It's a reboot of a long-awaited campaign setting. If you wanted a different campaign setting, I'm not sure what to tell you.
Other than, of course, it's your game and you can make of it what you will. Rich Baker won't show up at your doorstep to make sure you're including the Sorcerer-Kings in your rendition of Dark Sun 2000.
While I am sure you can figure out a perfectly good stuff for a non-SK Dark Sun I think it is best for the general setting to have them retained. Heck that hopeless feeling about SKs is one of my favorite parts of the setting.
Rich Baker just came by and took my books. He also made me put on a little sun dress and forced me to sing him some show tunes.
I'm very pleased with the Dark Sun 4E over all. Always makes me want to break out the old John Carter of Mars series and read them again.
If eliminating sorcerer-kings is RalofTyr's (the OP's) way of taking Dark Sun in a new direction, I say more power to him or her.
=== === ===
S'cuse me while I geek-out ;) (I just gotta, one more time): I've been a fan of Dark Sun since it first appeared. I've read the novels, supplements and everything. In all the years though, I've only played a few games. A one-two shot in 2nd edition and a single game using the 3.5 conversion in Dragon/Dungeon (which I DM'd).
Unfortunately, I lost the vast majority of my Dark Sun stuff in a move over fifteen years ago. It's a shame WotC doesn't sell the legacy D&D stuff as PDFs anymore
? Never bought those PDFs while I could (I was too busy snatching up PDF 'back-ups' of my BESM booklets and some other stuff). I've retained a lot of what I read but I'd love to see it with my actual eyes again.Anyway, the current, re-imagined Dark Sun is my favorite by far-- can't wait to start our game next week. I've wanted to play a warlock for a long time now, so a sorcerer-king pact sounds like just the thing. Oh, and have I mentioned, I love themes.
/\ Art
Rich Baker just came by and took my books. He also made me put on a little sun dress and forced me to sing him some show tunes.
You sir, win the internet.
As a newcomer to Athas, I have to say I love the execution of the DSCS. With the exception of a regional map I consider a bit too small, I love both the content and the presentation. I had done a substantial amount of research into existing DS lore in anticipation of this launch, and decided to give Athas a shot, despite a few reservations (mostly about the content in the later expansion of the setting).
I think the crew working on this new iteration of DS did an excellent job picking and choosing which parts to include, which parts to emphasize and which parts to leave in the hazy background of the setting. They said they were going for an "Ultimate Dark Sun" approach, and I think they succeeded. We newbs are very happy with our new setting, and for the most part the long-time fans seem content that the setting was done justice.
They did it with Ravenloft and Planescape, as well, took great settings we'd bought and trashed 'em totally to sell more books and revised boxed sets: bollocks to that!
Lave the settings as poster above noted, TO THE DM AND PLAYERS!
I liek the new stuff but they shouldn't have kileld kalak that was dumb IMHO, and I won't use that, they should have set Tyr hanging ont he brink of change and left that change up to the DM and players.
Athas is best as a setting of mystery and raw rough survival etc
the past doesn't matter, Athasians are trying to survive NOW.
Having a mystery lets DMs be creative and mystery = fear ;)
I believe the OP is intended as humor, and not to be taken seriously. Maybe . . . but I can't be certain.
Possibly. I hadn't really thought about it.
The nice thing is that no one flamed him or her for expressing an largely unseconded sentiment. Internet forums can be a harsh place, at times, and this one is no exception. The Dark Sun crowd, though, seem to be pretty mild mannered and well behaved. Though I've never really been on the receiving end of a flame, it's still refreshing to bask in its absence.
which I do not mind for indvidual DMs, you can do whatever ya want!
I just hate it when we get a metaplot forced down our throats by the official work!
If you don't like "metaplots' then why would you ever use an official setting? Every one of them has a metaplot. Always have and always will. It's part of what makes a D&D setting. Hell, even the PoL is filled with metaplot. Infact, I'd really like an example of a setting without a metaplot that isn't just a shallow homebrew sandbox world.
Also, not knowing what the metaplot is, doesn't mean there isn't one.
If you don't like "metaplots' then why would you ever use an official setting? Every one of them has a metaplot. Always have and always will.
This is quite simply just wrong. There are numerous examples of games and systems that do not have and did not have "metaplots", and function just fine, including the original, basic, D&D game setting(s) many of the older gamers here grew up on.
Though if you grew up or came into the hobby during the 90's, your view might be skewed towards the idea that metaplots are integral and historical simply because that is the period during which metaplot came into vogue in gaming and all the big publishers were jumping on board as a way to keep the supplement-treadmill going. If you're an older gamer, you're not going to make any such statement because it is nonsensical.
Thankfully, given the numerous systemic problems with and player complaints about metaplot, publishers have been moving away from the idea and back to the more traditional settings free of meta-plot, which really are "just" settings instead of somebody's "should-have-wrote-a-book-instead" story dressed-up as game material.
PS: don't confuse "setting detail" and "metaplot". A metaplot is an actual plot -- a series of planned events that do in fact take place -- not just NPC plans or schemes or the force of history at a given moment in time, which may or may not occur/come to fruition.
Trying to claim the latter is the former, and derisively dismissing metaplot-less settings as "shallow homebrew sandbox worlds", betrays a lack of knowledge about what "metaplot" actually is and is not, and the history of gaming and RPG publishing outside of the last decade-and-a-half.
To the OP: if you don't want Sorcerer Kings, then *poof* your Athas doesn't have Sorcerer Kings. If you want bearded Dwarves and a currency based on paper mache, you are the DM and that's how the world works. Heck, for years I wouldn't even use a published world in my own campaigns. Nowadays I don't have the time to put into world design like I used to, so published worlds are easier. But I still change it up to fit how I think the world ought to work.
This is quite simply just wrong. There are numerous examples of games and systems that do not have and did not have "metaplots", and function just fine, including the original, basic, D&D game setting(s) many of the older gamers here grew up on.
Should I apologise that I'm not older than I am and wasn't involved in the hobby when D&D first hit the market? I am an "older" gamer, although I came into it with 2e and I'v had my share of pre-2e experiences. All that nonsense aside, instead of just saying "na, your wrong" how about giving me examples of settings that do not have a metaplot as defined by dictionary sites or the wiki. You could very well be right. I'd need to read my old setting material to know for sure, as I don't remember the metaplot to some settings, like alquadim, red steel or mystara. But darksun, dragonlance, greyhawk, forgotten realms and ravenloft all have metaplot. I don't remember what planescape's was.
As for 1e, I know dragonlance did. In 3e, FR and EB did. And in 4e, every setting does. So maybe you're correct and a few settings don't have metaplot, but it would appear, throughout each edition, metaplot settings outnumber the others. Again, I could be wrong as I'm not doing any sort of research on this. As for non-D&D systems and settings, I'm talking about D&D settings.
Thankfully, given the numerous systemic problems with and player complaints about metaplot, publishers have been moving away from the idea and back to the more traditional settings free of meta-plot,
Really? Which setting would that be, exactly? FR, EB or DS? All three of our new settings, including the PoL have metaplot. I'd be surprised if gamma world and ravenloft don't have metaplot either when they're released. I'm not sure about gamma world because it's been a very long time since I read my old books and I rarely played it, but RL is a metaplot setting.
I would say that without the Sorcerer Kings, civilization would crumble. The City-States would eventually disband, because without the slavery the population simply couldn't survive. Wasteland villages would predominate. Slowly, as the ages crawl onwards, what little technology Athas has would be lost.
I agree. I believe that the sorcerer-kings are one of the truest forms of "necessary evil". Without them what little there is left of a civilization there is in the Tyr Valley would be gone.
I think Tyr should have a horrible struggle and good chance of falling apart without Kalak.
What's Greyhawk's metaplot?
I can't really answer that at this point. It's simply been too long since I read/played greyhawk. But the new metaplot which pissed off a lot of fans of the older material was found in (IIRC) greyhawk wars, from the ashes and something else. My greyhawk stuff is in storage, so I can't look it up.
I would say that without the Sorcerer Kings, civilization would crumble. The City-States would eventually disband, because without the slavery the population simply couldn't survive. Wasteland villages would predominate. Slowly, as the ages crawl onwards, what little technology Athas has would be lost.
I agree. I believe that the sorcerer-kings are one of the truest forms of "necessary evil". Without them what little there is left of a civilization there is in the Tyr Valley would be gone.
I think Tyr should have a horrible struggle and good chance of falling apart without Kalak.
I don't agree. But I think that is what the Sorcerer Kings would have civilization believe...
I guess I'm not sure how a dozen (two dozen?) unrelated conflicts count as metaplot(s), but I'm a bit rusty on what counts as metaplot nowadays. ;) If two neighbors disagree on something is metaplot, then yeah, everything has metaplot.
...instead of just saying "na, your wrong" how about giving me examples of settings that do not have a metaplot as defined by dictionary sites or the wiki.
Well, I actually DID, but you cut that bit and pretended I hadn't in order to be snarky about it.
But if you want a few specifics, the old, original versions of Blackmoor, Mystara, and Greyhawk were all metaplot-less. When the 90's rolled around, these settings did indeed jump on the metaplot bandwagon -- but the point was we gamed for decades in those worlds without any such thing, nor did they HAVE any such thing during all that time (even despite the reams of material produced for Mystara during the period).
I could also point out Tunnels & Trolls had no metaplotted setting, nor did Tekumel, or any of the setting material published for the old...crap...been too long...the old "compatible with AD&D" products. Original editions of Paranoia. And etc, and etc, and etc.
Really? Which setting would that be, exactly? FR, EB or DS? All three of our new settings, including the PoL have metaplot. I'd be surprised if gamma world and ravenloft don't have metaplot either when they're released. I'm not sure about gamma world because it's been a very long time since I read my old books and I rarely played it, but RL is a metaplot setting.
Because D&D is the entire world of RPGs? Oy.
Exactly what IS the metaplot of the PoL? And how is it that DS has a metaplot? One book, that won't be followed up on, has a metaplot? How do you figure that?
I mentioned earlier to not confuse "metaplot" with "setting detail", but it appears you have done exactly that. You don't get to call seals "fish" just because they swim in the ocean, you don't get to call "metaplot" just anything you would like. It's a specific term that means a specific thing, no part of which is "people in the world want some stuff, some stuff in the world is already in motion" unless those things are pre-ordained.
Because "Lord Iuz wants to conquer the Marshes" is vastly different from "Lord Iuz will conquer the Marshes"; and "Samuel is questing for the Sword of Seven Stars" is vastly different from "Samuel will find the Sword of Seven Stars."
A metaplot constitutes significant changes to a setting, over a period of setting-time and because of events in the setting, that will occur without or despite the actions of the PCs.
In other words, a metaplot is the sequence of official setting events that run, at best, parallel to the "small plots" created by normal gaming groups.
The current edition of Forgotten Realms and both editions of Eberron are free of metaplot. In Eberron the setting was specifically designed to permanently be set in 998 YK, and official adventures did not disrupt major elements of the setting. Forgotten Realms used to be this way, but no longer. A simple review of published adventures (in print or via Dungeon) doesn't turn up setting-shaking events in 4E.
Gnomelords!
Wait... maybe Halflords?
Here's how I think of metaplot in RPGs.
A metaplot constitutes significant changes to a setting, over a period of setting-time and because of events in the setting, that will occur without or despite the actions of the PCs.
In other words, a metaplot is the sequence of official setting events that run, at best, parallel to the "small plots" created by normal gaming groups.
The current edition of Forgotten Realms and both editions of Eberron are free of metaplot. In Eberron the setting was specifically designed to permanently be set in 998 YK, and official adventures did not disrupt major elements of the setting. Forgotten Realms used to be this way, but no longer. A simple review of published adventures (in print or via Dungeon) doesn't turn up setting-shaking events in 4E.
We are on the same page it seems.
Here's how I think of metaplot in RPGs.
A metaplot constitutes significant changes to a setting, over a period of setting-time and because of events in the setting, that will occur without or despite the actions of the PCs.
In other words, a metaplot is the sequence of official setting events that run, at best, parallel to the "small plots" created by normal gaming groups.
Meta details are the specifics behind the details. For example, the mechanics of races say that Elves get +2 Dex, +2 Wis, Dwarves get +2 Con +2 Wis, etc. The meta-mechanics would state: all races get +2 to two stats or an equivalent.
The plot of a setting can be described by Epic Novels, such as the 3rd person experiences in the War of the Lance or the Prism Pentad novels. A historical non-fiction account of, say Dark-Sun, would provide better examples of setting plots (see: DSCS or the Similarion).
The Metaplot is the "overhanging" details above the setting plot (loosely: "details about the plot"). Andropinis will be killed in FY X. Rajaat will escape from his prison in FY Y. Gnomes will be extinct by year Z. Gnomelords will replace the Sorcerer-Kings when they are killed. Suggestions can be taken as metaplot, depending on how they are interpreted. "Lord Iuz wants to conquer the Marshes" can be taken as a metaplot because a storyline around Lord Iuz moves the story + plot in the direction of conquering the Marshes as opposed to the Plains, or Highlands. Even "Lord Iuz wants to conquer" describes Lord Iuz as a conquer - he will probably aim to conquer or die in the attempt. The actual plot would describe how Lord Iuz goes about conquering (or not).
So what? What's wrong with Metaplot? Metaplot-free settings are dry, contain few rules beyond the mechanics, and require the DM to DO EVERYTHING storywise.
WotC is moving towards a "metaplot-light" design, where they provide suggestions (similar to "Lord Iuz wants to conquer the Marshes") without actually detailing exactly how the plot progresses. This allows DMs to play with the content, allowing them to interpret the metaplot as they see fit. I wholehartedly agree with this design philosophy and encourage them to continue to provide more metaplot-light articles and campaign settings to free the imaginations of DMs worldwide.
A Metaplot-heavy design, like what FR eventually became, forces/railroads the setting plots in a particular direction. For example, Drizz't must be good. Elminster must be crazy. And Corellion must fight endlessly with Gruumsh. The actual details of the plot are left open, but the metaplots are defined.
I only wish Tyr was not "free." In my apocalyptic settings I like the free land of milk and honey to be a rumor on the wind. And when you get there, it has been long destroyed. It is a cliche but I like it.
Personally, I don't really view Tyr as a "free land of milk and honey". To use a real world example, I think of it more like Eastern Europe when the communist dicatorships began falling: Tons of corruption, massive uncertainty for the common folk, lots of players jockeying for position, could become a really nice place down the road, could just as easily become a pestilential war-torn Schmidthole. It really depends on how things fall.
And trying to make things fall closer to the "free land of milk and honey" side sounds like a good way to keep a group of PCs occupied, no?
In my apocalyptic settings I like the free land of milk and honey to be a rumor on the wind. And when you get there, it has been long destroyed.
Absolutely nothing is stopping you from doing that with Tyr. To most people, "Free Tyr" really is just "a rumour on the wind". If and when your PCs finally manage to get there, you could have them discover that Hamanu is now in charge and the rotting heads of Rikus, Sadira, Agis et al are mounted on spikes above the Caravan Gate. If I happen to be in a particularly evil mood when I finally get to DM a DarkSun campaign, that's probably what I'll do. (And there'll be a sign nailed to Rikus' forehead reading: "This is what I think of your vast, world-changing metaplot, Mr Denning".)
In my apocalyptic settings I like the free land of milk and honey to be a rumor on the wind. And when you get there, it has been long destroyed.
Absolutely nothing is stopping you from doing that with Tyr. To most people, "Free Tyr" really is just "a rumour on the wind". If and when your PCs finally manage to get there, you could have them discover that Hamanu is now in charge and the rotting heads of Rikus, Sadira, Agis et al are mounted on spikes above the Caravan Gate. If I happen to be in a particularly evil mood when I finally get to DM a DarkSun campaign, that's probably what I'll do. (And there'll be a sign nailed to Rikus' forehead reading: "This is what I think of your vast, world-changing metaplot, Mr Denning".)
Well yes, I can change things all I want when I am the DM. I'm just making a comment on the current core assumptions. Though it is chaotic enough that it could fall back to total tyranny.
And yes to the others, I realise Tyr is not super freedom utopia, which is why I put it in quotes. Their are two common themes in apocalyptic settings one is where there is a better land, it usually had flaws sometimes hidden that make you long for the wastelands. The other is where the better place never existed or existed only in the past and all that is left is the dream of it. I prefer the latter setting.
As it is, most slaves traded abuse and complete tyranny for abject poverty and utter destitution: the fight to keep living for the fight to survive.
I only wish Tyr was not "free." In my apocalyptic settings I like the free land of milk and honey to be a rumor on the wind. And when you get there, it has been long destroyed. It is a cliche but I like it.
Personally, I don't really view Tyr as a "free land of milk and honey". To use a real world example, I think of it more like Eastern Europe when the communist dicatorships began falling: Tons of corruption, massive uncertainty for the common folk, lots of players jockeying for position, could become a really nice place down the road, could just as easily become a pestilential war-torn Schmidthole. It really depends on how things fall.
Or, for a perhaps more appropriate example, the fall of the Tsars and the eventual rise of Bolshevism.
"No more emperors! Power to the people!"
"Woo! The people are in charge! Um, now what do we do?"
"Oh, crap."
- Winston Churchill
Government is an evil; it is only the thoughtlessness and vices of men that make it a necessary evil. When all men are good and wise, government will of itself decay.
- Percy Bysshe Shelley
... I wonder what the equivalent Tyr quotes would be like.
I only wish Tyr was not "free." In my apocalyptic settings I like the free land of milk and honey to be a rumor on the wind. And when you get there, it has been long destroyed. It is a cliche but I like it.
Personally, I don't really view Tyr as a "free land of milk and honey". To use a real world example, I think of it more like Eastern Europe when the communist dicatorships began falling: Tons of corruption, massive uncertainty for the common folk, lots of players jockeying for position, could become a really nice place down the road, could just as easily become a pestilential war-torn Schmidthole. It really depends on how things fall.
Or, for a perhaps more appropriate example, the fall of the Tsars and the eventual rise of Bolshevism.
"No more emperors! Power to the people!"
"Woo! The people are in charge! Um, now what do we do?"
"Oh, crap."
That too. In fact, take your pick of real world examples where a dictatorship has suddenly been overthrown. Nearly any of them could be a good model for post-Kalak Tyr.
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
- Winston Churchill
Government is an evil; it is only the thoughtlessness and vices of men that make it a necessary evil. When all men are good and wise, government will of itself decay.
- Percy Bysshe Shelley
... I wonder what the equivalent Tyr quotes would be like.
Tyr is a democracy? I thought it was still a Monarchy with a council of landed (inherited nobles) and rich merchants.
Because "Lord Iuz wants to conquer the Marshes" is vastly different from "Lord Iuz will conquer the Marshes"; and "Samuel is questing for the Sword of Seven Stars" is vastly different from "Samuel will find the Sword of Seven Stars."
Ok, I get what you mean now. You're correct. The above was the perfect example.
So what? What's wrong with Metaplot?
As relatively well-known examples outside of the D&D scene, 7th Sea and Vampire: the Masquerade provide numerous, extended examples of what is wrong with metaplots. Inside the D&D scene, the 90's-version of Forgotten Realms and original DragonLance also provide excellent examples.
Interestingly, Hero Wars and Legend of the Five Rings are examples of metaplot done in such a way that the usual problems don't crop up (as much). I'll note, though, that despite copying L5R, 7th Sea still ended up as a resounding example of the problems with metaplot.
Metaplot-free settings are dry, contain few rules beyond the mechanics, and require the DM to DO EVERYTHING storywise.
Ah, internets: the best way to make an argument is to make sweeping, unsupported generalizations that paint the opposing position as clearly the dumbest thing ever. (Note to self: must retcon all those metaplot-less settings I use and love to be dry, boring, simplistic, work-fests. Goodbye, Exalted!)
...Anyways.
Ok, I get what you mean now...The above was the perfect example.
Awesome, sir.
So what? What's wrong with Metaplot?
Nothing, unless you play a Ravnos.
Metaplot-free settings are dry, contain few rules beyond the mechanics, and require the DM to DO EVERYTHING storywise.
Ah, internets: the best way to make an argument is to make sweeping, unsupported generalizations that paint the opposing position as clearly the dumbest thing ever. (Note to self: must retcon all those metaplot-less settings I use and love to be dry, boring, simplistic, work-fests. Goodbye, Exalted!)
Probably not the best example. Between the Alchemicals scenarios and Return of the Scarlet Empress, there is a metaplot in Exalted. It's looser than a lot of them, but I'd say it extends beyond simply giving adventures. It's hard to have meaningful adventures that don't lead to a metaplot in a game system that's got "epic" as one of its primary adjectives.
Probably not the best example. Between the Alchemicals scenarios and Return of the Scarlet Empress, there is a metaplot in Exalted. It's looser than a lot of them, but I'd say it extends beyond simply giving adventures. It's hard to have meaningful adventures that don't lead to a metaplot in a game system that's got "epic" as one of its primary adjectives.
I haven't kept up with it. I bought the core book and a couple after that, and that was all. They ended up metaplotting it, eh? Bleh. They claimed they weren't going to originally.
Ah, internets: the best way to make an argument is to make sweeping, unsupported generalizations that paint the opposing position as clearly the dumbest thing ever. (Note to self: must retcon all those metaplot-less settings I use and love to be dry, boring, simplistic, work-fests. Goodbye, Exalted!)
...Anyways.
So, you missed the point. Was it the lack of supporting evidence? Let me re-explain plainly then.
I was defining metaplot for you. The settings you described have metaplot. All settings have metaplot, baring none - even those old settings of the past (I agree, there was little, but Orcs and Elves still hated each other's guts, Dragons collected vast riches and Dwarves mined it for them). Otherwise they would be dry and without personality and wouldn't sell so you wouldn't have bought them. Now, I haven't read Exalted beyond the core book (1st edition), but from what I have read, it is completely loaded with excellent metaplot. Loaded. It is the opposite of "dry" and "boring" and I never intended to say it was so. "The Scalet Empress has unexplicably disappeared" would be an award-winning metaplot device if they handed awards out for such things.
(I went out and presented an un-supported generalization... do a search for metadata or metaplot definitions. Wikipedia loosely describes metadata as "data describing data". There's interesting blogs on metaplots)
Your definition from before was incorrect:
PS: don't confuse "setting detail" and "metaplot". A metaplot is an actual plot -- a series of planned events that do in fact take place -- not just NPC plans or schemes or the force of history at a given moment in time, which may or may not occur/come to fruition.
Meta-data is data about data. Meta-plot is data about a plot. It doesn't have to be direct, and can be implied through a character's personality, action, scheme, background, etc... because characters and their backgrounds drive plots.
Let me return to your example:
Because "Lord Iuz wants to conquer the Marshes" is vastly different from "Lord Iuz will conquer the Marshes"; and "Samuel is questing for the Sword of Seven Stars" is vastly different from "Samuel will find the Sword of Seven Stars."
Different, yes. They are still both metaplot because they can both drive one (or multiple) plot (s).
"Lord Iuz will conquer the Marshes": This sentence is direct, and certain. Lord Iuz will conquer the Marshes. At some point in the plot, "the Marshes" will be conquered by this Lord. This is metadata that links Lord Iuz with the Marshes. The questions of "How?" and "When?", these are details that will probably be described by the plotline.
"Lord Iuz wants to conquer the Marshes": This is an implied plot device, but it is still data about a character of the plot - and thus, indirectly, the plot. Will Lord Iuz conquer the Marshes? I don't know. What is it about the Marshes interests Lord Iuz? Again... this particular metadata doesn't describe that. What it does detail, however, is the personality of Lord Iuz. This lord is definitely interesting in those Marshes. Lord Iuz wants to conquer the Marshes. If you have a character that is defending the Marshes, Lord Iuz is probably your bad guy.
The main difference between the two is in their interpretation. GMs will interpret the effect of the second detail on a plot. In fact, GMs have many choices to make before they can even include that juicy bit of metaplot in their campaign. The first detail "railroads" the plot in a particular direction (there will be war, it will be Lord Iuz vs the Marshes, Lord Iuz will win). I know you dislike "railroading"...
The way Dark Sun is written, major plot devices ("Hamanu is Sorcerer King of Urik", "Metal is rare") that define the setting are described as the first detail (see: the seven sentences of Dark Sun). They are absolutes, and are not open to interpretation. Details that are more malleable, and are open to interpretation, are merely insinuated ("Gnolls in Dark Sun", "Abalach-Re's offspring present an overwhelming threat to the security of Raam or her majesty's career").
A high percentage of the (metaplot) details in the DSCS are of the second sort... allowing for a more malleable and customizable setting.
Seeing how English doesn't actually have any rules, we go with what everyone else says words mean instead of actual logic.
Though you are correct that a term is ultimately held to be defined by how it is used, english is by no means unique in this regard. The rules of any language are ultimately defined by those using it, and those rules evolve over the life of the language.
As meta-plot is a term being used by most gamers to mean plot that occurs after the setting's pre-existing plot has been resolved (better known as the history of the setting), I believe the term meta is actually being used rather accurately. Regarding background details and character/npc motivations as metaplot demonstrates a significant stretch of the term's meaning, as even "data/details about plot" would only be viable if it is data/details regarding a predetermined event or circumstance (not a possible or even likely one, but one that must occur for a setting to retain full support of official supplements).
Big_goon, you are correct about the Latin root of the prefix "meta" and how it should apply. However, the colloquial use of the term "meta-plot" has always been an over-reaching plot that obsoletes source books and prevents players from having any impact in campaigns.
Seeing how English doesn't actually have any rules, we go with what everyone else says words mean instead of actual logic.
I've never defined meta-plot as something that prevents the PCs from having an impact. To me a meta-plot has always been what is happening in the world assuming the Pcs do nothing. There may be some characters that are protected by plot, but I do not see that as the same thing.
To use a Shadow Run example in the past there has been a metaplot involving imortal elves and great dragons. The Harliquin adventures involve the players in the metaplot, and their success or failure has an effect on the outcome of that part of the metaplot.
Similarly in the same setting the race to the comet was a metaplot, the players were huge megacorps which had plot protection, but your runs determined who made it to the comet first. Now sure as the time line advanced the designers would determine which corp made it to the comet first for the official story, but I think it is always assumed it could and many times would be different at your table. Any campaign setting that advances in time at all has this to some degree.
Heck under how I have always defined metaplot, the base POLand setting has a strong metaplot. The entire points of light concept is a metaplot. It is up to the DM whether or not they have an impact on that. But I'd assume in that kind of campaign setting in the heroic tier you are stabilizing(or making it less stable) a small area and making it safe, in the paragon tier you might be stabilising a small region, and in epic maybe the continent or even the whole world.
I was defining metaplot for you.
Then you failed. You tried to define "setting detail" as "metaplot", something I expressly pointed out earlier was a mistake.
You are trying to redefine metaplot so that your earlier argument makes sense; however, if all settings have metaplot, then there is no argument over metaplot and we're talking about something else entirely.
Actually, given the definition you are trying to use, there is no setting anywhere without metaplot. It would be literally impossible for there to be a setting that had no metaplot by your definition and thus no setting could be a "dry, boring, metaplotless setting". Not one. (This probably should have been a clue that everyone else was using the term very differently than you were.)
Even so, running to the dictionary to try and prove your definition of "metaplot" is really-actually correct doesn't fly. I've been in this hobby for pretty-near three decades -- now I'm not just pulling the grognard card, I'm pointing that out because it is relevant -- so while you can geek out on the dictionary and pull a "clearly" and "so, obviously" that doesn't change that the term "metaplot" has a history in the hobby, a history in which it means a very specific thing, a meaning which is not "setting detail" or "details about the plot", and has had that meaning and been discussed for decades.
Thus, regardless of what you think or believe it should mean based on the dictionary and your interpretation of that, "metaplot" in gaming is used to mean "an overarching plot to a campaign, usually doled out by the publisher to player groups through supplements, in which certain plot events are expected to and treated as having occurred in all campaigns". You can find this definition on numerous gaming sites where the issue is discussed, and in the RGFD and RGFA archives on Usenet. (Heck, just the first two Google results for "metaplot" can back me up here.)
You may as well be trying to argue that because "role-playing" is a therapeutic exercise used by psychiatrists, a "role-playing game" is fit only for people with mental health or behavioral problems, and that it is also teaching them how to act (and therefore we are all going to act like wizards and warriors killing stuff). Sorry, man, not buying.
Now, if you'd like to discuss or have anything to say one the actual issue -- how publishers forcing plot events and outcomes on play groups via successive game products is historically disruptive and aggravating to many gamers due the deprotagonization of PCs (and etc) -- then let's go for it. But this tangent is unproductive.
If I happen to be in a particularly evil mood when I finally get to DM a DarkSun campaign, that's probably what I'll do. (And there'll be a sign nailed to Rikus' forehead reading: "This is what I think of your vast, world-changing metaplot, Mr Denning".)
hehe, I agree! ;)
It's simple: just bloody ignore the stupid killing of Kalak before the campaign even begins!!
He's still alive, and do what YOU want with the campaign folks, not the damn designers' straight jacket.