Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?

[Hussar]

One thing you'd have to be careful about in a game like 3E or Rolemaster - if the player doesn't want to buy the relevant skills & feats (given that no use will be had from them) but still wants to describe his/her PC as a powerful mounted knight, the GM has to be prepared to allow this. That is, you have to depart a little bit from a hardcore simulationist approach to character building.

I guess the alternative is as Dausuul said, that the feats are purchased but not used. But a player wouldn't have to be very much of a power gamer to think that this is a bit unfair.

That would be my worry really. The player feels frustrated because he's pretty clearly signaling what he wants to do and feels enjoyable for him by spending in game resources to allow him to do it and then cannot actually reap any benefit for doing so.

It's like this with any specific style bonus - like the ranger's favoured enemies. There are some pretty obvious choices in the 3e list that are much more likely to come up than others. Taking Animals means that your bonus is likely going to come up fairly often. Taking Orcs is pretty campaign specific.

 

[LostSoul]

So I guess I'm looking for any ideas/experiences about how to tip the balance just a bit towards player protagonism - any techniques you think might work, ideas for encounters/situations that might bring to the surface this thematic stuff that's lurking just below it.

You're playing 4E, right?

Drop or seriously lower the XP from defeating monsters and give them a list of quests to pick from. Ask them if they want to insert another quest of their own, and you'll figure out what level it is (or if it counts at all).

 

[pemerton]

Lost Soul, yes I'm playing 4e.

I wasn't really thinking of rules changes - I think these would be a bit controversial with my players. I was more looking for ideas for encounters/situations that will put some pressure on the players to be a bit less passive.

An example from an old campaign: There were a number of political/relgious factions that had been introduced into the plot, all of whom were candidates for allegiance by the PCs (although with different factions appealing more or less to different PCs). When one of the PCs was captured for sacrifice by one of these factions, the players of the non-captured PCs had to make a choice - did they try to rescue the captured PC, thereby turning that faction into an enemy, or did they condone the sacrifice and join with the faction? In that sort of circumstance, the game can't be business-as-usual. The players are forced to make some sort of choice that will result in them taking ownership of where the game goes, and taking their PCs in a particular thematic direction as well.

That's a bit of an extreme example, and it relied upon the player of the sacrificed PC being happy to let that character go an introduce a new one. But it's ideas a bit like that that I've got in mind.

Eg any suggestions on how to play on tensions between Raven Queen and Erathis veneration? One idea that's occurred to me while typing this is to have a sacked city able to be restored, but only if a historic figure (that city's Pericles, if you like) returned to life out of the Shadowfell. But that sounds pretty paragon tier. Ideas like that for heroic tier PCs would be much appreciated.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm not likely to come up with anything interesting at the moment! Start another thread detailing what's going on in your game and we might have some helpful advice. (That was always my favourite part of EN World.)

 

[pemerton]

Lost Soul, the thread is here.

 

[Rechan]

That's a fair point, but at the same time... as DM, I have plenty to do without holding the players' hands. The only exception IMO is the case where my campaign has an unusual feature which makes normally-reliable abilities ineffective (e.g., a rogue in a 3E undead-centric campaign).

It really is on the players to figure out how to build characters they'll enjoy playing. For all I know, the mounted combat guy may just like the idea of having a knight in shining armor who rides a noble steed, and doesn't care that his mounted combat feats never see use in-game.

If the player is a newbie, some guidance may be in order, but experienced players ought to be able to figure this stuff out for themselves and not depend on me to do it for them. (Or figure it out for each other. One of the advantages of group character creation is that when one player has an idea that probably won't work, the other players are apt to say so.)

If that's the stance, then I'd say I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum, I disagree with the above quite heavily.

I believe in holding the players hands. I believe in shaping the game based on what the players want, and what kind of character they play tells me what kind of game they want. The game is about THEIR character and if their character can't do what their character is meant to do, something is wrong.

If they play the mounted knight and are built to use it in combat, then I will go out of my way so that they rarely must go into a place where their horse can't go. Because I believe it's my job as the Dm to facilitate their character and what they want. And if the other PCs say "Hey we want to get on a boat", I'm going to have to put my foot down if it spends too long on the boat, and have a sit-down with the whole group and point out the horse player's issue. Because that's my job as the GM.

Like Hussar, I don't buy the "Tough noogies". I'm not here to say "here's my game, if you don't like it get the hell out".

There's a system that I really love, called Fate. In Fate, the big mechanical aspect revolves around a player defining qualities about their character, and when those qualities come up, they get a big boost. The book spells it out: this is the player telling the GM "This is what I want to happen in the game, this is the stuff that's important to me, this is the hell I want you to put my PC through". And if the Gm does not, not only is he not satisfying the player story wise, but he's screwing the PC mechanics wise. Thus, the GM must serve the situation to the character's purposes, or it all falls apart. That is how I prefer.

 

[BryonD]

IThe game is about THEIR character and if their character can't do what their character is meant to do, something is wrong.

I completely agree.

The player must make a character that fits the game.

BUT!!!!

It is the DM's job to make the game something the players WANTS to work with

AND

It is the DM's job to live up to that promise of delivering the game for the player and the player's character.

If the DM holds up his obligations, everything else will work out.

 

[The Ghost]

If they play the mounted knight and are built to use it in combat, then I will go out of my way so that they rarely must go into a place where their horse can't go. Because I believe it's my job as the Dm to facilitate their character and what they want. And if the other PCs say "Hey we want to get on a boat", I'm going to have to put my foot down if it spends too long on the boat, and have a sit-down with the whole group and point out the horse player's issue. Because that's my job as the GM.

Like Hussar, I don't buy the "Tough noogies". I'm not here to say "here's my game, if you don't like it get the hell out".

What's the difference between "put my foot down" and "tough noogies"? At the end of the day you are still telling one player that they cannot do what they want to do.

 

[pemerton]

What's the difference between "put my foot down" and "tough noogies"? At the end of the day you are still telling one player that they cannot do what they want to do.

I think that the difference is that the player of the mounted knight has expressed his/her desires by means of the character buildig mechanics, whereas the players of the would-be boaters have not.

 

[Rechan]

What's the difference between "put my foot down" and "tough noogies"? At the end of the day you are still telling one player that they cannot do what they want to do.

You missed the "and have a sit-down with the whole group and point out the horse player's issue." I wouldn't say "Sorry, no boat for you" nor "no horse for you".

I would bring it up to the table, lay it out there, and try to get everyone to come to a decision where everyone is at least mostly satisfied. It might mean the mounted knight guy gets an aquatic mount, or the ship visits islands. There should be a way to reconcile everyone and get them all on the same page.