Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?

[Hussar]

Because just because you claim that it was easy doesn't make it so. I'm curious how you made it easy, because I've never seen it be a simple thing. Note, I said very difficult, not impossible. I appreciate it can be done, but, IME, it's not an easy thing to do by any stretch.

So, why not answer the questions?

 

[Mark Chance]

So, why not answer the questions?

Because I don't feel like it, and I don't like being told I'm dishonest:

Because just because you claim that it was easy doesn't make it so.

 

[Hussar]

So, basically, we're back to dueling anecdotes. I say that it's difficult to run campaigns with mounted characters because so many situations are mount unfriendly.

You disagree, telling me that you did so successfully in your campaign.

When I ask you how you did it, it's apparently a trade secret.

And you wonder why I find your claims somewhat suspect?

 

[Mark Chance]

And you wonder why I find your claims somewhat suspect?

No, I don't wonder. I really couldn't possibly care less.

So, other folks: I'm planning a sandbox-style campaign since they're all the rage nowadays. We kind of have already made up characters, but I've a feeling once the DM hat is passed back to me, folks will want new PCs. We've been kind of one-shotting the past few sessions.

Regarding accommodation, my basic plan is to set up a central base of operations, probably a small town, and then radiate from there, placing a few site-based areas and then seed the soil with various rumors, important NPCs, et cetera.

For our first session, I think we're going to make up characters as a group. Try to let the players work out a semi-coherent group based on the set up described in the paragraph above. I want each player to come up with two or three somewhat short-term goals as well which I can work into the sandbox.

Any suggestions for additional planning?

 

[Hussar]

Fair enough I suppose.

SO, if one of your players makes a mounted character, the other four (or however many) make spelunking characters, how exactly will you accomodate the mounted character?

 

[GladiusNP]

I do agree with the point up-thread about the DM having a great deal more flexibility over encounters. Seems making the player happy by throwing him a joust against an ogre or a charge into a hobgoblin phalanx would be possible if the DM is writing the adventures.

In the event that the player's abilities are simply unworkable, I think that retraining can be used to swap out choices that are not campaign appropriate. After all, players are encouraged to develop their character's personality over early adventures, and I think a similar approach can be taken with skills/feats/what have you. I've done this as a straight swap and players usually are happy - they get to use something more applicable.

If the player is intractable and sticks to the concept after this is offered, I think that the onus is on them to be slightly more flexible.

 

[Aeolius]

SO, if one of your players makes a mounted character, the other four (or however many) make spelunking characters, how exactly will you accomodate the mounted character?

Depends on the mount...

 

[Hussar]

Heh, that could work.

 

[The Human Target]

Heh, I'm not even sure who is on what side anymore.

 

[The Ghost]

Fair enough I suppose.

SO, if one of your players makes a mounted character, the other four (or however many) make spelunking characters, how exactly will you accomodate the mounted character?

I give my players adventure options -- Town, Wilderness, Dungeon -- and then let them work it out amongst themselves. They'll decide what they want to do; it may mean splitting time between the wilderness and dungeons; it may mean the mounted character rides a giant spider; it may mean a retired character concept. In any event I give them options and am largely indifferent to the option they choose. If the rest of the table decides your concept is not useful to them, well, tough cookies!