Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?

[Raven Crowking]

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.

I must not be playing the One True Way, then, as I've never had a problem with characters having mounts, either as player or as GM. Here I was, running the game, using options the game provided for, and making it work without any real effort at all. If only I had known the game didn't support that option!

What have I been doing wrong all these years?!?!?!?!?

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

If you have given the players sufficient information to make reasonable choices, and a player insists on making an "odd duck" character, it is that player's responsibility to make the character work within the limits of the setting, not the DM's job to change the information all the players were working with.

Doing otherwise encourages the players to make "odd duck" characters, so as to add features to the world/change the setting, which disproportionately increases the DM's workload.

"I told you I was running Savage Tide. I'll let you play a telletuby if you insist, but I'm not rewriting the AP to include Telletubyland."

 

[ExploderWizard]

If you have given the players sufficient information to make reasonable choices, and a player insists on making an "odd duck" character, it is that player's responsibility to make the character work within the limits of the setting, not the DM's job to change the information all the players were working with.

Doing otherwise encourages the players to make "odd duck" characters, so as to add features to the world/change the setting, which disproportionately increases the DM's workload.

"I told you I was running Savage Tide. I'll let you play a telletuby if you insist, but I'm not rewriting the AP to include Telletubyland."

This big time. Oddball characters can be interesting and add a splash of spice to a campaign but if the world conforms to make the oddball "fit in" more, then what was once different and flavorful becomes ordinary.

The sad truth is that in some cases certain players can only have a good time by trampling on everyone else's. This applies to DMs too. In these cases the problem is with the individual and the game rules, setting, or even campaign focus have nothing to do with it. These problems require an attitude adjustment fix or a removal of the offending player/DM before any resolution is possible.

An honest pre-game discussion that covers the desires and expectations of all participants before character generation takes place can sometimes head off these issues.

 

[BryonD]

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.

You are probably a perfect example. I've been aware of your game for years. Now, I really doubt you have a group of players who all just happened to think that underwater D&D is the end-all be-all. But, I know for a certainty that you have players who keep coming back because they WANT to play in the cool game that you run. And that is what it is about. I'm betting you have very little trouble getting players to work within your parameters because the game is motivating.

If you have given the players sufficient information to make reasonable choices, and a player insists on making an "odd duck" character, it is that player's responsibility to make the character work within the limits of the setting, not the DM's job to change the information all the players were working with.

Yeah, I very much agree here. Again with the caveat that if the DM doesn't inspire the player enough to live up to this responsibility, then the player needs a different DM.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yeah, I very much agree here. Again with the caveat that if the DM doesn't inspire the player enough to live up to this responsibility, then the player needs a different DM.

You will get no argument from me.

 

[Mort]

Every time this issue comes up my response seems to boil down to - "Don't be a jerk".

As long as the player and the DM are being reasonable everyone can settle down and have fun, It's when one person is expecting to have fun at the expense of everyone else and refuses to compromise (as in being a jerk) that problems occur.

 

[BryonD]

Every time this issue comes up my response seems to boil down to - "Don't be a jerk".

As long as the player and the DM are being reasonable everyone can settle down and have fun, It's when one person is expecting to have fun at the expense of everyone else and refuses to compromise (as in being a jerk) that problems occur.

Problems is one tier.
Lack of problems is another tier.
There are further tiers of "awesome game" above that.


Don't be a jerk is good advice.
But so is don't use rotten eggs in your cake.
But just using fresh eggs does not make the best possible cake.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If you have given the players sufficient information to make reasonable choices, and a player insists on making an "odd duck" character, it is that player's responsibility to make the character work within the limits of the setting, not the DM's job to change the information all the players were working with.

I don't disagree. What did I type?

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.

The onus is still on the DM to let the player know that the character is not going to work. Doesn't mean the DM has to kowtow to all characters ever, just that the DM does have to work with the characters he decided to permit in the first place.

 

[Mort]

Problems is one tier.
Lack of problems is another tier.
There are further tiers of "awesome game" above that.


Don't be a jerk is good advice.
But so is don't use rotten eggs in your cake.
But just using fresh eggs does not make the best possible cake.

Perhaps, but it always amazes me that many people must be told "use good ingredients, the food will taste better" despite the fact that it seems self evident.

Same thing here; coming at it from the perspective of "I'm here to have fun but also to add to everyone else's fun" is much more productive than "I'm here to have fun and who cares about anyone else." Good communication and civility between the players, and the players and the DM will generally solve the OPs stated problem. While there are certainly levels of "awesome" above that - you have to start somewhere. And more importantly, without a good foundation (i.e. don't be a jerk) the best play experiences are rarely (or never) achieved.

 

[BryonD]

Perhaps, but it always amazes me that many people must be told "use good ingredients, the food will taste better" despite the fact that it seems self evident.

Same thing here; coming at it from the perspective of "I'm here to have fun but also to add to everyone else's fun" is much more productive than "I'm here to have fun and who cares about anyone else." Good communication and civility between the players, and the players and the DM will generally solve the OPs stated problem. While there are certainly levels of "awesome" above that - you have to start somewhere. And more importantly, without a good foundation (i.e. don't be a jerk) the best play experiences are rarely (or never) achieved.

I'll admit to not reading every post in this thread. But the conversation I was in was pretty much on how to make good into better. I don't think anyone needed to be told not the be a jerk.