make everybody happy--assuming Catalyst could still make a profit doing it that way.
Top
Tue, 2009-10-13 14:57
Grabula Grabula's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
I can go with metaplot or not. The big Pro for metaplot in my opinion is that you have a timeline you can set your story in that's well defined. Take for example, the Star Wars universe. It's a metaplotted universe. I have the option of setting my campaign during several different periods, Sith Wars, Rise of the Republic, Clone Wars, Rise of the Empire, New Jedi order, and so on and so forth. The trick I think is not defining things too hard and fast. A loose timeline with some interesting things going on in the background makes, in my opinion, and interesting setting. Frankly, I'd be interested to see what the authors come up with in a metaplot. The game seems to indicate they know how to build a game with a solid background that's flexible enough for players and GM's to run with it. I'm guessing they'll stick to that formula with any plot they decide to drive along.
Top
Tue, 2009-10-13 23:13
Cardul Cardul's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
There are two types of Metaplot. The first is what the Old World of Darkness was: A world where, ultimately, the players actions did not matter. They were the pawns of others, manipulated and used, or, no matter what they did, they could not change the course of the world. The setting and events were already set in stone, and unchangable. The second type of Metaplot is what I see Eclipse Phase as, and is what another White Wolf game, Exalted, is: Meta-Setting. There are events that happen, sure, but they are more "This event happened." They do not have the heroes set, so that the players can integrate into the event easily. In fact, it is possible for the players actions to change things, unlike in Type 1 Metaplot. Now, honestly, I do not expect the universe to be changed, but more expanded. At the same time, I honestly think that we will find ourselves at a point where we can choose to use the other books, or just stick with the corebook.
Top
Wed, 2009-10-14 08:55
standard_gravity standard_gravity's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
I agree with some of the posters above, i.e. feel free to have a meta plot and support it with books, but to the largest extent possible please do keep the meta plot separate and optional. Apart from this being my personal preference as a GM, I think it ensures accessibility for new, future players as well as casual players who are unlikely to buy all new books.
—
[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/ext_userbar.jpg[/img] "People think dreams aren't real just because they aren't made of matter, of particles. Dreams are real. But they are made of viewpoints, of images, of memories and puns and lost hopes." - John Dee
Top
Sun, 2009-11-08 16:07
OneTrikPony OneTrikPony's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
I vote FOR metaplot. the main reason is that the metaplot introduces characters to interact with and draw players into the world. Anothe reason is that I'm really not very good at plots and I like to have that work done for me so i can concentrate on Scenario and compelling description. The third reason is that some of the EP crew has worked on Shadowrun which has a compelling plot that's easily ignored and doesn't railroad your games. I'm fairly confident that the metaplot of EP will be handled like that of Shadowrun in the 'good years' and also more recently in SR4. In Shadowrun the metaplot advances a couple years for every few years of real time. It works well. There's no time 'in game' for a masive paradigm shit in technology or politics that is truely world changing. The obvious exception there was when they used the metaplot to rationalize a whole new rules system in SR4. Yes that was kind of ham-handed but it really needed to be done because current tech was outpacing future tech in several areas and the game mechanics had become cumbersome. Basicaly you had a choice to play in the old setting or the new setting which looked alot like the old one. My impression of general feeling about the Shadowrun setting is that more players are frusterated with the lack of evolution/resolution in many of the major conspirasies rather than a pace of evolution that is difficult to keep up with. In many ways I think EP is the game that SR should have been. A high tech future distopia with less of the fantacy crap.
—

Mea Culpa: My mode of speech can make others feel uninvited to argue or participate. This is the EXACT opposite of what I intend when I post.

Top
Mon, 2009-11-09 03:30
Ramidel Ramidel's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
OneTrikPony wrote:
I vote FOR metaplot. the main reason is that the metaplot introduces characters to interact with and draw players into the world. Anothe reason is that I'm really not very good at plots and I like to have that work done for me so i can concentrate on Scenario and compelling description. The third reason is that some of the EP crew has worked on Shadowrun which has a compelling plot that's easily ignored and doesn't railroad your games.
Note that SR's metaplot mostly worked because the player characters were presumed to not have any power-player ambitions of their own. Shadowrun as a setting does not work when the PCs are in a position to be players instead of pieces; it's designed around them being mercenary employees whose goal is to loot corporate dungeons at the behest of rival corporations. Eclipse Phase characters usually have more goals than mere wealth.
Quote:
I'm fairly confident that the metaplot of EP will be handled like that of Shadowrun in the 'good years' and also more recently in SR4. In Shadowrun the metaplot advances a couple years for every few years of real time. It works well. There's no time 'in game' for a masive paradigm shit in technology or politics that is truely world changing.
In Eclipse Phase, there are several politically unstable situations that are -expected- to undergo paradigm shifts one way or the other within the next 30 years, along with several potential technological revolutions in the wings. The PCs can and will push these situations one way or the other.
Quote:
My impression of general feeling about the Shadowrun setting is that more players are frusterated with the lack of evolution/resolution in many of the major conspirasies rather than a pace of evolution that is difficult to keep up with.
Well, as said, if conspiracies were -to- evolve or resolve, then that leads to the oWoD; you need every book in every gameline to make sense of anything.
Quote:
In many ways I think EP is the game that SR should have been. A high tech future distopia with less of the fantacy crap.
Heh. EP is not a dystopian setting, by and large. No offense, but the metaplot generally won't be something you're looking for if you want a dystopia! The setting owes a lot more to David Brin and Vernor Vinge than to William Gibson, and the horror aspect comes from ambitious mistakes rather than from the decay of the social and moral fabric. People are active, competent, and trying to make the world better in Eclipse Phase. That will not lead to a dystopia.
Top
Thu, 2009-11-12 12:20
Malckuss Malckuss's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
Thantrax wrote:
So, what do people think of this idea then? 1) Do the source books and such as the year 10 AF. All the current books, expansions on custom morphs and equipment, ect. Do it all as the year 10 AF so that everyone gets to use it for their game as they wish. Set up the organizations, set up NPCs, give suggestions as to what might happen next and give story seeds. 2) Do a line of books that are specifically a metaplot. When you separate the metaplot from the rest of the game, you make it so that the only people who want it get it. They could be released to represent certain units of time passing, such as one for each year, or every five years, or whatever works best for the designers. I understand the points of not wanting to be locked into a metaplot and having to reference dozens of books. I also however think that it can be a godsend to the person running the game to not have to run the entire universe. A metaplot lets things happen that don't directly involve the players and can make great background things. Those background events can be brought into the main story as much as the individual group wants to involve them.
This is actually how the metaplot for CthulhuTech works. The core book and Vade Mecum set the tone for the setting. Dark Passions details the different cults, and Mortal Remains fleshed out the New Earth Government. The first of six "Story books," Damnation View,has been published, setting the wheels in motion for the over all story. the other two books in the line currently further detail the cults of the setting, and the New Earth Government, but don't advance the plot in any manner, other than to discuss goals, ambitions, and motivations of the orginizations detailed therein. That's the sort of organization I'd like to see for EP.
Top
Sun, 2009-11-15 05:04
standard_gravity standard_gravity's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
Ramidel wrote:
Heh. EP is not a dystopian setting, by and large. No offense, but the metaplot generally won't be something you're looking for if you want a dystopia! The setting owes a lot more to David Brin and Vernor Vinge than to William Gibson, and the horror aspect comes from ambitious mistakes rather than from the decay of the social and moral fabric. People are active, competent, and trying to make the world better in Eclipse Phase. That will not lead to a dystopia.
I agree that certain aspects of EP are clearly "settlers-in-space". Add to that the largely positive view the designers have of new societal experiments and many technological advancements. However, EP clearly has many dark themes as well. For example, a quote from page 386 of the core book: "Eclipse Phase is a game about a dark future in which the meaning of (trans)humanity and its very survival are at stake." Dictionary.com defines dystopia as "a society characterized by human misery, as squalor, oppression, disease, and overcrowding.". The EP universe indeed has its share of misery, oppression, disease and overcrowding. However, of course it is up to the GM and the players to make EP into what they want, and explore such themes they find interesting. This is another reason why it could be problematic to introduce a meta plot - it risks defining too rigidly what EP is.
—
[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/ext_userbar.jpg[/img] "People think dreams aren't real just because they aren't made of matter, of particles. Dreams are real. But they are made of viewpoints, of images, of memories and puns and lost hopes." - John Dee
Top
Mon, 2009-11-16 00:34
Thantrax Thantrax's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
Malckuss wrote:
This is actually how the metaplot for CthulhuTech works.
Awesome! I'm glad to hear we have a living, breathing example of that approach! If Catalyst goes the way of having a separate metaplot book, they might as well pencil me down as a definite sale. Much as I want the metaplot separated, I want it. I just would love to have it collected in one place for easy reference. Plus, a book on it would give them a chance to really flesh out that period of time. Perhaps letting them delve into the details of a meme that spreads across the mesh and what that meme means, who made it, and what implictions it has for Transhumanity. Perhaps including the overview of an adventure that would involve putting the players in the heart of the developing plot. Things like this.
Top
Mon, 2009-11-16 00:59
OneTrikPony OneTrikPony's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
I think Thantrax just described the way shadowrun is published. There's Gear books and there's setting books and never the twain shall meet. That might not be entirely accurate but when I'm looking for rules in that game I only have to look in one of 4 books. However, If I have questions about the history I have well over 100 sourcebooks and adventure modules as well as almost 50 novels to flip through. Those are just the ones that I own and I kind of enjoy it. Of course it's taken 20 years to produce that much material so in 20 years I fully plan to have my Muse do it for me. StandardGravity makes a good arguement about narowly defining what EP is. Other than that I really don't understand the arguments for a static game universe.
—

Mea Culpa: My mode of speech can make others feel uninvited to argue or participate. This is the EXACT opposite of what I intend when I post.

Top
Tue, 2009-11-17 08:56
7thSeaLord 7thSeaLord's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
I think a metaplot for EP is essential. Doesn't have to run at high speed or cover every last detail (preferably, it does neither) but, as a (VERY) long-time RPGer, I much prefer the game background to be alive and evolving, not static (IMO, static = stagnation). This is a time when there is supposed to be lots of "stuff" going on - social experiments, factional hijinks, corporate ratbaggery, explorations through the Pandora Gates, new technologies being developed, and established technologies changing. I expect that, as the game develops, some big questions will be either be answered or need to be rephrased, and new questions will arise. That is what I want.
—
"Do it? ... Dan, I'm not a Republic serial villain. Do you seriously think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome? I did it thirty-five minutes ago." Ozymandias, The Watchmen
Top
Thu, 2009-11-19 15:35
wesleystreet wesleystreet's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
I think a metaplot for EP is a tired idea. This is supposed to be a new game so why should it follow the old SR or WoD paradigms? If this game is about transhumanism, shouldn't it be approached in a transhuman way? Why repeat the old when you can embrace the new? A metaplot, a la SR, automatically places a cap on what PCs are capable of accomplishing in the setting. Want to assassinate Damian Knight and become the new CEO of Ares? You can... but you've created a tangent setting that no longer follows the on-going metagame and you're SOL trying to incorporate future plot books without a lot of GM re-jiggering. I can understand this approach with SR. It's a "street level" game and bucking 20 years of franchise tradition is impossible. But EP is new, owned by its creators, and kicks up the scale to the galactic level. A fixed metaplot in EP places artificial and unnecessary limitations to the scope of PC involvement in the fictional universe. So how could we work around this? 1. As was mentioned, a separate and optional metaplot book that does not effect any setting or rule books. -or- 2. Non-time specific plot modules, rather than stringing along one never-ending story. If we were to apply this example to SR, we could say that the default time is 2070. The "Emergence" campaign, "Ghost Cartels" campaign, and "Dawn of the Artifacts" campaign can be plugged in during that year or any year the GM chooses. No story element is dependent upon a preceding campaign. The GM creates his own metaplot. EP should be treated like a game, not a quasi-interactive demi-novel.
Top
Mon, 2009-11-23 07:58
7thSeaLord 7thSeaLord's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
"EP should be treated like a game, not a quasi-interactive demi-novel." So, it should be a "still-life" instead? -------- If so, why bother getting ANY subsequent EP products? Think about it. The basic anti-MP complaint seems to be that a metaplot would "lock things in", stifle individual creativity, force plots and stories in particular directions, etc.. But, wouldn't ALL follow-on expansions / supplements detailing aspects of the EP-'verse have this effect anyhow? Metaplot for me, thanks. Just a little bit at first, until the basic groundwork has been laid down, then go for it.
—
"Do it? ... Dan, I'm not a Republic serial villain. Do you seriously think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome? I did it thirty-five minutes ago." Ozymandias, The Watchmen
Top
Mon, 2009-11-23 12:14
wesleystreet wesleystreet's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
7thSeaLord wrote:
"EP should be treated like a game, not a quasi-interactive demi-novel." So, it should be a "still-life" instead?
No. Why do you think it's an "either/or"?
7thSeaLord wrote:
If so, why bother getting ANY subsequent EP products?
To find information about new gear, new or more detailed campaign locations, NPCs, adventure ideas, alternative campaign options, etc. etc. etc.
7thSeaLord wrote:
Think about it. The basic anti-MP complaint seems to be that a metaplot would "lock things in", stifle individual creativity, force plots and stories in particular directions, etc.. But, wouldn't ALL follow-on expansions / supplements detailing aspects of the EP-'verse have this effect anyhow?
No, and why would they? It's simple to offer playable content without locking players into a time line. I offered two easy-to-implement examples in my last post. The most basic of RPGs are capable of this. I don't need a game designer I've never met telling me how a "proper" story is told or how to mark the passage of time in my game.
Top
Mon, 2009-11-23 21:08
OneTrikPony OneTrikPony's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
wesleystreet wrote:
I don't need a game designer I've never met telling me how a "proper" story is told or how to mark the passage of time in my game.
I don't think i understand why you feel that that's what a metaplot is/does. If a GM's primary interest in source books is new gear I can understand that. But this isn't really going to be a 'gear' game as far as i can tell. That just leavs setting and half of setting is characters and having static characters sucks because there's never a reason to revisit the setting unless you do it all yourself. I'm getting the impression that guys (And Ladies ;) who don't want to have characters introduced or advanced want to control the setting themselves. Which is cool I like that idea. But it's a Whole Friggen Galaxy. Do you really want to write all of the politics and characters for the whole galaxy? Personaly I'd like the devs to do the work and I can pick and choose what I use. Also, havn't you ever had a gear supliment come out and said right off 'that gear is so unballanced/stupid/out-of-character/wierd I'm just not going to use it?' Hell I had to say that for every other class in D&D3.0. I like a meta plot so I can cherry pick the good parts and trash the stuff I don't like. [edit] Ps; I also kinda feel that asking the origial developers of a game not to advance the setting is kinda like asking a player to build a character and write a really good backstory then telling him he never gets RES points because his character's advancement might interfere with the story you want to tell. [b] there is no way that guys this imaginative are through telling the story of Eclipse Phase[/b] I, for one, am very interested in seeing where they take it.
—

Mea Culpa: My mode of speech can make others feel uninvited to argue or participate. This is the EXACT opposite of what I intend when I post.

Top
Tue, 2009-11-24 00:21
7thSeaLord 7thSeaLord's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
wesleystreet wrote:
No. Why do you think it's an "either/or"?
Ummm. Based on the repeatedly expressed notion that metaplots are evil and unclean and should be marginalized - IF they are included at all?
wesleystreet wrote:
To find information about new gear, new or more detailed campaign locations, NPCs, adventure ideas, alternative campaign options, etc. etc. etc.
M-E-T-A-P-L-O-T. "New" stuff is not going to spontaneously appear out of nowhere without explanation / justification. There are going to be instances, probably a helluva lot of them, where there will be significant effects on what has previously been established. Speaking for myself, I have no interest in retreads or remakes in this regard - new stuff means new stuff, with probable implications for earlier material.
wesleystreet wrote:
No, and why would they? It's simple to offer playable content without locking players into a time line. I offered two easy-to-implement examples in my last post. The most basic of RPGs are capable of this.
Seems to be real hatred expressed here about "timelines locking Players in". I have been RPGing for a very long time with a buttload of systems, and I have never encountered this problem. As far as I have seen, nearly all GMs tend to put their own spin on timelines anyhow. I have run a couple of very successful '7th Sea' campaigns. That game has a VERY substantial timeline / metaplot. I should know, having spent three years of spare time compiling data from all of the books / supplements to produce an extended timeline of Theah ( http://members.ozemail.com.au/~iandl57/theantime.html ). Purely as an unpaid labour of love, you understand. It has never "locked my Players in". None of the PCs are / were in the Montaigne royal family, or major shareholders in the Vendel League - they are exceptional people (Heroes, all!) in a big and varied world where a lot of stuff goes on. Some stuff, they might instigate, others they might get caught on the fringes of, and some they might simply hear of later. The PCs are kept fully aware that there is a living, breathing world out there that they can make their mark on or, if they aren't careful, might make its mark on THEM. Furthermore, it isn't just about what the PCs do - they are kept aware that they are in a very big pond in which things will happen whether they interfere or not. Keeps them (slightly) humble, rather than thinking they are the centre of creation.:) I really really LIKE having a highly detailed and evolving world in the background of my GMing, but would just as soon not have to work out all the ongoing "big-picture" dramas on my lonesome. Have plenty to do as GM, as it is.
wesleystreet wrote:
I don't need a game designer I've never met telling me how a "proper" story is told or how to mark the passage of time in my game.
So don't. Whatever your feelings about game designers (unmet or otherwise), feel free to do your own thing. Lots of people run 'Traveller' without the Third Imperium, and various incarnations of 'D&D' without using the volumes of stuff for Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk or Eberron. But there are also lots of people who do make use of those backgrounds and whatever timelines come with them, to some degree. More to the point, for the people producing EP, it means all the more product that at least some people will buy.
—
"Do it? ... Dan, I'm not a Republic serial villain. Do you seriously think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome? I did it thirty-five minutes ago." Ozymandias, The Watchmen
Top
Tue, 2009-11-24 00:03
7thSeaLord 7thSeaLord's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
OneTrikPony wrote:
I also kinda feel that asking the origial developers of a game not to advance the setting is kinda like asking a player to build a character and write a really good backstory then telling him he never gets RES points because his character's advancement might interfere with the story you want to tell. [b] there is no way that guys this imaginative are through telling the story of Eclipse Phase[/b] I, for one, am very interested in seeing where they take it.
Right on.
—
"Do it? ... Dan, I'm not a Republic serial villain. Do you seriously think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome? I did it thirty-five minutes ago." Ozymandias, The Watchmen
Top
Tue, 2009-11-24 04:13
wesleystreet wesleystreet's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
OneTrikPony wrote:
I don't think i understand why you feel that that's what a metaplot is/does.
I'll use the example of Shadowrun as it and D&D are the only other games I play with any real frequency. As each campaign book is released, one year passes in-game. According to the ongoing metaplot, governors are elected, new corporations and governments rise, new gangs go to war and new drugs hit the street. But exactly none of that can be stopped or influenced in any significant way by player action. All PCs can do is go along for the ride. As I mentioned before it's a "street level" game and that's the tradition of disutopian "helplessness" in play. Compare that to clanky old metaplot-less D&D (say, 'Eberron') where every campaign starts in the year 996 YK but then spins off into whatever the GM devises. If a PC wants to knock over its ruler and become the King of Karnath when he hits Paragon level, he can. Due to mechanics limitations, once a PC hits level 30 (if you're playing 4E), the campaign approaches conclusion and the GM typically hits the reset button or starts a new campaign that continues the plot that he started. I'm not saying D&D is the epitome of game design but there's something to be said for taking a more simplistic, organic, and free-form approach to universe building. Give the players a sketch and then hand them the brushes.
OneTrikPony wrote:
If a GM's primary interest in source books is new gear I can understand that. But this isn't really going to be a 'gear' game as far as i can tell.
I agree, it probably won't be. But I would be surprised if a Book o' Railguns, Spaceships, 'n Morphs wasn't in the pipe. Even 2300AD, which wasn't a 'gear' game, had one gear book.
OneTrikPony wrote:
That just leavs setting and half of setting is characters and having static characters sucks because there's never a reason to revisit the setting unless you do it all yourself.
EP has introduced dozens of habitats plus extra-solar territories. It will take literally years of game production to explore them all thoroughly and wring out every possible story from them. And by the time a game group has, I'm sure more can be introduced or a GM can create his own. Setting isn't just NPCs. 2300AD wrote entire setting books without introducing a single NPC. Names were occasionally dropped but they were never explored in depth. NPCs were only introduced in actual canned adventures. But that's just one approach.
OneTrikPony wrote:
But it's a Whole Friggen Galaxy. Do you really want to write all of the politics and characters for the whole galaxy? Personaly I'd like the devs to do the work and I can pick and choose what I use.
I'm fine with the devs throwing out politics and characters for me to use. But I'm not a passive GM who needs a dev to spoon feed me. Give me the basics and examples and I'll fill in the rest. If GMs do need to be spoon fed, then it might be in EP's best interest to write a GM's Guide of some sort.
OneTrikPony wrote:
Also, havn't you ever had a gear supliment come out and said right off 'that gear is so unballanced/stupid/out-of-character/wierd I'm just not going to use it?' Hell I had to say that for every other class in D&D3.0. I like a meta plot so I can cherry pick the good parts and trash the stuff I don't like.
Metaplot isn't gear or NPCs. Metaplot is the background story that carries a PC along like Huck Finn on the Mississippi River. But in answer to your first question, the answer is yes. D&D is notorious for this. The unquestionably obvious offender is Rifts. Most P&P game designers seem have no desire to playtest to see if a new concept is mathematically sound (if they even playtest at all). They only playtest to determine if a concept is "fun." Which is when you end up with Rifts or D&D 3.0/3.5. Everyone wants to be a story-teller, not a statistician. But to be an effective game designer, you have to be both. Or you get Rifts. And only the crazy or ultra-casual gamer wants that.
OneTrikPony wrote:
Ps; I also kinda feel that asking the origial developers of a game not to advance the setting is kinda like asking a player to build a character and write a really good backstory then telling him he never gets RES points because his character's advancement might interfere with the story you want to tell.
I don't see how the two compare. But since you brought it up... Gaming should be fun for both the player and the GM. GMs need to adapt player desires and ideas to their game and players need to fit within the parameters of the game universe that the GM established. It's a give and take balancing act. I tell my players they can build any kind of character they want and I've never needed to house-rule anything... at least in more recent games I've played. Older games, that's a different story.
Top
Tue, 2009-11-24 04:29
wesleystreet wesleystreet's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
7thSeaLord wrote:
Ummm. Based on the repeatedly expressed notion that metaplots are evil and unclean and should be marginalized - IF they are included at all?
I'm sorry if you feel that way but that's not what I said.
7thSeaLord wrote:
M-E-T-A-P-L-O-T. "New" stuff is not going to spontaneously appear out of nowhere without explanation / justification.
Why does expanding a setting locale that's already been established in the core book need explanation or justification? And space is a big place. It's pretty easy to add wacky new habitats or colonies without destroying believability IF you don't box yourself in in the beginning.
7thSeaLord wrote:
Seems to be real hatred expressed here about "timelines locking Players in". I have been RPGing for a very long time with a buttload of systems, and I have never encountered this problem. As far as I have seen, nearly all GMs tend to put their own spin on timelines anyhow.
As someone who nearly always GMs, and has been doing so for a long time, it's a problem for me.
7thSeaLord wrote:
Keeps them (slightly) humble, rather than thinking they are the centre of creation.:)
That's one approach and I have no problem with it. But it isn't the only approach.
7thSeaLord wrote:
Whatever your feelings about game designers (unmet or otherwise), feel free to do your own thing. Lots of people run 'Traveller' without the Third Imperium, and various incarnations of 'D&D' without using the volumes of stuff for Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk or Eberron. But there are also lots of people who do make use of those backgrounds and whatever timelines come with them, to some degree.
That's easy to do with post 4E Forgotten Realms. Before its "reboot" it had been so thoroughly charted that there was nothing "new" left to explore, only old locales to revisit. Hence the controversial spellplague. But that's what happens when a high fantasy world hits middle age. Eberron is newer but with 3/3.5 and the WotC marketing machine it was starting to get too big for its britches too fast. With 4E, it's opened up a lot of new possibilities without requiring GMs to retcon away years of established continuity. For now, anyway.
Top
Tue, 2009-11-24 10:01
7thSeaLord 7thSeaLord's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
wesleystreet wrote:
I'm fine with the devs throwing out politics and characters for me to use. But I'm not a passive GM who needs a dev to spoon feed me. Give me the basics and examples and I'll fill in the rest. If GMs do need to be spoon fed, then it might be in EP's best interest to write a GM's Guide of some sort..
:) Sorry to appear so pathetic in your eyes. I'll take some spoonfeeding, thanks, and am totally unembarassed about it. It means less work for me, so I can concentrate on other stuff - like actually running the game. The GM Guide may be unnecessary, however - there is already plenty of good GMing advice to be had without it.
wesleystreet wrote:
Setting isn't just NPCs..
True, up to a point. A vivid NPC or two (or three ...) can make a very real differance, however.
wesleystreet wrote:
2300AD wrote entire setting books without introducing a single NPC. Names were occasionally dropped but they were never explored in depth. NPCs were only introduced in actual canned adventures. But that's just one approach...
... And 2300AD (originally 'Traveller: 2300') was such an incredibly successful commercial venture for GDW. ;) Please, do NOT get me started on GDW's slide in its final years. Really.
wesleystreet wrote:
Why does expanding a setting locale that's already been established in the core book need explanation or justification? And space is a big place. It's pretty easy to add wacky new habitats or colonies without destroying believability IF you don't box yourself in in the beginning.
My really clever answer here is "It could...". Always good to get some insight into the introduction of new material into the game - and metaplot can be a very handy way of doing so. As far as I am concerned, hints (via metaplot) can also be helpful in preventing getting "boxed in", as you put it.
wesleystreet wrote:
As someone who nearly always GMs, and has been doing so for a long time, it's a problem for me.
?????? How so? GMs can use as much or as little of any system as they like (and as the PCs will put up with). If you don't like something, leave it out or change it.
wesleystreet wrote:
That's one approach and I have no problem with it. But it isn't the only approach..
Never said it was. Then again, it is very successful for me - my Players enjoy the extra detail and, no, they are not hemmed in or anything like that. I think that particular concern of yours comes down to GMing styles. I do not, and have NEVER advocated some lock-step set-up, in which every possible nuance of the EP 'verse has been carved in stone beforehand (probably need an entire encyclopedia for that amount of detail, and for what?). Really, when I think of metaplot, what I think of is framework for the BIG picture's events, and generally stuff that the PCs haven't messed with (just yet!).
—
"Do it? ... Dan, I'm not a Republic serial villain. Do you seriously think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome? I did it thirty-five minutes ago." Ozymandias, The Watchmen
Top
Tue, 2009-11-24 10:03
wesleystreet wesleystreet's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
7thSeaLord wrote:
... And 2300AD (originally 'Traveller: 2300') was such an incredibly successful commercial venture for GDW. ;) Please, do NOT get me started on GDW's slide in its final years. Really.
...or TSR... or Mongoose. Or any game production house. GDW had plenty of awards under its belt during the 1980s. Twilight 2000, Space: 1889 and 2300AD were excellent games for their time. But product and business practices/marketing are two different things. When the nerd market hit saturation and tanked in the '90s it was a bad time for everyone in publishing. Alas, it seems that in the tiny niche industry that is the P&P RPG, no one has figured out how to balance both good game production with smart and aggressive business practices.
7thSeaLord wrote:
As far as I am concerned, a few hints (via metaplot) can be helpful in preventing getting "boxed in", as you put it.
I'm puzzled as to why a game metaplot is needed to drop hints or adventure seeds.
wesleystreet wrote:
How so? GMs can use as much or as little of any system as they like (and as the PCs will put up with). If you don't like something, leave it out or change it.
Yes. I know. With any RPG core book, it typically states in the first chapter, "If you don't like something, change it! The most important rule is to have fun!" But if metaplot is troweled into the system, all I (and those who agree with me) will end up using is the mechanics and bits and pieces of setting. And who wants to buy a book only to metaphorically x-acto knife the guts out of the fluff? I might as well make my own d100-based game from scratch.
Top
Tue, 2009-11-24 12:01
standard_gravity standard_gravity's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
As I (foolishly, perhaps ;)) subscribe to this thread, I feel I have to say something. Metaplot is great, but has a tendency to eat the game alive. Unlike other books, when metaplot books are published they tend to snowball into something huge and grab the devs complete attention. This give rise to a few complications for certain types of players. A) If you are a casual (i.e., not fanatic) player/GM you may be intimidated by number of books you "have to" read in order to know what the game is all about. B) If you like the setting as it is presented in the core book, you will have to reverse engineer all new modules for them to be useful. C) If you simply want to develop your own metaplot, a similar situation arises as in B). This quote illustrates that:
7thSeaLord wrote:
I have run a couple of very successful '7th Sea' campaigns. That game has a VERY substantial timeline / metaplot. I should know, having spent three years of spare time compiling data from all of the books / supplements to produce an extended timeline of Theah ( http://members.ozemail.com.au/~iandl57/theantime.html ).
Most EP GMs may not be able to / want to spend 3 years to follow the metaplot and map it out but rather set their own campaings. The same GMs, however, may want to buy and use modules for their games, which will be difficult if all/most modules and expansions are part of the metaplot. Having said this (and I may be partly repeating what I said in a post above), if the devs find a way of having a free-staning metaplot and continue to release non-metaplot books, I am as happy as happy be. I would love to delve into the devs take on the TITAN threat (if there is one), the future of the Junta, the Factors true intentions etc etc. But rather than taking the game totally in one or another direction, why not do this in a separate line of releases, e.g. a separate campaign?
—
[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/ext_userbar.jpg[/img] "People think dreams aren't real just because they aren't made of matter, of particles. Dreams are real. But they are made of viewpoints, of images, of memories and puns and lost hopes." - John Dee
Top
Tue, 2009-11-24 21:05
7thSeaLord 7thSeaLord's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
standard_gravity wrote:
As I (foolishly, perhaps ;)) subscribe to this thread, I feel I have to say something. Metaplot is great, but has a tendency to eat the game alive. Unlike other books, when metaplot books are published they tend to snowball into something huge and grab the devs complete attention. This give rise to a few complications for certain types of players. A) If you are a casual (i.e., not fanatic) player/GM you may be intimidated by number of books you "have to" read in order to know what the game is all about. B) If you like the setting as it is presented in the core book, you will have to reverse engineer all new modules for them to be useful. C) If you simply want to develop your own metaplot, a similar situation arises as in B). This quote illustrates that:
7thSeaLord wrote:
I have run a couple of very successful '7th Sea' campaigns. That game has a VERY substantial timeline / metaplot. I should know, having spent three years of spare time compiling data from all of the books / supplements to produce an extended timeline of Theah ( http://members.ozemail.com.au/~iandl57/theantime.html ).
Most EP GMs may not be able to / want to spend 3 years to follow the metaplot and map it out but rather set their own campaings. The same GMs, however, may want to buy and use modules for their games, which will be difficult if all/most modules and expansions are part of the metaplot. Having said this (and I may be partly repeating what I said in a post above), if the devs find a way of having a free-staning metaplot and continue to release non-metaplot books, I am as happy as happy be. I would love to delve into the devs take on the TITAN threat (if there is one), the future of the Junta, the Factors true intentions etc etc. But rather than taking the game totally in one or another direction, why not do this in a separate line of releases, e.g. a separate campaign?
First, to clarify, I most categorically did not spend three years mapping out the metaplot of '7th Sea' (for which there was already material) before I started GMing - I was also simultaneously running one very successful and one fairly successful campaign during that particular time. The metraplot thing was mainly a hobby that I did to line up a wealth of material into one source for my own personal satisfaction - and incidentally to provide additional detail for both my Players and other GMs. It worked out very nicely, thank you. Second, ummm, separate from what? I still really don't get this. As far as I have been able to determine, the primary objection is that some people want to do their own thing outside of a metaplot. Nothing stopping you from doing that. I cannot speak for EVERY game system (not having played them all, despite my best efforts :) ), but it does seem to me that dedicated metaplot books are definite latecomers to most game lines. Early on, as far as I can tell, the metaplot of most RPGs consists of little more than a few sidebars, some flavour text and maybe some additions / clarifications to whatever was set down in the original rulebook. A few pages at best. The Great Big Metaplot Books usually seem to come much later, when there is already a wealth of material, and (presumably) there is some demand for them, and (often) the developers feel a need to move things along and/or alter course somewhat. I have no reason to believe that things will be so different in this particular instance - just a few scattered bits 'n' pieces scattered through the stuff to come out, then MAYBE something bigger much later. Maybe. If there is a real demand for it. My guess, anyhow. In any case, I am not holding my breath simply because (a) I do not see any need for a Great Big Metaplot Book (or two) at this point and (b) for all I know, there may never be one - and this prospect causes me no pain at all. :D Another guess. From the point of view of the people producing the game, if a small percentage of any given product (2-3 pages from one book, for instance) are all that certain fans object to, then things are going durn well. I see EP's game background as, like other (IMO) excellent game backgrounds (for me, Classic Traveller, 7th Sea,) being a smorgasbord. You take what you want and simply leave what you don't want. To move sections of it to separate rooms (figuratively speaking) seems counter-productive.
—
"Do it? ... Dan, I'm not a Republic serial villain. Do you seriously think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome? I did it thirty-five minutes ago." Ozymandias, The Watchmen
Top
Tue, 2009-11-24 22:16
OneTrikPony OneTrikPony's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
Um We, all of us here, know that we'll be lucky to get 4 books a year right? I seriously doubt that we'll actually get quarterly releases for this game. Given that most of those releases aren't going to be Gear books. They'll have to be setting books and adventures. Does anyone really object to statements about Who is Where and what their goals are? I want to know: Who are the movers and shakers among each faction. Who is the enemy of Whom What the goals of these people are. What thier assets are. And what is the gravity on all of the named habitats. does all of that = metaplot? Then I'm for it.
—

Mea Culpa: My mode of speech can make others feel uninvited to argue or participate. This is the EXACT opposite of what I intend when I post.

Top
Thu, 2009-11-26 01:19
morolen morolen's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
One Idea might be, not unlike how the much maligned oWoD blew itself up, for those of you that read any of the Time of Judgment books, you'll know what I mean. Have several suggestions in the book of ways the GM can advance the setting that will fit his game best. It also lets the designers put in more then one of their ideas, so they dont have to pick between two ideas they really like, instead just lets the GM's decided what one they like. As I recall the Time of Judgment books had 6 possible ways to end your campaign and for the most part they were all pretty passable, I think that is the classiest way to advance the plot. The downside of course is this can quickly lead to serious Feature Creep and that's never any good. It goes without saying that I also support divorcing the Fluff books from the Crunch books as much as possible.
Top
Fri, 2009-11-27 07:45
7thSeaLord 7thSeaLord's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
morolen wrote:
It goes without saying that I also support divorcing the Fluff books from the Crunch books as much as possible.
... Then it probably should also go without saying that there is probably not enough "fluff ",or METAPLOT (- I do not automatically equate one with the other, thank you), at this stage to (a) make any real inroads into the game any time soon, or (b) warrant its own bookset for quite a while. My guess, anyhow.
—
"Do it? ... Dan, I'm not a Republic serial villain. Do you seriously think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome? I did it thirty-five minutes ago." Ozymandias, The Watchmen
Top
Fri, 2009-11-27 11:11
wesleystreet wesleystreet's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
OneTrikPony wrote:
Um We, all of us here, know that we'll be lucky to get 4 books a year right? I seriously doubt that we'll actually get quarterly releases for this game.
A good point and a less philosophical and more practical argument for avoiding the use of metaplot. What we have right now in the core book is enough to run a campaign... and probably will have to be for awhile. Imagine the frustration of a GM working with his players to move half-way to three-fourths through his story only to have to retroactively change it to meet the framework of a new metaplot release. If these books aren't coming out on a regular, predictable basis then what does come out needs to be easily adaptable to fit any campaign.
OneTrikPony wrote:
Given that most of those releases aren't going to be Gear books. They'll have to be setting books and adventures. Does anyone really object to statements about Who is Where and what their goals are? I want to know: Who are the movers and shakers among each faction. Who is the enemy of Whom What the goals of these people are. What thier assets are. And what is the gravity on all of the named habitats. does all of that = metaplot? Then I'm for it.
Nah, that's not metaplot. Metaplot is "the overarching storyline that binds together events in a role-playing game universe. 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." (Thank you, Wikipedia.) What you're describing is setting. One does not necessarily equate with the other. And I'm all for setting supplements.
Top
Sat, 2009-11-28 13:08
OneTrikPony OneTrikPony's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
So basicaly you're afraid of major story events that change a world that hasn't been published outside of the System Gazeteer? Or writeing that moves one of the 4 major npc's to a diferent place in the setting? I think we're on the same page here. Metaplot is a concern that is way way down the road.
—

Mea Culpa: My mode of speech can make others feel uninvited to argue or participate. This is the EXACT opposite of what I intend when I post.

Top
Sun, 2009-11-29 06:14
7thSeaLord 7thSeaLord's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
OneTrikPony wrote:
Metaplot is a concern that is way way down the road.
Arguably the most sensible thing said by anyone (myself included) on this thread.
—
"Do it? ... Dan, I'm not a Republic serial villain. Do you seriously think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome? I did it thirty-five minutes ago." Ozymandias, The Watchmen
Top
Mon, 2009-11-30 03:00
Cardul Cardul's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
wesleystreet wrote:
What you're describing is setting. One does not necessarily equate with the other. And I'm all for setting supplements.
Oh, but what if the setting supplement has something that contradicts what you have already put there? That hems you in and forces you to have to apply retroactive continuity to fix it, the same as if a book came out and said someone assassinated the Hypercorp guy your players were conducting surveilance on... Since you are against the latter, you must also be against the former, because them changing that Chinese restaurant on the habitat to an Italian one is as major a change as killing off an NPC is a spectacular fashion(since it changes the owners from Triads to Mafia).
Top
Mon, 2009-11-30 03:53
standard_gravity standard_gravity's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
Cardul wrote:
Oh, but what if the setting supplement has something that contradicts what you have already put there? That hems you in and forces you to have to apply retroactive continuity to fix it, the same as if a book came out and said someone assassinated the Hypercorp guy your players were conducting surveilance on...
Sure, for example I am keen on setting parts of my campaign in Extropia, but this may be unwise as this habitat is likely to be explained and mapped out in future supplements (Sunward, even?). However, metaplot has potential for much wider setting-wrecking evens that go well beyond the NPCs and geography of a habitat or hypercorp or political faction. I mean the return of TITANS, or the TITAN mystery explained, the arrival of more aliens, war between anarchists and the Junta or whatever. We do not yet know what kind of metaplot the developers have in mind, if any, but it could be everything from a separate campaign which itnroduces new NPCs etc but which is relatively low key, to a metplot which takes the EP universe in a whole new direction. As hinted at above, I favour the former.
OneTrikPony wrote:
Metaplot is a concern that is way way down the road.
Very true, but this thread contains what it says on the tin :)
—
[img]http://boxall.no-ip.org/img/ext_userbar.jpg[/img] "People think dreams aren't real just because they aren't made of matter, of particles. Dreams are real. But they are made of viewpoints, of images, of memories and puns and lost hopes." - John Dee
Top
Mon, 2009-11-30 07:44
7thSeaLord 7thSeaLord's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
standard_gravity wrote:
Very true, but this thread contains what it says on the tin :)
Warning. Contents May Explode If Heated?
—
"Do it? ... Dan, I'm not a Republic serial villain. Do you seriously think I'd explain my master-stroke if there remained the slightest chance of you affecting its outcome? I did it thirty-five minutes ago." Ozymandias, The Watchmen
Top
Wed, 2009-12-02 13:24
wesleystreet wesleystreet's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
OneTrikPony wrote:
So basicaly you're afraid of major story events that change a world that hasn't been published outside of the System Gazeteer? Or writeing that moves one of the 4 major npc's to a diferent place in the setting?
Yes.
OneTrikPony wrote:
I think we're on the same page here. Metaplot is a concern that is way way down the road.
Unless it goes completely off the rails, I plan to play this game for awhile. EP is literally the only new game I've purchased that I was excited for a year in advance of its release. Long way off or just 'round the bend, I think it best to see all criticisms about metaplot addressed now when changes can realistically be made.
Cardul wrote:
Since you are against the latter, you must also be against the former, because them changing that Chinese restaurant on the habitat to an Italian one is as major a change as killing off an NPC is a spectacular fashion(since it changes the owners from Triads to Mafia).
That's not really the same thing.
Top
Sat, 2009-12-05 13:02
Ramidel Ramidel's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
Cardul wrote:
Oh, but what if the setting supplement has something that contradicts what you have already put there? That hems you in and forces you to have to apply retroactive continuity to fix it, the same as if a book came out and said someone assassinated the Hypercorp guy your players were conducting surveilance on... Since you are against the latter, you must also be against the former, because them changing that Chinese restaurant on the habitat to an Italian one is as major a change as killing off an NPC is a spectacular fashion(since it changes the owners from Triads to Mafia).
Actually, no. He does not have to be against the former if he's against the latter. Altering a fixed state doesn't have ripple effects like altering a timeline does. Sure, I've decided to make that habitat have a Chinese restaurant instead of an Italian one and the Triads rather than the Mafia are running it. That's one edit, and a localized one at that. Flash forward twenty years of timeline supplements. That restaurant has been a key player in twenty years of the Mafia's struggle for money, power, molls and the elimination of the Triads. If the Triads had controlled it, the entire chain of events would have been thrown off, the Mafia wouldn't have stopped the Triad gatecrash and the TITANs would be back. Not only that, but it doesn't matter whether it was GM fiat or PC intervention in favor of the Triads; if the restaurant wasn't a Mafia-run Italian restaurant when it was supposed to be, -any future books relating to that habitat would be useless-. Trust me, this happens in long-running RIFTS campaigns. PC victories at Tolkeen, for instance, absolutely monkeywrench the RIFTS metaplot because the Coalition is supposed to win there and everything that happens afterward in North America follows from a Coalition victory.
Top
Fri, 2009-12-11 08:02
Zophiel Zophiel's picture
Re: Please, not the metaplot!
I'm going to go a bit into obscurity here. Instead of Shadowrun or WoD, I like the way metaplot was done in Over The Edge. The core book gives you, like EP, about a zillion plot threads. There are more factions with more plans than you can possibly integrate into a campaign and still do them all justice. The sourcebooks largely focused on taking one of these and expanding on it. Everything was written in an eternal now, a day zero, but that day was basically the day your players arrived. There were indeed long range plot events. However, these were detailed in terms of what a given group as working towards, what the logical result to other groups was and maybe a big long term plot event to plug your PC's into. You could get by without them, of course, but if you wanted to focus your game on the Thorckmorton Device or the Kergillian invasion or the Mr. Lee Thuys there was an outline of where they would go and who they would overlap with. So instead of "the TITANS come back, everybody run!" there could be a whole chapter in the back of the TITAN sourcebook about what their plans are and what will happen barring interruption. That suits my style of gameplay and game running. The world is alive and progressing but the PC's can step in and divert things.
Top

Pages