How would you react to the 'ole bait and switch?

[Caliber]

So in the time I've spent on these boards I've heard lots of really awesome campaign ideas. The ones I've found most intriguing (mostly because I've never been involved with anything like them) is the 'Ole Bait-and-Switch. The fantasy characters who suddenly wake up to realize they were in the Matrix. The d20 Modern norms who suddenly become mutants. The campaign the experiences an apocolypse mid-campaign and continues on as a post-apoc.

My big concern over trying this out with my group is a fear of a negative reaction. Some people HATE being tricked, and would be pretty upset if a campaign suddenly did an unexpected 180.

So how would YOU react? Have you ever had it done to you, or done it to others? How did it go down? Do your answers vary based on how the switch is done, and if yes, how so?

Any thoughts?

 

[Oni]

My free time is valuable to me. There are some types of games that I simply do not enjoy playing. I like to know up front what sort of game I'm getting myself involved with.

 

[jmucchiello]

These kinds of tricks don't work for two (of the three major) kinds of gamer:

1) The role-player can be upset by them because he spent time creating a character he wishes to explore and part of that exploration probably include the milieu the character comes from. The switch can negatively affect this player. He will try to roll with the switch since he can now explore how the character reacts to the switch. But that's not what he signed on for.

2) The Gamer (or power gamer) will be upset because he is no longer optimal for the setting. He designed his character for a specific setting and when the switch occurs his character immediately is suboptimal. He will not be happy unless the radiation accident has made him extremely powerful.

Personally, I don't like them because if you feel you have to pull a bait-n-switch to engage me in your game, maybe there is something wrong with the way to make games. If you can't be straight up with me, you lose a lot of my trust.

 

[Blood Jester]

Indifferent

I voted indifferent because the idea itself has merit, but the execution is what really matters. If the players/characters still have the same level of ability/power/whatever (even if in a very different way than before), then it can be cool and exciting. If, on the other hand, the change pretty much screws all of their previous accomplishments, and gives nothing back, then it's just a DM's self-stroking power-play.

I'm assuming you're thinking the former, so I'd say go for it.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I voted Indifferent as well, though I'd say my feelings run more towards, "cool...with a rider."

Regarding this question, I draw a distinction between Campaign Flavor, and Campaign Specifics.

Campaign Flavors include High Fantasy, Swashbuckling, Dark & Gritty, Low Magic, Historical, Heroic, Plot-Lite, etc.

Campaign Specifics include the Forgotten Realms, the South of France, an all human campaign, etc.

I am willing to accept bait-and-switch regarding the Campaign Specifics. If the game starts in the Forgotten Realms, only to see the PCs thrown into a portal and wind up in a home brew, I'm cool with that. If the game begin as all-human, and shortly after the party is infected with various forms of lycanthropy, it's all good. Changing the Campaign specifics is part of what keeps me, the player, guessing, and minor and gradual or vast and sudden, I'm okay with it.

However, I do not feel the same about Campaign Flavor. This is something that is (for me) decided before the campaign begins by all gamers involved (DM and players). I told my players up front when I started my latest game that I was going to run a heroic, somewhat low magic game. They created their characters with that in mind, and to throw them into Ravenloft at this point would be, IMO, unfair. If the group decides on a swashbuckling game, that's what they want, not a grim-and-gritty or a historical or anything else, and that's what they should get.

 

[Nightfall]

It depends on what's involved for me. Mostly I prefer my apolocalyses come with some warning, like in big fiery letters "We are sorry for the inconvience, but the world is ending. Thank you!" Something like that.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

This one depends a lot on the execution.

Also, it depends on how invested I was in the type of game I was expecting. Give me the kind of game I really like, that I don't get to play often, and then switch to something I dislike or something I get a lot of, it's going to go poorly.

On the other hand, bait me with something typical, with a decent twist or two, and suddenly pull the rug on me-- into something with more meat-- and I'll applaud you. Especially if you had me fooled.

 

[Piratecat]

A friend of mine was in a Deadlands game. The PCs fell through a portal and ended up as D&D characters. This would have driven me nuts, but I think they rolled with it.

 

[diaglo]

A friend of mine was in a Deadlands game. The PCs fell through a portal and ended up as D&D characters. This would have driven me nuts, but I think they rolled with it.

to a point i agree.

as long as there is a tie-in to the world/system in which the character was originally created, i don't have a problem with it.

ie...S3 Barrier Peaks, EX1&2, etc...

some changes need not be disturbed. like Oni, time is valuable to many gamers, switching things up permenantly or semipermenantly can be very unvaluable.

 

[WizarDru]

Generally speaking, this sort of thing strikes me as more of a DM conceit that generally isn't that appealing to players...especially if they've invested some time and effort into it.

It could work, but execution is everything, and generally speaking, I don't think it's a good idea.