Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?

[Jhaelen]

If that's the stance, then I'd say I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum, I disagree with the above quite heavily.

I believe in holding the players hands. I believe in shaping the game based on what the players want, and what kind of character they play tells me what kind of game they want. The game is about THEIR character and if their character can't do what their character is meant to do, something is wrong.

This discussion is running in circles.

If I as the DM have distributed a campaign primer describing an underwater campaign featuring sea elves, mermen, sahuagin, etc. and all the players are on board with this, then I'll start putting serious effort in developing the setting.

If a player then comes along and has this great concept of a hill giant riding a war elephant, what do you suppose I should do with him?
Unless he's willing to play along with what everyone else in the group wants to play, there's simply no way to fit him in.

THAT's what we are talking about here (or at least I am). It's a player ignoring an established baseline.

If you're interested in running a themed campaign, then you cannot just integrate everything later on. There simply ARE no frost dwarves in a Dark Sun campaign, no matter how much one of the players may want to play one.

 

[Rechan]

THAT's what we are talking about here (or at least I am). It's a player ignoring an established baseline.

Well I don't know why YOU are talking about that, since that's not been the drive of this thread to me, from start to any point where I commented.

My issue has always been the DM NOT establishing a baseline, and then buggering his players for not conforming after the fact.

If a player ignores the established baseline, you tell him "No". I have no problem with that. If he doesn't fit the parameters you set down, then that is completely HIS fault and he has to conform. If he can't have fun with anything within the parameters you've set, that's his problem.

 

[The Ghost]

You missed the "and have a sit-down with the whole group and point out the horse player's issue." I wouldn't say "Sorry, no boat for you" nor "no horse for you".

I would bring it up to the table, lay it out there, and try to get everyone to come to a decision where everyone is at least mostly satisfied. It might mean the mounted knight guy gets an aquatic mount, or the ship visits islands. There should be a way to reconcile everyone and get them all on the same page.

No, I read that part. I am trying to see where the difference is between what you wrote above and what I wrote below. AFAICT, in both cases the players are having a discussion and that discussion will (most likely) result in some form of compromise. It seems that I am taking it one step further and acknowledging that compromise may not occur - In which case it is majority rules. What do you do if/when compromise doesn't occur?

I give my players adventure options -- Town, Wilderness, Dungeon -- and then let them work it out amongst themselves. They'll decide what they want to do; it may mean splitting time between the wilderness and dungeons; it may mean the mounted character rides a giant spider; it may mean a retired character concept. In any event I give them options and am largely indifferent to the option they choose. If the rest of the table decides your concept is not useful to them, well, tough cookies!

 

[Rechan]

What do you do if/when compromise doesn't occur?

If no compromise can be reached, then either:

1) The game gets scrapped and we start something different, everyone on the same page.
2) Someone leaves the game.

I'd prefer 1 to 2, but in my experience, when someone is unsatisfied with a game, they just pack their dice and go home. It's often the path of least resistance.

 

[Raven Crowking]

1) The game gets scrapped and we start something different, everyone on the same page.

A reasonable option only if minimal work has been done on the game.

A more active GM, who has produced 100+ hours of material, might be unwilling to scrap that work and do another 100+ hours on "something different" because the players are unable to pull it together.


RC

 

[Rechan]

A reasonable option only if minimal work has been done on the game.

If no compromise can be met among players and Dm at a table, then I would argue the situation is no longer "reasonable".

And I am not afraid to hit the reset button, regardless of the work I put into it. It's annoying as all hell, but seeing as the longest game I've ever ran was a little over a year, games and work on those games come and go.

 

[Jhaelen]

If a player ignores the established baseline, you tell him "No". I have no problem with that. If he doesn't fit the parameters you set down, then that is completely HIS fault and he has to conform. If he can't have fun with anything within the parameters you've set, that's his problem.

Exactly.

I actually wouldn't recommend a DM starting a campaign without giving a baseline to make sure everyone has the same expectations.

 

[Hussar]

No, I read that part. I am trying to see where the difference is between what you wrote above and what I wrote below. AFAICT, in both cases the players are having a discussion and that discussion will (most likely) result in some form of compromise. It seems that I am taking it one step further and acknowledging that compromise may not occur - In which case it is majority rules. What do you do if/when compromise doesn't occur?

The difference is, The Ghost, you have not dealt with the other four players at the table. You've presented the group with a number of possibilities. And that's great. But, a number of those possibilities are not favourable, or outright bar, one character's concept. If the other players choose options that screw over one player, what do you do?

Rechan is saying, all the options presented, or at least almost all of them, will favour all character concepts as much of the time as possible, and if the players consistently choose options that block one player's concept, then he'll step in and have a conversation with everyone.

But, likely that won't even come up, since he controls the options and choosing options that consistently sideline one character probably won't happen unless the other players are deliberately trying to screw over one player.

Jhaelen - I don't think anyone in this thread is talking about players who are trying to screw with an established setting. That's a different issue altogether. Like you said, if the setting doesn't have X, then it doesn't have X. No problems.

But, if the setting allows for Y, but, the in game play pretty much blocks the player from actually playing Y, then something shoudl be done. It's no different than the Rogue player in the group that always wants to go plant hunting. Or the Ranger with Whatever Enemy, never meeting that enemy because the other players at the table never want to go meet that enemy.

 

[The Ghost]

The difference is, The Ghost, you have not dealt with the other four players at the table. You've presented the group with a number of possibilities. And that's great. But, a number of those possibilities are not favourable, or outright bar, one character's concept. If the other players choose options that screw over one player, what do you do?

I'll use an example here from the current campaign I am playing in. It is a D&D 3.5 edition, Forgotten Realms campaign setting game set in the Silver Marches region. The party consist of a Dwarf Ranger/Deepwarden, a Halfling Paladin/Cavalier, a Gnome Wizard/Loremaster, and a Human Spirit Shaman/Void Disciple.

Thus far we have traveled through plains, hills, forests, and mountains; in addition we have delved four dungeons for a total of twenty combat encounters. The combats break down as follows:

Cities - One (1)
Dungeons - Nine (9)
Forests - Six (6)
Hills - Two (2)
Mountains - One (1)
Plains - One (1)

Of those twenty encounters, nine of them the Halfling Paladin was mounted. Six of them the Halfling was able to use Charge/Spirited Charge. And two of them he was able to use Ride-By Attack. (I have been keeping rather detailed notes of this campaign.)

Now, I think I can state - with absolute certainty - that the majority of these encounters were not in terrain favorable to the mounted knight concept. And, at least five of them (four dungeon and one city) outright barred the concept from being used.

Now, I can appreciated that some people see this as "A bad thing!". I do. However, with the people that I play with, this is the dynamic that we chose. The DM didn't need to sit down with us and tell us why going into the forests or dungeons would result in the Halfling Paladin unable to "do his thing". He gave us options, told us what was out there in the world, and asked us what we wanted to do. We decided.

For the record, I play the Halfling Paladin/Cavalier.

Rechan is saying, all the options presented, or at least almost all of them, will favour all character concepts as much of the time as possible, and if the players consistently choose options that block one player's concept, then he'll step in and have a conversation with everyone.

I understand what Rechan is saying. I asked the questions I did to further my understanding of what he was saying. He obliged me in my requests.

But, likely that won't even come up, since he controls the options and choosing options that consistently sideline one character probably won't happen unless the other players are deliberately trying to screw over one player.

In my experience, even the most minor details can (and often will) be read by players as hooks. Sometimes players will, inadvertently, choose an option that screws themselves over.

 

[Hussar]

Ghost - if you go WAYYY back in this thread, you will see me and others suggesting that a small mounted character is very easy to put into a campaign. You can take your mount into dungeons, easy peasy.

So, yeah, so long as the player is happy playing a size S character, then no problems at all. That's certainly one solution.

I would like to point out here that this is not an unsolvable problem. Numerous solutions have been put up in this thread alone. Small mounts, putting the burden back onto the player, tweaking encounters to be mount friendly, these all go a long way to solving the problem. Some are more or less work, but they all DO work.

IMO, what doesn't work very well is dumping it into the player's lap and then not taking any action to accomodate that player at all.