Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?

[The Human Target]

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.

Yeah its a problem in even more basic situations.

Say when 4 of the 5 people end up having a high Stealth sneaking oriented characters, and the 5th guy wants to play a plate wearing paladin.

The game is a give and take between DM and Players, but also between the Players themselves.

 

[The Human Target]

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?!?!?!?!?

Do you see a lot of mount rules in 3rd or 4th edition?

Does the game not generally suppose the players will spend lots of time in very horse unfriendly areas?

The game doesn't ban them by any means. But it sure doesn't support the idea.

If you've managed to make it work thats great, but don't come down on a DM that can't/doesn't want to.

 

[billd91]

Do you see a lot of mount rules in 3rd or 4th edition?

Does the game not generally suppose the players will spend lots of time in very horse unfriendly areas?

I think the mounted combat rules in 3e and the skills that support it are quite reasonable and useful. They don't need a heck of a lot of rules.

 

[BryonD]

I think the mounted combat rules in 3e and the skills that support it are quite reasonable and useful. They don't need a heck of a lot of rules.

I agree.
I don't know what The Human Target's definitions of "a lot" and "support" are, but I am pretty certain they don't match mine.

 

[Hussar]

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.

But, how is mounted knight an odd ball character in a D&D setting?

Isn't mounted knight a pretty much bog standard archetype in a fantasy setting?

But, mounted knight, or mounts of any kind are very difficult to use. You cannot use a mount (unless you go the small rider/medium mount route) in a very large number of standard adventure "areas". No mounts in dungeons, castles, jungles, waterborne adventures, or mountains just to name a few.

Like the example of the heavy armor guy in the all stealth party, it isn't that the player is being a jerk and creating really odd ball characters. It's that sometimes, standard fantasy archetypes don't work all that well in a group situation.

To answer The Human Target, I also don't think there's a lack of mounted rules. There's certainly enough rules there to cover most any situation where you can ride a mount. However, that's, in my mind anyway, not the issue. The issue is that many standard D&D situations preclude the use of mounts.

To me, this was the basic reason for the paladin's summonable mount. It was a totally meta-game thing to let him have a mount when he needed one and could use it, but didn't screw him over by forcing him to waste game time protecting the thing when the party went off into Non-mount territory.

 

[The Human Target]

But, how is mounted knight an odd ball character in a D&D setting?

Isn't mounted knight a pretty much bog standard archetype in a fantasy setting?

But, mounted knight, or mounts of any kind are very difficult to use. You cannot use a mount (unless you go the small rider/medium mount route) in a very large number of standard adventure "areas". No mounts in dungeons, castles, jungles, waterborne adventures, or mountains just to name a few.

Like the example of the heavy armor guy in the all stealth party, it isn't that the player is being a jerk and creating really odd ball characters. It's that sometimes, standard fantasy archetypes don't work all that well in a group situation.

To answer The Human Target, I also don't think there's a lack of mounted rules. There's certainly enough rules there to cover most any situation where you can ride a mount. However, that's, in my mind anyway, not the issue. The issue is that many standard D&D situations preclude the use of mounts.

To me, this was the basic reason for the paladin's summonable mount. It was a totally meta-game thing to let him have a mount when he needed one and could use it, but didn't screw him over by forcing him to waste game time protecting the thing when the party went off into Non-mount territory.

Yeah there are mounted rules. There are also rules in 3E for being a skilled fletcher. That does not mean a character who focuses on doing so is a good idea.

And I agree totally on the reasoning behind the paladin mount.

 

[Hussar]

THG - the difference is though, "skilled fletcher" isn't a fantasy archetype. Mounted Knight certainly is. It's a staple of the genre. But, because of how D&D is often played, mounted knight is very problematic.

 

[Aeolius]

But, how is mounted knight an odd ball character in a D&D setting?

I'd allow one in my game

 

[Hussar]

Nice Aeolius. I like it.

Just as a point. I'd absolutely love to have mounted characters in a campaign. Either as a player or a DM. However, as an inveterate paladin player, IME, it's very difficult to make "mounted knight" a regular thing in a game.

 

[Aeolius]

However, as an inveterate paladin player, IME, it's very difficult to make "mounted knight" a regular thing in a game.

Agreed. You can't ride your mount into a dungeon - horses and stairs don't work so well together. You can't ride your mount through the alleyways of a crowded city - that's why they have stables. Nevermind trying to convince your warhorse to wade into the sewers.

How about a centaur knight? The best of both worlds.