Bait & Switch

[Raven Crowking]

Who said anything about abusive language? That's not part of this discussion.

"Players can tell the DM and talk to him anyway they want to."

Be careful, you're agreeing with me.

Players can talk to the DM, and the DM should listen (although not always change as a result of listening).

What's not to agree with?!?!

This boils down to two questions.

Do you trust the DM enough to let them surprise you?

Do you trust that the DM will listen and change the campaign if those surprises don't pan out?

Absolutely!

 

[rkwoodard]

Sure it is.



Sorry, but are you suggesting that the DM is obligated to run a particular type of game. Or to avoid using particular methods of achieving what they believe will create a better game?



RC

The DM is certainly not obligated to run a particular type of game, if he wants to run a Western Horror then he can.

But it is a waste of my time for him to say he is running something else and then spring it on me. Or do by DM Fiat change my character before the session without any conversations with me.

I turned down a Werewolf game a couple of years ago. If the GM would have then said "Ok, we will play a spy game" and then before play started said "You were all bitten by werewolves". Then he wasted my time.

RK

 

[Piratecat]

The DM is not beholden to the players. If the players don't like the game, they have the ability to walk away, but they have no right to tell the DM what to run or how to run it. The DM has an absolute right to run the game in any way, shape, or form that he believes will result in a better game.

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. We have different philosophies on this.

In my opinion gaming isn't a little ego-fest where the GM displays his prize creation for the players to adore; it's a communal, highly collaborative experience where everyone is supposed to have fun. Heck, I prefer roleplaying to combat, but I'll surely run a combat heavy game if my players prefer; doing otherwise would be akin to me serving only meat to a vegetarian who I invited over for dinner, just because I like meat myself.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

On a sidenote, I have found that a bait and switch that lets the players do cool things works. I once started a GURPS campaign where the players were told that they would be FBI agents, kind of like Mulder and Scully with a few extra PCs. They started off investigating a murder in a small town in Kansas. Then a green glow enveloped the place and they found themselves in a fantasy world, with modern weapons and equipment, facing a dragon. Their helicopter took it out. They were cool with that.

 

[Doug McCrae]

RC:

1) Are you ever a player or do you only GM?
2) Is your group composed of close friends or is it just a bunch of random guys who only meet to play D&D?

It seems to me both these factors strongly inform your views on GM-power versus player-power. You're making the mistake of thinking that what works for you and your group is a universal truth of roleplaying.

As Umbran says, there is a big difference between groups that have a strong social bond and groups that don't. The latter can require a much heavier GM-hand. For the former the game might be almost irrelevant, it's just an excuse for old friends to meet up. Keeping everyone happy is the #1 priority. If one guy really hates Cthulhu or something then the group won't play Cthulhu.

 

[Dyson Logos]

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. We have different philosophies on this.

In my opinion gaming isn't a little ego-fest where the GM displays his prize creation for the players to adore; it's a communal, highly collaborative experience where everyone is supposed to have fun.

Agreed. A bait and switch has to be with the right group. Even if there isn't warning, you should know your group well enough in advance from previous games to at least partially gauge their response to the change in game concept.

That said, with the right group, this kind of switch can be awesome, and in some groups will result in a long-term campaign (or a short-term one) that will remain in the memories of the players for some time to come. One of my own favourite games was started like this when we played Ironlords of Jupiter (I'll have to look that up - can't remember the name for certain). We made astronauts for d20 modern in a very serious style of game, and then twenty minutes into the game discovered that we were in a classic Burroughs Mars type setting with characters that seemed wildly innapproriate but who got into the vibe pretty quickly. The one player who wasn't happy with the switch sat down with the GM between sessions and made a new character from the setting (one of our guides from the first game) and his human astronaut retired from the group as soon as we found a place to leave his gibbering, nearly catatonic body (he didn't handle the stress very well).

We played that game for 17 game sessions, and have talked about it incessantly since.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I turned down a Werewolf game a couple of years ago. If the GM would have then said "Ok, we will play a spy game" and then before play started said "You were all bitten by werewolves". Then he wasted my time.

In this particular case, I agree with you.

The DM is not doing the change to make the game better; he is doing the change to make you play the game he wants you to play, which you have already rejected.

In the immortal words of Dan Savage, DTMFA.

Wow, I couldn't disagree more. We have different philosophies on this.

In my opinion gaming isn't a little ego-fest where the GM displays his prize creation for the players to adore

Apparently, we don't have different opinions after all.

If the DM pulls a bait & switch because he thinks it will produce a better game, by all means he has the right to try it. This isn't the same as rkwoodard's example DM who is pulling a bait & switch to manipulate the players into playing a game which they have rejected.

The DM is allowed to use any and all reasonable means (by which I mean, largely, which are legal and do not endanger the actual players in some way) to make the game better. Sometimes these means are successful. Sometimes they are not.

If you are unwilling to accept that the DM might do something that falls flat -- then neither are you giving the DM the ability to soar. All you are doing is promoting a mediocre game where the DM never takes risks in case his players pout about it afterwards and ask for a refund.

I would never DM like that, nor would I ever be willing to play in a game being DMed like that.

Funny how some people equate "The DM isn't obligated to run whatever he is told to run" with "a little ego-fest where the GM displays his prize creation for the players to adore".

It suggests that a little ego-fest is going on somewhere, just not behind the DM's screen.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

1) Are you ever a player or do you only GM?

I have been both. I really enjoy playing, but I have a hard time getting someone else to DM. Throughout my gaming career, the following has happened all too often.

a. I find a game to join. I get to play for a month or two. Or three.
b. DM wants to take a break.
c. Possibly someone else DMs something. Eventually that person wants a break.
c. Eventually I get asked if I can run something.
d. I run something.
e. The group wants me to continue running the game.
f. I do so until circumstances (moving, work, home life) prevents me from doing so.
g. Those people continue to check periodically, so long as I am in the area, if I can/will run something for them.

I spent four years in the US Army, and as a result I have played in many states, and I now live in Canada. Regardless of having played with literally hundreds of players and under dozens of DMs, never have I seen any evidence that my general opinion on this is wrong.

YMMV.

2) Is your group composed of close friends or is it just a bunch of random guys who only meet to play D&D?

I've done both. Family. Friends. Close friends. Players I've only met through D&D.



RC

 

[pneumatik]

I don't understand the difference between having your character mutated at the very start of the game via plot and having him mutated during the campaign via plot. What if the PCs woke up on up in an MA setting but no one had mutated, but when they left the stasis room they were exposed to radiation that did mutate one of them? Or if simply stepping out of their stasis pods could mutate them? Or take it in the other direction, and 10 sessions into the campaign your character mutates.

I don't see a huge difference between any of these options. If you're opposed to all of them, you're expecting something much different from RPing than I am. If you're all about RP, then mutating is just something else to RP about. It doesn't just the "you" of the character, just what they look like and can do.

 

[Ariosto]

And, if you run a superior game, IME and IMHO, running out of players isn't ever even remotely a problem. YMMV.

And if you play a superior game -- meaning in this case that you take advantage of the opportunity for role-playing and adventure -- then getting into a milieu you like should not be a big problem.

"Just say yes", as a default, is in my experience the prevailing attitude among my friends ... and it goes both ways across the GM-player divide. Everyone is working in good faith to make for a fun game, which is not synonymous with "getting my way".

If an experiment turns out to be a "disaster", then we deal with it and move on. Nothing is truly going to "wreck the game". If it seems best to set aside one game, then we can pull out another.

It is first and last a social gathering. We get together because we enjoy spending time together. The GM throwing a surprise into a scheduled session is no more malicious than friends throwing a surprise party. To respond with passive aggression, stoking a grudge, is not sensible. If one really does not feel up to going along with it, then one can talk with one's friends as friends.