What do people think of campaign twists?

[Rakor]

In general, what do you folks prefer:

1. Collaborating with the GM before the campaign starts so that you have a clear idea of what the campaign is going to beabout and how your character fits into the campaign.

OR

2. Making characters in something of a vacuum and not really knowing what the themes are going to be.

Generally if I'm setting up a D&D campaign which is going to be all about Orcus and undead I let the players know very quickly, generally as we make charactrs. So do people prefer to be surprised by that kind of thing?

If something is going to happen to the characters early on which sets up the campaign would you rather know about it before we start. For example, if all of the characters are going to die in the first session and the first half of the campaign is going to involve fighting your way out of the underworld and then seeking out and reclaiming your soul.

It seems weird enough that I don't like surprising people with it, but do players like that kind of surprise?

 

[jdrakeh]

I generally walk out of games where I'm promised D&D and then delivered something entirely different, using the D&D rules (a certain 'D&D' game that involved transforming mecha and outerspace combat comes to mind). So, yeah, I'm all about DMs being honest up front. That said, the 'killed in the first session thing' is not something that I need to know about beforehand, as long as it doesn't turn the game into something other than D&D.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Neither. I lean towards #1, but I'm not really a big fan of collaboration. I've had too many bad experiences being a player in a player driven campaign.

 

[Stalker0]

Ideally, I want to know the gist of the campaign, but I don't need a huge amount of detail.

If my GM says, "Its a sea based game", alright. If he says, "Its mainly a one city game", okay.

 

[Oni]

In general I like to at least have an idea of the general feel of a game before I get involved. That way I can have an idea if it's something I would be interested in before devoting time to it. And if I am interested to be able to make a character that's appropriate. I also think it is considerate, if say you're going to be running an against the undead campaign to say let people considering playing rogues (at least in 3e) that so they can make an informed decision before choosing a gimped character. Or a city campaign, or sea going campaign, high combat, low/no combat et c.

 

[Serendipity]

Surprise me. Just do a good job with it.

As a GM I tend to start campaign games somewhere between the two extremes. I reserve the right to surprise the players but some kind of solid foundation really really helps.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

So do people prefer to be surprised by that kind of thing?

I do not appreciate "being sold a bill of goods" and have it turn out to be something other than.

I am very willing to go along with a DM as long as I know ahead of time what sorts of character concepts are going to be inappropriate. I don't need spoilers either.

 

[justanobody]

I generally walk out of games where I'm promised D&D and then delivered something entirely different, using the D&D rules (a certain 'D&D' game that involved transforming mecha and outerspace combat comes to mind). So, yeah, I'm all about DMs being honest up front. That said, the 'killed in the first session thing' is not something that I need to know about beforehand, as long as it doesn't turn the game into something other than D&D.

That.

Also if all the characters die at any time, then that game is over. Make new characters and start a new one. If it was too short a game switch to a new DM as well.

The amount I need to know about the game before playing it is what type of character I need. If the game goes in a direction I start not liking, I will indicate so during the game, and if it continues down that road, I pack up and leave.

 

[amethal]

I am very willing to go along with a DM as long as I know ahead of time what sorts of character concepts are going to be inappropriate. I don't need spoilers either.

I agree.

The last campaign I was a player in, the DM said that playing a paladin might cause difficulties. He also said that we were going to start off without any equipment, so playing a wizard was probably a bad idea.

(In a way that was a shame, as I wanted to try a character with a Vow of Poverty, but I didn't think that would be appropriate for a campaign which started out without any equipment ...)

I enjoy campaign settings with hidden twists. It would spoil it for me if the DM gave me a synopsis at the start.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

As both a DM and a Player I like collaboration.

So say I am DMing I sit down with them give them the gist of the campaign setting, like lets take my current one; "It is set in a landscape similar to a fantastical, gritty, 18th century Louisiana where Vodoun worship is prevelant throughout."

Then they say what they want to play and we figure out how to fit that into the setting. One player for instance is a Doppelganger, so we decided on; "they are spirits who ride recently deceased or zombified beings who are able to steal the "essence of a spirit" to mask its body in its illusion".

So after were all set in done we get down to playing. But, I then begin to mix in little tidbits of knowledge and basically mysteries to show that things may not be as they seem. However this is for the Players to uncover and find out, and this is where the campaign twists come about.