Editing Talk:Metaplot

Last Paragraph of the page:

''However, many players and GMs dislike metaplots. The most common criticism is that play groups are forced to follow the metaplot by the threat of losing product support if they don't. In the above example, if the results of a group's adventures logically mean that the wizard in their gameworld will not in fact defect from the faction, they will be left on their own to work out how the group's magical abilities would have developed, because no supplement will ever be provided covering this. If however the GM insists on forcing events to conform to the metaplot by declaritng that the party's actions had no real effect and the wizard defects anyway, then the PCs have been railroaded and deprotagonized, potentially creating dissatisfaction.'' 

If you don't mind me being blunt, what purpose does this non-argument paragraph serve besides making a very poor criticism of Metaplots?
There is no guarantee, after all, that the wizard in the example would ever get mentioned in any further supplement at all. In fact, absence of a metaplot makes that even more likely since ANY progression the wizard goes through would have to be based on something.

So essentially the GM would have to decide for himself how that NPC and his group would progress just the same. The only difference between a Metaplot and no Metaplot there is that there's one less supplement for that line being sold --[[Special:Contributions/88.159.171.64|88.159.171.64]] 00:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC).