Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?

[Rel]

Hussar, I think one concept that is vital for a good player to understand is that there is a lot of difference between a genre appropriate archetype (as found in literature, TV or movies) and what makes a good character AND a good attitude for a cooperative group game. There are tons of examples I can think of where even though a character concept might be valid in the genre it still translates to a complete pain in the ass.

What about a sneaky thief who always wants to sneak ahead of the party and scout things out? We see threads about this kind of thing not infrequently around here where, because of the thief player, the group has to spend a bunch of time waiting while this PC has a short solo-adventure scouting the enemy and checking for traps while the remainder of the group twiddles their thumbs.

In a case like that, were I the GM, I'd try to get the player to agree that most of the time I'm going to keep it very brief and simply say, "You scout ahead and discover that it's a dead end corridor." or "You scout ahead, discover that there is a group of seven Troglodytes, one of them with a weird looking staff with feathers on it, and return to the group." I'd also tell them that once in a while we'll do a more in depth thing where his scouting will be vital to getting information that might make an encounter significantly more interesting to the rest of the group.

IF the player is fine with those baseline assumptions then great. If not then they can either pick another character concept or prepare themselves for disappointment.

Because there is, in my mind, really only one important rule and that is that we need to be spending the large majority of our time as close as possible to the center point of the fun around which our playstyles balance. You are entitled to your character concept only insofar as it does not impinge on the overall fun of the group. Demanding more than that simply runs afoul of the "don't be a jerk" rule.

 

[The Shaman]

In other words, tough noogies. The player chose a limited concept, he can either accept that his concept will likely be problematic and adjust accordingly, or he can just drop the concept entirely.

Essentially, don't compromise at all. Which, I think, is what happens in a lot of groups and most players understand that and just shy away from these sorts of concepts.

Hussar, a world with many different locales for adventure is the compromise solution.

At different points in the game pretty much any character concept with have the opportunity to shine.

 

[Beginning of the End]

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.

Man. You are really wedded to the idea of DM as Dictator(TM).

In my campaign the PC is free to play a mounted character. And that means that they have to deal with whatever limitations that implies. But since I don't dictate that they have to go places that their mount can't go, they will generally choose to do things that will allow them to use their mount.

And, as they gain resources, they can spend those resources to give their character even more options while remaining true to their character concept. This isn't required, but is (once again) common sense and enlightened self-interest.

You, OTOH, apparently feel that the DM needs to be a railroading control freak.

So, like I said before: Stop railroading your players and the problem will go away.

So it is your opinion that if a DM runs adventure paths, he is railroading the players?

Depends on the DM and the Adventure Path. But if you're telling me that running the Adventure Path requires the players to make specific choices and cannot function unless the players make those specific choices...

Well, that's the definition of a railroad.

And if the Adventure Path isn't forcing those specific choices, then there's nothing incompatible between an Adventure Path and a mounted PC.

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.

You've been told repeatedly how to do it. But you're completely stuck inside your "the DM must be a control freak" mindset that you can't acknowledge the solution.

I totally agree. The problem, as I see it, is that how do you allow them to engage "every few combats"? There are just so many situations where a mount just isn't feasible, many of which - the dungeon in particular - are pretty stock staples of the game.

(...)

I'd agree if mounted knight was some "hyper-specialization", but, in a fantasy game, is it? Really? Is mounted knight some bizarre archetype that doesn't fit, really?

Mounted knights aren't a staple of the dungeon-crawling genre.

So if your players are choosing to play mounted knights, they're telling you that they're not interested in the dungeon-crawling genre. Either pay attention or stop being a control freak so that they can take control of their own destiny and avoid the stuff they don't like.

So, the basic answer I'm getting is, either the player gets told by the rest the group, "tough noogies" and scraps his concept, or he waters down his concept to the point where he's not really a mounted knight any more, he's just a regular fighter that occassionally hops on a horse.

It is possible for your players to create a fundamentally incompatible group of PCs. But I would point out that:

(1) Functional and enjoyable compromise is actually much easier than you make it sound. Sometimes this means time-sharing (you get to do your thing, then I get to do my thing). Sometimes this means finding the activity that both people can participate in.

(2) The problem is trivially solved by having everyone communicate during the character creation phase of the game. This is partly about the GM communicating the nature of the campaign, but it's also about the players creating compatible characters who have a reason to adventure together.

If you're playing with spoiled 5 year olds, of course, compromise will be difficult to achieve. The solution here is to find players who aren't spoiled 5 year olds.

 

[arscott]

I totally agree. The problem, as I see it, is that how do you allow them to engage "every few combats"? There are just so many situations where a mount just isn't feasible, many of which - the dungeon in particular - are pretty stock staples of the game.

For starters, avoid big dungeons. Not only does that mean that our mounted guy isn't stuck underground without his horse for a long time, it also encourages you to cut boring 'dungeon room filler' encounters.

Take the three most interesting rooms in a dungeon, and just run those. Add an extra wilderness encounter when necessary so the horse can get some exercise. Include jousts, hunts, or horseraces. Make sure the other PCs have to do their stuff on horseback every once in a while, to underscore how much better the well-trained guy actually is. Use the stables as a setting, so the mounted character feels like he's on friendly ground.

And that's all just focusing on the horse half of the character concept. If the character is a knight, does he belong to a knightly order? Is he of noble blood? If he's a paladin, what god does he serve and what is his relationship with the church? focus on these aspects and the character will feel loved even without his horse.

 

[KidSnide]

To the extent to which GMs have knowledge and control over the campaign, the GM is responsible for making sure that players create characters that are compatible with the campaign.

In a campaign where players have a high level of control over what adventures are pursued (or a campaign in which each player controls multiple characters), a hands-off GM can leave the question of PC appropriateness in the hands of the players. Mounted PCs can avoid dungeon adventures. And, if the party contains multiple independently incompatible characters (say, a mounted knight, a merman and a talking eagle), that's because multiple players made risky self-limiting decisions and they can work it out like adults -- and then figure out what adventuring locale is compatible with the characters that remain.

However, in a campaign in which the GM has primary control over what adventures are played (e.g. a campaign built on an adventure path), the GM is responsible for making sure that the PCs are compatible with that path. A specialized mounted character preparing to play Savage Tides or an Underdark game needs to be told that the mount won't be useful. Rel's solution can be a good compromise, but - as a general matter - it's possible to create characters that won't be fun/useful in a given campaign. (A dedicated Tiamat-loyalist can work for some games, but is not compatible with most parties playing Scales of War.) That player needs to know, and it's the GM's job to communicate that ahead of time.

What you do with a stubborn and/or fixated player depends on the personal dynamics of the situation. Speaking for myself, if I can't talk a potential player into playing a character I think is compatible with a planned campaign, I wouldn't want person in my game. In my experience, most potential players welcome GM feedback to ensure their characters will be fun and effective and there is usually a core part of their concept that can be adapted to the game. YMMV.

-KS

 

[Hussar]

I'd expect the mounted warrior to seek out tournaments, to advise the party to travel overland to places rather than teleport when the magic becomes available, to spend the money necessary to pay for transporting his mount in the hold of a ship, or trying to get ahold of a stone horse or other compatible magical means of getting a mount under his butt that's easier to manage.

So, the mounted character can lone wolf in tournaments, and try to browbeat other players into ignoring THEIR concepts - traveling overland instead of teleporting .

And this is a good solution? What happens when the rest of the group says, "no"? When they don't want to wait around for two weeks while Mr Mounty does his tournament? When the party points out that the choice is spending a month slogging across country on the back of a horse, or spending ten seconds teleporting?

And this STILL doesn't answer the question of how do you accomodate the mounted character in a MAJORITY of situations. How does this answer the problem that most of the time, I'm a fighter just like Bob over there, it's just that once in a while I get to ride a horse?

Is it totally unreasonable for a player to expect that the character concept that the DM approved of in the game comes up a majority of the time?

 

[Woas]

Hussar, didn't you start a thread about how you and your group have been experimenting with other RPGs? I believe you also expressed interest and understanding about the 'players-have-more-control' dynamic, in terms of generating a story, plot, narrative, game (whatever term you want to use).


So I assume you know that the player with a mount focused character can work with the GM of a game to include their character in the narrative of the game and when that player asks or makes mention of seeking out a tipping tournament for their character, they aren't just trying to undermine the GMs manifesto of what the game is, always and forever, but trying to work with the GM?

 

[Hussar]

/snip

IF the player is fine with those baseline assumptions then great. If not then they can either pick another character concept or prepare themselves for disappointment.

Because there is, in my mind, really only one important rule and that is that we need to be spending the large majority of our time as close as possible to the center point of the fun around which our playstyles balance. You are entitled to your character concept only insofar as it does not impinge on the overall fun of the group. Demanding more than that simply runs afoul of the "don't be a jerk" rule.

Totally agree here, actually. I think that this particular concept doesn't work well in a group game. And, yes, at the end of the day, it's going to be up to the player.

My problem is with the idea of the DM okaying the concept and then washing his hands of it. "Hey, you picked that concept, it's not MY fault you only get to use your horse 10% of the time. Talk to the other players."

I'd rather just talk to the first player and avoid the drama in the first place.

Man. You are really wedded to the idea of DM as Dictator(TM).

In my campaign the PC is free to play a mounted character. And that means that they have to deal with whatever limitations that implies. But since I don't dictate that they have to go places that their mount can't go, they will generally choose to do things that will allow them to use their mount.

And, as they gain resources, they can spend those resources to give their character even more options while remaining true to their character concept. This isn't required, but is (once again) common sense and enlightened self-interest.

You, OTOH, apparently feel that the DM needs to be a railroading control freak.

So, like I said before: Stop railroading your players and the problem will go away.

No. Please actually read what I'm writing and not what you think I'm writing.

"They" cannot choose anything. Because there is no "they". There is one guy with a mount and four other players who don't have this restriction. Sure, the mounted guy would LOVE to avoid any situation that would prevent him from using the mount, but, since he's in the very minority position in the group, his voice doesn't carry all that much weight.

Unless, of course, the other four decide to go along with what he wants.

But, what will likely happen is the other four make decisions based on their own characters, not on his, so, they find themselves in a number of situations where mounts are not viable. This is not me dictating anything. You can continue to ignore the rest of the group all you like, but, unless you do nothing but lone wolfing, or the group creates an entire party of mounted character concepts, you'll run into the situation where the mounted guy is not really "mounted guy" but, "Vanilla Fighter who happens to get to ride a horse once in a blue moon".

Now, if you have players who have no problem with that, then fine. I think most players want to actually play their concepts. They tend to be funny that way.

But, then again, I tend to view D&D as being a bit larger than:

Mounted knights aren't a staple of the dungeon-crawling genre.

If you do nothing but dungeon crawls, then, hey no problem. Mounted knights aren't a problem for you. Me, my worlds tend to be a bit broader than that. To each his own.

 

[billd91]

Is it totally unreasonable for a player to expect that the character concept that the DM approved of in the game comes up a majority of the time?

Alright, I've had enough. Yes, it is ing unreasonable for any particular character concept to come up a majority of the time for any character who's in a party of more than one PC. That's what happens when you share the stage with other people. You expect to hog it no more than is equitable. Happy now? With what hyperbolic scenario will you respond this time?

 

[KidSnide]

I think that this particular concept doesn't work well in a group game. And, yes, at the end of the day, it's going to be up to the player.

I'd rather just talk to the first player and avoid the drama in the first place.

If you can avoid out-of-game drama and make the game more fun for everyone by talking to a player beforehand, you should always talk to the player beforehand. Any design or philosophical rule that says otherwise is missing an important exception.

-KS