RPG's with progressive timelines

[Alexis Machine]

One thing I have not seem in too many RPG's is a progressive timeline. What I mean by this is a timeline that moves the world the players are in along over months or years.

What I was thinking is core book with rules, setting and the start of the story and then suppliments to update the story every so many months/years (depending on the game).

This way the players will live in a world/setting that actually changes and progresses.

I know Heavy Gear started out like this...maybe Battletech too.

What I wanted to know was your guys thought on this. Is this a good idea? Or is it to restricting to dictate what direction the game setting follows over time?

-Alexis Machine-

[Jared A. Sorensen]

What yer describing is a metaplot -- White Wolf and AEG do this as well. I think it's amazingly bad for the game and usually comes out of some desire for wargame-y campaigns ("The Battle of Jarlsburg 1202-1217") or the desire to write novels.

But hey, what do I know? Lots of people seem to love this stuff.

[Sangrolu]

I take it that you missed all of the grousing about Metaplots?

Generally, I agree with Jason on this one. Metaplots, or aggressively progressive timelines, can cause havoc with the campaigns of those that run the associated games unless the events are done in such a way that the GM can ignore or skirt around the change and the players feel like they are credibly involved in the setting.

[14thWarrior]

This is one point on which we agree Jared.

WotC (and formerly TSR) are also guilty of this. Their campaign settings mutate over time to keep the campaign setting in line with their novels.

This is bad because if all you've got is the basic campaign setting material and you decide to buy an adventure module or something for it later; you often find serious inconsistencies between the campaign you're running and the new product. Surprises that reduce the value you receive from the product.

[Inu_Kozaki]

From a GMing standpoint, I do not like it.

I've run 7th Sea for 2 years (got it the day I saw it in stores), and L5R even longer. Both games are incredibly rich with detail and story. The reason that I keep running them is the love for the world that my players have.

However, I've never been able to run a 'real' 7th Sea game. What do I mean by 'real'? I have never been able to run a 7th Sea campaign that follows the storyline. Here are the three reasons I believe this is difficult:

1) Surprises
2) Lack of continual updates
3) Lack of putting the heroes first

Two and three are the ones that I think can be overcome with relative ease, so I'll talk about them quickly. Continuing storylines have the problem of too little information with too much time in between. It's been two years since 7th Sea came out and only within the next 2-3 months will the first major world changing event occur -- The Montaigne Revolution. Since I only follow the RPG (card games are too much of a passing fancy for me), I have little info about what happened in that time for me to have been able to flesh out. Because of that, I have forstalled the revolution that most of my gaming friends wanted to see and participate in. Part of the same problem, what if a main character dies in the story line -- murdered by someone that already died? Continuity starts flying out of the window.

Secondy, with the heroes already being developed and defined by AEG (just for the sake of this post, since I'm using 7th Sea), my characters play second fiddle to the grander scheme of things. Sure, they could have been there when the climactic battle between Reis and Berek occurred, but they will have little to do specifically with it.

Finally, my biggest gripe, is with surprises. The 7th Sea has a *lot* of incredibly well thought out intricacies, conspiracies, intrigues, and more around *every* (and I mean it) corner. However, the unravelling of them leaves them less surprising the next time you run a campaign. I suppose that one could run a campaign that continues right where you left your previous one if you're running what I defined as a 'real' campaign, however you're stuck again with the problems stated above.

I'm sure you're saying, "Jason, why don't you just fudge the storyline? A good GM can alter the storyline and make it just as fun. Play around the lack of info and just slide it in as you learn more about the world with new books and such." You're in luck! That's exactly what I do. However, since I have to make up everything that happens to the point that the story isn't the same... why have the story so integrated into the campaign world? I don't think it should be.

My recommendation is something along the line of 'thread books'. Books separate from their sourcebooks on the flavor of the world, the groups, the countries, the people, etc that are dedicated to the story and how you might integrate it into your campaigns. This way, fans of the game can keep their own games going and not feel like they are obligated to continue the storyline if they want to.

DISCLAIMER: I have written this without any sleep and attempted not to make it sound like a rant, but more as an informative post. If it doesn't sound this way, pretend it was never posted. Good night... er morning.

Jason Olsan

[Jared A. Sorensen]

Originally posted by Inu_Kozaki

3) Lack of putting the heroes first


Bingo.

Just like the GM cannot "tell a story" and the players' characters can't be "protagonists in that story," then those players definitely can't do anything in a metaplot-laden game because the game turns into "stories about the designers' pet characters" which they made into the game's major NPCs.

I hate that!

[Mock]

I strongly disapprove of metaplots. They suggest that the players aren't likely to have much effect on the future; they offer built-in railroading (unless a GM counteracts them); they distract players from campaigns; and they promote meta-gaming.

Additionally--this is a pet peeve--they generally cause game companies to churn out an unwieldy amount of stuff, which can be too much for a lowly GM to assimilate.

Shadowrun, for instance, has lots of supplements linked to various points in its metaplot. I simply ignore them, restricting my players to the main book and a couple supplements. (actually, Shadowrun has too damn many supplements as it is. It's rapidly becoming one of my least favorite games).

But I digress...

I'd leave them out. Better to indicate the general aims of various organizations and entities in your storyline, and let the GM decide if those aims are realized, than to issue a supplement later on that foretells the future.

[Mock]

I strongly disapprove of metaplots. They suggest that the players aren't likely to have much effect on the future; they offer built-in railroading (unless a GM counteracts them); they distract players from campaigns; and they promote meta-gaming.

Additionally--this is a pet peeve--they generally cause game companies to churn out an unwieldy amount of stuff, which can be too much for a lowly GM to assimilate.

Shadowrun, for instance, has lots of supplements linked to various points in its metaplot. I simply ignore them, restricting my players to the main book and a couple supplements. (actually, Shadowrun has too damn many supplements as it is. It's rapidly becoming one of my least favorite games).

But I digress...

I'd leave them out. Better to indicate the general aims of various organizations and entities in your storyline, and let the GM decide if those aims are realized, than to issue a supplement later on that foretells the future.

[Mock]

Aw crap...sorry for the double post.

[Razgon]

IMO progressive times can work if brought in at the right time and the right place.
For instance, I was running a fantasy campaign of my own, in a world that was a bit thin to say the least :) I had some great ideas I wanted to try out as far as world creation goes, but couldnt realize them in the current world.
So, what to do? Well, lets DESTROY THE CURRENT WORLD!! (Insert manic laughter here)
I created a plot where the fate of the world depended on the PC's. They were central to the plot the whole time, and although it took a lot of winging it, they almost, almost, succed in stopping the evil dragons from ruining the entire world :)
At the end, they had to use some ancient artifacts to escape the dying world, and enter another dimension :)

Viola, goodbye world. And the good thing is, I can always let them revisit, or use characters from it that has also miracously escaped.

[Nemesis of the North]

For RPG design, no. I don't think you could do it well enough, unless you run a game that doesn't affect the outside world in any way (In something like Vampire, I think the happenings of the daylight world could be sketched out, but even that would be subject to change).

As a GM, however, It's neccesarry to do so, I think. It seems bad to live in a world where all happens around the PCs.


Nem

[Mock]

Originally posted by Razgon
I created a plot where the fate of the world depended on the PC's. They were central to the plot the whole time, and although it took a lot of winging it, they almost, almost, succed in stopping the evil dragons from ruining the entire world :)
At the end, they had to use some ancient artifacts to escape the dying world, and enter another dimension :)


If things had gone differently, could the players have averted the end of the world? Don't get me wrong--I'm not accusing you of railroading--but if they had succeeded, would you have been totally stumped, or was it a viable option?

[Sarim Rune]

I like Meta-plots, or as I call them Uber-plots.

I find that I can get a lot of direction from a Meta-plot as a Storyguide, so I don't mind them. They NEVER hinder my gaming. I don't care what happens with a game world. If I like it, I'll use it. If I don't, then it's easy enough to ignore. I just see the inclusion of a Meta-plot as more options for the Storyguide.
So I don't see why you can't put a Meta-plot into your game in the design phase.

I think one of the problems involved with Meta-plots are two-fold.
First, too much information is sometimes given. If too much information is given, then it threatens to overshadow the game. If you can't ignore the Meta-plot, then the players will find themselves involved and often overwhelmed.
Second, the information is given subtly. Too subtly over a billion supplements. And it's all very contradicting.

Kult is an example fo the first. Read the first few pages and you know almost the entire Meta-plot. And it's too big, too impossible to deal with. I couldn't think of a damn thing to run in Kult for the longest time becaues it was all too much.

The World of Darkness (White wolf games) and Shadowrun are two prime examples of the second. The WOD began with a Meta-plot and you know, it didn't affect me one bit because it was hardly even acknolwedged. As time went on, it was fun to adjust the game (one clan leaving the Camarilla and one clan dying). None of my players minded at all (and I ran Live games with 40 players). Shadowrun I don't believe ever began with a Meta-plot. They just inserted it slowly and then the company went under...

So I don't see why a Meta-plot is 'bad', as previously suggested. I personally use one in the game that I've been working on and I created it so that I could have a good excuse for my setting. After playtesting the game I'm convinced that I've done the right thing. I made sure that yes, there's a Meta-plot and it's a big one. But really there's nothing that can be done about it right now, so don't worry. Play the game in the setting that is given and have fun with it.
Eventually, should my game ever become in any way popular, I will endeavor to put out more of the Meta-plot. From there though, I will make it clear, not obscure and I will provide many ways in how the characters can be involved in solving it.

[Razgon]

Originally posted by Mock


If things had gone differently, could the players have averted the end of the world? Don't get me wrong--I'm not accusing you of railroading--but if they had succeeded, would you have been totally stumped, or was it a viable option?

Well, actually they couldn't have succeded in stopping the destruction of the world. Their quest was doomed from the beginning, but as long as they FELT they had a chance, and as long as some of side quests they undertook had an overall effect on the world/plot, such as stopping one of the evil dragons plots, they DID feel that.

I used the "progressive timeline" to make things happen all around the players each time we played, to make them part of an EPIC adventure, and of course, to destroy the world as I planned :)

[Just Me]

I like having them in the background of my mind. I can use them for information and games that may or may not be linked to the Meta-plots. Rarely would I ever use NPCs/complete plotlines from the meta-plots, rather my own ever evolving world. It has enough of it's own NPCs, events, PCs, and details to keep most people happy. Plus it helps me avoid the "Well it says in book x page x that this happened."

[Mock]

Originally posted by Razgon


I used the "progressive timeline" to make things happen all around the players each time we played, to make them part of an EPIC adventure, and of course, to destroy the world as I planned :)

Exxxxcellent....Smithers! Fetch my atomic disassembler!

[Mock]

Re: Re: Re:

Does that remind anyone else of the movie "Psycho?"

Must...remember....to change...subject line.

[Razgon]

Damn, you saw through my disguise...now I must destroy your wolrd as well ;)

[kabael]

I approve of metaplots, but only in the abstract. TheoreticallyI think that a constantly evolving and interesting game world is a good thing. Problems start occurring when the metaplots are actaully put into effect because they are harder to do than a "static" game, and those are far from fool-proof themselves.

White Wolf's "Year of Revelations" happy fun-time and the Revised editions are good examples of this. The World of Darkness needed an update and a revision, I think, and they made a lot of really good changes, developments and additions. The problem was they also made some staggeringly bad ones along with them, so a Game Master is not only forced to pick through the old material for what he wants to use or abandon, but he also has to filter through the metaplot, much of which could cause significant changes.

Personally, I think the best options is to keep metaplots to a minimum, but not to abandon them completely. I like metaplots for two reasons:
1. They change the setting, which can be a good thing. I like to see new (good) stuff in an, familiar setting.
2. They provide me with fodder for not only campaign ideas, but for background to a campaign, to further enhance the sense of "The players, even if central to the story, do not consitute the entirety of the active world" that I value so much.

The sad thing is that all too often metaplots fall to what everyone else here (and myself) dislikes, which are nonsensical changes or rigid storylines in which the players have no say.

[Patrick Chipman]

I like metaplots, when they're logically executed. This means that you need to avoid "big revelations that make no sense even if you own all the sourcebooks" (*cough*Mage Revised*cough*) and changes to the setting that alter the game mechanics, thus requiring the GM to choose under which version of the rules he wants to run his game.

For an example of how not to handle a metaplot, look at Mage. Nothing in any of the sourcebooks gives any indication of what's going on, short of a small (from the "altering the game" perspective) plot involving the House of Helekar. Then, suddenly, the Digital Web crashes, resulting in completely new rules and setting information. Next, major chantries fall, various masters spontaneously die, and Umbral travel basically ceases to exist, all in the span of one book -- Mage Revised. There are no hints anywhere to prepare GMs for these events, and the results of them alter the rules so substantially that GMs now have to determine which rules and which metaplot under which they want to run, since everything is now incompatible.

A good way to run a metaplot is to alter the setting while keeping the mechanics constant. Optimally, you should separate metaplot material from other material so that the GM can choose whether or not he wants to include the metaplot and buy appropriately. If he opts not to follow it, he can still purchase other sourcebooks.

[KlausGreen]

I have always felt a bit conflicted with this "events has to evolve around the PC's" style of roleplaying since it doesn't always make a lot of sense.

There are external influences everywhere and in every setting and in order for the players to feel PART of the world and not as some sort of superconductor for events to materialize through I think it is important to implement outside influences as being at least as weighty as those directly affected or manipulated by the players.

A lot of games has been mentioned in the previous posts and one of them was Shadowrun. I have GM'ed a lot of Shadowrun games through the time of first and second edition and have always held the firm belief that the outside world would ALWAYS be stronger than the players, that there would be changes that would reach out and touch the players' lives and only rarely would the actions of the players have such far reaching consequences. But if they manipulate the right places their actions might lead to more change than they can initially foresee which would be another way of making the players feel their characters are part of a great and evolving world.

On the other hand I would like to say that I have never implemented subplots presented by a gaming company as I have no way of regaining the initiative smoothly if some player has "accidentally" read the sourcebook in the local game store. If you make your own subplots and sideplots you'll be in the safe zone. Always.

KR KGA

[kabael]

I agree, KlausGreen. It doesn't always make sense for the players to be the most important people in the game world - but I do think they should be the most important people in the story. They may not have the greatest influence or importance on the setting and overall development of the world, but, by their very nature, they have to be central to the story.

Of course, many of the metaplot problems arise because sweeping changes are made that directly affect the players without their chance of being involved in any capacity beyond that of spectators. Sometimes it's good to have events beyond the control of players and their characters, but basing an entire story on that (like a number of metaplot adventures end up doing, albeitly unintentionally I'm sure) is only going to get you a bunch of resentful players.