Get player buy-in, or surprise them?

[Asmor]

I kind of want to run a campaign where the players are in a city state that gets invaded, and the PCs become the cornerstone of the resistance.

My plan is to start it where the coming war is heavily implied, but it's still in the background and for the first few sessions the PCs just do their thing in city and its surroundings. Then the war starts, the other side overwhelms the city, and occupies it. I'd like for the players to be in the city and help fight in the battle, but ultimately the invaders will win.

In the aftermath, the PCs start a little resistance, and it's up to them to hook up with other pockets of resistance and fight for their home in guerilla style.

So the question is this: do I tell the players about it or not? I'd like the success of savagery of the attack to be a bit shocking, but at the same time I don't want it to feel like a bait-and-switch where the players end up playing a style of game they weren't expecting.

One thing I'm considering is selling the game as something different, but similar enough; tell the players that they're an elite force being trained to go undercover into the enemy's own cities, and to do the same sort of guerilla stuff. The twist here being that instead of using their skills on the offense, they end up having to do it on the defense.

Any thoughts?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Generally, any time that I am pretty sure the campaign is going to take a dramatic turn and change substantially, I'll let the players know ahead of time.

I know I'd hate to sign up for a "We Play Fighter Jocks in Star Wars" game only to have it turn into "Raising the Rebellion on a Backwater World When Our Transport Ate It" a couple games in.

 

[fuzzlewump]

I don't think it matters so long as the players have a choice. They might decide the invading force is righteous and join them, or be spies. They might want to doe fighting the invading force. They might want to flee the city, or try to go assassinate the leader of the invaders. Or, just say the game is going to be railroad plot with some cool combats. No need to even say what it's going to be if its a railroad, in my opinion.

Hope this helps.

 

[Nagol]

Since you want a campaign where the PCs are acting proactively and taking particular roles, you hould let them know.

Otherwise, they won't naturally act in the roles you want/expect them to play.

 

[Piratecat]

In this case I'd tell the players "Hey, I'd like this game to be centered around you guys being the cornerstone of the resistance. You okay with that?" It's an unusual enough adventuring role that many players would otherwise avoid it, thinking it wasn't a planned plot.

 

[Merkuri]

If you know your players really well and you think they'd go for this sort of thing, go ahead and spring it on them.

The fact that you had to ask on EN World makes me think you have some doubts about whether they'd all be okay with it. If that's the case, ask them.

As a player, I enjoy surprises and unexpected twists. But when we're talking about the keystone of the game the players should not be surprised. Imagine if you saw previews for a movie that looked very action-oriented, but when you saw the actual movie you realized the action was just at the beginning and it quickly turned into a political drama. Even if you like political dramas you may be miffed because you had different expectations when you walked into the theater.

Think of it this way: The fun they would get out of being surprised will last only one session at most. The fun they will get from playing in a game they bought into will last the entire campaign.

 

[Umbran]

It's an unusual enough adventuring role that many players would otherwise avoid it, thinking it wasn't a planned plot.

Agreed. The problem you have is that if this isn't an initial conceit of the game, you cannot count of the players to choose a particular path on their own.

 

[Kzach]

Erm, you've heard of a little thing called "War of the Burning Sky", right? Seriously, you might want to check it out before you go to all the trouble of recreating it

 

[Asmor]

In this case I'd tell the players "Hey, I'd like this game to be centered around you guys being the cornerstone of the resistance. You okay with that?" It's an unusual enough adventuring role that many players would otherwise avoid it, thinking it wasn't a planned plot.

That's rather insightful. I sort of had the same concern, but I wasn't really able to articulate it so well. Thanks.

Erm, you've heard of a little thing called "War of the Burning Sky", right? Seriously, you might want to check it out before you go to all the trouble of recreating it

Sorry, I don't listen to rap.

Seriously, though, is that what WotBS is about? I don't follow published adventures at all.

 

[enrious]

True story.

I was a player in a new campaign that by the 5th session had us harassed and chased by the evil yet omnipresent church in the country we started in.

So we were looking at having to essentially conduct a hide and fight guerrilla war against overwhelming odds and without any realistic chance of surviving, much less winning.

So we did what any self-respecting group of adventurers would do.

We smuggled ourselves out on a boat headed for distant shores, outside the reach of that church.

DM brought it on himself.

If you make a situation appear unwinnable and the players don't know it's part of the story, you only have you to blame for what happens. Like, for example, leaving the city to search out other bands of resistance or I don't know, write off the city and decide to take a holiday in warmer waters.

All I can say is it worked for us.