Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?

[Rechan]

For me, the main issue with mounts, as a referee, is if a player has their character expend a fair amount of "things that make a character special" in order to have a mount and then only gets to use the mount irregularly. That forces the player who wants to invest in a mount to give up a lot during the many encounters where you can't use the mount.

In older systems where there might be a skill, multiple mounted combat feats and a character class with a mount class feature, if they took several mount feats and were a paladin but only got to use the mount one in three times, it left them disadvantaged compared to other players who focused on more relevant ablities.

Sure, a player could just live with that but most of my players were not willing to leave that much on the table and mounts didn't get used.

This is in part my feelings on the matter. This is why I started the thread.

So, what do you do when you have a standard D&D campaign where 50% of the terrain is mount unfriendly? (Note, I'm picking 50% as an entirely arbitrary number, and is not meant to be indicative of anyone's campaign specifically - pick a number that works for you if you don't like 50)

See, this is something I don't accept. So what if 50% of areas aren't horse friendly - that's still HALF that you can use in your adventures.

Again, you are the DM, you have the ability to set the ENTIRE CAMPAIGN in the plains if you so wish.

 

[Hussar]

(Emphasis added.)

So let me make sure I understand this: a referee should build a campaign around what a player wants to play, but it's also okay to limit the players' choices with respect to characters to fit the existing campaign.

You were saying something about tossing straw around, Hussar?

Bold mine.

This is where you are getting it wrong. I chucked out an alternative answer, not a point where the DM is somehow obligated to do this. In other words, the GM could build a campaign which is centered around what the players want to play.

And, if Mr. Mounted dies, and gets replaced with another character that is not terrain specific, then the adventures that the party goes on will no longer feature mount friendly terrain so much. In other words, the only part of the campaign that is actually fixed are things the PC's have already interacted with. Anything that the PC's have not interacted with is completely open.

So, when Mr Mounted gets replaced by Mr Sneaky, later adventures won't feature a lot of wide open fields, but rather might feature a lot more trees.

However, I am in no way stating that the DM must do this. I'm simply putting on the table an alternative.

I really have to work on my posting skills because for some reason, several people in this thread have taken what I've said to absurd extremes.

This is in part my feelings on the matter. This is why I started the thread.


See, this is something I don't accept. So what if 50% of areas aren't horse friendly - that's still HALF that you can use in your adventures.

Again, you are the DM, you have the ability to set the ENTIRE CAMPAIGN in the plains if you so wish.

And, that's perfectly fair, if a couple of things are true - A. The campaign setting isn't known to the players before play begins and B. The players (presuming a sandbox style campaign) choose to go to those areas which are mount friendly.

If you want to avoid the problems with railroading your players into specific areas, you have to give them the freedom to choose where they want to go. ((Barring Adventure Path style campaigns or campaigns with strong plotlines in general - both give the GM a great deal more authority over the campaign)) In a sandbox, as I understand it, the players should have the ability to choose where they go. So, if the players, minus the guy with the horse, all decide that they want to go up a jungle river, Heart of Darkness style, then Mr. Mounted is kinda screwed, even though the setting has lots of mount friendly terrain.

 

[Hussar]

Let's boil this down to the real issue you have:

Did your players kill your cat or something? Is there some reason you think they're incapable of behaving like mature adults? Or is it just reflexive on your part?

Wow, you got THAT from what I wrote? How? What process led you from the words that I wrote to THAT conclusion?

Or is allowing players to play in settings in which they have a hand designing just so far removed from your experience that you cannot conceive of playing this way?

 

[Rechan]

But again, it seems like we're arguing over the trees for the forest, so let me be plain as day.

This is what the hell I'm talking about.

Bill, Mike, Jeff, Tim and Erin decide to play D&D.

"Who will DM?" says Erin.

Bill says, "I will, I guess." Everyone agrees. Bill has no idea what he's going to do.

Mike plays an illusionist. Jeff plays a rogue focusing on bluffing, diplomacy, forgery and hiding. Tim plays a barbarian who does lots of damage on a charge and intimidating. Erin plays a fighter.

Bill checks everyone's character and says "OK, this all checks out."

Bill then decides to send everyone into tunnels of kobolds for a level, and then crypts of undead for a level.

The kobolds can't understand Jeff so they aren't susceptible to his bluffing or diplomacy, and Jeff has nothing to forge, and it's hard to get flanks in these tunnels. Tim can't really charge in all these cramped tunnels, but he can intimidate. Mike can use invisibility and other illusions on the kobolds. Erin can bash things in the face just fine.

In the catacombs, Mike's illusions are just useless against undead. Jeff again can't use social skills on the enemies because they're mindless undead, and he can't sneak attack them. Tim can now at least charge, but he can't intimidate. Erin can bash things int he face just fine.

The crux of the matter: Is Bill a Bad DM, because he is ignoring the focuses/abilities of his PCs? Or is it the players at fault for playing characters who aren't utilitarian and clearly don't fit whatever Bill's game will be?

I say that Bill is a bad DM. He chose those areas after the fact, after seeing the PCs sheets, and chose to NOT incorporate any of their strengths into the game. Two of the four PCs are regularly out of luck because their specialities are just not usable against the enemies or the environemnt, and one (Tim) can only use half of his tricks.

Bill should have looked at the characters and said "I need to use intelligent enemies often, or people that Jeff can talk to/Tim can intimidate/Mike can use illusions on. Two of the Pcs are designed for subterfuge (Jeff and Mike), two are multi-purpose (fitting in any place where they can smash faces). An espionage circumstance too might be good for forging, or perhaps an area where identities are important, letting Jeff make fake IDs. Or fake noble papers to get them into somewhere. And since Tim wants to charge, not too many encounters in cramped spaces. So I should run some sort of city game, or at least somewhere in relative civilization."

Bill of course has the right (and for drama/variety) should use encounters where one of the Pcs are not perfect. Undead on occasion (even if Jeff/Mike can't do anything to them). On occasion unintelligent enemies (so no social skills, but they can still beat the hell out of them). On occasion a purely RP circumstance, so that while Erin is out of luck, the other three characters have stuff they can do.

If Bill had said "hey guys I'm going to run you through dungeon crawls", then Jeff was stupid for choosing a sociable, forgery-focused rogue, and Mike should have thought "Well, I'll probably be fighting a lot of things immune to illusions, so I shouldn't play an illusionist," and Bill would not be to blame. Even at that point Jeff and Mike brought their characters to the table, Bill doesn't have to change his game, but dropping a few social encounters or illusion-capable monsters, or wide areas (large caverns, big meeting rooms, etc etc) into his dungeons to toss a bone to those players would be the right thing to do.

There are different phases during this entire thing. First, Bill should say what campaign he's going to run, so players can shape their PCs to that. Once he does so (or chooses not to), then it's the PLAYER's responsibility to eachother to not make a PC that ruins anyone else's fun (the 4 stealth PCs, 1 heavy armored paladin example) or that breaks the themed campaign if Bill had made one (the mounted PC on a ship example). Once the phase of character creation is over and the DM has approved, the responsibility is on the DM.

Because this situation is what I see more often, and the situation that prevents the mounted PC. Not APs,not specifically themed games, not this or that, but the DM just creating his adventures without the PCs and their capabilities in mind. The DM making adventures in a vacuum.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Is Bill a Bad DM, because he is ignoring the focuses/abilities of his PCs? Or is it the players at fault for playing characters who aren't utilitarian and clearly don't fit whatever Bill's game will be?

Bill made a mistake, because he didn't tell his characters what kind of campaign to expect, and he also didn't let them choose the direction of the campaign.

That doesn't mean he's a bad DM. That just means he made a mistake.

It's a mistake that's easy enough to correct. He either apologizes and asks for replacement characters, or corrects it himself, taking adventures in a direction that gives everyone a chance to do something (perhaps, given the illusion/interaction shift, a more urban campaign where what the group bashes thugs and sewer horrors, and can interact more with the local government and populace) or letting the players take it there themselves (the group decides to go to the big city, and the DM provides them with big city adventures).

One of the frequent tricks of "good" DMs is specifically providing opportunities for characters to use abilities that they have.

This can be done in a "sandbox" style game by letting players direct their own action, and then presenting them with logical threats (the players get to pick what challenges they face -- if they don't want a dungeon crawl, they go do something else, and the DM doesn't make them dungeon crawl. If they do dungeon crawl, then they can't really object, because they chose to go do this thing their characters weren't very well suited to do).

This can be done in a "narrative" style game by specifically taking abilities into account, and giving players a chance to use them.

So if in a party like the one above, the DM would give out rotating challenges. He'd take Erin's love of bashing into account sometimes, and Mike's illusions sometimes, and Jeff's humanoid-focus sometimes, and Mike's charge-and-intimidate sometimes. When he's good, he gets to combine them all into one challenge, but even if he can't do that, he hits the notes in sequence ("Ah, I see Erin is getting bored of all these politics this week, we can give her something to bash in the face next week.").

Bill is only a bad DM if he refuses to let his players have fun. "No, you can't pick a new character, you chose him, you're stuck with him, you have to be him until you die, this game is called Dungeons and Dragons, not Politics and Paper, you made the character, you suck, live with it."

That would take a pretty extreme DM. Bill can be a better DM if he recognizes the mistake, and can do something to correct it.

 

[pemerton]

There is another option as well. Create your campaign for the PC's. Instead of creating the campaign first, you create the PC's first and then build the campaign to that. Thus, you ensure that there is ample terrain for the mounted guy to get his groove on.

Or, maybe that's too railroady. I dunno.

Not railroady at all. If the player builds something into their character, then they presumably want it to come into play. If they do it at the background/fluff level, then Rel's background/fluff solution can work. But if it's at the heart of the PC's mechanical expression (eg 3E mounted combat feats) then I think you've stated the only solution.

But different solutions might work in other mechanical environments. For example, if players are playing B/X D&D then they're signing on for a game where there really is very little to the mechanical expression of the PC - every PC of a given class resembles every other PC of that class pretty closely at the mechanical level, and the mechanical differentiation between classes isn't as great as in other versions of D&D. In this case, preusmably the players want to express themselves in some other aspect of the game (eg by the delving/exploration strategy and tactics that they adopt), so the GM may not be being so unreasonable to stipulate the environment in advance provided the players get to choose how they respond to it (eg with 10 foot poles, or rope, or building a raft, or etc).

Hussar, if you haven't read this essay you might find it interesting, especially the bit where it talks about the different parts of the game (setting, character, etc) that might be held fixed by the GM or varied to reflect the players' influence over the game.

 

[Hussar]

Darn, Pem snuck in there ahead of me.

What KM said. 100% what KM said. He has the right of it.

One point though:

Bill then decides to send everyone into tunnels of kobolds for a level, and then crypts of undead for a level.

I believe this is where BotE is getting his idea of railroading. If the DM is deciding the adventure, for some GM's, this is railroading. I don't buy the argument, but, I believe that's the crux of the issue.

But, in any case, yes, KM has it entirely right.

My specific issue comes with mounts. I'm not sure how well you can slot in mount friendly terrain so that it does come around often enough to speak to the character's concept. Note, I'm not saying its impossible, just, IMO, difficult. Certainly more difficult than other character concepts since it's something that can really be taken out of the DM's hands - as I said, if the other four players decide to go river rafting, exploring the jungle and then head to the mountains, Mr. Mount is SOL.

 

[Rel]

Hussar, I must admit that I'm not sure what you're after at this point. Maybe you could clarify what answers you are seeking.

It sounds to me a bit like you're saying that Mounted Knight should be a valid archetype and Swashbuckling Pirate should be a valid archetype. And that both of them should be getting to "do their thing" more than 50% of the time. And that sounds like it's going to be very difficult to achieve.

But every time people say, "Restrict the available archetypes" you respond with "But you're limiting their options." And every time people say, "They'll just have to compromise" you respond with "But they shouldn't have to compromise."

Maybe you can help us out with a bit more explanation of what you'd like out of the conversation.

 

[Rechan]

I believe this is where BotE is getting his idea of railroading. If the DM is deciding the adventure, for some GM's, this is railroading.

Well, BotE is welcome to that opinion, but I'm not going to argue with it because 1) it's off topic and really, 2) I don't believe it and have no horse in the race, so whatever.

My specific issue comes with mounts. I'm not sure how well you can slot in mount friendly terrain so that it does come around often enough to speak to the character's concept. Note, I'm not saying its impossible, just, IMO, difficult. Certainly more difficult than other character concepts since it's something that can really be taken out of the DM's hands - as I said, if the other four players decide to go river rafting, exploring the jungle and then head to the mountains, Mr. Mount is SOL.

I have to ask the percentage of games where the PCs really get to just sandbox it. Go all over the world where they choose, instead of the DM throwing hooks and the PCs following it.

I honestly think the majority of games consist of either modules (hence, everything is all ready set up), or the DM has his campaign scripted, he works with the PCs, but they're following the hooks he feeds them where he wants them to go. I believe a minority of games is 'here' the game world map. Where do you want to go?' Even there, even in that sort of world, the DM has control because he's creating the areas of interest. 'There's nothing of interest in those mountains' = players don't go there.

 

[Haltherrion]

The crux of the matter: Is Bill a Bad DM, because he is ignoring the focuses/abilities of his PCs? Or is it the players at fault for playing characters who aren't utilitarian and clearly don't fit whatever Bill's game will be?

I think it is all a matter of degree. Assuming Bill didn't really railroad the players but did give them reason to go into these settings, he still wasn't terribly appreciative of what the party could do but in small doses that's just part of the game and lets them experience playing from their weakness as well as their strength.

If all he ever did was send them places where only the fighter could really shine, it is clearly bad ref'ing. If it is more a matter of the ref providing a variety of adventures and some favor some classes over others, that's what variety is all about.

As a separate issue, it is questionable whether Bill should begin his campaign with a scenario that frustrates most of his players but long term, over the course of the campaign if all the players get to shine at various times, I don't see an issue.

Specifically, this is clearly something I and my fellow ref in my gaming group pay close attention to. Afterall, this is a game that is meant to entertain, not teach stoicism. Players can reasonably expect the referee not to always throw challenges that thwart what makes their PC cool.

Take our last campaign. I had a cleric who was loaded for destroying undead (it tied in well with the character concept and the initial campaign setting as we knew it.) My character was so good at it, it was hard for the referee to really challenge us with undead and when he did, my cleric was much stronger than the other PCs. When there wasn't undead, I mostly just healed and otherwised hung out in the background.

As a ref, how often do you throw undead at the party given the undead-destroying cleric? Never? Then all that focus on undead was for naught. Kind of frustrating, especially since the ref in the campaign setting notes gave the cleric good reason to focus on undead. Frequently? Frustrating for the other players. Logically, it was occasional (and fitting for the campaign arc which, frankly, in this case was fairly linear and only under limited player control but still quite fun for us all).

I certainly had no issue with that as a player. It seemed the reasonable thing to do. It probably helped that he and I explicitly discussed the issue several times and he knew I understood where he was coming from.