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!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rechan" data-source="post: 5122081" data-attributes="member: 54846">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.</blockquote>

Verification