Bait-n-switch or screwjob campaigns

[Janx]

Forgive the title if my explanation doesn't match my explanation...

As a player or as a GM, how do you feel about campaigns that nearly irreversibly change gears by GM fiat.

For example:
you tell players the campaign is about a party of adventurers going on quests for gold, pursuing their own goals, etc.

Or you tell them the party works for an agency and they'll be going on missions, and stuff like that.

However, the actual plan is that by the 2nd session or so after an initial quest of the stated nature, disaster or betrayal strikes and things are changed forever, if not for the quite forseeable future.


As a player, I have seen:
it turns out the guy we worked for on our FIRST mission was really setting us up, and the rest of the campaign was pretty much us as outlaws (not what I wanted for my PC)

Opening the big door to the mine we discovered (as we had been betrayed and were on the run) let loose an infinity of rust monsters that had been trapped and breeding in the mine for decades. Thus began the end-times, as the rust monsters ate EVERYTHING metal on the continent and survivors fled. They also started evolving and eating the iron out of blood, thus becoming a threat to people.

I differentiate these situations from things that are player instigated or at least correctable.

It's OK that you just got blamed and have to race to clear your name. It's a short term story plot/quest/complication

it's OK that the party started a life of crime and now they ARE outlaws.

It's OK that a long standing campaign may have a course shift as some new disaster changes everything.


What bugs me is the GM wanted to run a post-apocalyptic game or an outlaw game, and that's not the kind of game I wanted to play.

I can accept it may be a valid GM tactic, as it brings in the element of surprise.

But is it a good practice?

 

[the Jester]

I get nervous every time I pull something like this, but so far my players have really enjoyed it each time.

That said, obviously, the fact that doing the ol' B&S makes me nervous should tell you that it is not a reliable outcome- it's a risky move, and some groups, individual players or individual pcs may not be happy with it.

 

[delericho]

As a player, my response would depend entirely on how well my character fits the revised concept of the campaign. If I've built a computer nerd, and suddenly we find ourselves thrown back into the Stone Age, I'm going to be pretty annoyed. If he gets turned into a vampire instead, I won't mind so much.

Still, I would much rather know what the campaign is about, and if it's going to be a bait-and-switch, I actually want to know what the switch is about first. And it's in the DM's interest to tell me - I'm not going to invest months in a character or campaign I don't like, so you're better off telling me before you do the prep work.

As a DM, I am extremely wary of doing a bait-and-switch, for the same reasons as above. As far as I'm concerned, having some secrets about the campaign is fine (better than fine!), but the basic nature of the campaign shouldn't be one of them. I think my players would trust me not to screw them over in this manner... but a large part of the reason they trust me is because I don't.

 

[Umbran]

It is a touchy technique. Done well, with the right group, the results can be awesome. Done poorly, the game can quickly fall apart. USe carefully and sparingly.

If your group is okay with experimentation, and the occasional game that flops, it isn't such a big deal. In a group where folks take it as a personal affront that you moved the cheese, then this is probably a technique to avoid.

 

[Janx]

I wonder if one aspect of my distaste for it is the railroad feel of it.

I won't call it an actual railroad. The GM has the authority and responsibility to create world content and events that happen outside of the PCs actions.

And saying "now there's a rust monster apocalypse" is not a railroad whereas "you must save Lord Helpless from the rust monster apocalypse" is.

When the party signs up for activity X, and world events make activity X meaningless, it's jarring. Especially if it appears that this is the new status quo.



I think the other factor is, with bait-n-switch is that the player made a PC for campaign X. They presumably got excited and motivated. Changing that on them by the end of the first session to Campaign Y with that same PC may kill the enthusiasm as they see all the possibilities they had envisioned be shut down as inapplicable.


What I see from the current consensus (sample size 2), is that a GM should be wary of using a bait-n-switch or betrayal setup. Use them infrequently, and know your group.

 

[Nagol]

I strongly dislike a bait-and-switch to the point I gracefully retire from campaigns that pull them.

If you want to run X, tell the players that. Don't set them up for a surprise because everyone loves surprises, you want the "honest" reactions from the imaginary characters, or you think it's a neat twist.

Is it a valid tactic? Depending on game system, anythig can be a valid tactic for the DM including assigning new characters to people to play. I don't think that's the right question.

It is a tactic I generally won't put up with though. It undercuts any investment I've made in the my character , the setting, or the game pre-play. It trivialises my agreement to play X when the DM has no intention of running X and is only setting up X so he can run Y.

This is not to say that games can't go through massive transformation during play in addition to and sometimes as a consequence of player choice and success, but those changes should be telegraphed to the players and either plausible for the situation or have player agreement. For the latter I'm thinking about say running a no-magic d20 Modern spy game and deciding to have the Mole Men from the Centre of the Earth launch an assault on the surface world (implausible and not-telegraphed) -- effectively altering the game enough it could be a new campaign. Having events spiral towards war in the same campaign (plausible and telegraphed extrapolation of a current situation) I find much more tolerable as a player.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

I hate when this happen. Many gm's have done this. And almost always that ended that game after session or two.

Problem are that usually your character become useless and npc:s do everything. Like some scifi game when gm WANTED us to make characters who were doctors etc no combat skills. And then whole combat turns into military missions where we are led by nose to some combat areas behind back of marines with some utterly thin excuse (to translate some language stuff, could have done without us being physically there) to drag us into mission. And gm wondered why we all decided to quit.

Sometimes theme is what ends game. Suppose we made evil characters (or good) and then dm kills them off or wants them to became opposite right after session one.

World end scenarios, you know when you were not supposed to play one and were listed for some dungeon adventuring etc. Or your combat chars must suddenly become social characters with political skills, even if every player hates games about politics.

Angsty stories. I had this a lot under one dm. Every game turned into utter gloomy depression story where you were pulled forcefully into situations which were scribted so that you failed... badly.

There has been quite a number of those and except one or two which actually were fun.

I think difference lies creating change that's is interesting for players, and where they can succeed and their skills still works. Surprises are fine, but funny thing is that most gm:s go for surprises that suck. And no, I don't want to play out some social-psychology experiences or stockholm syndromes.

This can be done right and then it becomes very memorable. I think it's just very important to know your players, their preferances and keep it fun.

 

[amerigoV]

One of the few times that I hung out on Wizard's boards, I saw this signature:

In my experience, D&D itself isn't MEANT to be a low magic setting. It's like... I don't know... taking The Force and Jedi out of Star Wars campaign and replacing it with angry clowns who drink beer and swear alot or something. It makes no sense to run D&D like that.

That can be extrapolated to these situations as well. Keep in mind that players can barely find their dice - they have little hope of keeping track of the plot as it is. Throwing a screwball in a campaign is just asking for trouble. If someone wants to run post-apoc (example), just say it and get on with it.

 

[Jacob Marley]

Typically, I present my campaigns as: A campaign set in and around the Free City of Greyhawk, 585CY. There isn't a whole lot here for me to be switching around. I tend to shy away from giving out any more information than that largely because I don't know what the campaign will be about.

I am not a big fan of the predetermined screw job as a common occurrence, though. IF a DM is going to pull the screw job it should be impactful and ought to be something we should have seen coming.

 

[Huw]

As a DM, I've pulled this off three times. However, in one of those cases I warned the players that something dramatic would be happening after a few sessions into the campaign, and in the other two a new system had come out (Spelljammer and Chronomancer respectively) that the players wanted to try out without losing their current characters. In all three cases the players knew something campaign changing was about to happen, they just didn't know exactly what.