GMs: How Much Do You Curate Your Adventures To Your Specific PCs, Mechanically Speaking

[Lanefan]

Another variable is whether the players are running the same characters all the time or have "stables" of characters they can - usually between adventures - swap in and out of play.

If each player has several characters in the setting (and even more so if those characters are all connected through acquaintance or an adventuring company or whatever) then on learning what the next mission is they can - if they want and-or if they think to - build a bespoke party to suit. Stealth mission? Bring the rogues and mages. Giant-bashing? Bring the tanks and healers.

Flip side: when deciding (or writing) what to run next, in this set-up the DM has no way of knowing which characters the players are going to bring on the mission and so really can't curate anything anyway.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I do 100% homebrew setting and adventures. So as you can imagine narratively it fits the character's actions and inaction.

Mechanically, that's interesting. I frequently look at character sheets to see if there is something unused. A language, a proficient skill, a class feature that never comes up. Just to insert it. Give the character a bit of spotlight and make them feel like their choices were worthwhile.

Now, how much does this impact what I design as a whole? Pretty low as a percentage.

While technically the same as the OP, "spotlighting" feels materially different in nature. One is avoiding their weaknesses, the other is giving their strengths a chance to shine.

"Oh no, there's no PC cleric, guess I shouldn't use this necromancer adventure"

Vs

"Hrmmm, the fighter hasn't had a chance to really leverage Heavy Armor Master & Shield Master. I think the necromancer putting a couple dozen skeletons and zombies here in these twisted tunnels under the milll where fireball would be suicidal should be a fun encounter and still a rational choice for the necromancer. If they had a cleric, the noise of the mill would drown out Turn Undead and the tunnels block line of sight. Plus it makes the skellies abysmal stealth viable."

 

[uzirath]

When I run a published adventure, I typically adjust it quite a bit, but mostly to fit into the existing campaign and to "improve" it according to my (and my players') tastes. If there are situations that require a particular skill that the party doesn't have, I might make a change, but that's usually just bad adventure design. I don't worry too much about the specifics because the players will come up with new and interesting ways to accomplish things that I'll never anticipate.

Since I usually run GURPS, I do keep a list of key disadvantages for each PC and I spend a bit of time thinking about how these might interact with any given adventure. The story is most engaging, after all, if it puts pressure on the dramatic elements that the players chose for their characters. As a player, if I create Indiana Jones who is afraid of snakes, I'd be disappointed if we didn't come across a pit of vipers from time to time.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm pretty simpatico with the viewpoint that @prabe and @Blue presented. The very few times I've tried to run a module I've dumped it after a session or two; I need to run my own stuff to be effective.

The narrative of the game will generally hook around the PCs. Encounters will, of course, be sized for the party, I don't run the same encounter for 3 PCs that I would run for 8. Encounters will generally be about 50% neutral towards party composition, 25% of the time geared towards a few of the PCs being super effective, and the other 25% targeting specific weaknesses of a PC or the party as a whole.