Metaplot; Big Story; social, political, and technological change in game settings

[Agemegos]

It's amply clear that some Traveller players and publishers prefer that Traveller product lines have a big story going on through them, with significant historical events occurring at a pace that is appreciable to customers following the line. Among the advantages are that

• it makes the setting dynamic and interesting,
• it gives strong clear motivations for PCs (to promote or oppose invasions, rebellions etc.),
• it provides a real thrill in acquiring the latest product,
• it adds to realism: a society that doesn't change isn't believable.

On the other hand, some Traveller players and publishers are uninterested in large-scale change in the setting over time, and hold "metaplot" in distaste. They want the OTU to embrace a stunning mosaic of social etc. varieties in space, but not kaleidoscopic changes over time. Among the advantages of change being so slow as to be negligible are he following.

• Stasis prevents game materials, and particularly main introductions or basic setting books, from going out of date. This is much friendlier to new customers.
• Meta-plots either contradict the achievements of PCs or force them into an insignificant role.
• The appeal of Traveller is in the isolation and parochialism of each system. Focus on Imperial affairs and universal change emphasise the wrong thing.
• To a considerable extent the Imperium in Traveller is kept deliberately vague to allow a wide range of alternative interpretations. You can't be specific about change in a setting that's not very specific to begin with.
• It is unrealistic that anything as big, unwieldy, ill-co-ordinated, and old as the Imperium should be changing rapidly. It ought to take decades for any sort of large-scale change to propagate and take hold.

Where do you stand on this dilemma?

 

[Kaye]

Things that make you go: 'Hmmmm...?'

Here's the catch that makes me undecided, or rather become suspicious, when a meta-storyline in Traveller is concerned:

The content of the meta-storyline very quickly starts to reek of conspiracy theories and, or, some kind of godlike species of entity.
The most disturbing thing about 2300AD, which I play is that in the 2320AD Version there is the AGRA entity.

The consequences of a metastoryline is that you end up with some kind of Greek Pantheon of meddling deities looking over your shoulder, or worse: there is a de facto predestination written into the overbearing storyline. This fowls up gameplay: your actions quickly loose their meaning.

One the other hand... An overbearing storyline does add a certain 'schwung' to the background. Going back to the 2300AD storyline: You know how the war will end, but that doesn't matter to the fun of playing because the immediate situation is so nicely placed within that general background.

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

A metastory can be mis-handled, I'll grant ye. But I think that it is a matter of scale. The larger the scope of the metastory (from neighborhood committee to galactic empire), the more it seems to negate its own influence on the individual.

Case in point: Working for a small company (<30 employees), any decision by the leadership is likely to affect an individual worker directly. But working for a global corporation (>30K-employees) means that when the CEO has a migraine, it is less likely to result in the dismissal of the stockroom janitor.

Then there is the proximity of the metastory setting. Another border war between the Imps and the Zhos might cause some difficulties for those living in the Spinward Marches, but have little, if any, effect on those people living anti-spinward of the Two Thousand Worlds.

So, IMO, relative size divided by relative distance should equal a constant; a small, nearby setting for a metastory should have as much of an influence on local events as a large, distant metastory setting.

Thus we have metastories wrapped around each other like layers on an onion, with local events at the very center.

Does this make sense to anyone but me?

 

[Madarin Dude]

I think Meta story should be up to the GM and everything in the game should have some internal consistency with each other. Have it generic makes everything work together old and new.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi

I think my concerns with meta-stories depend on how they are done. For instance, as posted above, the 5th Frontier War impacted some areas of the Imperium but not all. Thus, it was possible to have the meta-plot impact or not impact a campaign as the players and ref see fit, and to whatever extent that they also see fit.

Another good example was in 2300 AD where the Kafer war dramatically impacted one arm of settled space, but the other arms were less impacted.

However, with regards to the Rebellion and Virus (in Traveller) the meta-plots came across as to all encompassing to me, potentially overwhelming most other issues in an adventure.

Also, in some instances as the meta-plots get bigger there seems to be a tendancy to make some adventures too wrapped up in everything, with the adventurers taking on larger than life roles, that may not be to everyones taste. Specifically, although I thought "the narrative of Arrival Vengenace" helped give closure to the Rebellion, I found it hard to accept that any small band of adventurers would cross paths with so many key figures in a system of 11,000 stars.

Just some thoughts.

Regards

PF

 

[Icosahedron]

Personally, I don't want a metaplot at all, changing or static.

Back in the days of the Little Black Box, when the OTU was unknown outside of Mr Miller's playtesters, I used Traveller as it was originally intended - to create my own ATU.

OTU material was and is largely irrelevant to me, and in fact led to a decrease in my purchases of Traveller products in the eighties, as more products gave over more pages to the OTU. I figured why pay good money for a book when 60% of its content was unuseable in my ATU.

IMO, generic stuff - 76 Patrons, 101 Rendezvous, Central Suppy Catalogue, was good, but products using pages to hype up a game world that didn't interest me were a costly PITA.

 

[aramis]

For me, had it not been for the OTU, I'd have quit buying. Mega was, for me, the best rules and the best version of the setting... Not that I much cared for the metaplot of the rebelion after the first couple years, but I could and did run the Marches as the Safe it was listed as in RebSB.

Had it not been for the setting, I'd have passed on TNE's mechanics (I already knew them to be, to my mind, inferior, and wrote GDW saying so when TNE was originally anounced to be using them, along with a dozen of my friends).

I started with CT-'81... and never saw CT as aimed at "Build your own"... the Imperium was present in the rules and the suplements, and the adventures.... without the OTU, the later editions would have been wholly new games, since the mechanics were more different than similar.

But the metaplot kept me buying. Same with Heavy Gear: I've run two sessions of the game, both as minis... but I've bought a lot for the metaplot and setting.

 

[saundby]

Personally, I don't want a metaplot at all, changing or static.

Back in the days of the Little Black Box, when the OTU was unknown outside of Mr Miller's playtesters, I used Traveller as it was originally intended - to create my own ATU.

OTU material was and is largely irrelevant to me, and in fact led to a decrease in my purchases of Traveller products in the eighties, as more products gave over more pages to the OTU. I figured why pay good money for a book when 60% of its content was unuseable in my ATU.

IMO, generic stuff - 76 Patrons, 101 Rendezvous, Central Suppy Catalogue, was good, but products using pages to hype up a game world that didn't interest me were a costly PITA.

This is where I stand, except that I don't mind a setting metastory being present so long as it doesn't force game mechanics. It may be something I can use or weave in to my game, if it's not too specific.

I do, however, like strong setting-building tools. Traveller and PFRPG are both good that way. I like to use my own metaplots, and while I now use others' adventures, I weave them into my own metaplot story lines.

 

[Dragoner]

I like the Imperium, but over time I have developed a sidestory, my ATU, I try to make them match as mutch as is possible. I didn't much care for the rebellion and didn't pay attention to it.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi

For me, had it not been for the OTU, I'd have quit buying.

...
I started with CT-'81... and never saw CT as aimed at "Build your own"... the Imperium was present in the rules and the suplements, and the adventures.... without the OTU, the later editions would have been wholly new games, since the mechanics were more different than similar.
...

I don't know. To me, because the rules provided the ability for rolling your own sectors and subsectors, to me that kind of implied at least some degree of "build your own". I agree that the rules do seem to built kind of around a fuedalistic society and jump type interstellar travel with inertia less acceleration travel in system. But to me thats not exactly the complete OTU, in my mind.

Though to be fair when I first picked up Traveller the OTU background stuff hadn't fully come out yet, so me and my friends initially tried to roll up our own stuff, but quickly switched over to the OTU stuff before we really started playing in earnest, once the OTU stuff started coming out.

Just some thoughts.

Regards

PF

 

[Captain Midnight]

I liked the more detailed background, especially when it came along with some sort of explanation for how and why things might have developed that way; I was too young in the early 80's to have much background in cultural development, and couldn't do much with adapting things for any reason besides "I like it better this way". I also was learning a lot more about how to develop a story arc, and it helped to have as much already set up as possible.

That said, I found the Rebellion plotline implausible, and when I read about Virus, I decided that I'd rather spend my money on girls than Traveller stuff. The horrid MegaTraveller editing didn't help; we had done a lot with TCS, and "Shattered Ships of the Fighting Imperium" pushed me away for years.

I finally got involved again when a friend was playing a GURPS campaign, and I saw that he had the GT main book, and I gave it a read-through. The additional material impressed me, and I especially liked that character creation was by design, not roll-up.

I ultimately got bored with premade adventures, as I wanted to be able to explore different facets and get into them more. I also liked the idea of getting established around a base, and so the background enrichment for the Spinward Marches appealed to me. I saw no need to inflict an implausible story arc on my group, and was more interested in how they would interact with their world at one instant, anyway. We never did play for longer than six months or so, and so huge arcs never would have been revealed -- they would have just irritated me when I read them.

 

[aramis]

I don't know. To me, because the rules provided the ability for rolling your own sectors and subsectors, to me that kind of implied at least some degree of "build your own". I agree that the rules do seem to built kind of around a fuedalistic society and jump type interstellar travel with inertia less acceleration travel in system. But to me thats not exactly the complete OTU, in my mind.

Though to be fair when I first picked up Traveller the OTU background stuff hadn't fully come out yet, so me and my friends initially tried to roll up our own stuff, but quickly switched over to the OTU stuff before we really started playing in earnest, once the OTU stuff started coming out.

Just some thoughts.

Regards

PF

When I got into Traveller, there were 4 Space-Opera games on the market: Traveller, Spacemaster, Space Opera, and Star Frontiers. Of those, all had official universes, and only SF didn't have system generation rules. Spacemaster was the only one explicitly encouraging "build your own setting whole cloth"... Traveller didn't say not to, but it felt very much like the SysGen rules were there for players to fill in the missing chunks rather than to scratchbuild.

 

[HG_B]

I like having a large civilization to GM in. I also like having generation rules if I want to build my own. I DON'T like the game system rules being intertwined with a specific "published game world". This tends to stuff you into a box unless you want to do engage in rewriting large chunks of the rules set.

 

[Vargas]

The Fifth Frontier War is about as much metaplot as I want from Traveller.

 

[FreeTrav]

MU

The well-designed game doesn't need a metaplot, because the inbuilt assumptions about the background - or perhaps it should be called the game context - encourages players to build their own metaplot/storyline.

The well-designed game comes with an extensive background/storyline, because not everyone, no matter how encouraged they might be, has the ability to build their own - or perhaps they lack the CONFIDENCE to try.

The well-designed game is sufficiently modular to allow users to apply or ignore, as they see fit, rules outlining how to manage social, political, and technological change in storyline, regardless of the source of the storyline (or the rules).

The well-designed game provides evolution in the storyline, optionally applied or not, that is well-thought-out in all of the ramifications - technological change doesn't happen in a vacuum; there will be social and political change along with it.

The well-designed game doesn't mandate linkage between rules and storyline, nor between assumptions and storyline.

The well-designed game links rules and assumptions to storyline, to show the application of the former to the latter.

I grant that there may be no well-designed games, given what I've said above. But I think I've made it clear that the correct response to the question is to unask it.

 

[jatay3]

The history of the Imperium is more then enough metaplot. Furthermore it's not as if the fate of individual planets is unimportant. There is already an infinity of potential adventures going on.

 

[Jame]

I like parts of it but am ambivalent on others. Basically, publishers should have products for an official setting, but build them on other products that are generic.

 

[Sifu Blackirish]

Metaplot? I must have been looking at the wrong hand...

I am one of the old school folks who bought that 3 volume boxed set. I just happened to drop by my FLGS on leave, having just graduated from Marine boot camp, and I was hooked!

Having had some experience with war gaming, and a brush with METAMORPHOSIS ALPHA, I was prepared for TRAVELLER. Even though I bought almost everything I could find, I never thought of it as anything but background material, to be used or ignored as desired. That lasted through MEGATRAVELLER, when the shattered imperium background finally depressed me too much. I do wish I had bought HARD TIMES, though.

With my typical monomania and high cranial density, I actually never noticed the underlying patterns present in the OTU until I read the extensive Proto-TRAVELLER discussion!

As for the survey, I am one of the ambivalent ones. Now, if each adventure has an optional page or two with ways to tie it in to the metaplot, we might have the best of both worlds.

 

[kafka47]

I like metaplots as they give structure to the supplements. For that reason, Hard Times, remains my favorite supplement/adventure. However, the structure that is being created should be a grid upon with adventure can reasonably be played out upon. A good example of this is the Classic Traveller adventures, each one is a porous container that can be used a jumping off point for numerous adventures (not just the one the plot has plotted).

A metaplot gone wrong was TNE as even though Challenge kept things open. The canvass was too large without a clear objective.

 

[mbrinkhues]

Games without a Metaplot are not worth playing