RPG Talk: The Dreaded(?) Meta-Arc

In the late 80s (not exclusively, but it kind of exploded then), one trick role-playing game publishers found to keep selling product was the meta-arc. By making their game settings living, breathing, EVOLVING worlds, the designers could update their timelines and sell new sourcebooks (and tie-in adventures) for the same setting. Some of these provided a variant to explore - pushing Traveler's or the Forgotten Realms' history a number of decades or centuries, for example - while others happened during one's campaign and might even have invited players' current characters to witness the changes or participate in them. These were mostly controversial and in many cases, were a last gasp/shark-jumping exercise that failed to squeeze more money out of GameMasters. Today, I want to look at the pros and cons of the meta-arc strategy and how to make it work for you... because it's not necessarily a bad idea. Depending on how you use it.

The big mistake publishers made with their meta-arcs was to drastically, overnight, change their settings. I think gamers saw these "post-Crisis" universes (to use some comics nomenclature) as jumping off points, and few GMs saw them as jumping ON points (why go for the mutated reality when the classic game is the one people recommend?). Too often, these jump points targeted one of the core elements of the game that designers were mistaken in destroying. So Planescape's Factol War destroying the Factions that made AD&D Planescape unique? No, don't, don't do that. Or Paranoia's Computer Crash and Reboot... Given that Paranoia is almost exclusively played as one-shots, who needs a "continuing story" here? While not all meta-arcs conform to this scorched earth behavior, even a "60 years later" reboot will often be viewed as "another game" and as if the publisher has decided that "your campaign world is over". Published adventures that act as big Endgames (as the MCU learned) are just encouraging groups to end their game and pick up another - probably not your "sequel setting".

But I think we CAN learn something from this publishing strategy. The problem with the apocalyptic change of tack is that it feels imposed on groups, but what if YOU want a change of pace on your own terms? Or want to end a campaign before a group has to dissolve for real-life reasons? These meta-arc finales/turning points can act as inspiration for your own game, or be used directly if you're playing those specific games. In the case of "decades-later" sequels, think about ending things with the current PCs and picking things up with their descendants. Make it a legacy/generational game. It's all about taking something kind of uncool by the publisher (a cash grab that destroys the game world and prevents additional support) into a cool experience for the players.

The one aspect of the meta-arc we haven't discussed yet is INCREMENTAL evolution. The big sea change can be difficult to accept, but worlds built on a timeline like Traveler/Megatraveler and Torg/Torg Eternity (to name two examples) can be very rewarding. Setting events on a timer means the world moves on no matter what the PCs do, barring any interference from them (so keep things flexible and give them opportunities to affect their world). These events can be part of a news feed that encouraged immersion in the game world, or can be used to inspire adventure scenarios, possibly even goals set by the players.

It must be scaled to the game, of course. In a space opera, it's fine to get news from all over the quadrant (or sector, depending on how fast news travels). If the game is played on a global stage, like many superhero games and the aforementioned Torg, invasions and political upheaval proceeds apace while the PCs are doing things on the other side of the planet. In games where communications aren't so far-ranging, like most sword & sorcery and historical games, you only need to track a single region or city. Draw up a calendar and be aware of when important things happen. When your PCs hit that date, the news or rumor mill report it. Perhaps it affects the PCs, perhaps it doesn't. I've been able to build rivalries between PC groups and NPC organizations or villains just based on events the PCs didn't take part in. Just hearing about these other entities' successes creates a certain investment and prepares the table for actual encounters with them.

Incremental changes aren't as shocking for players and are no more damaging to the game world than the results of their OWN adventures. But if they take a particular interest, the GM is directed to explore those events further, bring confrontations to a head, allow the PCs to forge their own direction instead of waiting around for a quest giver to ask. Many RPGs will go into socio-political details you can never hope to use UNLESS you drop them into a game somehow. By letting the meta-arc play out in news and rumors, you don't need to suddenly drop huge expository pieces at the start of an adventure (reminders, yes, of course), and developments will feel more organic. This is especially true if you constantly update your calendar to take the PCs' actions into account, so do try to think of consequences directly related to their successes and failures and integrate them into that calendar.

You don't necessarily have to dread that meta-arc...