Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?

[Raven Crowking]

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

This.

 

[Krensky]

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

No it doesn't. It's not a function of a plot-oriented or litterbox campaign styles. It's not even a function of either party accommodating each other. It's a question of who has to give when one person at the table is out of sync with the desires of the rest of the table.

If the game is going to start in the middle of the equivalent of the Arabian desert and one player wants to play a character focused on captaining a sailing ship then both parties need to come to some understanding. Most likely this will involve the player changing his concept or accepting that he may not get use of all his abilities.

Similarly, if the players all show up with desert nomads to the GM's game set in the equivalent of Tortuga and the Caribbean during the age of piracy there's a problem too. In this case it's harder yto say who has to bend. While the GM is the minority, he's also the one who hasn't prepared to start a game in the middle of the desert.

It comes back to communicating expectations. The GM tells the players where the game is going to start and what sort of characters are appropriate for that starting point. If you're going to run a player driven game in the Caribbean there's nothing wrong with telling the players to make characters that fit in with that milieu. Similarly in a tightly ploted plot driven game there's nothing improper with telling them to make characters who are escaped gladiators because that's what the game is about.

As for the cavalry fighter, mounted combat (or at least combat where his mount can come into play) is his focus and chance to shine. As a GM it's my job to present him opportunities to use his abilities and to shine. Depending in the style of the campaign that may involve making sure that there are plenty of jousts, horse chases, and open combat opportunities floating around the world, or by plotting out specific scenes to let the cavalryman shine.

It's the player's job to make sure he's not throwing a wrench into the works by making a character who fits in with the milieu of the game, one who has a reason for being where the game starts and getting involved with rest of the player characters. Similarly it's the GM's job to make sure that once the game starts that the players are allowed to shine.

Again, neither of these things have anything to do with the style of the campaign.

 

[arscott]

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.

Let me be more clear where I'm coming from: If only one out of every four combats is one where the horse comes into play, that should be okay. If it's not, there's either a problem with the player or a problem with the system.

 

[catsclaw227]

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

What if the DM is running an AP? A harried DM might have time to do some game prep and slightly tweak the adventure into something personal, but it's still going to be an AP.

Will the player with the mounted knight have fun playing in Savage Tide? Likely not, but it's not because the DM is running a "railroad". Its because the AP isn't well suited to that kind of PC.

I agree with the DM being responsible for setting expectations, but if the player still comes to the Savage Tide AP with a mounted cavalier, they will be sorely disappointed when they can't shine. And it's not the DM's fault.

 

[im_robertb]

So here's my question: Why should the player have to say "I want to play this, but I can't because it doesn't facilitate the DM's future adventures"? Why should the DM not say "My player has chosen to focus a lot of his feats/abilities/character concept/whatnot on a mounted character, therefore I should sparingly use areas the mount cannot access?

Because the DM is doing more work than the player, and it's his game too. If one of my players said 'I don't like the way you're running the game, and I'd like to run it instead', my response would be 'SOLD!'

 

[los]

No it doesn't. It's not a function of a plot-oriented or litterbox campaign styles. It's not even a function of either party accommodating each other. It's a question of who has to give when one person at the table is out of sync with the desires of the rest of the table.

Exactly. When the players have agreed to play, say, a pirate campaign, it's not a sign of "railroading" when the mounted paladin proves to be a bad character choice.

 

[Thunderfoot]

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

Sorry, I can't buy this. It isn't so much railroading as lack of communication. Railroading would include handing out character sheets with pre-rolled info and telling the player you will do this... a slight distinction, but a distinction none the less.

 

[fanboy2000]

What if the DM is running an AP? A harried DM might have time to do some game prep and slightly tweak the adventure into something personal, but it's still going to be an AP.

True, but I think a DM (any DM, not just a good) can work in opportunities for any PC concept that's viable in the setting. Otherwise the AP just becomes a railroad.

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

You may be right. For one thing, I suspect that, left to their own devices, people try to play to their strengths. A mounted fighter will gravitate to areas and adventures that use his or her skills.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Because the DM is doing more work than the player, and it's his game too. If one of my players said 'I don't like the way you're running the game, and I'd like to run it instead', my response would be 'SOLD!'

yeah careful, I've thought the same thing in the past. Then I've thought "what the hell will they do with my game? I can't trust 'em as players, no way can I trust 'em as GMs." I may be something of a control freak.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

The DM should try and create a situation that allows each PC to be showcased once in a while, but is not obligated to make sure it happens evenly or regularly - it is still a group game and should accomodate the group over the individual most of the time.

One more dynamic needs to be considered: between the players. If one player comes with a PC designed around a dungeon-crawl concept, a second with a pirate swashbuckler, and a third with the mounted knight concept, and a fourth with a stealthy forest scout, the DM is going to be hard-pressed to satisfy all the players.

Specific to the mounted knight concept; one issue I've seen is when the player with the mounted knight is the only one with any riding skills of any kind. Creating situations that allow that PC to shine sometimes ends up making the other PCs close to useless. Everyone needs to communicate to be sure everyone is having fun. Players should not come in feeling the game is all about them individually, and likewise the DM should not feel it is their game and therefore it is all about them.