Bait & Switch
- Thread starter Bullgrit
- Start date
filthgrinder
First Post
I think it all depends on the player and the game. Now, you mentioned how YOU would be upset, but you didn't mention how the player who got mutated felt. You said it was a surprise to him, but you didn't tell us his (or her) reaction. It could possibly be that the DM of this game knew that the player he was going to mutate would be cool with it. He also probably knew that you wouldn't be cool with it, so he didn't chose you to get mutated.
Fallen Seraph
First Post
Personally I take two approaches to Bait & Switch:
1. I come right out and state, "there may or may not be a Bait & Switch coming up at some point in the story". I make sure everyone is fine with that and then proceed to have lots of lead up, red herrings, etc. to keep them guessing so the Bait & Switch still serves its purpose.
2. This I would use for the OP case. I would simply out-right state, "this and this is going to happen". I would see what the players think, if they like the story going in that direction, etc. They obviously will still be overhaul left in the dark but as players in the game I feel it is good they have some narrative control and afterall their PCs wouldn't know what they know and the rest of the game is still in the dark.
1. I come right out and state, "there may or may not be a Bait & Switch coming up at some point in the story". I make sure everyone is fine with that and then proceed to have lots of lead up, red herrings, etc. to keep them guessing so the Bait & Switch still serves its purpose.
2. This I would use for the OP case. I would simply out-right state, "this and this is going to happen". I would see what the players think, if they like the story going in that direction, etc. They obviously will still be overhaul left in the dark but as players in the game I feel it is good they have some narrative control and afterall their PCs wouldn't know what they know and the rest of the game is still in the dark.
I would let it play out for a while and see if the DM is actually pulling it off and making a fun game in the end.
The whole idea behind rejecting 'railroading' by the DM is that it sucks out any semblance of challenge or achievement from the game. But you don't want to get SO defensive about it that you ironically end up complaining against something that COULD turn out to be a fun challenge for you as a player if you roll with it.
This mutant thing... I would say 'ok, I can dig it, let's see where you're going with this, I'll play your mutant...' and only make that final judgement after I had seen for myself if this was in fact a 'railroad' or a 'fun challenge' for me.
I think the whole "You changed my character screw you!" reflex mentality is a little misguided or even short-sighted, since you don't really know how it's going to turn out. It could be fun.
The whole idea behind rejecting 'railroading' by the DM is that it sucks out any semblance of challenge or achievement from the game. But you don't want to get SO defensive about it that you ironically end up complaining against something that COULD turn out to be a fun challenge for you as a player if you roll with it.
This mutant thing... I would say 'ok, I can dig it, let's see where you're going with this, I'll play your mutant...' and only make that final judgement after I had seen for myself if this was in fact a 'railroad' or a 'fun challenge' for me.
I think the whole "You changed my character screw you!" reflex mentality is a little misguided or even short-sighted, since you don't really know how it's going to turn out. It could be fun.
coyote6
Adventurer
It's a gamble; the results can be awesome fun, or a horrible crash-and-burn mess that can't end fast enough.
From past experience, I think I'd try to give some warning hints, if nothing else so that some players don't accidentally make characters that end up nigh-useless (e.g., the techno-whiz hacker PC that ends up dumped in Medieval World, where there are no electronics), while others are awesome (the martial artist cop, who's kung fu works just fine, thanks). So I might warn players that there was some sort of switch going to happen, and promise that I'd try to steer them away from characters that would end up seriously screwed by the switch -- without necessarily outright telling them what the switch would be.
In most fictional stories like this, the protagonists are usually either conveniently qualified for their new homes, or Competent Hero types who are good anywhere (e.g., John Carter was an excellent swordsman and warrior before hitting Mars; our hero in Planet of the Apes was a broadly competent astronaut, not a meek mission specialist). I would try to help the PCs match, or at least make sure they remain about equally useful after the big switch.
I made up a Navy SEAL for a GURPS Special Ops game once, and decided that my PC was an Olympic level swimmer; spent a fair amount of points on it, and figured it would be handy, what with the whole SEa-Air-Land thing. Then we got dumped into a post-apocalyptic desert wasteland, and I was suddenly effectively a dozen points cheaper than everyone else. Whoops. I've also done similar things as a GM, and had it not work out as awesomely as might be hoped.
For example, the GM may find that the PCs end up spending all their time, energy, and effort into fighting (undoing, escaping, or otherwise just not going along with) the switch, which might not be where the GM expects the campaign to go. That can easily lead to a mismatch of expectations, which is often bad for the fun quotient, which is in turn bad for the campaign's prospects.
Changing the PC ("hey, you're a mutant now!") is much the same -- the player might love it, hate it, or somewhere in-between, and how it ends up is pretty random IME. Some players might tend towards one reaction or another, but the reaction can also be affected by other things -- e.g., if the player's had a crappy week, is getting over a cold, just had to unexpectedly repair a house/car/family member, and shows up for game to find the character he made last week has been mutated -- it might be the last straw, even if under other circumstances the player'd be cool with it. So, know your players, and maybe feel 'em out about it beforehand ("Hey, I have an idea that will mess with your PC's status & abilities, but I want it to be a surprise; how would you feel about it?"). Getting some buy-in beforehand is usually helpful, IME.
From past experience, I think I'd try to give some warning hints, if nothing else so that some players don't accidentally make characters that end up nigh-useless (e.g., the techno-whiz hacker PC that ends up dumped in Medieval World, where there are no electronics), while others are awesome (the martial artist cop, who's kung fu works just fine, thanks). So I might warn players that there was some sort of switch going to happen, and promise that I'd try to steer them away from characters that would end up seriously screwed by the switch -- without necessarily outright telling them what the switch would be.
In most fictional stories like this, the protagonists are usually either conveniently qualified for their new homes, or Competent Hero types who are good anywhere (e.g., John Carter was an excellent swordsman and warrior before hitting Mars; our hero in Planet of the Apes was a broadly competent astronaut, not a meek mission specialist). I would try to help the PCs match, or at least make sure they remain about equally useful after the big switch.
I made up a Navy SEAL for a GURPS Special Ops game once, and decided that my PC was an Olympic level swimmer; spent a fair amount of points on it, and figured it would be handy, what with the whole SEa-Air-Land thing. Then we got dumped into a post-apocalyptic desert wasteland, and I was suddenly effectively a dozen points cheaper than everyone else. Whoops. I've also done similar things as a GM, and had it not work out as awesomely as might be hoped.
For example, the GM may find that the PCs end up spending all their time, energy, and effort into fighting (undoing, escaping, or otherwise just not going along with) the switch, which might not be where the GM expects the campaign to go. That can easily lead to a mismatch of expectations, which is often bad for the fun quotient, which is in turn bad for the campaign's prospects.
Changing the PC ("hey, you're a mutant now!") is much the same -- the player might love it, hate it, or somewhere in-between, and how it ends up is pretty random IME. Some players might tend towards one reaction or another, but the reaction can also be affected by other things -- e.g., if the player's had a crappy week, is getting over a cold, just had to unexpectedly repair a house/car/family member, and shows up for game to find the character he made last week has been mutated -- it might be the last straw, even if under other circumstances the player'd be cool with it. So, know your players, and maybe feel 'em out about it beforehand ("Hey, I have an idea that will mess with your PC's status & abilities, but I want it to be a surprise; how would you feel about it?"). Getting some buy-in beforehand is usually helpful, IME.
"It's a gamble" seems about right. Based on all my past experience, I would call it a good one. A player getting bent out of shape about his character getting zapped with radiation and mutated is far from what I would expect -- which would be more like, "Cool! What new powers do I get?". Maybe the GM knew the original poster well enough not to "mess with" his or her character before coming out of stasis, but not enough to anticipate this reaction to its happening to someone else, or to the whole scenario.
More generally, I think it's a Very Good Thing when as a player I get to have a "real" experience rather than just pretend to have it. In this case, that would be the experience of genuine surprise as a consequence of actual ignorance. That's an intravenous injection of role playing!
There was only one way to achieve that, and the GM took it. If there ends up being a decision not to pursue the game further, it at least produced that one memorable moment. Your mileage may vary, but I've been through a few pretty forgettable sessions; so, I would not consider the whole thing a bust. If it's time to move on to something else, then move on. Whatever you play, play it to the hilt!
You took your chances when you chose to enter stasis. Your character could simply have perished. Instead, he or she awoke to a new world of adventure.
(Not being acquainted with Alternity, though, I wonder about the reference to "stasis". The term suggests to me, a la Larry Niven and Vernor Vinge, a sort of event horizon that I would expect to prevent such a change to an occupant. Cryogenics or some other sort of suspended animation would seem to me more appropriate. Then again, the radiation effects in the MA scenario are a far cry from "hard SF"!)
More generally, I think it's a Very Good Thing when as a player I get to have a "real" experience rather than just pretend to have it. In this case, that would be the experience of genuine surprise as a consequence of actual ignorance. That's an intravenous injection of role playing!
There was only one way to achieve that, and the GM took it. If there ends up being a decision not to pursue the game further, it at least produced that one memorable moment. Your mileage may vary, but I've been through a few pretty forgettable sessions; so, I would not consider the whole thing a bust. If it's time to move on to something else, then move on. Whatever you play, play it to the hilt!
You took your chances when you chose to enter stasis. Your character could simply have perished. Instead, he or she awoke to a new world of adventure.
(Not being acquainted with Alternity, though, I wonder about the reference to "stasis". The term suggests to me, a la Larry Niven and Vernor Vinge, a sort of event horizon that I would expect to prevent such a change to an occupant. Cryogenics or some other sort of suspended animation would seem to me more appropriate. Then again, the radiation effects in the MA scenario are a far cry from "hard SF"!)
Last edited:
Bullgrit
Adventurer
You say this like I'm having an issue with the mutation of the other character. I have no problem with this happening to the other character. I just said I would have a problem if it happened to my character -- but since it didn't happen to my character, I have no problem.
I'm merely giving an interesting anecdote from a game I'm currently in, with the intention of prompting a discussion.
Bullgrit
I don't think that I can make a blanket statement on this. It depends entirely on the GM, and how cool things look like they'll turn out to be. There are a few GMs I know who, if they tried such a tactic, I'd be perfectly fine with it. There are others with whom I'd be... highly skeptical.
I think, to do this well, a GM really needs to know his players. He has to be able to know what the player likes, so that when the player has prepared for X, and is presented with Y, the GM can still give the player things that he'll find fun.
Yes, you are a horrible and bad player!
But, if so, then so am I. As you said, if it happens organically during the camapign, sure! If it happens as an option, sure! If it happens at the start of a one-shot adventure, sure! If I agreed to it (even if all I agreed to was "an undefined surprise change"), sure! But when it happens in the opening of what is expecting to be a multisession campaign, then not so much -- it would rub me the wrong way.
Of course I would (hopefully) have some trust in my DM; I would probably assume (perhaps erroneously) that the DM has a way to reverse the mutation within the first one or two sessions...
If not, I might try and go with it. But if the situation just gets worse (mutation gets worse, or it causes every commoners to attack me because i look wierd and can't go anywhere, or if it gives a -10 penalty to all my stats, etc) then, yeah, I'd stop trying to make the best and instead say I think I need a new PC.
but, that's just me and my opinion.
Lord Mhoram
Hero
I disagree completely.
I may like westerns. I may hate horror. If the GM tells me we are playing a western game, then makes it a western horror game, I didn't get the game I was told I was going to get - I spent time making a character, and getting it working with the campaign, only to be sold a genre I can't stand (for example).
I have limited amount of time to play, and I don't want to spend it playing a genre or style I don't care for. If the GM had been upfront that this would have been a horror game (to use my example) than I could have just bowed out of that game, and spent that time playing something I would have enjoyed.
Similar Threads
