Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?

[Mark Chance]

One 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.

Smugglers on a horse-powered ship sailing the shores a vast subterranean forest?

 

[Mallus]

I won't weight in on what other groups should do... rather I'll share what I try to do, along with the reason why.

When running a campaign, I aim for allowing players full creative control over their PC's (or as close to that as possible). So if they want a particular concept or set of mechanics or tone or timbre, I try to, as Tim Gunn would say, "make it work".

The way I see it, players get a single character, I get the rest of the world. As DM, I get many more opportunities to shape the play experience. I can let the players have their PC's, and whatever plot directions go with them.

Also, as DM I like being challenged by players who want something out of the game that's different from what I'm inclined to provide. It's interesting to work toward a compromise during play.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Smugglers on a horse-powered ship sailing the shores a vast subterranean forest?

Inspiration for my next campaign setting. I'll call the world Melange.

 

[Mark Chance]

Inspiration for my next campaign setting. I'll call the world Melange.

Excellent. I can just picture paddlewheel boats, but the paddlewheels are like giant hamster wheels with warhorses inside of them.

Player: "The pirates are getting away. We need more speed!"

DM: "Sir Ridesalot, please give me a Ride check."

 

[Rechan]

People keep mentioning "Chance to shine", using the example I put forward. But see, I don't see it as a chance to SHINE so much as just a chance to use the abilities you chose to focus your character on.

If a player has built his character to be a skill-monkey, and thus isn't that useful in a fight, then to say 'you only get to use your skills 1/4th of the encounters' is a bit much. Clearly that character is not suitable if the DM is going to be doing lots of wall to wall combat with little opportunity for skill use. Same here.

Perhaps it's a DM Style disconnect. Instead of say, having a rogue in your party (who therefore cannot sneak attack undead/elementals/plants/whatnot) and putting those such monsters in your encounters 3/4 times, I think they should be put in such encounters 1/4 times. Therefore, the Rogue gets to use his class abilities, but on occasion he's out of luck. Since the DM has complete control over what foes/environment the PCs are going into, he's responsible for that. I like facilitating the player's choices (i.e hitting the fire-resistant character with fire, not avoiding fire attacks on him).

The issue isn't necessarily "Horse friendly" either. As the PC goes up in levels he's likely going to upgrade his mount. Flying mount. Swimming mount (hey there you can have your ship adventures).

But primarily for me, the issue is not "The DM has a set campaign/adventures in mind, adn doesn't inform the players". I mean that the DM has no site based plans, no site based requirements, but still puts them in a mountless-accessable place.

 

[Mark Chance]

But see, I don't see it as a chance to SHINE so much as just a chance to use the abilities you chose to focus your character on.

I agree. The PCs are the characters in the story. They need to fit the story, and the story needs to fit them.

I like facilitating the player's choices (i.e hitting the fire-resistant character with fire, not avoiding fire attacks on him).

Hear, hear. My favorite pet peeve class feature is favored enemy. IME, it is the class feature more often gets used against PCs rather than by PCs. After all, as a DM, it's a piece of cake for me to come up with a villainous ranger whose favored enemy includes members of the PC party.

 

[billd91]

Hear, hear. My favorite pet peeve class feature is favored enemy. IME, it is the class feature more often gets used against PCs rather than by PCs. After all, as a DM, it's a piece of cake for me to come up with a villainous ranger whose favored enemy includes members of the PC party.

I actually use favored enemies against the party, particularly as they become higher level and more well-known. But I also do use fire attacks against fire-resistant PCs if there's no obvious indication they are resistant. I like to validate my players' choices in that regard. But again, if they tend to use a tactic a lot (like energy substitution acid fireballs), enemies in a campaign will take notice.

 

[arscott]

People keep mentioning "Chance to shine", using the example I put forward. But see, I don't see it as a chance to SHINE so much as just a chance to use the abilities you chose to focus your character on.

If a player has built his character to be a skill-monkey, and thus isn't that useful in a fight, then to say 'you only get to use your skills 1/4th of the encounters' is a bit much. Clearly that character is not suitable if the DM is going to be doing lots of wall to wall combat with little opportunity for skill use. Same here.

Perhaps it's a DM Style disconnect. Instead of say, having a rogue in your party (who therefore cannot sneak attack undead/elementals/plants/whatnot) and putting those such monsters in your encounters 3/4 times, I think they should be put in such encounters 1/4 times. Therefore, the Rogue gets to use his class abilities, but on occasion he's out of luck. Since the DM has complete control over what foes/environment the PCs are going into, he's responsible for that. I like facilitating the player's choices (i.e hitting the fire-resistant character with fire, not avoiding fire attacks on him).

This is why I discussed problems with the system in my earlier posts. The complete ineffectiveness of rogues' sneak attack against so many monsters is a major reason why I dislike 3e.

while a player might have a "chance to shine" every one in four encounters, they should remain competent in the remaining three. A cleric only turns undead every once in a while, but is still pretty nice to have when fighting other monsters. A fighter that can't use his sword against the flying monsters should be able to break out his bow without embarrassment.

In 3rd edition, the mounted character passes this test easily. With one skill and a few feats, a mounted character truly shines in combat. But even deprived of a horse, without the benefit of those feats, the character will be an effective combatant.

 

[Hussar]

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.

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.

The problem is, you've also got three or four other players at the table.

Three players are perfectly happy doing dungeon crawls, sailing on ships or going to otherwise horse-unfriendly places because their character concepts don't include mounts. But, that one guy is now pretty much screwed because either he's happy and the other three aren't, or they're happy and he's not.

There's always the issue of the rest of the group as well as just the player-DM axis. When Mr. Cavalry Guy wants wide open spaces, Mr. Dwarf wants dungeons, Mr. Elf wants forests and Mr Pirate wants a ship, SOMEONE'S going to be unhappy all the time.

Sure, it's fine to say, well, it's shine time, everyone get's their spotlight, but, in the above situation, one guy's only happy about 25% of the time and spends 75% of the time in positions that suck.

The Paladin's Mount thing has ALWAYS been a problem. I don't know how to solve it either. Mounts are just so limiting. It's not just dungeons - any urban environment, jungles/heavy forests, anything on water (or under water for that matter), mountains - the list goes on. A mount centered character is a really hard archetype to pull off because of this.

Note, I did see mentioned the small rider with a medium mount and I have used this to great effect. It's limiting, but, at least you actually get to use your mount instead of writing off the whole thing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Meh.

That's a player issue; let them work it out.

I, for one, have never played with a group that couldn't. Consequently, the paladin's mount has NEVER been a problem for me.

YMMV, and obviously does.


RC