Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Doug McCrae" data-source="post: 4806121" data-attributes="member: 21169">Hang on a sec. If the GM starts by saying &quot;We're going to play a vampire hunter campaign&quot; then he's saying he doesn't want a full horror game, just one with elements of horror. For two reasons:1) The PCs know about vampires and have elected to *hunt* them, not once but on a consistent basis. The GM is clearly assuming the PCs will be badasses, not horror protagonists, even prior to char gen.2) An important part of horror is the unknown. If the GM wanted horror he wouldn't tell the players the true nature of the bad guys.The GM doesn't have to pull a bait-and-switch to get the result he wants. Instead he could say &quot;We're playing a horror campaign where the PCs start as ordinary police investigators.&quot; That way the Buffys and Blades are avoided, the players can make an informed choice about whether this game is right for them but there is still the fear of the unknown because the players don't know they will be up against vampires.Is bait-and-switch really the *best* way to avoid metagaming? Surely a better way would be to tell the players &quot;No metagaming&quot;. For example if the GM is intending to run a game where orcs are the major opposition but doesn't want PCs optimised for that such as uber-trippers or rangers with favoured enemy he can simply ask that the players avoid those types of PCs. That looks like a better option to me again. A player can make an informed choice about whether he wants to play, and the GM still gets what he wants - non-metagamed PCs.This motivation for bait-and-switch seems to assume the players cannot be trusted.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Doug McCrae, post: 4806121, member: 21169"] Hang on a sec. If the GM starts by saying "We're going to play a vampire hunter campaign" then he's saying he doesn't want a full horror game, just one with elements of horror. For two reasons: 1) The PCs know about vampires and have elected to *hunt* them, not once but on a consistent basis. The GM is clearly assuming the PCs will be badasses, not horror protagonists, even prior to char gen. 2) An important part of horror is the unknown. If the GM wanted horror he wouldn't tell the players the true nature of the bad guys. The GM doesn't have to pull a bait-and-switch to get the result he wants. Instead he could say "We're playing a horror campaign where the PCs start as ordinary police investigators." That way the Buffys and Blades are avoided, the players can make an informed choice about whether this game is right for them but there is still the fear of the unknown because the players don't know they will be up against vampires. Is bait-and-switch really the *best* way to avoid metagaming? Surely a better way would be to tell the players "No metagaming". For example if the GM is intending to run a game where orcs are the major opposition but doesn't want PCs optimised for that such as uber-trippers or rangers with favoured enemy he can simply ask that the players avoid those types of PCs. That looks like a better option to me again. A player can make an informed choice about whether he wants to play, and the GM still gets what he wants - non-metagamed PCs. This motivation for bait-and-switch seems to assume the players cannot be trusted. [/QUOTE]

Verification