Bait & Switch

[Raven Crowking]

And if you play a superior game -- meaning in this case that you take advantage of the opportunity for role-playing and adventure -- then getting into a milieu you like should not be a big problem.

Exactly.

"Just say yes", as a default, is in my experience the prevailing attitude among my friends ... and it goes both ways across the GM-player divide. Everyone is working in good faith to make for a fun game, which is not synonymous with "getting my way".

Also exactly.

As far as my saying that anything goes for the DM, so long as he believes it will better the game, goes, the same is true for the players. So long as they believe it will better the game, they should be willing to try it. Players have a right (and, I would say, an obligation) to make the campaign work for them. If they like more combat, they can seek out more combat. If they like politics, they should seek out political situations. And the DM, generally speaking, should provide.


RC

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Regardless of having played with literally hundreds of players and under dozens of DMs, never have I seen any evidence that my general opinion on this is wrong.

I think you're getting the reaction you are here because of the hardline tone you took and the extreme examples you used (Bob the Teletubby? c'mon). It seems after further explanation you are closer in opinion to myself and others than it originally seemed. I take it that you wouldn't try to force a game upon your players that they didn't want to play.

What I'm still unclear of is where the line is drawn. Is it drawn at the game system level? The genre level? Or something else? And if there is a singular answer, what makes that choice better than the other?

Why is the Werewolf example a case of bad DMing to you?
Why is the horror western example a case of good DMing to you?

Does he really want to run a game for the complainer who hates learning that there is a supernatural element in what he thought would be a regular western?

 

[Dire Bare]

Sure it is.

I look at the DM's job much like the director of a play. The director is the controlling artist, but if he doesn't allow input from his actors, the play suffers. And if he doesn't keep his intended audience in mind while directing the play, no one will come see it . . . or if they do they won't enjoy it. Then what's the point?

In an RPG game, the "actors" and "audience" are one and the same. A good DM communicates openly and respects the needs and wants of the players.

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.

As a gamer, I've played with DM's who acted in much the same manner and the games were not much fun.

In the case of the OP, I wouldn't mind the slight switcheroo with the campaign setting . . . but I would be pissed off if the DM changed my character drastically, like making him a mutant.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think you're getting the reaction you are here because of the hardline tone you took and the extreme examples you used (Bob the Teletubby? c'mon).

I've DMed a LEGO man construct PC.

I take it that you wouldn't try to force a game upon your players that they didn't want to play.

(1) How would that even be possible?

(2) Why would you want to?

What I'm still unclear of is where the line is drawn. Is it drawn at the game system level? The genre level? Or something else? And if there is a singular answer, what makes that choice better than the other?

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

Why is the Werewolf example a case of bad DMing to you?

DM proposed game. Players rejected game. DM tried to trick them into playing game anyway.

Why is the horror western example a case of good DMing to you?

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.

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.

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.

Perhaps I have answered your earlier questions as well, about the line?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I look at the DM's job much like the director of a play. The director is the controlling artist, but if he doesn't allow input from his actors, the play suffers.

I would say, rather, if he doesn't allow input from his actors, they should either find a new director or a new play, or both.


RC

 

[avin]

I was in a future game where we were revolutionaires, with super powers (GURPS). We were revolutionaires which did things like destroy our State's base in our ship, named Big Motherer. We went to night clubs just to piss off people who wanted to fight use without knowing we were supers.

That was a lot of fun for something like 4 or 5 sessions when the GM just introduces their fantasy home made world gods in our sci fi game... we quit in the next session.

When I'm DMing and want to twist things I always give a small hint and prevent people of creating characters that would be useless in the new setting.

 

[avin]

Why is the horror western example a case of good DMing to you?

I don't know about him, but Deadlands, when well done (get rid of the mad scientists!) absolutely rocks

 

[Dire Bare]

I played in a game once where at the campaign start, the DM gave each of us a small "backstory" explaining how each of us fit into the starting setup. One PC was effectively made into a slave, much to the player's displeasure. She got over it and rolled with it, but the character was drastically changed from what she originally wanted and expected to be playing.

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

DM: Now that you have spent all this time creating your new 10th level PCs and outfitted them appropriately . . . you all wake up naked in the dungeon locked in a cell!!! What do you do?

Group: Out of despair, we all committ suicide. Can we play something fun now?

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.

 

[Dire Bare]

I would say, rather, if he doesn't allow input from his actors, they should either find a new director or a new play, or both.


RC

Well . . . yeah!

As an actor I've learned to avoid such directors. And as a player I've learned to avoid such DMs. Life's too short to play games you won't find fun!

 

[Particle_Man]

It can also have impacts on the story when someone uses something from the surpirse beginning of a campaign to influence their character choice. A friend once ran a campaign (I think he told us standard FR and to make our characters under the standard method of the time) where we all started as slaves with none of our usual starting equipment. Someone with forewarning could have purposefully chosen a monk to "beat the system." With the beginning a surprise someone could have still chosen monk, but at least then it would be the character that person actually wanted to play, not an influence of starting the campaign at a disadvantage.

Oddly enough, this happened to me as a player (captured, no items, trapped in a dungeon, find your way out, use what you find, etc.), except it was a one shot. And that I had spent 2 feats on my 1st level half-orc fighter to get exotic wp bastard sword and weapon focus bastard sword, and then didn't get to use a bastard sword for the entire game! I felt irked about that, but I didn't quit the game, since I was already there.

As a DM I have changed characters in one large fashion - when they died in one campaign, I often found ways to bring them back in radically different forms. But that fit the magical nature of the campaign, and of course the player could have let the character go and played someone else instead.

That said, I as a player would prefer to be able to use my abilities that I chose for the player rather than be arbitrarily gimped, and I would prefer that my character not be changed by a DM like that unless it was temporary/curable, so I could soon get back to the character concept I wanted to play.

Oddly, I would (other things being equal) likely be more ok with the world changing if I could still play my ungimped character concept in that world, although since I don't like guns in games, that might turn me off if my D&D game turned into a gun-fest.