Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?

[ExploderWizard]

Because just because you claim that it was easy doesn't make it so. I'm curious how you made it easy, because I've never seen it be a simple thing. Note, I said very difficult, not impossible. I appreciate it can be done, but, IME, it's not an easy thing to do by any stretch.

So, why not answer the questions?

It is very easy to run a great game with a mix of mounted and unmounted characters. I have run and played in such games many times.

How could this possibly happen?

The rulesets were simple and being mounted didn't equate to "one trick pony " resource dumping. Most of the fighter types carried either a lance or a shortbow and were fairly decent at mounted combat when it took place.

These same fighters were also competent when it became time to let Nodwick guard the horses during more indoor focused activities.

Of course this meant that there wasn't anyone in the party who was the ultimate horsemaster and had to wear a dunce cap in the dungeon. It worked out just fine.

The need to use rules that encourage hyper-specialization that cripple a character outside of the chosen niche is a self inflicted pain in the ass that the group will have to just find a way to deal with.

This has been brought to you by BD&D: The Staples easy button.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
Similarly, I think the players of mounted characters should be perfectly content to indulge in their mounted badassery only once every few combats. And in my experience, such players are indeed satisfied with such.

I totally agree. The problem, as I see it, is that how do you allow them to engage "every few combats"? There are just so many situations where a mount just isn't feasible, many of which - the dungeon in particular - are pretty stock staples of the game.

It is very easy to run a great game with a mix of mounted and unmounted characters. I have run and played in such games many times.

/snip

The need to use rules that encourage hyper-specialization that cripple a character outside of the chosen niche is a self inflicted pain in the ass that the group will have to just find a way to deal with.

This has been brought to you by BD&D: The Staples easy button.

I'd agree if mounted knight was some "hyper-specialization", but, in a fantasy game, is it? Really? Is mounted knight some bizarre archetype that doesn't fit, really?

So, the basic answer I'm getting is, either the player gets told by the rest the group, "tough noogies" and scraps his concept, or he waters down his concept to the point where he's not really a mounted knight any more, he's just a regular fighter that occassionally hops on a horse.

Look at Spider-man for a second. Almost all of Spider-man's action occurs in places where Spidey can swing, jump, leap and move around. You rarely (although certainly not never) see Spidey fighting in small, cramped areas where he has to stand toe to toe with whomever and duke it out.

Why? Because a signature element of Spider-man is that he jumps around a lot. He swings on webs from buildings and swoops in.

So, again, how do you allow for a concept which requires fairly specific locales often enough to be used the majority of the time, or at least "once every few combats"?

Hey, you guys did it, that's fantastic. Great for you. But, was it a case of adjusting adventures to allow the player to engage in his concept or did the player water down his concept to the point where he's pretty much just a standard fighter who happens to get on a horse once in a while?

 

[pemerton]

was it a case of adjusting adventures to allow the player to engage in his concept or did the player water down his concept to the point where he's pretty much just a standard fighter who happens to get on a horse once in a while?

Hussar, I'd be curious to know what you thought of Rel's answer to this question.

As I understood it, if the character wants to be a mounted knight as a part of the conception of the character, but doesn't particularly care how it plays out (a bit like another character might want to be a Duke rather than a chimney sweep), then in "cut-scenes" and some background-y moments the character rides around on a horse, is adored by the (non-mounted) populace, etc. While in actual play the character is a typical D&D fighter - like the Duke vs chimney sweep, it doesn't really come into play. But these episodes in which the character is actually played aren't necessarily typical moments in the character's life - the character is, within the gameworld, and despite the moments focussed on during play, a mounted knight.

Your issue arise only when the player desires to implement the concept in actual play - and are a big issue when implementing them in play means spending precious character resources (feats in 3E) on them. I think Rel's suggestion at that point accords with yours - the player has to be told to look for another character concept.

The possible overlap between these two sorts of player desire becomes easier to deal with when the supply of resources isn't so limited (eg in Rolemaster or Runequest, or even 4e with only a single feat required). The character can have the background/colour stuff going on, build up the mechanical stuff as a bit of a sideline, and then on those occasions when riding becomes relevant in play they can do it.

 

[billd91]

I'd agree if mounted knight was some "hyper-specialization", but, in a fantasy game, is it? Really? Is mounted knight some bizarre archetype that doesn't fit, really?

I don't think anyone is saying that a mounted knight is a bizarre archetype at all. But a lot has to be made about how the mounted knight can be built. In 3e D&D, it's not difficult to make one and keep the PC competent in combat while on foot. It's even easier in earlier editions that have fewer build options.
But in a point-based system like Hero or Mutants and Masterminds, you could absolutely build a mounted combat character that's barely competent off his horse. And even in 3e, you could generate characters built with over-specialization to varying degrees. I would say that a build of that sort should be avoided by policy. One-trick ponies deserve what they get when they find that their single trick is too limited by circumstances.

Look at Spider-man for a second. Almost all of Spider-man's action occurs in places where Spidey can swing, jump, leap and move around. You rarely (although certainly not never) see Spidey fighting in small, cramped areas where he has to stand toe to toe with whomever and duke it out.

Why? Because a signature element of Spider-man is that he jumps around a lot. He swings on webs from buildings and swoops in.

Spiderman also finds ways to get a fight in close quarters out into a broader area where he can use his powers. You actually see that a lot in superhero comics - the heroes deliberately changing the battlefield to be more to their advantage (or to get the fight away from bystanders). Of course, villains who know of Spiderman's mobility should do what they can to resist this if they're not dumb...

 

[The Shaman]

The need to use rules that encourage hyper-specialization that cripple a character outside of the chosen niche is a self inflicted pain in the ass that the group will have to just find a way to deal with.

Can someone please drop an XP on EW for me?

 

[The Shaman]

So, again, how do you allow for a concept which requires fairly specific locales often enough to be used the majority of the time, or at least "once every few combats"?

Hey, you guys did it, that's fantastic. Great for you. But, was it a case of adjusting adventures to allow the player to engage in his concept or did the player water down his concept to the point where he's pretty much just a standard fighter who happens to get on a horse once in a while?

How 'bout another choice? Play with players who understand that the game involves a wide variety of habitats and locales, some indoors, some outdoors, some above ground, some below ground, some below water, some on other planes, and it's entirely on them to deal with the circmstances facing their characters.

 

[Jhaelen]

The need to use rules that encourage hyper-specialization that cripple a character outside of the chosen niche is a self inflicted pain in the ass that the group will have to just find a way to deal with.

It's rarely the rules by themselves that encourage such an amount of over-specialization. More often by far it's the players' attitudes towards the rules that encourages it.

It is this trend of trying to 'compete' with tweaked builds (like many of those found on WotC OP boards) in order to fullfill a 'social obligation' to contribute 'sufficiently' that drives people into hyper-specialization.

 

[ExploderWizard]

It's rarely the rules by themselves that encourage such an amount of over-specialization. More often by far it's the players' attitudes towards the rules that encourages it.

It is this trend of trying to 'compete' with tweaked builds (like many of those found on WotC OP boards) in order to fullfill a 'social obligation' to contribute 'sufficiently' that drives people into hyper-specialization.

Understood and agreed. In fact, the players attitude about such rules is often the reason we get such super silly tweaked specialization in the first place. I think this is a cyclical effect of the attitude/game design feedback loop.

The typical standard of play follows this progression. Builds become focused and super specialized so that a character operating in his/her element doesn't feel as if there is a challenge. The "normal" level of challenge is then adjusted to provide a bit of danger for the specialist with the side effect of being far too much for a non-optimized character to handle. This leads to even more focus on improving builds, puts pressure on other players to "get with the program" in order not to bring down the team and headaches for the DM as he/she tries to figure out how to keep everyone's focus in play a majority of the time.

As the numbers skew more and more toward the tweaked end there becomes less and less tolerance for more the more broadly competent PC.
The Ricky Bobby mentality takes control fast in the sub-game of character builds. " If you're not first, you're last!!"

These attitudes are not new to rpgs, they have existed ever since the first player that asserted that any character without an 18 prime stat wasn't worth playing. The crazy game design that supports those types of claims is a more recent development though IMHO.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar, I'd be curious to know what you thought of Rel's answer to this question./snip

Went back and reread Rel's answer. Sure, if the player is groovy with that, then totally fine. But, honestly, that's the easy problem. If the player is willing to shelve his concept in play and is content to have his concept come out during narrated scenes and once in a long while, then, that's a pretty easy problem to overcome.

However, I think The Shaman gives what is probably the standard response, and, honestly, probably the one that pretty much has to happen in most games:

How 'bout another choice? Play with players who understand that the game involves a wide variety of habitats and locales, some indoors, some outdoors, some above ground, some below ground, some below water, some on other planes, and it's entirely on them to deal with the circmstances facing their characters.

In other words, tough noogies. The player chose a limited concept, he can either accept that his concept will likely be problematic and adjust accordingly, or he can just drop the concept entirely.

Essentially, don't compromise at all. Which, I think, is what happens in a lot of groups and most players understand that and just shy away from these sorts of concepts.

I don't think anyone is saying that a mounted knight is a bizarre archetype at all. But a lot has to be made about how the mounted knight can be built. In 3e D&D, it's not difficult to make one and keep the PC competent in combat while on foot. It's even easier in earlier editions that have fewer build options.

How hard or easy isn't really the issue. At least, it's not to me. I don't care if it costs nothing to make a mounted knight, if that's the player's concept, and he wants to play that concept, how do you accommodate that? If you do at all.

For me, this isn't about a sort of cost/benefit thing. It's about playing the concept. The concept could easily be Mongol horse archer. Or Samurai. Both of which should be fighting from the back of a mount. Otherwise, they're not really that concept, just a fighter that rides well once in a while and writes rather short poetry.

But in a point-based system like Hero or Mutants and Masterminds, you could absolutely build a mounted combat character that's barely competent off his horse. And even in 3e, you could generate characters built with over-specialization to varying degrees. I would say that a build of that sort should be avoided by policy. One-trick ponies deserve what they get when they find that their single trick is too limited by circumstances.

Totally agree. 100% agree. If the character is built to do one thing only, then that's bad. But, shouldn't the player be able to display his concept more than once in a blue moon? Sure, he can fight dismounted. He's perfectly capable of it. But, when he fights dismounted, he's just another fighter.

Would it be fine and dandy for someone to play an archer character and only get to shoot at range once every ten encounters? The other nine encounters occur in tight corridors indoors in a dungeon. How is that not going to totally frustrate the player?

Spiderman also finds ways to get a fight in close quarters out into a broader area where he can use his powers. You actually see that a lot in superhero comics - the heroes deliberately changing the battlefield to be more to their advantage (or to get the fight away from bystanders). Of course, villains who know of Spiderman's mobility should do what they can to resist this if they're not dumb...

Well, the difference here is, players can't rewrite the scene. It's pretty diffiucult for most PC's to move the fight outside of the dungeon. Possible, but, pretty remote IMO. For Spidey, it's usually a matter of diving out the nearest window, that, 9 times out of 10, will be conveniently located nearby.

OTOH, you very, very rarely see Spidey in a fight in the hold of an airplane in flight, for example. Or inside a vault. Or where ever that his mobility would be extremely restricted. And, when it does happen, it's a high point of tension, because the reader/viewer knows that this is not where Spidey should be.

But, there's a number of people telling me here that the player should just suck it up and soldier on. That it was his fault for choosing a limited concept and too bad.

I think that leads to a great deal of frustration at the table. Far better to just nix the choice in the first place, OR make sure that he's being catered to.

 

[billd91]

In other words, tough noogies. The player chose a limited concept, he can either accept that his concept will likely be problematic and adjust accordingly, or he can just drop the concept entirely.

Essentially, don't compromise at all. Which, I think, is what happens in a lot of groups and most players understand that and just shy away from these sorts of concepts.

Tough noogies? I don't think so. The Shaman's answer was an alternative to your loaded examples. It's not necessarily either choice you presented.

Totally agree. 100% agree. If the character is built to do one thing only, then that's bad. But, shouldn't the player be able to display his concept more than once in a blue moon? Sure, he can fight dismounted. He's perfectly capable of it. But, when he fights dismounted, he's just another fighter.

Would it be fine and dandy for someone to play an archer character and only get to shoot at range once every ten encounters? The other nine encounters occur in tight corridors indoors in a dungeon. How is that not going to totally frustrate the player?

Whether or not a character should be able to display their concept more than once a blue moon depends on the concept. Sometimes there are concepts that don't lend themselves to frequent appearances.

But I will also say that the ability of a sandbox game to allow players to determine for themselves how and when to play up to their concepts is one of its strengths. But even then, concepts that don't work within the party may still be difficult to pull off without gaining the agreement of the other players.

For concepts that aren't well-tuned to certain aspects of adventuring, like being a mounted warrior in a dungeon delve or scaling the Cliffs of Insanity or being a fire mage in a campaign against the fire giant invasion, I would expect the player with the limited concept to show some initiative in finding ways to use their concept. And, when reasonable, I'd do what I can to accommodate them. I'd expect the mounted warrior to seek out tournaments, to advise the party to travel overland to places rather than teleport when the magic becomes available, to spend the money necessary to pay for transporting his mount in the hold of a ship, or trying to get ahold of a stone horse or other compatible magical means of getting a mount under his butt that's easier to manage.

But, there's a number of people telling me here that the player should just suck it up and soldier on. That it was his fault for choosing a limited concept and too bad.

I think that leads to a great deal of frustration at the table. Far better to just nix the choice in the first place, OR make sure that he's being catered to.

But as we keep pointing out, usually the situation isn't that stark. And if the DM tells the players what the campaign will generally cover and the player disregards it in favor of his concept, then ultimately them's the breaks. They went with their concept eyes wide open so to speak.

I'm not going to blatantly disallow a players choices if they're using resources I've approved (resources like the Book of 9 Swords that I don't approve is another matter), I'll just tell them what they can expect and leave the choice up to them. Managing their own frustration is ultimately their own responsibility.