Surprise!

[Odin the Ignoble]

I've been thinking about running a game were the players would each start off with a normal Average Joe character. Like Walt the local sheriff or Johnny the paper boy, or Tom the high school Chemistry teacher.


The something major happens to the setting like:
Zombie Apocalypse
Aliens Invade
The entire town is somehow transported back in time to 1202 AD
The group finds themselves in a parallel universe where the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event never happened
The entire town is transported into a DnD setting.
Etc.

The players would create characters without knowing what exactly is going to happen.

My question is, how do you think the players would react? Would you be disappointed if you built a skill laden scientist only to find out that it's a zombie setting and your brains aren't useful in comparison to someone else's brawn? Or what if you end up in the 1200s and the scientist gets all the glory whipping up steam engines and radios but you're stuck with the paranoid gun nut?

How do I stop the party from just coming up with a bunch of survivalists, gun enthusiasts, and hunters?

[Drglenn]

Basicly: come up with something interesting to do for each of the character archetypes.

For example:
Gun nut: stuff to kill
Scientist: stuff to make/improve
these two could even be combined: for example in a zombie apocalypse scenario the scientist and gun nut are stuck in a lab/workshop away from the gun nut's stash. Encourage both characters to improvise weaponry out of whatever's available (with the Scientist obviously taking the lead) to fight off the zombies (which the gun nut would take the lead for)

[Tvtyrant]

Give the scientist the ability to make things like chainsaw nunchucks. Also, a chemist can make a bomb out of anything, and an engineer can make primitive guns/siege weapons out of wood.

[Squally!]

Id enjoy it a lot.

But its really up to your players.

It would be awesome to take my Park Ranger from a Resident Evil game back to the 1200's and see how he fares with his reliance on modern tech and whatnot xD

[Odin the Ignoble]

Cool thanks for the help.

But for instance say I wanted the twist to be that they end up in the Middle Ages. The characters suspect it might be a Zombie Apocolypse. How do I keep the players form all playing gun nuts? If no one plays a character smart enough to work out the whole gunpowder thing, eventually their guns are going to be useless.

I mean how do I try and make a balanced party for the unexpected without tipping them off to what the twist is?

[Drglenn]

Subtly (or not-so-subtly) suggest that one of them should be a scientist.
E.g. If they think that they're going to be in a zombie apocalypse setting tell them the merits of someone that can make explosives out of anything in the situation.

or just flat-out tell them that you can have only so many gun nuts in the group (e.g. if they're military tell them they've been assigned to look after a VIP, who happens to be a scientist and one of the PCs)

If all else fails throw in an NPC to balance them out

[ClockShock]

Tell them something unexpected will happen and they should create a balanced party - lest they end up sucking at everything

simple?

[Tyndmyr]

D20M has good archtypes for this.

A scientist is, even in a zombie apoc, pretty damn useful. For starters, you're gonna want to figure out a cure or vaccination, right? You don't want the first wound to be the end of you. And hey, there's a lotta tech around, and it might not be in the best of condition. If only you had someone smart enough to fix it...

Yeah, everyone should be useful, even in such a scenario.

[Britter]

Tell them outright. If you don't, they are surely going to make characters based on whatever each of them thinks you are planning, and in the end no one will be happy. If you let them know what you want to do, they will build characters that match the intent of the game, and that will fit into your campaign.

So, imo, be upfront and disclose the plan before characters are rolled.

[Bang!]

Tell them outright.
What Britter said.

Even if you don't want to show your hand w/r/t the direction of the campaign, the best way of getting them to play ordinary joes is to ask them to play ordinary joes.

[Treblain]

If you don't want to give them information on the campaign, then you should be sure you can find ways for their characters to be useful. It can be a lot of fun finding creative uses for a concert violinist in the age of the dinosaurs, rather than having everyone pick exactly what background they need to survive.

[Kylarra]

If you really want to do a surprise! thing, I'd have it as a oneshot only. Otherwise, being useless because you couldn't read the GM's mind sucks.

[Warlawk]

My question is, how do you think the players would react? Would you be disappointed if you built a skill laden scientist only to find out that it's a zombie setting and your brains aren't useful in comparison to someone else's brawn?

Odd... most zombie scenarios I am familiar with involve some sort of scientific know how that ends up saving the day.

Bottom line, like other people have said... just tell your players outright. You don't have to tell them what exactly you're going to do, but saying "Hey, it would be good for you guys to have someone familiar with guns, someone familiar survival/hunting and someone with a good level of technical know how." isn't going to damage your game at all.

[BayardSPSR]

Ah, surprises... I recently had a cool idea. The premise is that all the characters are civilians in the USSR in the 1930s. The surprise is that I lied to them about the date, and that they're all going to be drafted into the Red Army to see how long they can survive in Stalingrad (or something; I haven't run it yet).

I don't know what's ideal for the ideas you've proposed, but the way I'm going to do it is imply heavily that it's a rural village mystery thing where gunslinger would be lacking in utility. Before they all get drafter with no combat skills and start dying one by one. But I'm planning it as a one-shot, so they shouldn't mind the death rate.

[Goober4473]

I ran a GURPS game like this. Everyone made normal people in a small town in Maine, modern day, and I told them only that it wasn't going to just be the normal world.

They ended up getting magical super powers, so party balance from the start wasn't a huge deal. The super powers they got determined their mechanical roles much more than their original stats, and the way GURPS works doesn't really require roles too much.

Everyone ended up having a blast. Going through that initial period of "what's going on?" was a lot of fun. Outright telling them what was going to happen would have made the opening part of the game a lot less awesome. But they knew something was going to happen, so they managed to cover most of their bases (out of three people: one guy who could shoot a gun, one guy with karate, a smart guy, two of them were social, etc.).

So my suggestion: Tell them to cover their bases, and if they manage to have a balanced party to start, cool. If they're missing something important, either give it to them, or downplay it.

For instance, if they have no combat ability and the zombie apocalypse begins, either let them use what they have instead of fighting a lot: negotiate with other survivors, sneak around, figure out a vaccine, etc., or give them some way to fight: magic powers, an altered form of the zombie virus that doesn't kill you, but instead makes you stronger, a pile of really awesome guns, etc.

[Odin the Ignoble]

Nice!

Thanks for the feedback. It's much appreciated.


Tell them outright. If you don't, they are surely going to make characters based on whatever each of them thinks you are planning, and in the end no one will be happy. If you let them know what you want to do, they will build characters that match the intent of the game, and that will fit into your campaign.

So, imo, be upfront and disclose the plan before characters are rolled.

I think that's sort of counter to the idea of the campaign. IMHO, one of the most interesting aspects of RPing is being able to explore the unknown, if I tell them what I plan to do ahead of time, then they don't get that chance.

For example if they know that the game is going to be a Zombie Apocalypse, they probably aren't going to be willing to investigate the recent slew of bizarre attacks by homeless people. Instead they'll just pack up and head for their cabin in the woods.


Odd... most zombie scenarios I am familiar with involve some sort of scientific know how that ends up saving the day.


Really? All the ones I've run or done didn't have any scientific cures. At least not easy ones. If it's a virus for example, creating a vaccine could take years, more likely decades. Especially if you have to do it with just a handful of scientists on a shoe string budget.

I usually have the players find safety or establish a large enough community to ensure humanity's survival.

[Bang!]

For example if they know that the game is going to be a Zombie Apocalypse, they probably aren't going to be willing to investigate the recent slew of bizarre attacks by homeless people. Instead they'll just pack up and head for their cabin in the woods. Honestly, I think law enforcement officials are the only group that would investigate that, zombies or not. If you want the game to go this way, it would be pretty easy to ask the players to build characters who are e.g. with the police (or another group with motivations to delve into that sort of thing), without telling them that the game is going to involve zombies or time-warps or whatever surprise you want to spring. You could even set the first few session playing whatever the group's implied genre is straight (criminal investigation, tabloid reporting, whatever), before springing the surprise.

Edited to add:
The advantages there being that the players would have motivation to become involved in your plot, and that you can hone their character concepts to a certain degree; if you have investigators or a military organization, you're unlikely to have Jill the Preschool Teacher horrendously out of place in a game that's all about kung-fu fighting and jet planes or Biff the Gun-Obsessed Marine in a game about zany science teachers from the future.

[Britter]

I think that's sort of counter to the idea of the campaign. IMHO, one of the most interesting aspects of RPing is being able to explore the unknown, if I tell them what I plan to do ahead of time, then they don't get that chance.

For example if they know that the game is going to be a Zombie Apocalypse, they probably aren't going to be willing to investigate the recent slew of bizarre attacks by homeless people. Instead they'll just pack up and head for their cabin in the woods.



I would still tell them. I would say "I want to play a game wherein we explore what it's like for normal people to end up doing <whatever>" and I would trust my players to make characters that would be interesting in the situation. They will get to explore the situation. There will still be plenty of surprises. But there won't be that moment where you realize that the character you rolled, expecting to play a certain kind of game, is rendered immediately useless by your big GM reveal.

I will admit that you will miss the big "Wow, thats neat" moment of the reveal, but unless the characters were built with an interest in the events of the big reveal, the players are unlikely to care about it.

Ymmv. I am not a fan of hiding that sort of thing from my players. If you can make it work for you, go for it.

Also, what Bang said. I agree. Players will be more involved if they know what the deal is.

[Goober4473]

I would still tell them. I would say "I want to play a game wherein we explore what it's like for normal people to end up doing <whatever>" and I would trust my players to make characters that would be interesting in the situation. They will get to explore the situation. There will still be plenty of surprises. But there won't be that moment where you realize that the character you rolled, expecting to play a certain kind of game, is rendered immediately useless by your big GM reveal.

I will admit that you will miss the big "Wow, thats neat" moment of the reveal, but unless the characters were built with an interest in the events of the big reveal, the players are unlikely to care about it.

I feel like it's pretty easy to make sure no one is useless, just by being part of character creation. Sure, if you say "go make a level 1 character in d20 Modern," or "make a 50-point GURPS character," you could end up with someone that won't fit in the game, but I feel like the GM should be there with the players during the character creation process (in any game), and thus could say, "man, you don't have much <whatever>. I think you should maybe improve that," or, "no one in the party is ver good at <something>. It will probably be helpful if at least one of you can do that."

The real issue is that the players may not like the genre you've chosen. But even that can be mitigated by explaining the general style of the game. For instance, "this will be a dark game," or "this will be rediculous and have lots of shenanigens." They may not know what's coming, but they know enough not to feel ripped off when they wanted to eat pizza and smash orcs and ended up in survival horror, or vice versa.

Of course, this still may not go over well with some groups, but it's not too hard to pull off if your players are into it, or trust you to make it awesome.

[Kiero]

Bait and switch is not cool. It almost never works out in a good way.

[EccentricCircle]

I've heard of a similar idea, where all of the players make a character of "themselves" and then something strange happens. I've never had opertunity to play in such a game but it sounds like fun.

obviously if the point of the game is the suprise then you can't give it away in character generation. that sort of defies the point, but so long as you are careful you should be able to give them quite a lot of information about what sort of characters you are expecting.

[Goober4473]

Bait and switch is not cool. It almost never works out in a good way.

Usually not, but with the right group and the right execution, it could work.

However, this isn't about bait and switch. This is about telling the players that you aren't going to tell them everything. You aren't suprising them with a surprise. They know it's coming, they just don't know what it is yet.

[valadil]

Bait and switch is not cool. It almost never works out in a good way.

I don't think this is bait and switch though. If the players know the premise is "modern characters trying to get by in an unexpected universe" there's no switch. Bait and switch would be telling them to play a modern game with nothing supernatural and then changing it up with no warning.

My vote would be for letting them make characters, but warn players if they make something that will end up being useless. I'm actually a big fan of suggesting that players don't play a character that doesn't fit, even in games that don't change setting.

The other option that comes to mind is that the change of venue would happen more than once over the campaign. It's okay if a character is useless for a session or two. But this way everyone would have a turn to shine.

[Telonius]

I wouldn't necessarily say outright that, "We're running a zombie apocalypse." What I'd say, is this.

"We're starting out in a typical town, filled with the typical sort of people you'd find in any town. You can make any sort of character you like, whatever profession or background you like. I won't tell you exactly what I have planned for this. I will say this: no single profession or method of training is going to provide a character with all the skills needed to survive the campaign."

If somebody chooses an expert in underwater basketweaving, that's the guy who realizes he's a sorcerer (or makes a pact to become a Warlock, or develops psionic powers) when they reach the other setting.

[DabblerWizard]

This switch up isn't all that annoying if your players are already conscious of group dynamics and have already created a relatively versatile group of characters.

On a side note, I find this idea very appealing! This kind of turn around is very exciting, and keeps people on their toes by making them adapt on the fly.

[Kiero]

This switch up isn't all that annoying if your players are already conscious of group dynamics and have already created a relatively versatile group of characters.

On a side note, I find this idea very appealing! This kind of turn around is very exciting, and keeps people on their toes by making them adapt on the fly.

I find this kind of "twist" extremely annoying, largely because when I commit to a premise, I commit to what I've been sold. Give me something completely different (especially something I think is crap, like the entire zombie genre) and I'm not going to be happy.

[Goober4473]

I commit to what I've been sold.

But the point here is that you've been sold a surprise. If you aren't buying, that's cool, but we're assuming the players agreed to the idea.

Just like if you were playing a dungeon crawl, but didn't know the dungeon would be infested with giant ants, or has non-euclidean geometery, or lots of fire-based monsters. No one is saying that you walk into the dungeon crawl, expecting some hack-and-slash just like the GM said, only to find a political drama or get teleported onto a spaceship. No one is being misled. Only surprised.

[Kiero]

But the point here is that you've been sold a surprise. If you aren't buying, that's cool, but we're assuming the players agreed to the idea.

Just like if you were playing a dungeon crawl, but didn't know the dungeon would be infested with giant ants, or has non-euclidean geometery, or lots of fire-based monsters. No one is saying that you walk into the dungeon crawl, expecting some hack-and-slash just like the GM said, only to find a political drama or get teleported onto a spaceship. No one is being misled. Only surprised.

The best way to get them to agree is to give them all the information and sell them on the idea of creating realistic characters, rather than trying to make people who will survive the "surprise".

[Goober4473]

The best way to get them to agree is to give them all the information and sell them on the idea of creating realistic characters, rather than trying to make people who will survive the "surprise".

That is certainly the easiest way to get them to agree, but it makes it impossible for the players to experience the surprise for themselves, even if they can roleplay their characters' surprise. If you don't care about that, then don't play this way, but my point is that you can't replicate the same experience by giving the players all the information.

[Kiero]

That is certainly the easiest way to get them to agree, but it makes it impossible for the players to experience the surprise for themselves, even if they can roleplay their characters' surprise. If you don't care about that, then don't play this way, but my point is that you can't replicate the same experience by giving the players all the information.

The characters are the ones who are supposed to be surprised, not their players.

[valadil]

I find this kind of "twist" extremely annoying, largely because when I commit to a premise, I commit to what I've been sold. Give me something completely different (especially something I think is crap, like the entire zombie genre) and I'm not going to be happy.

If any players have similar views on the matter, how about this compromise. One or more players get to be locals of the new environment. Their role in the party is effectively tour guides. This idea makes a lot more sense if you're playing in an alternate reality than in the zombie apocalypse though.

[Britter]

If any players have similar views on the matter, how about this compromise. One or more players get to be locals of the new environment. Their role in the party is effectively tour guides. This idea makes a lot more sense if you're playing in an alternate reality than in the zombie apocalypse though.

And again, if you discuss the situation and the conflict with the players, and tell them waht you are thinking about doing, they will tell you what they are interested in playing within the situation you are describing.

Some may want to be the locals. Some may want to be the rubes. Maybe everyone wants to play with being the strangers in a strange land. Maybe no one does. Regardless, they go in with their eyes open to what the game will be about, and they don't feel like they just bought a ticket on "Twist-Ending Railways."

Again, all my opinion. I do know that every game I have played in or run, herein a similar twist was used, either at the begining or at the middle or end, the game stalled out within three sessions because of people feeling that what they had gotten was not what they had signed on for. Ymmv.

[Goober4473]

The characters are the ones who are supposed to be surprised, not their players.

One complaint about this statement: "supposed." This sounds like an accusation of wrongbadfun.

What if the players want to be surprised and the GM wants to surprise them? Why are they doing it wrong?

I ran a game with this kind of surprise, and it worked amazingly. I'm also running a game now where the players not only got to know what the setting was, but got to make decisions about it that the GM normally makes, and I may start doing "cut-scenes" where they get to see stuff their characters don't know about. And I've run plenty of other games where the players get surprised in more mundane ways, such as not knowing the BBEG's evil plot at the beginning of the game.

There isn't one right way to do it. We're just discussing one possible way, and how to make it work. Saying not to do it at all isn't helpful. Suggesting the GM talk to the players about how much surprise they want is helpful though, because not everyone will want to play this way.

[Lord.Sorasen]

Having the characters roll themselves might be an interesting way to do it.

But: You'll be making normal characters; it's a world just like this one. But I'll warn you, some pretty crazy things are going to be happening.

At that point, make it negotiable what's what. Don't make the character end with creation. To me, the best part of these fish out of water stories is seeing the characters change. So give your players opportunities to change. Perhaps someone makes their character a very technology centered type, who ends up in midieval magical Europe. No computers, so is he ruined? Maybe at first. But over time, he could use that high intelligence to learn the ways of magic. If you're doing it DnD like or D20 modern like, allow the alternate rules for exchanging feats.

And highly discourage the one trick pony. Tell the players to make units with a wide variety of abilities. That way there characters can adapt. The martial artist who can punch really hard might find to be useless against zombies, but the martial artist who can move like a gymnast might have more application.

Namely, make sure they aren't in a D&D mindset. A wizard in D&D is best if he can do his job the best under those circumstances. If someone was "built" the way D&D characters are, with one terrible "dump" stat and an incredibly rigid "My job is fighting monsters" style, he'd do terribly.