Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?

[Hussar]

Heh. Unfortunately, centaurs get whacked with that huge LA. Plus, large size has probably just as many issues in a campaign as trying to have a mount.

But, yeah, I'd totally love to play a centaur.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

I don't play 4e; I certainly saw plenty of mounts in 1e through 3e.

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

Sure. It also generally supposes time spent in the wilderness, where mounts are useful. I have noticed that, given a choice, players prefer to explore areas that cater to their strengths. I have also noticed that, if the DM is not a prat, a mounted character can leave his mount in the care of well-treated henchmen and/or hirelings and still go into those non-horsey areas.

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

Sure it does.

The 1e PHB talks about wilderness adventures; the 1e DMG has rules for the same. Both talk about the paladin's mount, giving rules to support the same. I note that there are also rules for normal mounts, a plethora of monsters not found in dungeons, rules for sea mounts, rules for aerial mounts, and a big old Wilderness Survival Guide.

2e has much of the same support (no WSG, but plenty of other materials for non-dungeon adventures and campaigns), and includes special rules for mounted combat, as well as a "beast rider" kit (which was used at my table).

3e has much of the same support, including lots of official and 3pp material for wilderness exploration, rules and feats for mounted combat, etc. It also includes a "pokemount" rule so that the paladin may bring his mount along, calling on it only when needed.

What level of support, one wonders, is required before some folks conclude that the game supports an option?

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.

That's exactly what it comes down to. Again, what level of support, one wonders, is required before some folks conclude that the game supports an option?


RC

 

[The Shaman]

What level of support, one wonders, is required before some folks conclude that the game supports an option?

The Book of Mounty Mountedness.

 

[Quantum]

Well, here's my suggestion for a solution, if the guy wants a mount, and your campaign is on water or in water or under it, then why not give him a waterborne mount of some sort?

 

[Hussar]

Well, here's my suggestion for a solution, if the guy wants a mount, and your campaign is on water or in water or under it, then why not give him a waterborne mount of some sort?

Because most campaigns don't feature a single terrain. If the campaign features a single terrain, then no problem. You can work in a mount easily. But, most campaigns don't. They move through any number of terrains, many of which are mount unfriendly.

So, what do you do when you have a standard D&D campaign where 50% of the terrain is mount unfriendly? (Note, I'm picking 50% as an entirely arbitrary number, and is not meant to be indicative of anyone's campaign specifically - pick a number that works for you if you don't like 50)

 

[Beginning of the End]

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.

Either the guy with the mount has the choice to go where his mount will be useful or he doesn't. If he doesn't have that choice, the GM is railroading.

Remove the railroad and the player's self-interest will take care of itself.

Now, the start of a campaign is a different matter. It's not a railroad to say "this is a campaign set on a chain of islands" or "in the middle of the desert" or "in the Underdark". The player can either design an appropriate character, deal with the consequences, or not play. The GM's only responsibility is to clearly communicate the concept, and the limitations of that concept are no more unreasonable than saying "you can't play a spaceship pilot in a campaign about modern FBI agents".

But you'll notice that, once again, freedom is given to the player. And they can use that freedom to address that issue in whatever they want.

The point is that the GM only needs to worry about being a nanny if he insists on treating his players like children.

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.

Well, then. You have a problem. You have created it for yourself by choosing to railroad your players.

Long story short:

(1) If you, as the GM, don't want the responsibility of catering to your players, then don't run a railroad. This allows the players to cater to themselves and you don't have to worry about it.

(2) If you, as the GM, want to railroad your players, then you have a responsibility to cater to them.

The third option is that you're railroading your players in order to prevent them from doing things they find fun and/or force them to do things they don't want to do. Why the hell would you want to do that?


Re: Mounts. Invest in some magic items. Horseshoes of the Zephyr will open up quite a few terrains. A little ingenuity should allow for transportable extradimensional stables (similar to a bag of holding, but with breathable air; or using a traditional bag of holding while putting the mount in some form of stasis) or resizing of the mount to lead them through tight spaces.

 

[The Human Target]

The Book of Mounty Mountedness.

I actually have that.

Its a Gygax classic.

 

[The Human Target]

Either the guy with the mount has the choice to go where his mount will be useful or he doesn't. If he doesn't have that choice, the GM is railroading.

Remove the railroad and the player's self-interest will take care of itself.

Now, the start of a campaign is a different matter. It's not a railroad to say "this is a campaign set on a chain of islands" or "in the middle of the desert" or "in the Underdark". The player can either design an appropriate character, deal with the consequences, or not play. The GM's only responsibility is to clearly communicate the concept, and the limitations of that concept are no more unreasonable than saying "you can't play a spaceship pilot in a campaign about modern FBI agents".

But you'll notice that, once again, freedom is given to the player. And they can use that freedom to address that issue in whatever they want.

The point is that the GM only needs to worry about being a nanny if he insists on treating his players like children.



Well, then. You have a problem. You have created it for yourself by choosing to railroad your players.

Long story short:

(1) If you, as the GM, don't want the responsibility of catering to your players, then don't run a railroad. This allows the players to cater to themselves and you don't have to worry about it.

(2) If you, as the GM, want to railroad your players, then you have a responsibility to cater to them.

The third option is that you're railroading your players in order to prevent them from doing things they find fun and/or force them to do things they don't want to do. Why the hell would you want to do that?


Re: Mounts. Invest in some magic items. Horseshoes of the Zephyr will open up quite a few terrains. A little ingenuity should allow for transportable extradimensional stables (similar to a bag of holding, but with breathable air; or using a traditional bag of holding while putting the mount in some form of stasis) or resizing of the mount to lead them through tight spaces.

This I don't get at all?

Is the DM supposed to run a sub-campaign for this mounted guy while the other PCs are on a boat?

And if he doesn't he's railroading the PC?

 

[Hussar]

Either the guy with the mount has the choice to go where his mount will be useful or he doesn't. If he doesn't have that choice, the GM is railroading.

Sorry, that's just not true. For one, you've completely ignored the other people at the table. Two, you've ignored the fact that mounts are very difficult to cater to.

Your apparent solution is to turn the mount into a pokemount, even more so than a paladin's. Never mind that, in 3e terms, you've just told me that I cannot play the character I want to play for about five or six levels, when I can afford both a bag of holding (type VI at least to hold a horse - 10000 gp) and horseshoes of zephyr (6000 gp). Gee thanks.

So, basically, I can play the character I want to play in your campaign, so long as I am willing to not use it more than half the time, and it won't be available to me AT ALL until I'm at least 7th level.

I'm sorry, but the idea that a PC has unlimited options of movement is ridiculous. It's simply not true. A PC's movement is limited by any number of factors - the other players in the group, and the environment of various adventures to name two big ones. Unless Mr. Mountedguy gets to dictate to the DM and the rest of the group EVERY SINGLE adventure, his mobility will be restricted.

And that's railroading?

 

[Raven Crowking]

This I don't get at all?

Is the DM supposed to run a sub-campaign for this mounted guy while the other PCs are on a boat?

And if he doesn't he's railroading the PC?

Originally, D&D was played more like the West Marches campaign (ars ludi » Grand Experiments: West Marches). In this sort of game, each player might control more than one character, of various levels (based upon their exploits), and the players would get together groups of characters appropriate for a particular goal.

(This is why the notes on careful timekeeping appear in the 1e DMG. If Preacher Bob the Cleric is away exploring the Caves of Noisome Odours, he cannot also be along on the Quest for the Holy Handgrenade.)

So, if some players wanted to cross the bandit-haunted Plains of Perserverance, they would bring Sir Ridesalot along (if he was willing). When delving into the Catacombs of Doom, the player who controlled Sir Ridesalot would, perhaps, play Hershel the Thief instead.

If the players decided to bring Sir Ridesalot into the Catacombs of Doom, it was on them to determine how to make it work. Likewise, if they brought Sir Delvesalot to the bandit-haunted Plains of Perserverance.

A lot of the responsibility for making characters work within a setting that has been shifted onto the GM's shoulders was originally on the players' collective shoulders. IME and IMHO, the game works best when the players shoulder a fair percentage of the burden. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the difference is like night and day.


RC