Campaign settings: meta-plot, sandbox, other?

[ericbsmith]

Originally Posted by Refplace

Mass printing a ton of Fourth edition settings is to all appearances not financially viable. This is not the 80s or even 90s.

Personally, I see the mass printing of a ton of worldbooks to be one of the problems with 3e (and 4e, too). There was a great breadth of settings, but very little depth to them. Most of the worldbooks were one-offs, meaning they got no further support or development. The two main lines that did get a lot of support (WWII/Traveller) saw very little in the way of plot/meta-plot developments in the supplements (I mean, WWII has it's own plot developments, but the books didn't really provide a central framework for the players to play in, they just provided information on the various theatres of the war; WWII could really have use a default campaign scenario - say a secret special forces agency the players were part of - along with metaplot developments that helped moved that scenario along through the progression of the war and the various country/theatre books that were released).

The worlds didn't breath and grow, they were just handed out and stagnated. This is one of the major differences between the worldbooks that SJGames published and those that other major publishers did. Personally I'd love to see a Yrth Annual or an updated Reign of Steel that progresses the plots forward, not just the templates.
One of the things I liked about Banestorm was that it advanced the timeline; one of the things that annoyed me is that that advancement was very limited, and basically closed out two of the major mysteries set up in the original book without developing any new/interesting mysteries to replace them. And then... nothing. No more updates.

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by ericbsmith

The two main lines that did get a lot of support (WWII/Traveller) saw very little in the way of plot/meta-plot developments in the supplements (I mean, WWII has it's own plot developments, but the books didn't really provide a central framework for the players to play in, they just provided information on the various theatres of the war; WWII could really have use a default campaign scenario - say a secret special forces agency the players were part of - along with metaplot developments that helped moved that scenario along through the progression of the war and the various country/theatre books that were released).

You may like metaplots, but I know many gamers who don't -- particularly if events in their own campaigns don't precisely parallel (or even contradict) the metaplot developments. I recall discussing whether we wanted a metaplot with Fourth Edition while it was under development, in light of the results of a poll saying that most GURPS players would be OK with an overarching setting but emphatically did NOT want a metaplot as part of that.

Originally Posted by Owen Smith

You are wilfully misinterpreting me.

I don't think this sort of comment is helpful: you could have communicated the same thought without the adverb and it wouldn't have come across quite so personally. For what it's worth, I read your post exactly the same way that Refplace did, even unto thinking, "But...Roma Arcana?"

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard

You may like metaplots, but I know many gamers who don't -- particularly if events in their own campaigns don't precisely parallel (or even contradict) the metaplot developments. I recall discussing whether we wanted a metaplot with Fourth Edition while it was under development, in light of the results of a poll saying that most GURPS players would be OK with an overarching setting but emphatically did NOT want a metaplot as part of that.

Count me in on the side of those not liking metaplots. I am quite capable of coming up with them on my own and dont like the interference.

More on topic....
After the Kickstarter some of the people over on RPG.net decided to work on a community setting.

I find that some people being so newly inspired, rather nice.

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by Refplace

Count me in on the side of those not liking metaplots. I am quite capable of coming up with them on my own and don't like the interference.

It's one thing to have links between adventures, but it's not a good idea to require those links. I guarantee you each subsequent adventure sells less than the previous one, and frankly I like the players coming up with the plot. For GMs, "plot" is a four-letter word that has no place in designing an adventure.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

It's one thing to have links between adventures, but it's not a good idea to require those links. I guarantee you each subsequent adventure sells less than the previous one, and frankly I like the players coming up with the plot. For GMs, "plot" is a four-letter word that has no place in designing an adventure.

Were probably on the same page but I have to pick this apart for clarity.
I see the GMs job as to create the background and that includes providing a plot and plot elements. The players choose what and how to follow it or go some other direction entirely. However my role as GM is to anticipate their next move so I can have the world ready rather than bog the game down while I figure it out during play.
So I do indeed come up with plots for the game. They can be as simple as go to that dungeon and kill stuff or a complicated rescue mission or heist or stopping the villain from taking over the world.
In my experience most players like it when what they do or do not do matter. Even if they fail or try not to do something the fact that there will be consequences adds dramatic tension to the campaign.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

For GMs, "plot" is a four-letter word that has no place in designing an adventure.

I couldn't disagree more.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

It's one thing to have links between adventures, but it's not a good idea to require those links. I guarantee you each subsequent adventure sells less than the previous one, and frankly I like the players coming up with the plot. For GMs, "plot" is a four-letter word that has no place in designing an adventure.

Originally Posted by evileeyore

I couldn't disagree more.

Me too. Plot is considered by some profane, but in reality it's just a frame for the campaign.

I'm running FOUR games right now that are all involved with one another somehow and all following a single plotline. Not one player (out of over 20) has complained once about there being a plot. I've been running this for almost a year now.

Even when I ran DF I had a plot - it was thin ("Gotta stop the evil wizard-king from wrecking havoc!") but it was a plot. Players appreciate some guidance. What they don't want is railroading (of the firm variety, not what I call "following the path").

[Rasputin]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

Me too. Plot is considered by some profane, but in reality it's just a frame for the campaign.

I have no issue with a campaign framework. Dictating what NPCs do? Great. My issue is dictating what players do. And they should have the option of not bothering with your carefully-designed big baddie and go elsewhere. There may be consequences for that, but that's their choice.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Rasputin

I have no issue with a campaign framework. Dictating what NPCs do? Great. My issue is dictating what players do. And they should have the option of not bothering with your carefully-designed big baddie and go elsewhere. There may be consequences for that, but that's their choice.

So this is a total derail and this is the last I'll say on it - but if players are told at the beginning "There is a plot. I'll be introducing it as the game goes because this is the kind of game I want to run and this is what you signed up" and they still just ignore it...that's not a bad GM, that's a bad player. Over 20+ years of GMing I've found pure "sandbox" play to be untainable in the long run. Campaigns rarely last long. There are exceptions (I'm thinking Peter's Felltower), but those are also based on assumptions: "I'm running a delving hack n' slash and that's it. Come prepared." So I still vehemently disagree with your assertion that plot is a four letter word. It's not. Lack of communication is though. As are mismatched player/GM styles. Nothing ends a campaign faster than a GM who doesn't understand his players or a player who doesn't understand the GM's game/campaign.

[pestigor]

If you're not invested in the game and just derail it because you don't like what the GM has been telling you from the beginning I mean when he said "do you want to play in a game where we'll do X,Y and Z?" and you decide to derail it, you just broke a social contract and shouldn't have agreed to play in the first place. You would get a very loud "What the hell are you doing here then if you've been lying about your interest in the thing I've been telling you about from day one?"

There is serious about a game and being invested in a game, I choose the second option. This all assumes a GM leveling with you about expectations and player agreeing and everyone trying to stay true to their word. Life is too short to play with people that don't care about the whole group.