Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?

[Papa-DRB]

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

Vehemently disagree with this. When I start a new campaign, the invites include my 8 house rules of which 1 and 3 are appropriate to this thread.

House rule #1 is: I run "adventure paths". You must be willing to follow the campaign premise and plot.

House rule #3 is: I will provide guidelines on what kind of characters would be best suited and will provide a generic plot/outline of what to expect.

For instance, if I tell you that the game is set in the Pirate City of Freeport, and there will be city, dungeon and water borne adventures and you show up the first night when we create characters and insist on a Paladin that will be calling a Mount (instead of Celestial Spirit - Pathfinder rules), then I will mention again the campaign parameters, but let you do what you wish. When your Mount proves useless then that is too bad for you.

-- david
Papa.DRB

ps. I do give rangers a couple of suggestions on favored enemy at the various levels, but once again let them decide. Same with all the other character classes.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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?

"Say Yes." Unless you have some pressing reason to advise against a particular character archetype (Ferex, running an Adventure Path, or playing in a specific setting), allow it, and work with it.

You, as a DM, have much more leeway in creating and customizing adventures than the players have leeway in creating and customizing their characters.

If I made a character with a strong "mounted knight" archetype, you should include it, unless you explicitly told me not to do it.

Here's my take: when a player selects a character, they are telling you what they want to do. The druid is telling you they want to be close to animals and play in the wilderness. The psychic is telling you they want to read minds and bend spoons. The bard is telling you they want to charm the pants off of emperors. You have the power to tell them what's possible (e.g.: "This is going to be a campaign heavy on the dungeon-crawling, so don't bother with the mounts"), but after that point, yeah, you should let 'em shine.

IMO, the onus is more on the DM to be flexible, because the DM has greater ability to be flexible, within whatever limits she expressly calls out.

 

[billd91]

IMO, the onus is more on the DM to be flexible, because the DM has greater ability to be flexible, within whatever limits she expressly calls out.

In other words, the DM has to shoulder the responsibility even more than he already does? Sorry. I don't think so. The DM is already expected to find ways to incorporate PCs built to fit in with the general campaign and allow them to shine. If the DM says the campaign will focus on a lot of deep underground adventuring, 3 of the players make up dwarves and the fourth makes a sailor, it's up to the sailor to be flexible.

The DM may have a lot of ability to be flexible, but because the DM is already putting in more work than anybody else, the onus falls on the player to not force the DM to bear the lion's share of accommodation.

 

[I'm A Banana]

In other words, the DM has to shoulder the responsibility even more than he already does? Sorry. I don't think so. The DM is already expected to find ways to incorporate PCs built to fit in with the general campaign and allow them to shine. If the DM says the campaign will focus on a lot of deep underground adventuring, 3 of the players make up dwarves and the fourth makes a sailor, it's up to the sailor to be flexible.

Dude, what did I type?

You have the power to tell them what's possible (e.g.: "This is going to be a campaign heavy on the dungeon-crawling, so don't bother with the mounts"), but after that point, yeah, you should let 'em shine.

The DM may have a lot of ability to be flexible, but because the DM is already putting in more work than anybody else, the onus falls on the player to not force the DM to bear the lion's share of accommodation.

Once you've accepted their characters, it's your job to keep them fun. If you allowed that sailor, it is your fault if you don't include some underground sea or something. You totally have carte blanche to not allow the sailor, if you don't want to do that.

The DM is the only one who can drastically alter anything after character creation, so with great power comes great responsibility and all that noise.

And if player #4 created a sailor after you specifically told her, "You're not going to be doing any sailing in this campaign," you can throw dice at her all you want, because she's being a doofus.

But if you didn't tell her that she'd be useless, it's up to you to make her useful.

Note that this doesn't apply so much in a heavily Sandboxed game, where the players get to do whatever they want anyway. If they don't want to spend 3 months underground, they can go do other stuff, so the DM has less responsibility to ensure their fun. They have freedom to choose their challenges. If they want to have a mounted combat, they can go find areas where that's possible.

 

[fanboy2000]

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

That's a slightly different problem than what was posed by the OP. D&D's a social game. At some point, you have to allow the other players to have fun, or suddenly there won't be game.

 

[The Human Target]

Both is of course the right answer.

But you said it yourself.

Mounts don't work well in DnD generally, nor have they ever.

Thats not the DMs fault, or anyone's.

The game doesn't support that option.

Its not Open Rolling Fields and Dragons after all.

 

[Hussar]

That's a slightly different problem than what was posed by the OP. D&D's a social game. At some point, you have to allow the other players to have fun, or suddenly there won't be game.

Fair enough, but, it's not just a DM-Player issue. It's a group issue. Dumping it onto the DM to ensure that the player shines isn't fair IMO. If four of the five PC's all want to go sailing, then Mr. Ridesalot is up the creek.

The Human Target sums it up nicely. Any character concept which has restricted mobility is going to be very difficult to incorporate into a group. Never mind horse, what about flying mount? Great, my PC can fly around, reach places that no one else can.

Including the rest of the party...

So, I wind up hugging the earth with my winged mount because, unless I'm lone wolfing, I have to stay at least more or less, with the rest of the party.

It isn't limited to mounts, but, mounts are a prime example of this. Any concept which has restricted mobility is extremely difficult to have in a party.

 

[BryonD]

On the surface it is "both", but truly it comes down to the DM.
Not every character concept works with every campaign concept. And the DM is responsible for the campaign, so the DM sets the parameters.

It is the DM's obligation to create a gaming experience which is rewarding enough that players are willing to work within the campaign parameters.

There is a lot of room between the extremes however. If a DM says that the campaign will be an Arabian adventure and a player is upset that none of the thousands of character concepts that fit will be as fun as his idea for a Frost Giant hunting viking, then the DM has not created much faith in that player.

On the other end, it would take a fairly awesome DM to surprise a group of players with a decree that all characters will be knights of the round table, or all players must be wizard's apprentices, effectively limiting them to personality variations on a single concept option, and yet still have everyone excited. It is very possible, but confidence in the DM is critical.

The DM has to inspire confidence.

 

[BryonD]

In other words, the DM has to shoulder the responsibility even more than he already does? Sorry. I don't think so.

Hijacking your question a bit here.....

To answer that in context of my position, it is part of the responsibility the DM already shoulders to inspire players to WANT to help. If he achieves that, he isn't required to shoulder any more, the players will pitch in. If he doesn't, he isn't shouldering enough in the first place.

 

[Aeolius]

On the surface it is "both", but truly it comes down to the DM. Not every character concept works with every campaign concept. And the DM is responsible for the campaign, so the DM sets the parameters.

That works for me. My current campaign, as many know, is set beneath the surface of the sea. The parameters are every PC must have a natural swim speed and the ability to breathe underwater without the use of magic. That being said, if a player has an unusual character concept; psionic awakened octopus, jellyfish mermaid, or undersea ninja I am more than willing to work to accommodate their wishes.