Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?

[Haltherrion]

I have to ask the percentage of games where the PCs really get to just sandbox it. Go all over the world where they choose, instead of the DM throwing hooks and the PCs following it.

I honestly think the majority of games consist of either modules (hence, everything is all ready set up), or the DM has his campaign scripted, he works with the PCs, but they're following the hooks he feeds them where he wants them to go. I believe a minority of games is 'here' the game world map. Where do you want to go?' Even there, even in that sort of world, the DM has control because he's creating the areas of interest. 'There's nothing of interest in those mountains' = players don't go there.

I have to agree. It takes a very talented ref and a very engaged group of players to really pull off a sandbox well. The ref needs to provide a rich enough, well enough described world for the players to find interesting things to do and then be very good at ad lib. The players need to engage enough to make informed decisions.

In my best days, I had a group that played frequently enough (weekly in college) and enough engaged players that this worked. After college, playing biweekly or less with players with real lives, lots of distractions and other ways to entertain themselves on a weekend night, it didn't work so well.

I finally had a player who kindly told me it was kind of boring at times. That forced me to rethink how I ran games and to become much more actively engaged in providing a story. It also forced me to recognize that while I could ad lib, my memorable sessions were not ad libed.

So now, my typical campaign will provide players clear decision points, minor ones within a session, major ones at the end of a session so that I can prepare the next session. At major decision points they can in theory choose to do anything they want but in practice, they are engaged enough in the story arc to stay with the arc but have freedom to determine how and when they act. And, of course, I prepare seeds I can use for unexpected paths the players may take.

Having now run both sandbox and story-arc campaigns, I find the latter far superior. It suits my style and provides a much more entertaining experience for my players. Some refs may be able to provide a true sandbox with a similar level of entertainment-delivery but I am not one of them, nor have I ever personally experienced such a ref. I have no regrets nor make apologies for abandoning a sandbox approach

I think for most refs it is only practical to offer a hierarchy of choices not complete free reign. You might give them a choice of campaign setting. Once they select that, they may have a choice of major story arc every 3-4 sessions. Within an arc, they may have various "plot" decisions to make (do they make friends with someone or just attack? set a trap? plant false vidence? etc.) Within a battle, they should have some flexibility on how to handle it (avoid it, exploit terrain, etc.) Most players are perfectly fine with that. It's the illusion of control without having full control at all times. Controlisimilitude.

 

[The Shaman]

I chucked out an alternative answer, not a point where the DM is somehow obligated to do this. In other words, the GM could build a campaign which is centered around what the players want to play.

And the fact that this is a consistent response from you in this thread and others is just a coincidence?

And, if Mr. Mounted dies, and gets replaced with another character that is not terrain specific, then the adventures that the party goes on will no longer feature mount friendly terrain so much. In other words, the only part of the campaign that is actually fixed are things the PC's have already interacted with. Anything that the PC's have not interacted with is completely open.

So, when Mr Mounted gets replaced by Mr Sneaky, later adventures won't feature a lot of wide open fields, but rather might feature a lot more trees.

Player: "I could really use something sweet right about now."
GM: "As you walk through the forest, the colors of the foliage change, some in bright hues, others in shades of brown. Scents of cinnamon, peppermint, cocoa and vanilla fill the air. Touching a leaf, you realize that it is made of candy."
Player: "Uh, dude, I was talking out of character just then."
GM:

Whatever works for you, I guess, Hussar. My next game is set in 17th century France; I'll be sure to forest the windswept prairies of the Auvergne so the sneaky characters have someplace to hide, or add rocky cliffs filled with grottos to the coast of Aunis if a pirate character needs a hide out.

However, I am in no way stating that the DM must do this. I'm simply putting on the table an alternative.

So you're just spitballing . . . the same thing over and over . . . but it's not really what you recommend.

Thanks for that heads-up.

I really have to work on my posting skills because for some reason, several people in this thread have taken what I've said to absurd extremes.

I think you may want to try looking for those absurd extremes a little closer to home.

 

[The Shaman]

For me, yes exactly, at the beginning of the campaign the players have far greater flexibility as to what they play and what the direction of the campaign is. A new player entering an existing campaign or an old player introducing a new character is much more limited by the direction of the campaign as it currently is. Their choice is to either build a character I can fit into the campaign now, or wait until there is an appropriate time to introduce their character.

A diverse setting creates opportunities for diverse characters, characters which may be introduced pretty freely in the course of a game.

 

[Plane Sailing]

IMO, there should be two way accommodation.

Firstly, the players accommodate the DMs. If the DM wants to run a sailing ship campaign in a world with no psionics, then the player shouldn't carp about not being able to play the psionic mounted knight that he has always wanted.

So the DM sets the parameters for his campaign world, and I'd expect players to go along with that.

Then once the players have made their characters according to his initial specifications, I think the DM should build his adventures to take into account the PCs and their goals, including giving people the opportunity to use their class abilities, favoured skills or given background.

Cheers

 

[billd91]

I say that Bill is a bad DM. He chose those areas after the fact, after seeing the PCs sheets, and chose to NOT incorporate any of their strengths into the game. Two of the four PCs are regularly out of luck because their specialities are just not usable against the enemies or the environemnt, and one (Tim) can only use half of his tricks.

I'm going to go against the grain a little by saying it's too early to label Bill a bad DM. A couple of levels of play, given the speed with which PCs level up in low levels, means very little. Plus, we don't know what bridging was done between the two mini-adventures. Did they encounter anybody on the road to use interpersonal skills with? Go to a town to sell off loot from the kobolds? Have any wilderness encounters on the way to and from the caverns and catacombs?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Bill then decides to send everyone into tunnels of kobolds for a level, and then crypts of undead for a level.

This is Bill's problem. If the players do not have the opportunity to seek out the types of adventures that they would like to participate in then thier characters' abilities should be assigned to them just like thier adventures.

 

[BenBrown]

This is Bill's problem. If the players do not have the opportunity to seek out the types of adventures that they would like to participate in then thier characters' abilities should be assigned to them just like thier adventures.

Bill is running a dungeon crawl for 1st level characters. Chances are pretty good he's either pulled a published adventure off the shelf or has written something up himself using published adventures as a guideline.

1st level published adventures are infested with kobolds and undead.

Does this make it the players' fault? Of course not. But we're talking about a first adventure here. Presumably he has plenty of time to say "okay, that didn't work out like I'd expected. I'll try to run something more suited to your characters next time."

Not everyone has decades of GMing experience and knows instinctively how to deal with every ability on his players' sheets. They are not bad DMs. (well, some of them probably are, but it's not a causal thing). They are inexperienced, or screwed up this time, or ran out of time to prepare.

As others have said before, it's a give-and-take. DM and players should pitch ideas to each other before any mechanical stuff starts. But the give-and-take doesn't stop there. "I didn't realize how powerful that ability was" and "This seems to be turning into a political intrigue campaign. I'm not sure that taking extra rage feats is a good idea" should be valid things for the DM to say even after the campaign is underway. This should then start a discussion where the DM and players come to a consensus.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar, I must admit that I'm not sure what you're after at this point. Maybe you could clarify what answers you are seeking.

It sounds to me a bit like you're saying that Mounted Knight should be a valid archetype and Swashbuckling Pirate should be a valid archetype. And that both of them should be getting to "do their thing" more than 50% of the time. And that sounds like it's going to be very difficult to achieve.

But every time people say, "Restrict the available archetypes" you respond with "But you're limiting their options." And every time people say, "They'll just have to compromise" you respond with "But they shouldn't have to compromise."

Maybe you can help us out with a bit more explanation of what you'd like out of the conversation.

Not quite. I'm saying that the DM has already allowed the archetypes. After all isn't that what the thread is about? If the archetypes are already disallowed, then there can be no accomodation needed. And, restricting archetypes is perfectly fine IMO.

But, if we've allowed the archetype, is it unreasonable that the player expect that his character concept will come out in play a majority of times?

There's two issues here really. The first is, as you say, allowing the archetype in the first place. If we allow the archetype, then it follows that the archetype will have enough opportunities in the game to be displayed. Obviously the pirate in the desert campaign won't have enough opportunities in all likelihood and should be disallowed. Conversely, the mounted guy in the pirate campaign probably shouldn't be allowed either.

But, let's talk about a fairly stock standard campaign where there is a multitude of terrains. There are a number of terrains which are not mount friendly. So, even in a standard campaign, there is going to be a fair amount of limitation on when the archetype can be displayed.

However, even beyond that, we have to look at during play, during situations which could display the archetype, will there be enough opportunities for the player. For the sneaky thief, it's pretty easy to have a campaign where he's scouting. That we don't force it to take a huge amount of time is fine. Every time there's a sneaky bit, the thief is doing it. Whether that takes five minutes or fifty, his schtick is coming into play 100% of the time when it is applicable.

But, for mounted guy, his schtick comes up in combat. However, he cannot use his mount in 100% of combat like the thief uses his schtick 100% of the time in sneaking.

That's where the majority of the time comes up for me. I think that if the campaign is going to feature mount friendly terrain (when it would matter) less than 50% of the time, it would be much better to either up the amount of terrain or tell the player that he should maybe pick a different concept.

In the end, I think there are two criteria. One, does the campaign have enough opportunities in general for a concept to show up in play, and, two, does the campaign have enough specific situations which allow the concept to show up.

I think that it is difficult to satisfy those two criteria for mounted guy.

Does that better explain my position?

 

[Rel]

Does that better explain my position?

I think it does somewhat. But looking at your comparison between Sneaky Rogue and Mounted Knight I still think that you are applying two different player mindsets, which leads to sort of a double standard.

You're saying that it'll be relatively easy to satisfy the Sneaky Rogue, even if you only briefly touch on his capabilities and don't give them a big helping of spotlight time. One assumes that while in combat he will be able to sneak only a limited amount (unless the player classifies Sneak Attacks gained by flanking as "being sneaky"). So the balance of his sneakiness is going to come mostly from brief descriptions of how he was sneaky, rolling a few skill checks and the once in a while Big Sneaking Event.

That approach seems fairly similar to how I spoke up thread about handling a Mounted Knight for a certain playstyle. This is done by similarly touching on it whenever possible, asking for skill rolls related to that topic now and then, and having the occasional Big Mounted Event. I would suggest that if the player in my group were to play each of these two character types in successive campaigns, he could be accommodated by these methods.

If you have a player who is all about the crunch and has made his PC into a super Stealth Monkey, and if he's only satisfied when he's getting to to undertake that role mechanically, then you're going to have just as hard a time accommodating them as you would the Mounted Knight who wants his horse in every combat. So my point is that I feel this is more of a playstyle issue and less of an archetype issue.

So if you have a player who is mechanically focused then I'd urge them to choose a character archetype that is going to be addressed mechanically very often (certainly in combat). Because, unless your group is very small, there simply isn't enough screen time to let them "do their thing" and do it mechanically more than 50% of the time if the archetype is narrow.

Let me finally take a moment to point out that these sorts of narrow archetypes are WONDERFUL for solo or very small games. For the same player I mentioned above I ran a couple of Assassin themed games where he was either the only player or one of a pair. In the game with two players the other PC was sort of his sidekick/partner who was more of a Cat Burglar (i.e. Sneaky Rogue) archetype. Those games were fantastic for all the reasons that they'd be bad characters in a game with five players. I could focus all the story AND mechanics on a very narrow set of circumstances.

I know a lot of groups that, when they are down to only a couple players, immediately shift into "Looking For Players" mode. But I've always grabbed those opportunities over the years (typically when people in our gaming group are out of action due to new babies) as a chance to play a different kind of game. And so if you've got a player who wants to do Sir Mounted Knight then tell them to save that concept for when you are going to run a solo campaign or maybe pair them with the player who would like to play the silver-tongued Squire Ladies Man along side them.

 

[Hussar]

Agreed. Nice when that happens.