Bait & Switch

[Dire Bare]

And the converse of this would be:

As a directory, workign with actors who have an uncompromising (or divergent) vision for a play, and don't take input from the directors or writers, and don't care much about the concerns of the story, can lead to the play sucking.

Well . . . yeah, that would suck too. You seem to imply that by not favoring authoritarian DMs, one would naturally prefer a game where players run roughshod over the DM. I like the reasonable middle situation. Where the DM runs the game and drives the action, but remembers that it is not "his game" but rather "our game" and that everybody should be having fun. The ideal players understand this too and don't try to wheedle the DM into letting them have the spotlight all the time (I've played with those types too).

It's a good trope, for limited purposes, but if you overuse it, it can be way too much bother. This is true of most things. And it can be done poorly.

I'm sure that it is possible this trope could be used well, but I've never actually seen that happen. And I've suffered the trope being used poorly tons of times.

 

[Dire Bare]

You try things, and if they don't work out -- guess what? In a fantasy game, any brave new world can easily be made to have such wonders in it as to lead to any other.

You make a good point that I think might be getting lost in the discussion. If you are a player in a game and the DM "makes a mistake" (at least from your point of view) . . . do you ditch the game, perhaps never to play with that DM or group ever again? Or do you grumble a bit to yourself and keep playing? (or something in between)

The answer for me would depend on a lot of factors, such as how well/long have I known the DM and other players, or is this a one-time "mistake" or does this guy pull this kinda crap on me all the time? Etc, etc . . .

 

[Bumbles]

Well . . . yeah, that would suck too. You seem to imply that by not favoring authoritarian DMs, one would naturally prefer a game where players run roughshod over the DM.

If you think that is what I'm saying, or even implying then we are clearly not communicating effectively as that is ABSOLUTELY NOT the case. Here, I'll quote myself:

The truth is somewhere in the middle. Sometimes the GM does have to do things that one or more players may not want, and that's not a bad thing. Sometimes it is. Blanket statements though, won't get us much of anywhere in this discussion.

There, we both agree the extremes have problems then?

I'm sure that it is possible this trope could be used well, but I've never actually seen that happen. And I've suffered the trope being used poorly tons of times.

And I've eaten a lot of bad hamburgers. Go figure. If you've ever eaten that one really really good hamburger, then you might keep looking for it again...even if you get a lot of stinkers.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Thinking about things, I realized part of the reason I really hate bait and switch, even in the smallest forms.

The world acts on me in real life. I don't have a whole lot of control over that. I play RPGs for two reasons escape from real life, and to completely immerse in character.

To completely immerse I really have to feel a strong sense of connection to the character. That is why I avoid random chargen games (we houserules picking an array back in the early days of 1st ed D&D). I build my character to be exactly what I want it to be, in the world the GM presents. It gives me some sense of control there.

Our group also plays high fantasy and 4 color superheroes. The PCs are movers and shakers, in a story sense. They have control, to some extent on their world. These things help me play in an escapist mode.

When the world changes, then I lose that feeling - if the world is changed, I'm not getting the escapsim I want from the game, and if the character is changed then I'm not getting the immersion I want, as I can't identify with the character as much anymore.

So bait and switching pretty much destroys the reason I game for.

Others may enjoy the surprise and the twist, but I get enough of that in real life, and game to get away from that.

I'm also one of those that doesn't really believe in character death - now I do play Hero much more than D&D, and I tend to play superheroes, where death just isn't in genre (unless you come back 5 sessions later). As a GM I haven't permanently killed a character I've GMed in 15 years (and I'm proud of that).

For me, it's all a matter of playstyle and taste.

A bait and switch as the OP described is like the GM selling you what he said was a box of chocolate cookies but gave you peanut butter cookies - they are still cookies, but if I wanted chocolate, but didn't want peanut butter, I would be annoyed. And probably not each the peanut butter cookies.

 

[coyote6]

It certainly wouldn't invalidate the ability to use computers or electronics though, which is pretty good. That might be taking it too far.

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.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

For some folks here, it seems, D&D is their only social outlet with the people they play with. IMHO, if you have a friend whose gaming needs are that different from your own, you should do something else with your friend. Go fishing, camping, bowling, whatever.

Count me in that group. I have one day a week open to hang with my friends. I don't like fishing or camping, they don't like bowling, etc. (I know you meant more than that I'm just using your specific examples as an illustration.) Gaming is the one interest that all 7 of us have in common. Luckily we have gaming tastes that overlap too and thus haven't actually had the problem of not agreeing on the game. I also happen to have earned the respect of my friends as DM that if I asked them to play something else I wanted to run or pulled a surprise bait & switch, they would give it a chance because they trust that I'm trying to make a fun game for them. I've earned this respect by listening to them when one of my ideas is really not to their liking and seek a compromise that doesn't involve them leaving the table.

How, exactly, does one both know that the players don't like a given genre, yet believe that tricking them into it will make a fun game?

Sorry, but I don't believe that this GM exists.

Human nature. Some people (my dad especially) can't possibly believe that I don't like sweet potatoes. They think that if I were just to try sweet potatoes I would love them just as much as they do. Problem is, I have tried sweet potatoes, cooked numerous ways and multiple times over my life because my tastes for other things have changed and I thought I should give sweet potatoes a chance. I still hate sweet potatoes.

Gamers are even more passionate about their favorite game or genre than my friends and family are about sweet potatoes and can't believe that another player would dislike their preference if they were just to try it. This misguided notion could cause them to 'force' their fellow gamers to try a type of game they've already tried and determined they don't like.

EDIT: About the "wrong vibe" you got, VB, I don't think you could find someone faster to advise folks to walk from games they aren't enjoying than I am. I certainly wouldn't try to force someone into a game they didn't enjoy.

And I would strongly advocate talking with your DM and the rest of the group to find a game that everyone enjoys. If no common ground can be found then I think it is perfectly valid to walk away as a final option.

 

[ryryguy]

I don't understand the difference between having your character mutated at the very start of the game via plot and having him mutated during the campaign via plot. What if the PCs woke up on up in an MA setting but no one had mutated, but when they left the stasis room they were exposed to radiation that did mutate one of them? Or if simply stepping out of their stasis pods could mutate them? Or take it in the other direction, and 10 sessions into the campaign your character mutates.

On the one hand, a player might feel that if the mutation happened as a result of the plot during play, at least he had a chance to influence the direction of the plot. Maybe he didn't want it to happen, maybe he wasn't able to escape the unwanted fate, but if at least he could see it coming and had an opportunity to try to avoid it, I'd think it'd be okay.

On the other hand, if the change is going to come as a result of DM fiat as in the OP, I would personally prefer it to happen at the very beginning of the campaign. That's true for a character change or for a genre switch. As a player I would be much more likely to take it badly if the DM told us, "When you wake up after the last adventure something has happened, everybody has guns instead of swords, and also you've mutated" - yeah, presumably having invested myself in the setting and my character to this point, it'd be pretty hard to swallow. Having only gone so far as to create a character, on the other hand, I think I'd have a lot easier time rolling with it and seeing how it plays out.

If the DM plays with my expectations once at the start for a surprise, I can enjoy the surprise. If the DM does it after things have been set for a while, it will make it harder to trust him.

I think a lot of this discussion may be colored by experiences people may have had with power-tripping players and DMs. It's reasonable for a player to want to keep control over his PC's identity and "crunch", but sometimes players can be unreasonable, objecting to any change that might impact their character (no matter how indirectly). It's reasonable for a DM to try to mix things up, including sometimes changing something that affects the mechanics of a player character, but sometimes DMs can take that too far, trying to teach players "who's boss" by pulling the rug out from under them.

As always, communication is key. In this case, I think the DM would have been wise to sound out the player about possible changes to the PC, not necessarily giving things away - "hey, would you be averse to a little surprise where your character might turn out a little different than you planned?" And then leaving the door open for the player to make a new character or otherwise recover if he ends up really unhappy.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Where the DM runs the game and drives the action, but remembers that it is not "his game" but rather "our game" and that everybody should be having fun.

I don't believe that the DM calling it "his game" means that the DM doesn't believe that everybody should be having fun. I want the DM to take ownership of his work; I expect him to be immersed in his world. Otherwise, the game is lackluster.

OTOH, there is no conservation of ownership in RPGs. If Gary runs a game I am playing in, I want Gary to say that it is his game, and I will generally call it his game too. But it is also my game, or I am not invested in it.

The world acts on me in real life. I don't have a whole lot of control over that. I play RPGs for two reasons escape from real life, and to completely immerse in character.

I'll certainly agree with you that, if you don't like a campaign, you shouldn't be playing in it. For me, part of the joy of RPGs is the sense of motion from the world acting on you to you acting on the world. I.e., the more you explore and understand the world, and the more your character grows, the more power you have to shape the world around you.

If I start with that power, the world seems flat to me.

Count me in that group. I have one day a week open to hang with my friends. I don't like fishing or camping, they don't like bowling, etc. (I know you meant more than that I'm just using your specific examples as an illustration.) Gaming is the one interest that all 7 of us have in common. Luckily we have gaming tastes that overlap too and thus haven't actually had the problem of not agreeing on the game. I also happen to have earned the respect of my friends as DM that if I asked them to play something else I wanted to run or pulled a surprise bait & switch, they would give it a chance because they trust that I'm trying to make a fun game for them. I've earned this respect by listening to them when one of my ideas is really not to their liking and seek a compromise that doesn't involve them leaving the table.

That sounds good to me.

My point was not that you and your friends shouldn't share gaming tastes, but rather that if there is an antipathy in your gaming tastes, playing together anyway is unlikely to keep the bonds of friendship strong.

Rather the opposite, actually.

Gamers are even more passionate about their favorite game or genre than my friends and family are about sweet potatoes and can't believe that another player would dislike their preference if they were just to try it. This misguided notion could cause them to 'force' their fellow gamers to try a type of game they've already tried and determined they don't like.

As Dan Savage says, DTMFA.

Except family. You shouldn't dump family over sweet potatoes.

OTOH, they should also accept your position. Just tell them, "I yam what I yam."






RC

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

This attitude can be applied on both sides though.

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

Is it ok to trick other players into a game they didn't expect? There's a gap between "I didn't expect that to happen" and "I didn't want that" . Sure, you can get people unhappy with the first, but you can get people unhappy in your game anyway.

I think it's ok to throw players for a loop sometimes. This doesn't mean everything you can do is ok, and it doesn't mean I'll always be happy when it happens. Or that I expect others to be happy. I hope they will, but if they're not? Oh well, you can fail even if you play things straight. I've had gaming groups fall apart for reasons beyond counting. It happens.

Sometimes trying new things does that.

I think you misunderstand my intent. I was playing Devil's Advocate on the distinction between the two examples of bait & switch that were given. One was seemingly the DM dastardly deceiving the player into playing the game the DM wants while the other was the player whining that they didn't like the genre. I don't see the distinction between those two examples. I do understand the difference between "not expecting" and "not wanting." 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? If you are adaptive to your players and they to you, everyone can have a good game without someone having to leave.

 

[Dire Bare]

If you think that is what I'm saying, or even implying then we are clearly not communicating effectively as that is ABSOLUTELY NOT the case. Here, I'll quote myself:

The truth is somewhere in the middle. Sometimes the GM does have to do things that one or more players may not want, and that's not a bad thing. Sometimes it is. Blanket statements though, won't get us much of anywhere in this discussion.

There, we both agree the extremes have problems then?

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?"

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

And I've eaten a lot of bad hamburgers. Go figure. If you've ever eaten that one really really good hamburger, then you might keep looking for it again...even if you get a lot of stinkers.

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!