Bait & Switch

[Bumbles]

But upon thinking about it, I think such "bait and switch" concepts are not a good idea, in general. I would not like my character to be changed at the opening game session with no warning or no action by me.

Well, that's why you need to separate the change in the character and the change in the setting. This is especially true since you haven't told us what mutations happened. Some may be more or less acceptable than others. Laser eyes or gills is not the same as say growing a second head, or losing your legs.

This is why your "in general" isn't quite as good as you might think. There are so many ways to do it, there's just no way to be sure of it. Now I would agree for a cautious thoughtful approach in general, but I wouldn't say it's not a good idea, but rather a risky one.

Which is often true of many good ideas.

As a general rule, I would not like to be told we're going to play a Greyhawk campaign, and create my Greyhawk-style character, and then discover in the opening of the first game session that we're in Darksun and that my elf is now an orc. Sure, it might turn out to be fun, but it's poor form.

OTOH, what if your DM made a rough description, and told you that you were going on a boat ride, and gave you a rough idea of where you expected to land...but then you landed on Gilligan's Island, or the Lost Island, or the Land of the Lost....

And of course, there's the classic approach used in the Dungeons and Dragons cartoon...bunch of random high school types put in a world they never expected!

DM's are not gods, they do not always know what is best for the game.

Not always? Sure. Nobody is always right. Including the players too. Sometimes the DM might do something they don't want, or expect, and this may or may not be bad.

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

I don't think you understand the philosophies at hand very accurately, as what he's saying isn't what you're complaining about.

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.

And in my opinion, gaming isn't a little ego-fest where the GM panders completely to the players. Of course, you're not saying that, but that's the opposite of what you're saying...and neither is what anybody here is actuallly saying as far as I can tell. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Sometimes the GM does have to do things that one or more players may not want, and that's not a bad thing. Sometimes it is. Blanket statements though, won't get us much of anywhere in this discussion.

 

[Oryan77]

Had you been the Player whose character’s “race” was drastically changed, would you have a problem with it? Or would you just roll with it?

I made this mistake as a DM the first time I began DMing in 2e. It was meant to be my way of telling the player he broke his alignment, but also meant to add something else interesting for his PC while he tries to gain back his proper alignment. I mutated his PC, but gave him special abilities to fit the mutation. I thought it was a cool idea & I thought he'd find it interesting. But I was dead wrong. Lesson learned

I doubt I'd react negatively if I was a player. As long as it made sense, was still interesting, didn't cripple me, & I had a chance to fix it; I'd be ok with it. It would add a great story for my PC if I overcame it.

 

[Bumbles]

As an actor (which is why I have a theatre metaphor), I've worked with directors who have an uncomprising vision for a play and don't take input from the actors and don't much care about audience concerns. And the plays sucked.

And the converse of this would be:

As a directory, workign with actors who have an uncompromising (or divergent) vision for a play, and don't take input from the directors or writers, and don't care much about the concerns of the story, can lead to the play sucking.

Ugh. I've been unlucky enough in my youth to have several DMs who just loved the slave or "naked-in-the-dungeon" trope.

It's a good trope, for limited purposes, but if you overuse it, it can be way too much bother. This is true of most things. And it can be done poorly.

It got so bad I've come to loath the concept. It wasn't all that long ago where I joined an ongoing campaign, and to introduce my character the DM made him a prisoner the PCs rescued. I woke up naked in a dungeon cell, but all my gear was in a trunk not far from the cell. Rationally, that was a fine intro for my character, but it still rankled with me and it took a while for me to relax and have fun.

Well, you could have suggested a different idea, but while that particular circumstance may have seen tiresome to you, I might find "You meet in a bar" tiresome to me. Or having the new PC involved with a family member of the other PC's and kidnapped by a vampire...

IMHO, the DM in the OP is trying something when he pulls the bait & switch. He is trying to make a better game. He is attempting an effect that he hopes will do just that.

Indeed, what's the way the inventor put it? I didn't fail 99 times to make a lightbulb, I learned 99 ways how not to make one!

 

[Dragonbait]

I was never known for making min/maxed characters, and so the DM pushed me in that direction for his game. He was talking about doing all sorts of adventures, facing all sorts of monsters and races, traps, and exploring all sorts of new lands. I made a halfling rogue with a focus on sneak attack (this is early 3E, before we realized the damage machine a rogue can be). Again, at the behest of the DM.

We play three sessions of standard adventures (vs. goblinoids and human bandits). With my stats and feats, I did crap-loads of damage for the time. Then the game moves to a city and we fight NOTHING but undead for the rest of the campaign (well there was 2 golems). All my sneak attack focus becomes worthless and he uses 1 lock and 1 trap for the whole 3-month campaign.

Oh, and all undead apparently had lifesense 120 feet, so no sneaking either. And all enemies has Improved evasion, even the mummies. Seriously. And the illusionist in the group was just as neutered when we realized that all enemies had seen through all illusions by DM's fiat (I recall by the 5th game we realized that no single illusion spell the illusionist cast had worked. Ever, so he switched to fireball, which worked well till all enemies gained Improved Evasion).

I feel that was a real bait 'n switch, amongst other things.

 

[Bullgrit]

you haven't told us what mutations happened

In our situation, the mutation for the one PC was:

Dermal plating -- a natural exoskeleton.
Bird head -- has a big beak; can't remember if it's actually a full, feathered bird head.
Slight dex decrease (from the plating).

The PC is a technical guy (computers, electronics, etc.) and the Player had stated before the game that he was absolutely not a fighter -- would hide from a firefight.

So, the mutation "benefit" didn't play to this PC's strength, if that makes a difference to anyone's like/dislike.

The soldier PC might have loved the plating. My medic character might have benefited mechanically from the plating (protection while working to heal another character), but I still would not have liked to be surprised with it like this.

Bullgrit

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I've DMed a LEGO man construct PC.

Did you want the LEGO-man in your game? If not it might explain your tone a bit. Just as many here are on the side of the players about needing to have a DM you trust, you have to trust your players not to bring something to the game that is wildly inappropriate.

(1) How would that even be possible?

By playing on a good friend's desire to socialize with the group by taking a "my way or the highway" attitude towards the game that will be played.

(2) Why would you want to?

I wouldn't want to. It was just a misunderstood vibe I was reading from you.

I'm not sure exactly what line you are asking about here. Could you please rephrase your questions?

We agree that it isn't OK to trick other players into a game they have rejected. Is it OK to trick them into a genre they don't like? Even if you believe it will make a fun game?

It isn't in particular; but if I wanted a game in which I mingled Western and supernatural elements, the player in question would be a bad choice. In general, players who are not open to trying things are less desireable that players who are. Likewise, DMs who are not open to trying things are less desireable that DMs who are.

I think this gets back to motivation. Are you seeking players to play the game you like? Or are you seeking a game that you and your friends will enjoy?

My priority is the latter. My goal is to have fun on a Friday night with good friends. For all of us to have fun we have to agree on the system we are going to use. Some assumptions of genre can be taken from the chosen game. If I change those assumptions because I think they are fun I have to be prepared if I see that one of my friends is no longer having fun.

IMHO, the DM in the OP is trying something when he pulls the bait & switch. He is trying to make a better game. He is attempting an effect that he hopes will do just that.

I don't see much difference in the "Space Opera to Post-Apocolyptic" and the "Spy-Games to Werewolf" examples. I the former case the GM didn't ask his players if they like Post-Apoc and sprung it on them by surprise, in the latter the GM knows one player doesn't like Werewolf but goes with it anyway. In either case you could have an unsatisfied player. And for me that could mean a friend that either suffers through something unfun for him just to hang out with me or bows out and I miss the opportunity to hang out with him.

If I believe that "DMs who are not open to trying things are less desireable that DMs who are" (and I do), then I have to take this as evidence for the desireability of this particular DM. And if I believe that "players who are not open to trying things are less desireable that players who are" (and I do), then I have to also believe that the player unwilling to accept the bait and switch -- to try it and see if the DM does pull off the hoped-for effect -- is generally less desireable as a player than one who is willing to give it a try.

I agree with you. I have had the frustration of trying to convince my friends to play new things. Even if I believe a less-open player is less desirable, that is just one of many faults we as human beings have to put up with to be friends. Nobody's perfect. I value having less-open friends around my game table than I do more-open players.

Edit: Just a personal observation, not trying to assign any behavior to any particular person or make blanket statements. - I've noticed that people who move often don't have as strong of ties to friends they meet along the way. When you have to move every few years it's harder to form that bond. That's not to say such a person doesn't make friends. But from the viewpoint of a person with deep roots in their community (tried to find a way to say this that doesn't sound superior, if it does that's not my intent), those friends would be on par with what they would view as a good aquaintance. Could this be a factor in the priorities of our respective game tables?

 

[Ariosto]

You try things, and if they don't work out -- guess what? In a fantasy game, any brave new world can easily be made to have such wonders in it as to lead to any other.

So, there was a groovy element of mystery, suspense and paranoia in introducing Call of Cthulhu elements ... but at the end of the day, the players would rather go back to playing Gangbusters "straight". Or maybe they're not big on the horror element but would dig some "pulp hero" action, dinosaurs and weird science.

Fine. Have an adventure to Make the Stars Wrong for the Elder Things and discover the Land that Time Forgot. Problem? Problem solved!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Did you want the LEGO-man in your game?

Not sure where I have been unclear, but I think you should know by now that the LEGO-man wouldn't have been in the game had I not wanted him in the game, and had I not believed that it wouldn't detract from the game we were playing.

My point is that assuming that the players won't come up with something as weird as a Telletubby (or at least as weird as a LEGO-man) is just plain wrong.

By playing on a good friend's desire to socialize with the group by taking a "my way or the highway" attitude towards the game that will be played.

Even so, there must be factors that make the person want to play more than not want to play. But, as a DM, I would be very leery about saying "Yes" (at least for more than a session or two) to a player that I didn't think really wanted to play that game.

For some folks here, it seems, D&D is their only social outlet with the people they play with. IMHO, if you have a friend whose gaming needs are that different from your own, you should do something else with your friend. Go fishing, camping, bowling, whatever.

Life is too short for crap games.

We agree that it isn't OK to trick other players into a game they have rejected. Is it OK to trick them into a genre they don't like? Even if you believe it will make a fun game?

How, exactly, does one both know that the players don't like a given genre, yet believe that tricking them into it will make a fun game?

Sorry, but I don't believe that this GM exists.

EDIT: About the "wrong vibe" you got, VB, I don't think you could find someone faster to advise folks to walk from games they aren't enjoying than I am. I certainly wouldn't try to force someone into a game they didn't enjoy.


RC

 

[Bumbles]

The PC is a technical guy (computers, electronics, etc.) and the Player had stated before the game that he was absolutely not a fighter -- would hide from a firefight.

Well, that might be a bit much, but OTOH, the dermal plating may give him a chance to not worry about fights.

It certainly wouldn't invalidate the ability to use computers or electronics though, which is pretty good. That might be taking it too far.

The soldier PC might have loved the plating. My medic character might have benefited mechanically from the plating (protection while working to heal another character), but I still would not have liked to be surprised with it like this.

And this PC might have enjoyed gaining technopathic powers of some kind, but then I can see how that might be a bit much in the way of playing to their strengths.

 

[Bumbles]

By playing on a good friend's desire to socialize with the group by taking a "my way or the highway" attitude towards the game that will be played.

This attitude can be applied on both sides though.

We agree that it isn't OK to trick other players into a game they have rejected. Is it OK to trick them into a genre they don't like? Even if you believe it will make a fun game?

I believe this is the root of the conflict, as you're not thinking of another way to parse it:

Is it ok to trick other players into a game they didn't expect? There's a gap between "I didn't expect that to happen" and "I didn't want that" . Sure, you can get people unhappy with the first, but you can get people unhappy in your game anyway.

I think it's ok to throw players for a loop sometimes. This doesn't mean everything you can do is ok, and it doesn't mean I'll always be happy when it happens. Or that I expect others to be happy. I hope they will, but if they're not? Oh well, you can fail even if you play things straight. I've had gaming groups fall apart for reasons beyond counting. It happens.

Sometimes trying new things does that.