Bait & Switch

[Azgulor]

I'm a fan of the targeted bait-and-switch, provided it's handled well, particularly for modern and sci-fi games. Where I think your GM went off course was mutating the one character. It's one thing to make a character thinking the game is going to be one way and changing course but it's quite another to invalidate a player's character concept before play even begins.

Bait-n-switch example campaigns that can work well:
The secret Horror campaign:
Set-up: You're cops. You fight crime. You play through several sessions establishing your characters and working routine cases: homicides, robbery, etc. Then things start getting weird. The vic is drained of blood. The suspect doesn't go down despite knowing you and your partner put rounds into the bastard.

Seriously, which is more enjoyable (i.e. scarier - cause that's what you want with horror): "We're going to play a vampire hunter campaign" and everyone shows with their Van Helsing, Buffy, or half-vampire knock-off character concepts or "We're playing a dark/mature cops campaign" and the characters discover through their own investigation that the crime family controlling the drug trade is a coven of vampires?


Sci-Fi: Front Seat for the Apocalypse
Set-up: The PCs are on a colony world and have their space opera or hard sci-fi characters ready. Then the aliens invade - and the colony loses. No space travel, no infrastruture, and no idea when/if help is coming. Oh, and did I mention the aliens have other plans for the colony?


Sometimes, in order to avoid meta-gaming or really shock the players at the start of the campaign, the bait-and-switch is the best vehicle. Turning a character into a vampaign over the course of a campaign is a storyline. Telling the player in session 1, "you were attacked by a vampire and are now his slave" without any input from the player is just a bad move.

 

[Bumbles]

As long as Metamorphosis Alpha doesn't do the thing Gamma World did (IIRC), where non-"Pure Strain Humans" couldn't use advanced tech (either easily or at all), that is. If MA does that -- if the starship's systems don't recognize a dermal-plated birdhead as a legitimate operator -- that may be a bit of suckage for the character.

I am not aware of Gamma World doing that in the rules, except maybe having PSH having a bonus to the training, circumstances which would not be applicable in this case where the mutation came after. I suppose if it did happen, it might be a problem, but I don't see where it did here.

I never stated otherwise. I've repeatedly said "a game everyone can enjoy." Last I checked the DM is part of that 'everyone.'

The problem is, for everything you're railing against as the Devil's Advocate, you're not taking the time to reference the balance. Which is kinda bad, since you're also misunderstanding the position being expressed, which makes your advocacy less informative than you might intend. Something that's been coming through on all sides here, from most of the people involved.

Including me. I know, I know.

But what difference does it make if you charge forward with an idea that the players didn't expect and once revealed didn't want?

The difference is between the creation of the ideas versus following through. You can have an idea, which on the surface seems fun, but turns out bad. And this would include many kinds of surprise.

Looks like the part of your post I quoted caught my attention and I missed the other part . . . sorry about that. I was just mainly thinking, "What's the purpose of bringing up the complete opposite and extreme situation?"

It was to illustrate the balance, which you didn't mention, and which has been causing a lot of the disagreement here.

I do think that, in general, folks in this thread aren't actually in as much disagreement as we think we are!

I concur, and I think that's the root of most of the problem. It is hard to cover everything though, I understand that a lot. I'm sure I'm not saying enough either.

Not me. Even if I had tasted the perfect hamburger and had a revelatory divine experience . . . if every other hamburger I tried tasted terrible, I'd quit eating them sooner rather than later. There's lots of other good stuff out there to eat!

Oh eventually perhaps, but would you stop on the second? Or might somebody be elsewhere on the scale, or be willing to give it another try, or perhaps they've never had a bad Hamburger!

 

[Doug McCrae]

Dark Shadows

 

[Bumbles]

What about St. Elsewhere?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Seriously, which is more enjoyable (i.e. scarier - cause that's what you want with horror): "We're going to play a vampire hunter campaign" and everyone shows with their Van Helsing, Buffy, or half-vampire knock-off character concepts or "We're playing a dark/mature cops campaign" and the characters discover through their own investigation that the crime family controlling the drug trade is a coven of vampires?

Hang on a sec. If the GM starts by saying "We're going to play a vampire hunter campaign" then he's saying he doesn't want a full horror game, just one with elements of horror. For two reasons:

1) The PCs know about vampires and have elected to *hunt* them, not once but on a consistent basis. The GM is clearly assuming the PCs will be badasses, not horror protagonists, even prior to char gen.
2) An important part of horror is the unknown. If the GM wanted horror he wouldn't tell the players the true nature of the bad guys.

The GM doesn't have to pull a bait-and-switch to get the result he wants. Instead he could say "We're playing a horror campaign where the PCs start as ordinary police investigators." That way the Buffys and Blades are avoided, the players can make an informed choice about whether this game is right for them but there is still the fear of the unknown because the players don't know they will be up against vampires.

Sometimes, in order to avoid meta-gaming or really shock the players at the start of the campaign, the bait-and-switch is the best vehicle.

Is bait-and-switch really the *best* way to avoid metagaming? Surely a better way would be to tell the players "No metagaming". For example if the GM is intending to run a game where orcs are the major opposition but doesn't want PCs optimised for that such as uber-trippers or rangers with favoured enemy he can simply ask that the players avoid those types of PCs. That looks like a better option to me again. A player can make an informed choice about whether he wants to play, and the GM still gets what he wants - non-metagamed PCs.

This motivation for bait-and-switch seems to assume the players cannot be trusted.

 

[coyote6]

Well, don't forget Newhart, then.

[Edit: in re: St. Elsewhere and Dark Shadows, since Doug McCrae's next post came between me hitting "reply" and "send" ]

 

[Ariosto]

This motivation for bait-and-switch seems to assume the players cannot be trusted.

No; it assumes that they can be trusted to handle such direct role playing, without a lot of "meta-game" removal from immediacy.

 

[Ariosto]

There is a good reason plot "spoilers" are called that.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I'll certainly agree with you that, if you don't like a campaign, you shouldn't be playing in it.

My exact point with a bait and switch - I could be thinking I'm playing in a campaign I want to play in, and it gets switched to one I don't.

Pre game communication is really important.

 

[Raven Crowking]

My exact point with a bait and switch - I could be thinking I'm playing in a campaign I want to play in, and it gets switched to one I don't.

Pre game communication is really important.

Likewise, you could be thinking you're playing in a campaign you want to play in, and it gets switched to one you like better.

Presumably, if the GM in question knows his/her players, he/she is liable to attempt to make the switch into something they will enjoy more.

YMMV, but if it was me running the game, that would be my goal.


RC