Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?

[LostSoul]

The question seems to be:

Setting first or character first?

Either one is fine.

Character first: A DM who wishes to remain impartial must, after taking account of the setting the PCs suggest, create a setting in which those characters will shine.

This is rather obvious when the players suggest that they would like to play pirates, for example, or a group of mercenaries who plumb the depths of dungeons in exchange for clemency.

The DM, of course, must be interested in the suggested setting.

Setting First: This puts the onus on the players to create characters who will fit in with the setting. If the setting is set in an archipelago, a warhorse may not be the best choice for a Paladin; perhaps something with an aquatic flair might be more fitting.

 

[S'mon]

Answer is 'both', yup.

In my 4e sandbox campaign, there is some overground adventuring but the bulk of it is in dungeons, as the name of the game implies. It's fine for your PC to be a mounted knight, and occasionally you would get to fight while mounted, but most of the time you'll be dungeon-delving so it's wise not to spend much resources on mount-related stuff. AFAIK that's not a problem in 4e anyway; whereas in 3e you could create a mount-oriented PC who was pretty worthless at the game's normal primary activity.

OTOH if the players and GM wanted to create and play a 3e campaign centred around a band of mounted knights, that would work fine.

 

[Aus_Snow]

The problem only arises because the DM is railroading his players. Remove the railroad and the problem resolves itself.

Exactly how I read the OP, as well.

If the DM is deciding all the adventures for the PCs, then yes, these kinds of issues might come up.

In the context of large-scale predetermined 'plots', yeah, the DM probably should inform the players of what's ahead of them, to the extent that they don't make hideously suboptimal (i.e., practically useless) choices at the chargen stage.

Regardless, for most RPGs, I would advise against making one-trick ponies (pun not intended to begin with, but kept for sadistic purposes) -- assuming players have such options anyway, and can freely choose like so.

 

[The Shaman]

As referee I create settings loaded with diversity - physical, cultural, economic, and so on - so the burden is on the players to find ways for their characters to make the most of that diversity.

If I plan an environment that includes the classic triumvirate - dungeon, wilderness, and town - there should be opportunities for just about any character to shine.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Again with the "both."

It's a communal activity, everyone wants to have fun. Best way to insure that is to discuss what campaign people want to run/play.

I'm currently in negotiations with my friends about what the new campaign is going to be. They approached me about what I'd like to run. I outlined a couple of ideas I've had floating around in my head for a while. They picked one they liked the sound of and I expanded on it (sent them about 15 pages of campaign info.) They asked me a few questions about aspects that caught their attention and I answered them, with the caveat that they have input too. And now I'm starting to review characters.

I am in fact about to go and read the fencing style that one of my players wants his character to use (after having read 3 styles that I drew up.) He wants a more down and dirty style, mixing brawling with fencing. I'm cool with that as long as his 'style' meets a few basic precepts I want such as having a weakness (a style disadvantage as it's called in HERO.) Same player also asked me to expand on a feature of the campaign world I'd only intended as background flavour. Now it seems it's going to figure somewhat more than I'd anticipated. I'd better get to work on that.

cheers

 

[arscott]

Assuming the DM has no pre-set campaign, with no general focus, it still comes up, they still have to think about this sort of thing when they design their adventures. Mounts mean certain environments are out, or to be used sparingly, or a concession for the PC is necessary (such as a flying mount or a Figurine of Wondrous Power), even after the DM has accepted the character.

Why? I don't have to include a locked door in almost every encounter just because the Rogue is good at picking locks. Why should I limit myself to horse-accessible encounter areas just because the Paladin has a warhorse.

Mounted combat is a "time to shine" thing--The character gets to do something really cool in specific situations. A mounted night who finds himself fighting on an open plane is like a rogue who encounters a locked door, or a cleric who battles undead.

Of course, if becoming a mounted combatant requires a huge investment of character resources, or if the benefits of having a mount are insignificant, then that poses a problem. But it's not a player problem, or a DM problem. It's a system problem.

 

[Mark Chance]

Why? I don't have to include a locked door in almost every encounter just because the Rogue is good at picking locks. Why should I limit myself to horse-accessible encounter areas just because the Paladin has a warhorse.

No one has suggested including locked doors in almost every encounter or limiting oneself to horse-accessible encounter areas.

 

[john112364]

As has been stated, I think it comes down to communication between a DM and the players. If the DM allows a mounted character knowing that the planned campaign may not have many opertunities to use the mounted skills, then that DM either needs to make some changes or they're just a bad DM. On the flip side, if the player goes into a campaign knowing this then that's on them, not the DM. The player made a bad decision. Hopefully the player and the DM will communicate and avoid this frustration.

 

[Tewligan]

No one has suggested including locked doors in almost every encounter or limiting oneself to horse-accessible encounter areas.

Hm. It sounds like a few people ARE suggesting limiting the amount of non-horse accessible areas, unless I'm misinterpreting:

Mounts mean certain environments are out, or to be used sparingly, or a concession for the PC is necessary (such as a flying mount or a Figurine of Wondrous Power), even after the DM has accepted the character.

Definitely. That means a DM who uses a lot of published adventures has to extra careful, too. There are lot of published dungeon crawls out there that don't really accommodate mounts! So the DM definitely needs to be aware of stuff like that.

 

[Mark Chance]

Hm. It sounds like a few people ARE suggesting limiting the amount of non-horse accessible areas, unless I'm misinterpreting:

True, but there is a difference between limited the amount non-horse accessible areas and limiting oneself to horse-accessible encounter areas. The former reduces the quantity non-horsey areas; the latter eliminates it. IOW, no one has said if a player is running a horse-mounted knight then all encounter areas must be horse-accessible.