Bait-n-switch or screwjob campaigns

[Nagol]

I have 'baited and switched' once, but I'm not sure it counts, as nothing really changed. The (D&D 3.5) party was using wish from one plane back to their home base. I instead sent them to a 'Mirror, Mirror' type universe (complete with evil goatees) and they had to find another way home. Everybody thought it was cool, so no worries. Nobody got the goatee reference, though.

<snip>

I wouldn’t call that a bait & switch; more like a correctable plot complication – those I have little problem with. I tell the difference based on (a) the premise presented to garner interest to start play varies wildly from presented situation and (b) the chance the players have of converting the game play back to that premise.

Here a couple the more egregious personal examples of bait and switch:
Campaign pitch: Traveler-like universe using HERO system, PCs will be crew of a science research vessel looking for time travel possibilities.
Campaign result: 2nd session all players are together, the universe is destroyed and the surviving character are transferred (and converted) to Chivalry and Sorcery world. Players of unsalvaged characters made new ones using C&S rules.

Campaign pitch: Aftermath campaign using the default roll-up system starting in the Mississippi delta region.
Campaign result: PCs are in a 20-mile wide bubble on a Starlost-style ark ship. The fact one PC’s background had him as a fighter pilot based out of California was waved aside as “implanted memories”.

 

[GSHamster]

It's bad practice. The bait & switch should be in the campaign premise - the backstory explained to the players up front. Flashbacks to the time of betrayal might be ok, but not bait & switch.

I agree with S'mon. Look at it this way, you want to make a game about modern people being thrown back in time to the stone age.

If you tell your players the "twist" ahead of time, you'll end up with two scenarios:

1. Characters designed for life in the stone age. Survivalists, etc. Kind of honestly, the people who would do this are probably the same people who would be very unhappy about the twist. This way they're still on board with the campaign.

2. Characters designed to be "fish out of water". People who make characters like this, are the same people who would enjoy the twist. But you still get the type of game you want.

Either way, I think you're better off revealing the twist ahead of time.

 

[Luce]

I will be OK with it if :
1.It is done near the beginning e.g. Gumshoe PI group, then alien invasion by the 3rd evening.
2. Used as a prequel. E.G. Play a "typical" adventuring party then couple of sessions in their patron opens a gate to the Abyss. Demons invade. Party wiped out despite best efforts. Fast forward X years, now the (new) PC are part of the Resistance. If done right the players will be already invested in world and will be eager to kick ass and take names.
3. Soft reset. Lets say the DM "agrees" to run a Evil campaign. The payers have fun for a while but after a time the game stagnates. The solution:

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I've done it, and both my players and I had fun - but I also told them that the theme of the game was 'Things Go Horribly Wrong', so they were prepared for things to go horribly wrong, even if they didn't know how. (They thought that they were a military team being dropped to take out the stronghold of a drug cartel, then they discovered something called 'The Cthulhu Mythos'. True 20 for the rules. Then it turned out that their extraction team had not been informed of the mission. They had wondered why their folder jackets were marked with little green triangles....)

Handled well, it can be a lot of fun, but handled poorly, it could really suck. (Hey, guess what? None of your skills, abilities, or equipment is going to work in this scenario! Surprise! Hey, what are you planning to do with those feathers, and that hot tar?... )

The Auld Grump

 

[prosfilaes]

1. Characters designed for life in the stone age. Survivalists, etc. Kind of honestly, the people who would do this are probably the same people who would be very unhappy about the twist. This way they're still on board with the campaign.

Yeah. I want to play awesome characters. I don't want characters who can whistle 9600 Baud and can't swim dumped back in the Stone Age. That's not in the least bit fun to me. In some ways, I just don't want to play the fish hopelessly out of its element, whether it's up front and a surprise, and the problem with a surprise is that it forces me to invest something in a game before finding out I don't like the premise.

Scenarios that didn't completely nerf my character would be more interesting, but ultimately why didn't you tell me this was going to be spies versus Mole Men?

 

[Gilladian]

Without having read any of the other replies, I do NOT think it is right for the DM to pull such major moves on the PCs without making it clear from the beginning that "a big plot twist" will happen in the campaign.

If I were told going in "at some point early in the campaign, you will discover that much of what you know or much of what exists, will change. Be ready for it." I'd be happy. I'd create a character I can enjoy despite such change. But if I create a site-based character concept (ie a member of a guild, or something similar), and then the site is destroyed, I'm gonna be justifiably peeved.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I've done it, and both my players and I had fun - but I also told them that the theme of the game was 'Things Go Horribly Wrong', so they were prepared for things to go horribly wrong, even if they didn't know how. (They thought that they were a military team being dropped to take out the stronghold of a drug cartel, then they discovered something called 'The Cthulhu Mythos'. True 20 for the rules. Then it turned out that their extraction team had not been informed of the mission. They had wondered why their folder jackets were marked with little green triangles....)

Handled well, it can be a lot of fun, but handled poorly, it could really suck. (Hey, guess what? None of your skills, abilities, or equipment is going to work in this scenario! Surprise! Hey, what are you planning to do with those feathers, and that hot tar?... )

The Auld Grump

I think this adds weight to my theory that it works well if the bait and switch doesn't change who the PCs are. In your game the PCs were a crack commando unit sent deep into enemy territory to deal with bad guys. It's simply that the enemies were unexpected. On the other hand if you had requested PCs who were members of a crack commando unit and sent them to prison for a crime they did not commit and the first session was the trial and enforced jailbreak, however cool the premise it would probably go ... badly; at the very least you'd get one player goofing around and playing a mad character... It woudl certainly go a lot worse than if you'd told them the premise and that the first session would be establishing the backstory.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I've never done this as a DM or a player. As a DM, I think my players would be alright with it. As a player, I would love it as long as the game following the switch doesn't suck. I think telling the players ahead of time wouldn't work for me. I like surprises, and my character being surprised when I'm not doesn't count.

 

[Desdichado]

Never done it by GM fiat, no. (Is it just me, or does that sound like some kind of automotive joint venture?) Done it several times as natural and reasonable consequences of PC action, though. Or natural evolution of the campaign concept as it unfolds.

 

[Desdichado]

I think this adds weight to my theory that it works well if the bait and switch doesn't change who the PCs are. In your game the PCs were a crack commando unit sent deep into enemy territory to deal with bad guys. It's simply that the enemies were unexpected. On the other hand if you had requested PCs who were members of a crack commando unit and sent them to prison for a crime they did not commit and the first session was the trial and enforced jailbreak, however cool the premise it would probably go ... badly; at the very least you'd get one player goofing around and playing a mad character... It woudl certainly go a lot worse than if you'd told them the premise and that the first session would be establishing the backstory.

Why doesn't Murdoch ever get any respect?