What do people think of campaign twists?

[Umbran]

That depends how smart the DM is about the whole thing, and how interesting the twist is.

If I am led to believe that I'm playing in a 3e city-based campaign, and I build a socially-minded rogue, and then I find that I'm actually playing in an underworld filled with undead, I'm going to be rather put out - the DM has allowed me to make a character that's going to be next to useless in the game. That's not much fun.

The thing a DM needs to ask themselves is, "Why am I using a twist?" The dramatic impact of the twist is one-time-only. The tactical impact is lasting - the twist is a good way of having players create characters who are unprepared for the new scenario. But, as shown above, that's not always fun.

Why have a surprise twist, rathe rthan tell the players, "You'll be starting in the city of Grugburz, but very soon after the character is gong to be taken into territory he's unfamiliar with?"

 

[Korgoth]

I think that twists should be kept in line with the source material. For example:

Premise: "We will be playing a fantasy game inspired by Sword and Sorcery literature".

Good Twist: Some or all magic items are actually highly advanced technology from bygone eras; the world is really the far future of Earth.

Why is it good?: Because it is a staple of the genre literature and, while revealing a secret about the setting, does not fundamentally alter the play of the game. Your characters are still who they are supposed to be, and doing what they're supposed to be doing. Also, D&D has had robots and trips to Mars since the first version of the books.

Bad Twist: Your characters are actually Netrunner avatars in a Cyberpunk game; the monsters you think you're fighting are actually "black IC" and their spells and attacks are actually software applications.

Why is it bad?: First, it is not actually in the Sword & Sorcery genre, it is in the Cyberpunk genre that has merely adopted S&S trappings. Conan and Cugel being on Earth in different geologic epochs is S&S; a fantasy hero finding a flying car from a lost civilization is S&S; being a Netrunner avatar is simply not S&S. Second, it makes the characters into something else: your Fighter is actually a hacker; Cindy's Cleric is actually also a hacker, etc. This means that the characters your players made up aren't actually their characters... Konan may look like a Barbarian but really he's a pasty nerdroid with a wire stuck to his head, etc. So their attitudes and purposes are now totally altered from what we originally said they were. The DM should have said "We will be playing Cyberpunk using the D&D rules" or something like that.

 

[Graybeard]

I don't want or expect a collaborative game. I don't run one either. I expect a general idea of what type of game it will be (intrigue, hack and slash, etc.) and an overview of the campaign setting. After that, plot surprises are fun and exciting as long as they make a certain amount of sense in the overall campaign. If the players can look back and see where the plot twist started developing, that's great. If it comes out of left field and makes no sense in the campaign, that's not good.

 

[Cor Azer]

I don't necessarily need collaboration, but I definitely prefer to have a proper idea of what to expect. No details, but general emphases (combat or no, urban vs wilderness vs open-sea, dungeon crawl or intrigue, etc.)

I'll try to go along with a twist, although if it is going to be a "putting characters in unfamiliar territory", I'd rather know that so at least I can make a character that might be interesting to explore such a theme.

I'm actually a bit irked with my current DM, over the course of six sessions, the game has gone from our party being caravan guards, to town defenders, to hunting orcs across wilderness, to exploring an underground drow city, to sailing with pirates, to being stranding on a mysteriously uninhabited island, to being recruiting by an underwater race for their war against sahaugin. On their own, any of those would be fine, but since he has said (once we got there) the whole point of the initial adventures was just to get us to the war against sahaugin, I'd have preferred he just start there instead of throwing so many red herrings at us.

 

[Crothian]

Like in movies it depends on the twist and the quality of the DM. If the DM can pull it off and make it interesting and cool then it's great. But if they can't then it is not.

 

[GSHamster]

If something is going to happen to the characters early on which sets up the campaign would you rather know about it before we start. For example, if all of the characters are going to die in the first session and the first half of the campaign is going to involve fighting your way out of the underworld and then seeking out and reclaiming your soul.

Generally twists should have a lot of foreshadowing. The best twists are those that look inevitable in hindsight. If you have a twist in the very first session, then you may want to reconsider.

In the above example, I would actually start the game after the heroes had died. Make them come up with the story of how they died. Maybe they don't even have to be from the same area or even same time period.

Then start the game at that point. It's pretty much the same game, but without the twist, and the players will be fully mentally prepared for an underworld campaign.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I'm good with either - so long as the DM is clear about what they're doing.

For example:

"You're all going to be playing in a Vs. the Undead game, so Clerics would be a good idea" which then turns into "Actually the Undead are all immune to Clerical powers, because of a special deal with the gods, so your characters are all screwed. I just wanted you to play Clerics so you could feel the pain of it all!" would not be my cup of tea, thanks.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Generally I just need to know enough that I can make a character whose concept or abilities will not be invalidated rigth from the start...

Of course that can be a bit ambiguous sometimes, but in general something like "you're all part of an army trying to liberate the humanoid races from a devil tyrant" or "plane hopping to go after the source of disturbances that are infecting the planes" works fine enough to give me an idea...

 

[Engilbrand]

I came into my last 3.5 game after they had played a session or two. They were told that they would start off in Waterdeep, but that the game would turn to some wilderness. They had a Wizard, a Druid with spells most useful in a city, and a Dwarf in heavy armor and a tower shield. By the end of the first session, they were adventuring in the Chuult on a 10 year mission that they were forced into.
The game was retarded, and I'm glad that I snagged the two best guys from the game and dropped it for 4th edition.

Personally, I want a decent idea before-hand of what is or isn't appropriate. I definitely want to be told if there are to be any limitations put upon me. Can I make a Warforged Artificer? If I can, don't suddenly have me attacked for being an unnatural thing. That's a real douche move.

When it comes to a twist, I've liked the idea of a game where the characters are brought together by visions. They're either of the future, or of a previous life. I think that it would be really cool. If they're visions of the future, maybe some of the characters have different ones after they defeat a major enemy. Some visions might even show betrayal, or a new party member. The characters might initially see themselves as a lone group against a horde of demons. The adventure to array groups against the horde. I don't know. It's something that I've put some thought into before. I might even have them stat themselves at level 30, then have them die horribly against the horde, then restat the characters at level 1 and go from there.

 

[Jhaelen]

I haven't had good experiences with (drastic) campaign twists in the past. They pretty much served as a good excuse to prematurely end the campaign. Nowadays, I take extra care to outline exactly what it's going to be about.