Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5100467" data-attributes="member: 22779"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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."</p><p></p><p>I'd rather just talk to the first player and avoid the drama in the first place.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No. Please actually read what I'm writing and not what you think I'm writing.</p><p></p><p>"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.</p><p></p><p>Unless, of course, the other four decide to go along with what he wants.</p><p></p><p>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".</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>But, then again, I tend to view D&D as being a bit larger than:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5100467, member: 22779"] 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. 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: 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Should the DM accommodate characters, or characters accommodate DMs?
Top