# Whiney players....



## Slaygrim (Jan 28, 2008)

(edit:  For more information, read post #76 by me)

I've got a player in my group who is the BIGGEST whiner, and I can't stand it.  The biggest problem is that he is the only other person who will DM with me, so having him around is the only way I actually get to play a character.

This guy whines CONSTANTLY.

If faced with an opponant or battle that appears too tough for him, he will whine saying it's too strong of a battle and that there is no way his character would fight this battle.  Such as recently, the party is 4 10th level characters and they had to battle a 19th level wizard, a 16th level sorcerer, a 15th level wizard, a beholder, and a runic guardian.  Of course this battle does appear to be too powerful, the gaming group completely forgot (I have no idea how) that the previous adventure the PC's learned that the 15th level wizard was actually a spy out to stop this 19th level wizards plot.  So the entire time before the battle, all I hear is whining.  _"Oh this is too powerful, we are out of our leagues.  My character wouldn't fight this, he'd just walk away." _ and all of this junk.  But of course the other PC's are going forward and fighting the battle so he reluctantly goes along.

When the battle begins the 15th level wizard "enemy" immediately turns on his allies and aids the PC's in the battle.  The battle actually secludes the main enemy from the battle (as was planned by me from the start) as he had to work on a ritual.  Thus it ended up being the 4 PC's and this 15th level wizard traitor against a 16th level sorcerer, a beholder, and a runic guardian.  In the end the battle went quick.  The sorcerer failed his save against prismatic spray and turned to stone on the first exchange, and the PC's destroyed the beholder and the runic guardian within two rounds.  This lead to the final battle which included all PC's + the 15th level wizard against the 19th level wizard.  Again, that player starts whining saying that once this wizard casts time stop they are all done for.  I wanted to rip my hair out.

And it's not just this.  It gets worse.  If a battle happens, such as when the characters were 9th level, they were ambushed by a gang of bandit rogues, about 20 of them.  These rogues were all 3rd level.  The real plot behind this battle was that it was arranged by a powerful assassin to study how the PC's respond to stealthy assailants.  Well this problem player walked through the battle with ease, and then was complaining that it was too easy and that I shouldn't have thrown this battle into the game.  *grrrrr*

It get's worse.  While exploring an ancient Netherese Ruins the place was guarded by multiple Iron Golems.  His character, a spellcaster, clearly was useless offensively as the Iron Golems are immune to most forms of magic.  Thus, he was delegated to the role of the "buffer", having to cast spells that suped up the fighters.  Throughout the entire dungeon there were spots still guarded by Iron Golems.  This player once again began complaining about how he can't "ever" do anything in battle, that I keep arranging battles where he is useless and how it's not fun for him.  Forget that this was a sealed dungeon that no one had entered in over 2000 years and that nothing outside of undead or constructs would exist in there, it doesn't matter.  What matters is that I didn't arrange for the place to be filled with more than constructs... at least until the end of the dungeon where they did end up fighting undead... only then the undead had spell resistance that was hard to overcome, so he complained about that too.  _"There's NOTHING I can do.  I need to roll of 16+ to beat his spell resistance.  That's stupid.  I guess I'll just back up and stand there."_

You think that's bad?  Heaven forbid the guy gets hit by a Mordenkainens Disjunction and loses magical items.  It's time to turn his character around and head back to town, forsaking his quest because he doesn't have his items.

This was mostly just a rant.  He's taking over DMing now, so I won't have to put up with it for awhile.  I get to play and I am really resisting the urge to give him loads of trouble and a taste of his own medicine.


----------



## Blackmage (Jan 28, 2008)

Why is this in the house rules section?


----------



## Slaygrim (Jan 28, 2008)

Not sure where else to put it.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 28, 2008)

I agree with the whiner.


----------



## Griffith Dragonlake (Jan 28, 2008)

These types of rants (and most of us have had players like this) goes into the General forum.  You'll find a lot of rants there and a lot of good advice which usually boils down to "talk to the player outside of the game."


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 28, 2008)

There are several solutions:

0. Talk to the other players privately. How do they like the game? What, honestly, would they want for their next adventure? What, in their opinion and not yours, is working and what could be improved?

1. Talk to him about undermining you as a DM in front of the players. He's essentially saying that you don't know what you're doing. It's not polite, nor is it conducive to fun. The proper time to bring this stuff up is after the game. Your response should be, "We'll talk about it after the game." Do not engage on his terms.

2. Some players are pessimists. I have one or two in one of the games I play in. I just started saying, "We can take 'em!" for every combat, no matter what I thought. Perhaps one of your players can be recruited to fill that role.

3. Arrange for one or two monsters per session to be this player's fodder. Oozes and outsiders could have been added to your sealed dungeon for this purpose. 

4. Clearly, he's jonesing to DM. Let him. Lead by example and don't retaliate with low-trust game playing.


----------



## Slaygrim (Jan 28, 2008)

roguerouge said:
			
		

> There are several solutions:
> 
> 0. Talk to the other players privately. How do they like the game? What, honestly, would they want for their next adventure? What, in their opinion and not yours, is working and what could be improved?
> 
> ...




Very constructive advice.  Thank you.


----------



## Rackhir (Jan 31, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> Such as recently, the party is 4 10th level characters and they had to battle a 19th level wizard, a 16th level sorcerer, a 15th level wizard, a beholder, and a runic guardian.




Actually the guy does have a point. He might be doing it in a whinny and irritating fashion, but he's got a basis for complaint.

A lv19 wizard is nominally on his own a CR 19 encounter, which means he's a +4 CR challenge for a lv 15 party, never mind a lv 10 party. +4 CR encounters have a decent chance of being a TPK. Stack in even just the 16th lv sorc, beholder and a runic guardian and you have a near certain tpk even with the assistance of the lv 15 wiz.

I'd be going "This is nuts!", IF I didn't have some reason to believe otherwise. Part of the problem here is that there's obviously a lack of trust between the players and you. Remember that just because you have the battle all plotted out so as to reduce the dangerousness of it, this isn't necessarily going to be obvious to the players. Especially if you haven't given them good reason to "trust" you aren't going to toss them into a meat grinder or go "Well that was OBVIOUSLY way too dangerous, you should have run away." Which I have seen more than one DM post about situations that sound a whole lot like this.



			
				Slaygrim said:
			
		

> When the battle begins the 15th level wizard "enemy" immediately turns on his allies and aids the PC's in the battle.  The battle actually secludes the main enemy from the battle (as was planned by me from the start) as he had to work on a ritual.  Thus it ended up being the 4 PC's and this 15th level wizard traitor against a 16th level sorcerer, a beholder, and a runic guardian.  In the end the battle went quick.  The sorcerer failed his save against prismatic spray and turned to stone on the first exchange, and the PC's destroyed the beholder and the runic guardian within two rounds.




Again, this battle could very easily have killed all or nearly all of the party. A 16th lv sorc can hit them with with a maximized cone of cold (90 pts damage) with a DC of easily 22. Given a reflex save of probably about 10-11 for most non-dex char that's probably no more than a 50% chance of making the save. If they don't, lots 10th lv characters have a good chance of dying from it and that much damage could kill a mage even IF they make the save. Just the sorcerer on his OWN is an extremely dangerous opponent, with support it can very quickly turn lethal. 

What if the Wiz had failed a save and gone down instead of the Sorc. How long would the party have lasted at that point?



			
				Slaygrim said:
			
		

> This lead to the final battle which included all PC's + the 15th level wizard against the 19th level wizard.  Again, that player starts whining saying that once this wizard casts time stop they are all done for.  I wanted to rip my hair out.




Especially if this is coming immediately after the battle with the Sorc and the rest of them, yes it does stand a substantial chance of a TPK. Since the chances of a TPK go up considerably, when you have to fight multiple high CR encounters without a chance to rest and regain resources (Spells, potions, etc). Also the Save DCs for a 19th lv wizard are on a different planet than the save bonuses for 10th level characters. For a 9th level spell with Spell Focus and an Int likely in the high 20s, you could hit a DC 30. Which means most 10th level char could need something close to a 20 to save.

Now it sounds like you probably gimped the Wiz in some fashion, but even if you did. You have characters who are way out of their depth who are being assisted by what sounds like that most loathed of creations the DMPC. Who's way more powerful than they are and sounds like he's probably pulling most of the weight in the fights, reducing the PCs to essentially bystanders in a story that's supposed to be about them.

It sounds like this wasn't your intention and it sounds like you had an idea for what struck you as a really cool encounter and sequence of battles, but it also sounds like you are probably guilty of wanting to tell a story you wanted to tell regardless of what the players might want to do. Players like at least the illusion of control. Nobody likes sitting back and playing second fiddle to an NPC who's way more powerful than they are.



			
				Slaygrim said:
			
		

> And it's not just this.  It gets worse.  If a battle happens, such as when the characters were 9th level, they were ambushed by a gang of bandit rogues, about 20 of them.  These rogues were all 3rd level.  The real plot behind this battle was that it was arranged by a powerful assassin to study how the PC's respond to stealthy assailants.  Well this problem player walked through the battle with ease, and then was complaining that it was too easy and that I shouldn't have thrown this battle into the game.  *grrrrr*




You've got more of a case here, but remember even if the player is a whiny irritating crybaby, he might have a point.



			
				Slaygrim said:
			
		

> It get's worse.  While exploring an ancient Netherese Ruins the place was guarded by multiple Iron Golems.  His character, a spellcaster, clearly was useless offensively as the Iron Golems are immune to most forms of magic.  Thus, he was delegated to the role of the "buffer", having to cast spells that suped up the fighters.  Throughout the entire dungeon there were spots still guarded by Iron Golems.  This player once again began complaining about how he can't "ever" do anything in battle, that I keep arranging battles where he is useless and how it's not fun for him.  Forget that this was a sealed dungeon that no one had entered in over 2000 years and that nothing outside of undead or constructs would exist in there, it doesn't matter.  What matters is that I didn't arrange for the place to be filled with more than constructs... at least until the end of the dungeon where they did end up fighting undead... only then the undead had spell resistance that was hard to overcome, so he complained about that too.  _"There's NOTHING I can do.  I need to roll of 16+ to beat his spell resistance.  That's stupid.  I guess I'll just back up and stand there."_




So what you're saying is you filled a dungeon with creatures that are essentially immune to anything he could do and then hit him with creatures he has very little chance of affecting and you are wondering why he was upset and bored?

Look it might have been logical that it was mostly Iron Golems in there, but it's obviously not going to be much fun for someone who's sole role is to cast Bull's Strength on the fighter. There are constructs that aren't immune to magic, you could have put some of them in there. There are plenty of Undead who don't have high SR, why didn't you put some of them in there?

Were you trying to punish him for being whiny?

I mean seriously if the tables were turned and you were faced with an adventure that was seemingly specifically designed to render you useless, wouldn't you be bored and irritated?

Would the fighter be any happier if a dungeon consisted solely of creatures with DR he couldn't get through followed by creatures with a 80% miss chance on any physical attacks?

Look try talking to your players, specifically the whining one. Maybe it's just a mismatch of playing styles. It certainly sounds like the two of you are operating with a different set of assumptions. If you both clarified what you were looking for and what you disliked in an adventure it might go a long way to ease the friction.

Remember just because something is obvious or clear to you, it is not necessarily obvious or clear to the players. You need to be on the same page before you can make those kinds of assumptions.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Feb 1, 2008)

I agree with Rackhir.

I don't know how you DM, but it seems like you don't powergame at all.  What I mean by this is that that fight with the level 19 wizard _should have been_ a TPK.  The only reason for it not being a TPK would be if the wizard were caught naked while sittin' on the john.  Even then, unless he were killed in the surprise round or lost initiative and then died, he should just plain flee and then plan some revenge, guaranteeing a TPK.

The player obviously should react with a lot of whining, but you also could try to look past that miserable whining at his valid points.  I highly recommend that you point this thread to the player as well and you both take this opportunity as a learning experience.  Yeah, if the other guy is completely immature, it may cost you a gaming buddy, but if it doesn't it will be *very much* worth it in the long run.


----------



## evilbob (Feb 1, 2008)

*yeah, probably should be moved to general*



			
				Rackhir said:
			
		

> Actually the guy does have a point...



*No.*  He doesn't.

I guess I'm a bit surprised by posts like, "I agree with the whiner," but I am sorry:  that is _wrong_.  I know because I have had to deal with _THIS EXACT SAME SITUATION_.  It is downright eerie how close the OP's rant is to a description of one of my long-time gaming friends.  I COMPLETELY sympathize with the OP.  To anyone who has not experienced this:  I'm sorry, but you cannot justify the whiner's behavior.  He is *wrong*.  What he is doing is _not_ constructive and in fact poisonous to entire gaming experience - and it ruins the fun for _everyone_.


To the OP:  you have gotten one response with some good advice, but honestly, my advice will be different:  _stop gaming with this person_.  Once again, because it bares repeating:  do not game with him any more.  This seems harsh, and you probably don't want to hear it, but trust me:  this is the best way in the end.  You _can_ find other friends; you _can_ find other people.  Life is too short and there are too many people willing to play the game you love to WASTE your time dealing with this guy, because guess what:  _he is not going to change_.  I appreciate the advice given above and I think it is good advice, but unless this guy is generally a very nice person and welcomes constructive criticism, he will not change.  All you will end up doing is getting the occasional apology and maybe some promises, but _he will not change_.  And it is not your place to change this person.  You need to realize that this person is an ass, and it is not worth your time on this earth to get a mountain to move itself.

Find other people to game with.  You will be happier in the end with this solution.  I know I am.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Feb 1, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> You think that's bad?  Heaven forbid the guy gets hit by a Mordenkainens Disjunction and loses magical items.  It's time to turn his character around and head back to town, forsaking his quest because he doesn't have his items.



Well, this point is actually valid. In 3.5E you're vastly underperforming without magic items. Disjunction is one of these spells, that should die ASAP. For the first part, that's different, unless you are doing that immunity-stuff very often.

It seems to stem from two problems: Metagame knowledge - do they actually know the wizards' levels, or how does he judge it as "too powerful" (though it's true - a well-played 19th level wizard is able to mop the floor with almost everything - time stop, death cloud, wall of force/forcecage combo is almost unbeatable).

Furthermore, the player seemingly likes a challenge that he can win (not encounters that are too weak or too strong). Sit down with him, talk to him about it, and tell him to do that after the session.

Then start incorporating some of his wishes - just throw him an occasional bone, as long it's not at the expense of the other players.

If the still whines... well, come again or kick him. But talk first.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Rackhir (Feb 1, 2008)

evilbob said:
			
		

> *No.*  He doesn't.
> 
> I guess I'm a bit surprised by posts like, "I agree with the whiner," but I am sorry:  that is _wrong_.  I know because I have had to deal with _THIS EXACT SAME SITUATION_.  It is downright eerie how close the OP's rant is to a description of one of my long-time gaming friends.  I COMPLETELY sympathize with the OP.  To anyone who has not experienced this:  I'm sorry, but you cannot justify the whiner's behavior.  He is *wrong*.  What he is doing is _not_ constructive and in fact poisonous to entire gaming experience - and it ruins the fun for _everyone_.




Nobody was agreeing with the player being a whiner. What we were agreeing with is that these encounters were poorly designed and far more lethal than a party at that level should be facing. Also that the last dungeon described, certainly seemed designed specifically to gimp the whiner's character.

However annoying the whining might be and you may well be right about how obnoxious the player is. It doesn't change the fact that there are some serious flaws in the way the OP was designing those encounters.

Or do you like campaigns where the NPC get all of the glory and are the protagonists?


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 1, 2008)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> However annoying the whining might be and you may well be right about how obnoxious the player is. It doesn't change the fact that there are some serious flaws in the way the OP was designing those encounters.




I agree. Whining is _not_ the answer. What the whiner _should_ have done was find another game with a DM who is capable of following the RAW with regard to balancing average party level against antagonist CR and who doesn't design adventures to either hinge on the intervention of DMPCs or deliberately make the characters of players near useless in actual play.


----------



## evilbob (Feb 1, 2008)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> What we were agreeing with is that these encounters were poorly designed and far more lethal than a party at that level should be facing...



Wow.

I cannot believe how many attacks have been levied against the OP based on the examples he gave while talking about a honest problem with another player.  Talk about nit-picking the example!  I mean, honestly:  how can anyone judge this guy and his campaign based on one encounter he mentions?  That's absurd.  And besides that:  it's not the point.  The point is the OP's relationship with this other person.  It is not whether or not he's a good GM, and frankly that is immaterial.



			
				Rackhir said:
			
		

> Or do you like campaigns where the NPC get all of the glory and are the protagonists?



I'm sorry but what are you even _talking _about?  Who said (other than people who are not in the campaign and have no idea whatsoever) that his entire campaign is all about NPC glory and the players never get any love?  Talk about unsubstantiated assumptions...


Look, I agree that this thread is in the wrong forum, but there's no reason to jump all over a guy's examples when that's clearly not what he's talking about.  He's dealing with an issue with another player, not looking for advice on whether or not an encounter - which he honestly has not even explained to the point where anyone could give any sort of reasonable opinion about - is a fair one or not.


And to the OP:  I realize that my above post did not emphasize this clearly enough:  I think you should try roguerouge's advice first.  Everyone deserves (multiple) second chances, and who knows?  It may even work out great.  But just don't hold your breath - and if that doesn't work, please try my advice.


----------



## atom crash (Feb 1, 2008)

I can certainly commiserate with your player. In my first 3rd Edition gaming experience, I played a rogue/wizard, and all we ever fought were undead. My character was less than useless, and as a result I didn't have a whole lot of fun when we played. It would have helped if the DM had told me when we started that we'd be facing a lot of undead and I'd probably be dissatisfied with my character choice, but instead I got to sit around watching  the other players do cool stuff, all the while wondering why I even bothered showing up.



> This was mostly just a rant. He's taking over DMing now, so I won't have to put up with it for awhile. I get to play and I am really resisting the urge to give him loads of trouble and a taste of his own medicine.



This is most certainly NEVER the correct response. What you need is better communication with the player. 

I agree with Rackhir that there seems to be a lack of trust between this player and you, the DM. When faced with such an overwhelming opposition, he needed to hear you tell him, "Trust me. I know what I'm doing." Instead, he just sat there staring down the barrel of what to him was obviously a TPK in the making. For most players, that's not a whole lot of fun. Neither is a disjunction (unless the players are used to you handing out a truckload of magic items).


----------



## Rackhir (Feb 1, 2008)

evilbob said:
			
		

> Wow.
> 
> I cannot believe how many attacks have been levied against the OP based on the examples he gave while talking about a honest problem with another player.  Talk about nit-picking the example!  I mean, honestly:  how can anyone judge this guy and his campaign based on one encounter he mentions?  That's absurd.  And besides that:  it's not the point.  The point is the OP's relationship with this other person.  It is not whether or not he's a good GM, and frankly that is immaterial.




So you think a cr 20 encounter is appropriate for a 10th lvl party? He mentions a series of battles any one of which probably should have been a TPK. Then a dungeon that renders the players character almost completely useless. That is not a single encounter.

Is it an attack to say that the DM was creating poorly designed encounters? The OP seemed to think these fights were reasonable. Despite it being a +10 cr encounter, which is into the realm of instant death.

The nature of these encounters is highly relevant to the problems between the Player and the DM. The player is justly complaining that the first set of encounters described is far too lethal. That he might be doing so in an obnoxious and irritating fashion, doesn't make it irrelevant. 

Both the OP and the player have some problems. Though we only have the OP's word for it that the player is even being a whiner. So even if the player is being a complete and total toe rag about things. It doesn't change the fact that there seem to be some serious problems with how the DM creates and designs his encounters. 

It's a D&D game, the quality of the DMing has a great deal to do with how much fun a campaign is. A bad DM can ruin the best module or story and a great one can redeem the worst material.



			
				evilbob said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but what are you even _talking _about?  Who said (other than people who are not in the campaign and have no idea whatsoever) that his entire campaign is all about NPC glory and the players never get any love?  Talk about unsubstantiated assumptions...




The DM created a series of encounters that hinged entirely upon a significantly higher level NPC doing (and yes I am doing some reading in between the lines here) most of the fighting for the PCs. The entire series of encounters would have been pretty much a series of TPKs if it were not for the presence and power of the NPC. That sounds to me like the very definition of a DMPC.



			
				evilbob said:
			
		

> Look, I agree that this thread is in the wrong forum, but there's no reason to jump all over a guy's examples when that's clearly not what he's talking about.  He's dealing with an issue with another player, not looking for advice on whether or not an encounter - which he honestly has not even explained to the point where anyone could give any sort of reasonable opinion about - is a fair one or not.




Everyone who's posted has been doing their best to be fair to the OP. However we can only judge based on what he's posted so far and what he has posted seems to support most of what the player was complaining about.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 1, 2008)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Everyone who's posted has been doing their best to be fair to the OP.




Personally, I have no interest in being fair, only _honest_. I'd be lying if I told the OP that throwing 20th Level enemies at a 10th level party was good DMing. Or if I told him that attempting to balance out said departure from the rules with an NPC that vastly outclasses the PCs was good DMing. Or that designing a dungeon that specifically penalizes certain PCs with regard to taking action was good DMing. None of that is good DMing.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Feb 1, 2008)

I'll bump this over to General RPG Discussion!


----------



## werk (Feb 1, 2008)

The player seems to know the level and CR of opponents, which is really the problem.  Are you telling the players that their enemy is a 19th level necromancer or do you say he is a powerful necromancer?

The fact is that you can dramatically reduce the challenge level of an encounter with other variables, and that is easily within the power of a DM.  A great example of this is low level PCs dropping a stalactite to kill a sleeping dragon (or I2k's example).  It makes for epic play at non epic levels...basically DM supplied luck.

It seems to me the best solution is to keep the player in the dark as much as possible, his meta is getting in the way of his game.


If you are trading off DMing, make sure you have two separate campaigns.


----------



## Felix (Feb 1, 2008)

If I were the whiner's caster and I found myself in the midst of a 19th level wizard, a 15th level wizard, a 16th level sorcerer, a beholder, and a runic guardian, all of whom are apparent enemies, I'd either cast _Teleport_ at first opportunity, taking as many other PCs as I could with me, or I'd kill the other PCs and offer my services to try to save my own bacon.

That encounter is _horrifying_; it's still fantastically scary if you know that the 15th level wizard (the _weakest_ of the 3 casters arrayed against you) is on your side. And he didn't.

So I don't think vocal reluctance is out of order.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 1, 2008)

I had a player a bit like this.  I think his main problem was nerves, he really did feel his PC was doomed every battle, and whenever there was a tough fight he teleported out, usually getting the fighter-type PCs killed.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 1, 2008)

Felix said:
			
		

> That encounter is _horrifying_; it's still fantastically scary if you know that the 15th level wizard (the _weakest_ of the 3 casters arrayed against you) is on your side. And he didn't.




Actually, I think it was mentioned earlier that the 15th level wizard announced his true loyalties during the fight. Still, though, for many players, the requirement that a much higher level NPC step in to save their bacon and hog the spotlight is just as appealing as having to fight an encounter that is unfairly weighted against them in direct contradiction of the RAW (i.e., _not at all appealing_).


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Feb 1, 2008)

I suspect the Whiner has a play style that skews towards the tactical side of things, and that you run a game that skews towards narrative gaming.

He seems to expect that you wont put fights in the game unless the fight its self is a level appropriate challenge, something that is not overwhelmingly difficult, but not a cakewalk either.  Being the DM, he does not have the benefit of knowing what is fully going on, so the low level bandit fight would seem like a waste of time.  Forgetting about the traitor is the sort of thing I tend to deal with by having my players throw semi-trivial Int checks so I can remind them of things their character ought to know.  My players wont remember something that happened 3 games previous and 2 months ago, but I will.

But the dungeon of Golems and High spell resistance monsters?  I would be quite angry as a player if I was in an adventure where nearly every monster I faced was immune to what I could do.  As a DM, I avoid running games where the challenges are tailored to exploit the party's weaknesses or where the game would call for a Rogue if my players are a Fighter, a Ranger, a Sorcerer and a Cleric.  Stocking the dungeon with monsters that do not need food and could be functioning after several thousand years is Ok from a narrative standpoint, but not from a gameplay standpoint.  I think I would have thrown in some other monsters for which time would not be an issue, like Demons, Devils, Elementals, misc Undead (sans high spell resistance), Gargoyles, or creatures subjected to something like a Bind spell that would be in stasis until someone entered.  Not that I would not use the Golems, I just would avoid All Golems All the Time.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 2, 2008)

Heh, I am afraid that my reaction, once I read the situation, was 'the player needs to get a new DM'. That sounded like a game that was no fun at all for the players. My first reaction was to how to handle whiny players, but this time the player was in the right. 

Whining was likely not the best way to handle it, but my reaction would actually have been to leave the game, and let the DM play by himself - not much better, in fact worse. But while it would lead to hard feelings it would also mean that I would not have to go through that again. If I tried running something like that I would be playing in an otherwise empty room.

The players want to be the main characters on stage, at least most of the time. If you look around at the complaints that people have about the Forgotten Realms you will find that the relative unimportance of the PCs is one that recurs frequently, for much the same reason. The players want to have fun.

The Auld Grump


----------



## prosfilaes (Feb 2, 2008)

evilbob said:
			
		

> I mean, honestly:  how can anyone judge this guy and his campaign based on one encounter he mentions?  That's absurd.




Then what's the point of posting here? Why is it more fair to judge the "whiner" by "one encounter" than the OP, especially as the OP is the one who wrote the description?


----------



## Felix (Feb 2, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Actually, I think it was mentioned earlier that the 15th level wizard announced his true loyalties during the fight. Still, though, for many players, the requirement that a much higher level NPC step in to save their bacon and hog the spotlight is just as appealing as having to fight an encounter that is unfairly weighted against them in direct contradiction of the RAW (i.e., _not at all appealing_).



Sure, as soon as the fight starts the wizard announces his loyalties. My post was describing my reaction to the apparent overwhelming opposition and counting the (soon to switch sides) wizard as part of the problem; I doubt I'd have stayed long enough to find out that I had a hidden ally.

But yeah, I agree that having a Dick Marvil save your bacon isn't always a pleasure.


----------



## Mort (Feb 2, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I agree. Whining is _not_ the answer. What the whiner _should_ have done was find another game with a DM who is capable of following the RAW with regard to balancing average party level against antagonist CR and who doesn't design adventures to either hinge on the intervention of DMPCs or deliberately make the characters of players near useless in actual play.




Just correct this extremely common misconception: there is nothing in the RAW about making sure CRs are balanced against party level. CR's are just a way of giving the DM a measure of the difficulty of the encounter. In fact, the DMG actively encourages that around 5% of encounters should be in the "impossible" range (CR +4 or higher over the party level).

An encounter with a high CR relative to the group is perfectly fine as long as: it's clearly winnable, clearly avoidable or has some other resolution clear to the players.

Perhaps I overused the word clear, but I think that's the key to these kinds of encounters.

To address the OP; what the whiny player is demonstrating is a lack of trust in his DM(rightly or not is impossible to determine from a single one sided post) - this is probably what the OP needs to discuss with that player. If the lack of trust can't be overcome, the game will not be fun for either person.


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 2, 2008)

I think Lord Zadoz nailed it- this player is a strong tactical player who metagames out the wazoo, and you're more of a narrativist/storyteller.  Those two playstyles NEVER mesh well.

For what its worth, I agree with you Slaygrim- this player is an immature, whiny jackass who believes his playstyle is the only way, and you should conform to pre-established hard rules so he knows EXACTLY what to expect in game.  Don't get me wrong- the game needs rulese, but knowing that every encouter your face will consume roughly 20-25% of your resources makes for a DULL game.  I also suspect this guy has some serious inferiority issues and frustration with real life, and wants to cut losse and be "DA MAN" in game.  Nothing wrong with using the game for that, but there is if he's being a jerk about it and disrupting the group and gameplay.  In short, talk to this guy, or get rid of him.

Also Slaygrim, how does this player know the levels and power of these encounters?  Are you telling him at the time in game, or after the game?  I'd be REALLY irked if a player stopped a fight complaining that it was too powerful, and how could I give them an encounter so high above their CR.  This is one of the things I REALLY hate about D&D 3.x- the assumption on many player's parts that things have to be exactly RAW, and if they aren't, the DM is somehow a bad DM.  I've dealt with whiny players like this before- and every time it stems from entitlement issues, the player wanting to be the "badass" and ALWAYS look super-cool.  In short, immaturity.

For the other posters- look at what Slaygrim has said.  He said he told the party BEFORE this big fight that there was an ally wizard pretending to work with the BBEG, who would help them- but the party forgot this.  In addition, the 19th level wizard was otherwise occupied with a ritual, and wouldn't be part of the first fight.  This is not a case of a DMPC- this is a case of a DM using an interesting plot twist to keep the narrative and story entertaining.  I mean, God forbid he deviate from the "kick open the door, kill everything, loot it" playstyle.    And his encounter with the bandits who were basically fodder so the assassin could scope out the party's abilities is GOOD DMing- it makes logical sense in the world, for the assassin, and makes the story more interesting.  It also doesn't sound like the other players have any problem with this DM- just the jackass player.

Finally, the iron golems.  He said this tomb has been sealed for thousands of years, and the only logical critters in there would be golems and undead.  I'm guessing this dude is a blaster wizard, with almost no spells that are utility or buffing.  This guy built his wizard to be useless in some situations.  Now, how many times has this guy blasted happily away, killing dozens of enemies to the fighter's handful?  Yes, the spotlight was off him for a while- and thats fine.  In the course of Slaygrim's campaign, it made logical sense to have a tomb with undead and golems- and in that case the wizard assumes a different role- that of support.  Its not like EVERY encounter for the rest of the campaign will be golems and undead.  I'm not argueing that players shouldn't have fun, but this guy needs to seriously grow up and consider other people's feelings and the fun of the group, rather than just himself.  Complaining like this and whining is also highly disrespectful to the DM and other players- he's basically saying "you people don't know what you're doing, and I'm going to make myself the center of attention again by pitching a hissy fit."

I really feel sorry for you having to play while this guy DMs Slaygrim.  I can guarantee he took this personally based on his immaturity, and he will take it out on your character.  Don't retaliate by being an ass- think of the good of your group and be the bigger man.  If he gets nasty or overbearing, just excuse yourself from playing and tell him when he grows up to let you know.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 2, 2008)

Mort said:
			
		

> Just correct this extremely common misconception: there is nothing in the RAW about making sure CRs are balanced against party level.




Strange. My DMG has an entire section dedicated to how one should balance CR and EL against average party level. It's on pages 48 and 49. 



> In fact, the DMG actively encourages that around 5% of encounters should be in the "impossible" range (CR +4 or higher over the party level).



This encouragement appears _nowhere_ in my copy of the DMG. How strange.

I must have a broken DMG.


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 2, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Strange. My DMG has an entire section dedicated to how one should balance CR and EL against average party level. It's on pages 40 and 49.
> 
> 
> This encouragement appears _nowhere_ in my copy of the DMG. How strange.
> ...





Hmm, 3.0 DMG, page 102.  

"5%    Overpowering difficulty    EL 5+ higher than the party"

Or on page 49 in 3.5 DMG, bottom right of the page on the table- same text as above.

I'm not a fan of following RAW for the sake of following it (some games and playstyles use different assumptions), but if you're going to quote RAW, know that overpowering encounters ARE part of the game.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 2, 2008)

I don't really agree, but I digress. 

I know that I always _hated_ playing in games where the PCs didn't have a chance to do anything heroic, either because they were constantly being bailed out of deliberately impossible situations by DMPCs or simply because they were never presented with a fair challenge (i.e., a challenge that they had a possibility of overcoming).

Admittedly, there might be people who really enjoy being treated like this. I don't. The "whiner" apparently doesn't either. I suspect that he's a lot like me in that he seems to want to play a hero in D&D -- and he's currently stuck in a game where the DM appears to think that his job is to foil that ambition in any way possible. 

Like TheAuldGrump, I wouldn't waste my time discussing things (or "whining" even) in this situation. For me, the best solution would be to leave the group and find a DM who was more into helping me realize my aspirations to play a heroic character, rather than taking every possible opportunity to keep that from happening.


----------



## Maldor (Feb 2, 2008)

WOW just wow i pulled a TPK off with a single bard that was 4 levels higher then the party the fact that they survived that is just wow did you like roll all nat 1

as for the problem everyone loves to bitch and do it the most when they are bored and unhappy i would bet money given how diffrent your playstilies and veiw of the game are that you do a fair share of whineing at his DMstile 

P.S. hiting your players with Mord's disjuction at mid or lower levels is a NO NO it is ninth level would you hit them with metor swarm would they live


----------



## DestroyYouAlot (Feb 2, 2008)

To the OP:  Hey, OP.  

Re: Your crappy player

Yecch.  Find a way to not game with this guy.  No gaming is better than bad gaming.  

The "woe is me" refrain whenever he's up against something that (in his infinite wisdom as a player) he believes he can't handle is one thing.  (From your description, the main problem was players not having paid attention - certainly something players can be counted on from time to time, but there it is - and while supporting a powerful NPC is an oft-repeated cliche of "bad gaming," done right, and sparingly, it can be perfectly valid and exciting.)  Then he has the gall to complain when they have an _easy_ encounter?  (WEER POWARFUL, ONLY POWARFUL FOES SHOULD DARE TO TEST OUR MIGHT, ROOOAR)  The moaning and groaning when his superstar wizard was forced into a support role for a few minutes is another.  (Guess what?  Sometimes you don't get to be the star of the show, Mango.)  But stamping his little feet and going off to stand in the corner and sulk when he can't sling fireballs for five minutes?  Completely inexcusable.  Did the other players seriously stand for this?  His reaction to losing a few items here and there, after all that, is somewhat unsurprising; however it's a fate that - from the sound of it - he sorely deserves.  (Wonder how his PC'd fare against a well-planned ambush from those 3rd level rogues without all his shiny toys?  Ahhh, but it's never good to GM angry.  Must be tempting, though.)

You can find good gamers.  You can find good GMs.  If he acts like this on the regular, show him the door.  You're worth it; there's too little time for GOOD gaming to have to waste it dealing with chumps like this.


As for the less-than-helpful responses above:  You got a lot of flack for no reason, from folks who sound like they'd probably be no fun to game with too.  You got a lot of assumptions of bad faith on your part.  (You used a powerful ally for the party?  OMG YOU GMPC-LOVING MARY SUE LOSER.  You pit your PCs against some long odds, even though they had an ace up their sleeves?  READ THE DMG, N00B.)  (For the record, I'm conversant with the d20 take on D&D, ran it for a while, and the numbers and terms you folks are using are familiar to me - they just make you sound like very boring, whiny players.  The invoking of the RAW as somehow denying a GM the freedom to plan his encounters the way he likes is particularly galling, and quite wrong.)  Rest assured that - assuming your representation of the situation is relatively accurate - you have plenty of reason to complain, and my sympathies.

Just out of curiosity, how is this guy as a GM?




			
				Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Well, this point is actually valid. In 3.5E you're vastly underperforming without magic items. Disjunction is one of these spells, that should die ASAP. For the first part, that's different, unless you are doing that immunity-stuff very often.




Terms like "underperforming" are nearly everything that's wrong with D&D nowadays.


----------



## wolfen (Feb 2, 2008)

This thread reminds me of gaming when I was 12. 

I hope everyone involved in the OP's game is 12. It's the only way I can reconcile the entire situation. From the mindgame-playing DM to the whiny player to the desire for revenge, the whole thing stinks.

Go outside and play some frisbee.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Feb 2, 2008)

DestroyYouAlot said:
			
		

> From your description, the main problem was players not having paid attention ...



 No, the main problem was that the PCs were in a fight WAY over their heads.  So way over, in fact, that they could not legitimately win, period.  Whatever happened, the DM had to have handed them the fight on a silver platter.  Even considering the Wiz15 on their side, they _could_ not, should not have won.

While whining is never a good attitude, so we don't condone that, sometimes you gotta own up to your own mistakes as a DM.  Those encounters sucked, plain and simple, and just should not have been there at all.  The whiny player should be smacked silly and the remaining three players should have taken the DM to task for the planned encounter.

Anyone want to try and take a stab at how much the PCs got for this encounter?


----------



## Slife (Feb 2, 2008)

DestroyYouAlot said:
			
		

> Terms like "underperforming" are nearly everything that's wrong with D&D nowadays.



Fine.  Replace "vastly underperforming" with "pathetically weak".  The point is still valid.

A fighter pilot without any ammo, virtually no fuel, and a loss of radar and most flight control is going to return to base, regardless of how much of his mission has been accomplished.


----------



## prosfilaes (Feb 2, 2008)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> This is not a case of a DMPC- this is a case of a DM using an interesting plot twist to keep the narrative and story entertaining.




I don't buy it. We're talking an ally 5 levels above the party fighting for us, and the opponents are ten levels above us but somehow nerfed so they don't squash us. That's not challenging or interesting; that's sit back and watch the battle come out the way the DM planned. 



> I'm guessing this dude is a blaster wizard, with almost no spells that are utility or buffing. This guy built his wizard to be useless in some situations.




Why guess? What configuration would make this adventure fun to play for a wizard? In my experience, we can be talking at least a month gaming once a week to get through something like this; how is being useless that month fun?

And how hard would it have been to add a little variety? It's not like the tomb would have kept out xorn or giant rats or any number of other types of vermin. To make the undead at the end resistant to magic just adds insult to injury. There's more productive ways to handle it than whining about it, but I've tried the "sit there and take it" style, and it's not very much fun either.


----------



## Testament (Feb 2, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> I've got a player in my group who is the BIGGEST whiner, and I can't stand it.  The biggest problem is that he is the only other person who will DM with me, so having him around is the only way I actually get to play a character.
> 
> This guy whines CONSTANTLY.
> 
> ...




To repeat what others have said, while he needs to learn to listen, this is the sort of thing that needs to be done sparingly, because this really does tread the line between DMPC and outright _Deus Ex Machina_, and both of those are Bad Things.  Realistically, the PCs should be dead before the first round is up here, the Beholder is 3 SoDs on a stick, and the 16th Level sorc should be nuking them into next week.



> And it's not just this.  It gets worse.  If a battle happens, such as when the characters were 9th level, they were ambushed by a gang of bandit rogues, about 20 of them.  These rogues were all 3rd level.  The real plot behind this battle was that it was arranged by a powerful assassin to study how the PC's respond to stealthy assailants.  Well this problem player walked through the battle with ease, and then was complaining that it was too easy and that I shouldn't have thrown this battle into the game.  *grrrrr*




OK, that's a prize STFU moment.  "Revel in your awesomeness and stop whining" is my take there.



> It get's worse.  While exploring an ancient Netherese Ruins the place was guarded by multiple Iron Golems.  His character, a spellcaster, clearly was useless offensively as the Iron Golems are immune to most forms of magic.  Thus, he was delegated to the role of the "buffer", having to cast spells that suped up the fighters.  Throughout the entire dungeon there were spots still guarded by Iron Golems.  This player once again began complaining about how he can't "ever" do anything in battle, that I keep arranging battles where he is useless and how it's not fun for him.  Forget that this was a sealed dungeon that no one had entered in over 2000 years and that nothing outside of undead or constructs would exist in there, it doesn't matter.  What matters is that I didn't arrange for the place to be filled with more than constructs... at least until the end of the dungeon where they did end up fighting undead... only then the undead had spell resistance that was hard to overcome, so he complained about that too.  _"There's NOTHING I can do.  I need to roll of 16+ to beat his spell resistance.  That's stupid.  I guess I'll just back up and stand there."_




Yes, it sucks.  Now cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it.  Sling some Conjurations, summon some stuff, ramp the fighters up into the stratosphere.  This is what happens when you're a wizard who only nukes.



> You think that's bad?  Heaven forbid the guy gets hit by a Mordenkainens Disjunction and loses magical items.  It's time to turn his character around and head back to town, forsaking his quest because he doesn't have his items.




This isn't whining, this is just smart play.  MDJ is one of those spells that needs to be kicked to the curb, since magic items aren't just gravy, they're absolutely vital in 3.X.


----------



## pogre (Feb 2, 2008)

> Mordenkainens Disjunction



We have a gentlemens' agreement (and one lady) that neither I nor my players will use this particular spell. You are much better off getting killed than losing all your stuff.

Someone said this situation boils down to a complete lack of trust in the game. It really seems like your player does not trust you to bring exciting, but not overwhelming fights to the table. You have to admit, on paper the fight does look lopsided - perhaps more clues would help put your players at ease. I could see players getting a bit anxious about that fight.

The complaining about too easy of an encounter is more of a concern. If the encounter furthered the story - I don't see this as a valid complaint. Heck, I purposely include easy encounters that I know the party will walk through - I have some buttkickers in my group who LOVE these kind of encounters.

Others have suggested there is a mismatch of styles and expectations - that too I agree with. You may never be able to satsfy the player even after an open conversation about the game and gaming styles. It's still worth trying.

Good luck.


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 2, 2008)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> I don't buy it. We're talking an ally 5 levels above the party fighting for us, and the opponents are ten levels above us but somehow nerfed so they don't squash us. That's not challenging or interesting; that's sit back and watch the battle come out the way the DM planned.




Maybe I've misunderstood the meaning for DMPC, but I got the impression a DMPC is an NPC the DM has accompany the group for a long period of time, and who he has a personal vested interest in.  An ally for one fight (as this seems to be from what the OP said) is harly a DMPC.  Are you telling me that in all your years of gaming, you've NEVER had NPCs aid the party in a fight?  Heck, I can remember the 3rd adventure I ever played in 1e AD&D, we got in a pretty massive brawl in a tavern with some theives guild toughs we were trying to be sneaky and get info from, and they started mopping the ground with us.  Due to the disturbance, the city guard showed up, and helped break up the fight and take prisoners.  Afterwards, we talked to the guard captain, and realized he was about 5th level.  We worked with the guards a few times in later adventures, but that particular guard captain was never in a fight with us again.  Is that a DMPC, or a character that made sense to be there in the situation given the circumstances?  Besides, there are certain situations where DMPCs can be a viable option, especially if the group is shorthanded and the players trust the DM not to abuse it.  Saying a DMPC is ALWAYS badwrongfun is patently ridiculous and closeminded.

However, I do agree that a DMPC who is substantially more powerful than the group coming in repeatedly to bail them out or show off his power is obnoxious.  I've been in that situation before, and its no fun.  This doesn't seem to be the case here though.



			
				prosfilaes said:
			
		

> Why guess? What configuration would make this adventure fun to play for a wizard? In my experience, we can be talking at least a month gaming once a week to get through something like this; how is being useless that month fun?
> 
> And how hard would it have been to add a little variety? It's not like the tomb would have kept out xorn or giant rats or any number of other types of vermin. To make the undead at the end resistant to magic just adds insult to injury. There's more productive ways to handle it than whining about it, but I've tried the "sit there and take it" style, and it's not very much fun either.




How about using some conjurations that don't rely on SR against the undead?  Or invisibility, flight, or other defensive measures to imporve the wizard's survivability while casting beneficial spells on the other party members who could directly fight the golems (haste, bull's strength, etc).  Summonings could work great too to increase the number of combatants and take some heat off the party fighters.  Even using terrain modifying spells against the golems might work- like grease, web, etc.  From the way the OP described things, this was the first time or locale this had happened.  His wizard had a cakewalk through the bandit encounter- and I'm guessing there have been lots of other encounters in the campaign where his blasting worked just fine.  The point is the guy built a blaster wizard- a complete one-trick pony.  In this situation, those tactics didn't work, and a good player tries to adapt and think of inventive ways to use his abilities.  When this whiny player hit a situation where he wasn't able to directly deal tons of damage, he threw a temper tantrum and ran off to the corner to sulk.  Real mature.


----------



## Sol.Dragonheart (Feb 2, 2008)

Terrible.  If I were in the players situation, I would be criticizing the DMs choices as well.  Any *one* of those characters described in the initial situation has the capability, and likelihood, of wiping out the party by themselves.  As a team, there is literally no way for them not to destroy the PCs within one round.  

I would like the DM who posted this to explain precisely how the party survived this encounter, and why the party should have been ready and willing to charge into what should be utter defeat and destruction.  

As for the rest, creating a dungeon where specific PCs have their primary abilities weakened or completely eliminated, is flawed design.  Nightfang Spire, a WoTC module from back in the day, was criticized for just this problem, as Rogues had a particularly difficult time in a dungeon filled with creatures that were either immune to their primary damage dealing abilities, or melee beasts able to rip them apart in 1-2 rounds.  

Now, it's *possible* for the Wizard to take a different tact in the dungeon, but that's a possibility that exists in a vacuum until more specifics are given about the situation the PCs found themselves in.  Was there reason, before entering the dungeon, to expect it to be populated with such creatures, thus giving the Wizard time to prepare and alter his general tactics?  

Was it an option to retreat from the dungeon, return to the city, and scribe the spells necessary to become effective in such a scenario?  Because if those criteria are not met, it's a perfectly valid complaint to have.  In both the examples you've given, you've committed the worst DM error possible, which is making the PC(s) a bystander, an observer.  

PCs have so little control and influence over the world as it is, and when you then remove what little effect they can have, which is through the power and abilities of their character, you are basically playing by yourself.  As others have said, I would demand an explanation as to why you are DMing in this fashion, and if you could not provide a suitable reason, I would simply leave the game.  It's not fun to watch the DM play D&D by himself.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 2, 2008)

Although the DMG does recommend that 5% of encounters be EL 5+ the party's level it describes such encounters thusly:

"Overpowering: The PCs should run. If they don't they will almost certainly lose."

In other words, the DMG agrees with the whiner.


----------



## DestroyYouAlot (Feb 2, 2008)

Sol.Dragonheart said:
			
		

> Nightfang Spire, a WoTC module from *back in the day*[SNIP]




LOL


----------



## DestroyYouAlot (Feb 2, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Although the DMG does recommend that 5% of encounters be EL 5+ the party's level it describes such encounters thusly:
> 
> "Overpowering: The PCs should run. If they don't they will almost certainly lose."
> 
> In other words, the DMG agrees with the whiner.




Calculated the total party level - with the traitor included - against the enemies - minus the traitor - and with an ECL or two knocked off for the disadvantage the enemies had (not knowing there's a traitor in their midst), have you?  If not, than you're just blowing steam.


----------



## DestroyYouAlot (Feb 2, 2008)

DestroyYouAlot said:
			
		

> Calculated the total party level - with the traitor included - against the enemies - minus the traitor - and with an ECL or two knocked off for the disadvantage the enemies had (not knowing there's a traitor in their midst), have you?  If not, than you're just blowing steam.




Edit: Heh - NEVAR MIND


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 2, 2008)

DestroyYouAlot said:
			
		

> Calculated the total party level - with the traitor included - against the enemies - minus the traitor - and with an ECL or two knocked off for the disadvantage the enemies had (not knowing there's a traitor in their midst), have you?  If not, than you're just blowing steam.



Seeing as you asked so nicely, using the Excel spreadsheet from Andargor's Home the effective party level, including the 15th level wizard, is 12.54 and the opposition is ECL 20.21, a difference of +7.67. This gives a success/survival rate of 18%.

Andargor's spreadsheet agrees with the whiner.

It should also be noted that the PCs didn't know for sure that the spy would side with them in the battle. He could've decided it was better to remain undercover.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 2, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Although the DMG does recommend that 5% of encounters be EL 5+ the party's level it describes such encounters thusly:
> 
> "Overpowering: The PCs should run. If they don't they will almost certainly lose."
> 
> In other words, the DMG agrees with the whiner.





Incidentally, Doug, what page is this on. I've never seenn it and couldn't find when the other poster alluded to it -- and if he posted a page reference, I'll never know because his posts seem to have mysteriously disappeared from my screen


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 2, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Incidentally, Doug, what page is this on.



49-50 in the 3.5 DMG.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 2, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> 49-50 in the 3.5 DMG.




Oh, the difficulty levels. . . but weird. There _is_ a description of all of the difficulty levels in my DMG. Nowhere on those pages in my DMG is there a suggestion that 5% of total encounters should be Overpowering. It appears that I _really_ do have a broken DMG. But that's okay. It seems to broken in a very sensible manner 

[Edit: It looks like a portion of the chart in my DMG may be missing, as I see a reference to percentages in the preceding text but none are visible. I guess it was one of those situations where I didn't know what I'd been missing. That said, now that I _do_ know, I don't really care.]


----------



## Lord Zardoz (Feb 2, 2008)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> Finally, the iron golems.  He said this tomb has been sealed for thousands of years, and the only logical critters in there would be golems and undead.  I'm guessing this dude is a blaster wizard, with almost no spells that are utility or buffing.  This guy built his wizard to be useless in some situations.  Now, how many times has this guy blasted happily away, killing dozens of enemies to the fighter's handful?  Yes, the spotlight was off him for a while- and thats fine.  In the course of Slaygrim's campaign, it made logical sense to have a tomb with undead and golems- and in that case the wizard assumes a different role- that of support.  Its not like EVERY encounter for the rest of the campaign will be golems and undead.  I'm not argueing that players shouldn't have fun, but this guy needs to seriously grow up and consider other people's feelings and the fun of the group, rather than just himself.  Complaining like this and whining is also highly disrespectful to the DM and other players- he's basically saying "you people don't know what you're doing, and I'm going to make myself the center of attention again by pitching a hissy fit."




I think you might be onto something here, but we would really need to know what sort of spell selection this caster was using.  If it was all Magic Missile, Scorching Ray, Fireball and the like, he would absolutely have some problems.  Is the character a Wizard or a Sorcerer?  For a wizard, Slaygrim may want to throw a spell book his way from an opponent that had a bunch of Battlefield control and summon spells.  If it is a Sorcerer, Slaygrim may want to toss him some wands to round out his options.

Still, that is quite a bit of venom towards Tactical gamers.  There is a difference between a tactical oriented gamer and a power gamer.  I know that if I were in Slaygrim's game, and was faced with some of those encounter situations, I would have a word with him about it.  Right now, about the only real fault I have with the gamer in question is that he is a Whiner.

END COMMUNICATION


----------



## prosfilaes (Feb 2, 2008)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> However, I do agree that a DMPC who is substantially more powerful than the group coming in repeatedly to bail them out or show off his power is obnoxious.  I've been in that situation before, and its no fun.  This doesn't seem to be the case here though.




I don't see the fun in having a NPC, DMPC or not, whose five levels higher than them, taking an active role in a fight. If the PCs do something stupid, it can be justifiable, especially in a town where the town guard is likely to show up. But planning it that way?

Even with the NPC, it looks like a difficult battle; the odds that the PCs could make a difference if the situation isn't completely nerfed towards them is pretty darn low. 



> How about using some conjurations that don't rely on SR against the undead?




Okay, it's obvious that the player could have handled things better. There are, however, questions on the table about whether the player had the warning that he needed to get conjurations or other spells for this adventure, or if he was thrown into this without warning.

And how much an adventure should change to match the characters is an open question. To some extent, the argument for this dungeon is an argument for realism over player fun. Most players want to play the character they created, and very few are happy if they're forced into situations where they can't. How flexible the players and characters are, and how much they enjoy adapting to situations that get in the way of playing the character as envisioned, is a player and game style issue that doesn't have one great answer.



> From the way the OP described things, this was the first time or locale this had happened.




If the way you give a hint to a player that his character needs diversifying is by forcing him to set through an entire adventure with nothing to do, then no wonder he's upset. 



> The point is the guy built a blaster wizard- a complete one-trick pony.




I don't see it as more of a one-trick pony than most fighters are. I've always found myself moving towards blaster spells when playing a wizard, if just because that seems to be the easiest way to make a difference in battle and have more fun. In any case, we don't know that he built a blaster wizard; we know nothing about his spell selection.

I've got to wonder about this dungeon; was it fun for anyone but the DM? I mean, hey, look, it's a iron golem, AGAIN, doesn't strike me as very fun for anyone. I assume there were traps in there for the rogue, who can't backstab anything in the dungeon, but it sounds like a big round of buff the fighter, watch the fighter destroy the golem, sleep to recover spells, repeat.


----------



## evilbob (Feb 2, 2008)

DestroyYouAlot said:
			
		

> Re: Your crappy player...



I'm trying hard not to comment any more in this thread, but I just wanted to say that I completely agree with this post.

OP:  Also, from your description, it sounds like it's not necessarily the "playing style" that's a conflict here (although that may also be the case):  it's that your player should have rolled a barbarian.  I.e. you have a guy who's madly in love with DPS and considers anything else to be crap.  Personally, I really dislike players who spend tons of time helping and buffing and playing an amazing support role who then turn around and complain that they didn't "do" anything in the battle.  Some people equate "doing anything" with "doing damage" - _and nothing else_.  That can really get frustrating for both the player and the GM.


----------



## darthkilmor (Feb 2, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> If faced with an opponant or battle that appears too tough for him, he will whine saying it's too strong of a battle and that there is no way his character would fight this battle.  Such as recently, the party is 4 10th level characters and they had to battle a 19th level wizard, a 16th level sorcerer, a 15th level wizard, a beholder, and a runic guardian.




How do the players know its a 15th level wizard and a 19th level sorcerer ? Unless they've actually seen him cast some 9th level spell and it wasn't obviously from a magic item, they shouldn't know more than "two powerful spellcasters".

But yeah, that sounds fairly whiny.  I'd love to hear what would happen if the character actually died.


----------



## sukael (Feb 3, 2008)

I'd agree with the "whiny" player here, at the very least on the first battle mentioned. Quite simply, the 19th-level wizard and 16th-level sorcerer should have been able to decimate the party all at once - even if just because of the wizard having 9th-level spells - and that's not even _counting_ the beholder, a monster chock-full of abilities that are basically save-or-die (or get coup de graced, or so on). If played realistically, for a 10th-level party (even with the 15th-level wizard helping), that's a slaughter, not a battle.

My character wouldn't fight in a combat like that, either, unless (a) too stupid to realize the odds, or (b) extraordinarily dedicated to his party members, enough to follow them into almost certain death. Most of my PCs haven't qualified for A or B.


----------



## Rackhir (Feb 3, 2008)

darthkilmor said:
			
		

> How do the players know its a 15th level wizard and a 19th level sorcerer ? Unless they've actually seen him cast some 9th level spell and it wasn't obviously from a magic item, they shouldn't know more than "two powerful spellcasters".




Wouldn't they not knowing be worse actually? Since the first warning they'd have is when the 19th lv wizard hit them with "Wail of the Banshee" with a dc none of them were able to make?


----------



## Wik (Feb 3, 2008)

Oh, wow, we're really picking on the poor OP, aren't we?

To the OP:  Yeah, a whiny player can be a pain in the butt.  I've had players that have thrown tantrums, left the room crying (yeah, CRYING - back when we were fifteen, believe it or not!), and get sulky when their characters died (or even when their characters didn't get to be the one to do the really cool maneuver).  But whiny players are a whole different problem.

However, in most cases, this behaviour just doesn't instantly appear.  Quite often, it appears because it's a way for the player to passive-aggressively bring up a problem they have with your game, without actually having to speak to you about it.

When I play, if I get to an encounter I really don't like (ie, if my rogue encounters his seventh construct in a row, or if a GM describes a vivid rape scene - I'm against that sort of stuff in play, btw-, or if the GM lets the fighter disarm the trap because he happens to like the player of hte fighter more), I tend to adopt certain poses.  I might become overly quiet, offering minimal responses to questions.  If there is a really graphic torture/rape/naziesque scene playing out, and the GM asks for my action, I'll try to do something that will take my character (and thus, me) out of the encounter while still trying to help out my companions - I might buff allies, for example.

The point of this is, if I don't like where the GM is going, I try to point it out through my behaviour.  And if the GM doesn't get the hint, I bring it up in a face to face only as a last resort.  A lot of people don't like having to talk to their GM - often someone who has spent HOURS prepping material - and telling them that they're not enjoying part of their GM's game.  In fact, no player has ever done this with me, even though I'm sure I've had bored players at my table in the past.  

On the plus side for you, the players are coming back.  That means that they like your game at least enough to put some effort into playing it.  The way I read it, it seems as if your whiny player is adopting this tactic as a way to suggest to you what he finds wrong with your game.  Personally, just take him aside and ask him what you could do to make the game more enjoyable for him.  

As it stands, it almost seems like you're saying "he should just enjoy my game the way it is!".  You're not doing everything right (as some other posters seem to enjoy pointing out), just like your player.

By the way, I actually had a very similar encounter to yours about two years back, only I was on the whiny players' side.

We had a group of three players (one of whom played two characters).  Our group consisted of a 4th level Cleric, a 3rd level Scout, a 4th level Spellthief, and a 4th level Monk.  We were not the best group out there, but we had fun.

The first parts of the campaign went great - while the fairly new GM made a few mistakes, they weren't so big as to make the game annoying to us.  But, around the time we hit 4th level, things started getting bad.

First, he described a rape scene in disturbingly vivid detail, and seemed to be chuckling while he did it.  Now, I really don't like that sort of stuff in my games (As I said above), but the other two players liked the idea of being heroes and saving the day.  And, since the rape was taking place in a burning village, I occupied myself by rescuing villagers while my companions were suitably heroic.  But, I was pretty quiet through the whole encounter, hoping the GM would pick up my cues that I didn't enjoy this encounter.

He didn't.  The other two players did, though.

Then, we get shoehorned into an adventure we don't want to take, because it goes against our goals, and because it was a fight against ogres, and we knew very well our group couldn't handle it.  But, trust the GM, and all that jazz.

Along the way, we pick up a group of 4 6th level characters, all fairly well-made NPCs (I think they were a perfectly balanced adventuring party).  These allies of ours start taking the lead, so that we were basically following them on our mission.  

IN fact, the first fight, the players sat back for most of it and watched the GM roll actions for the ten tough bugbears we were fighting, as well as the four adventurers, while our group took on a few hobgoblins.

It wasn't until I humbly suggested that the players could probably run the NPC allies that the game sped up a bit, and we had a bit of a say in the game.  But it still kind of sucked to watch our 4th level PCs doing little.  

All of us were looking bored at this point.  Our shoulders were slumped.  My friend kept staring into space.  My brother was reading through rulebooks, and putting together a new PC.  I did that thing where you roll dice, and doodle on your character sheet.  But the GM, rather than noticing our cues, plowed on with his adventure as planned.

Long story short, we came across a fight against three ogres.  With class levels.  We ran the fight, and at least at first, we were excited about it.  After all, this would be a chance to actually DO something.

Until the ogre, with one swing of his club, killed one of the 6th level characters in one hit.  And another 6th level character was gone the next round.  Our 4th level Cleric was killed in one hit when he got close to an ogre;  that same ogre knocked the monk into negatives immediately after, thanks to his cleave feat.  

My spellthief and the scout tried to flank the ogres using a network of caves nearby, while the ogres chewed through those 6th level NPCs.  And then we just sort of... gave up.

We never played with that guy as GM again.  He's welcome at my table, but if he ever offers to run a game, I'll say "sure, maybe next month or something" and then pretend I forgot.  

The moral of this is simple:  he's probably "Whining" because he DOESN'T like your game right now, but likes it enough that he doesn't want to quit.  And something tells me you missed earlier, subtler signs that he isn't having fun.

In the end, think of this:  why are you running a game?  Ideally, you should be running a game so that you and your players have fun, together.  Now, take a look at your story:

*  Are you having fun?  Probably not.  You have to deal with a whining player, and your actions (putting the player in situations where his character is completely useless, all to kowtow to what is "realistic" in your preconceived plot) are directly causing this player to complain.
*   Are your players having fun?  Doesn't sound like it, for the most part.

I guess I'm just saying, in a very roundabout way (gimme a break, it's 3:30 am right now, and I'm sick!) that maybe you should listen to what the player is saying, instead of just complaining about him online.


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 3, 2008)

My real problem with this player isn't that he doesn't have some valid points- he does.  Its the method in which he's chosen to express himself- namely being a whiny, passive-aggressive jackass.

Yes, the encounter with the 19th level wizard and his bunch was a little over the top, and I can see how it would be frustrating to wonder "how the hell are we going to get out of this?!?!?!"  But the best way to handle it would be to talk to the DM outside the game, and address it something like this:

"Hey, I had a concern that the fight with the really powerful wizard was way beyond our abilities, and it made me feel hopeless and really inconsequential that we got put up against something so far beyond our abilities.  I know it might have been part of the plot for the adventure to include this guy, but for our group combat probably wasn't the best option, and using a higher-level PC to even the odds kinda minimalized our choices and importance.  Maybe in the future, give us a little more more options in the way we handle this kind of thing."

Thats a perfectly reasonable response that addresses the player's concerns, and a MUCH more mature way to handle it.  Most DMs I've played with wouldn't be offended by someone making a rational case like this, and would listen to the player.  But when he started whining something like:

"OMG!  Don't you know the DMG sayz you are not supposed to have such tough opponents for us?  I am suppozed to Roxxorz!  ROAR!  This isn't FAIR!  You suxxor as a DM because you don't follow RAW!"

Any DM that heard that would shut down the logical part of his brain and would be justified in asking the player if he soiled his diaper.  I hope everyone here can see the differnce in how this was handled.  Whining is horribly immature, and only serves to set everyone against you.  Playing passive-aggressive head games instead of calmly and logically explaining your position also compromises any integrity you have to your arguement.

I've dealt with players like this on four separate occasions before- three times as a fellow player, once as a DM.  EVERY single time they are annoying and being selfish, extremely immature jerks.  The three separate times I was a player and another player did this, that player in question was a glory hog, HAD to be the center of attetion, HAD to be the much-loved and admired hero, and would throw temper tantrums if anything didn't go their way, often citing rules or "fairness" as their objection, when it was in fact due to their own egotistical personality traits.  We put up with the players for 5 or 6 sessions each time, trying to calm them down and hoping they would work with the rest of the group and try to have fun, but none of the three people did.  We ended up kicking them out of the group each time (usually amidst much drama, temper tantrums, and in one case CRYING).

The time I was DM and someone tried this, I pulled him aside immediately after a temper tantrum (involving not being able to do full damage with his spells to a creature that had immunity to certain types of attacks, and I was nerfing his character), and explained if he has a problem to take it up with me outside the game.  He grumbled, but agreed.  Two hours later, he threw a hissy fit again about failing a save where he missed it by 1, and screamed it wasn't fair, I was a "s***ty" DM for making the encouter too hard, threw some dice, blah blah blah.  The other players got visibly uncomfortable, and one of them them gave me the finger across the throat sign.  I stopped the game, got up, went over to him and told him to leave and never come back.  He proceeded to throw another tempter tantrum, kicked doors, etc on his way out- good riddance.  My gaming time is too precious to spend it coddling immature jerks like that.  And remember, no gaming is better than horrendously bad gaming like that.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 3, 2008)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> Yes, the encounter with the 19th level wizard and his bunch was a little over the top, and I can see how it would be frustrating to wonder "how the hell are we going to get out of this?!?!?!"  But the best way to handle it would be to talk to the DM outside the game, and address it something like this:
> 
> "Hey, I had a concern that the fight with the really powerful wizard was way beyond our abilities, and it made me feel hopeless and really inconsequential that we got put up against something so far beyond our abilities.  I know it might have been part of the plot for the adventure to include this guy, but for our group combat probably wasn't the best option, and using a higher-level PC to even the odds kinda minimalized our choices and importance.  Maybe in the future, give us a little more more options in the way we handle this kind of thing."



What if he had reacted in-character?
"We've heard about this guy, right?  We know he's the most powerful archmage alive, AND he has a beholder, a guardian construct, and two more allies?  I conclude that we have no reasonable chance of survival.  I grab the two nearest PCs and Teleport out of here."  

No whining, no arguing, just acting in character and derailing the DM's plans.  Is that better?  Many DMs WISH their players would know enough to retreat from overwhelming odds instead of assuming "We're the PCs, we'll always win."


----------



## cougent (Feb 3, 2008)

I once had a very whiney player also, and yes it is a major pain.  Putting aside the OP example (which was probably not the best example to use, as witnessed by all the responses lambasting the OP instead of addressing his issue); how does the whiney player affect the rest of the group?

I thought my whiney player was only POing me, until I had 3 of my 8 person group tell me they were going to quit because of him as well.  At that point I faced loosing 3 or booting 1, the choice was easy.  I talked the 3 into staying for 2 more sessions and gave him that time on probation to either stop whining or leave.  He apparently just could not stop (he was a whiner about many other things in RL as well) so he was "invited to leave".  The remaining 7 players and the lowly DM all then had much more fun.  We ran for another 3 years before we disbanded.

If the whiney player is just the vocal representative of the entire / majority of the party; then he may have legitimate concerns.  Still he should find a better way to express that legitimacy.  I don't know any players who would tolerate a whiney DM, yet they seem very willing to reverse the situation.

Whiney just is not an option for anyone.


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 3, 2008)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> What if he had reacted in-character?
> "We've heard about this guy, right?  We know he's the most powerful archmage alive, AND he has a beholder, a guardian construct, and two more allies?  I conclude that we have no reasonable chance of survival.  I grab the two nearest PCs and Teleport out of here."
> 
> No whining, no arguing, just acting in character and derailing the DM's plans.  Is that better?  Many DMs WISH their players would know enough to retreat from overwhelming odds instead of assuming "We're the PCs, we'll always win."




Thats a much better way of handling it, but it still doesn't really address the core problem with this player being unhappy, but it could bridge into a useful discussion.  However, grabbing party members and leaving via teleport without even discussing it with the rest of the party could also be a problem- namely that the player made a decision and enforced it on everybody else.


----------



## Tewligan (Feb 3, 2008)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> The time I was DM and someone tried this, I pulled him aside immediately after a temper tantrum (involving not being able to do full damage with his spells to a creature that had immunity to certain types of attacks, and I was nerfing his character), and explained if he has a problem to take it up with me outside the game.  He grumbled, but agreed.  Two hours later, he threw a hissy fit again about failing a save where he missed it by 1, and screamed it wasn't fair, I was a "s***ty" DM for making the encouter too hard, threw some dice, blah blah blah.  The other players got visibly uncomfortable, and one of them them gave me the finger across the throat sign.  I stopped the game, got up, went over to him and told him to leave and never come back.  He proceeded to throw another tempter tantrum, kicked doors, etc on his way out- good riddance.  My gaming time is too precious to spend it coddling immature jerks like that.  And remember, no gaming is better than horrendously bad gaming like that.



Dear God, how old was that guy? I cannot STAND adults who throw tantrums - it's actually embarrassing even to be around people like that. They promptly get made fun of to their face.


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 4, 2008)

Tewligan said:
			
		

> Dear God, how old was that guy? I cannot STAND adults who throw tantrums - it's actually embarrassing even to be around people like that. They promptly get made fun of to their face.




I think this guy was 24.  It happened while I was in grad school about a year after I moved to Columbia, MO.  This guy tried to affect this Dennis Leary "too cool for words" thing (which is supremely annoying in and of itself), but if something didn't go his way, he also liked making himself out to be the victim- and before this incident he regaled us with several stories of how crappy the world was and how poorly things went for him.  The group was playing 2e AD&D, and the other guys in the group were friends I'd made when I moved up there.  One of the guys asked if this guy could play "since he hasn't gotten to play in a long time."  Gee, I wonder why?  That was his first and only time to play with the group- and the other players all agreed he'd never be allowed back.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 4, 2008)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> Thats a much better way of handling it, but it still doesn't really address the core problem with this player being unhappy, but it could bridge into a useful discussion.  However, grabbing party members and leaving via teleport without even discussing it with the rest of the party could also be a problem- namely that the player made a decision and enforced it on everybody else.



Well, if the situation doesn't allow for an in-character discussion of the proper tactics, you certainly can't have an OOC discussion at that time.  As to "enforcing" a decision on anybody else, Teleport is willing subjects only.  Say "I'm leaving!" and cast Teleport, DM asks other players "Are you willing subjects, yes or no, right now" and then have the in-character discussion afterwards.


----------



## JDJblatherings (Feb 4, 2008)

So why doesn't the whiner simply have his PC flee?  Don't want to fight the battle... well don't fight the battle.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 4, 2008)

JDJblatherings said:
			
		

> So why doesn't the whiner simply have his PC flee?  Don't want to fight the battle... well don't fight the battle.



From the OP: "But of course the other PC's are going forward and fighting the battle so he reluctantly goes along"

What would have happened if the PC had just fled?  Would the rest of the party have died?  In which case the other players would chew him out for getting them killed, and he could argue that he was right to flee.  Would the party have won?  In which case the player sees that his PC's involvement was irrelevant and unnecessary, and likely suspects the DM of fudging things.

Some styles of D&D require a great deal of metagaming.  In many campaigns, players are supposed to make decisions that their characters would not, in order to make sure that the DM's preparation isn't wasted or the other players' fun isn't ruined.  I can certainly see a player resenting being forced (or strongly encouraged) to metagame.   

It's possible that within a group one player could take the tack "We'll look at risks based on what our PCs know and act accordingly," while another takes the position "We're the main characters and we're supposed to win."  Neither position is really "wrong," but they're very different gaming styles.  And it's possible that some DMs could take the position "How can they even consider that I would throw them into a fight they couldn't win" and others ask "Why do they always refuse to even consider retreating when clearly outmatched?"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 4, 2008)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> So you think a cr 20 encounter is appropriate for a 10th lvl party?




Have you read the encounter guidelines in the DMG?  Those guidelines certainly seem to indicate that when I read them (although I agree that the DMG advice isn't aways right, especially where higher-level play is concerned).



> He mentions a series of battles any one of which probably should have been a TPK. Then a dungeon that renders the players character almost completely useless.




Iron golems are not immune to divination spells.  They are not immune to secondary effects, such as being under a ceiling targetted by a spell.  Not being able to directly target an opponent shouldn't make a character "almost completely useless".



> It's a D&D game, the quality of the DMing has a great deal to do with how much fun a campaign is.




Very true.  

But it is also true that an otherwise great DM can be saddled with a lousy player, and part of the buck stopping with the DM is that the DM sometimes has to say "Sorry, but you need to find another game."

To the OP:

Here is my advice:

(1)  Talk to the other players, to see if they are having the same problems, but just haven't said anything to you.  Maybe your encounters _are_ too tough, or you are forcing the PCs to take actions they're not comfortable with taking.  But maybe not.  Your other players will know.  If so, you need to examine your own DMing style.  If not, go to (2), below.

(2)  Take the player aside and suggest that if he is not having fun in your game, he might prefer to do something else, as his constant complaining is damaging to the game.  If he is having fun, on the other hand, he can submit something constructive.  For example, the next time he says his character would just walk away from a fight, tell him that's okay....he can walk away from the fight.  If this solves the problem, rock on.  If not, got to (3), below.

(3)  Take the player aside and say, "Sorry, but you need to find another game."  And mean what you say.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 4, 2008)

Here is another thing to consider:

Let us say that every charge levelled against the OP is correct, and he made every possible DMing mistake anyone has thus far suggested he might make.  If you are invited to that game, _and everyone else is having fun_, IMHO you should still suck it up buttercup, have a private chat with the DM afterward, then decide to either remain in the game (knowing what it is) or quit that game (because you don't like what it is).

The player behaviour described in the OP is never useful, whether it is right or wrong.

IMHO, of course.

YMMV.


RC


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 4, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> IMHO you should still suck it up buttercup, have a private chat with the DM afterward, then decide to either remain in the game (knowing what it is) or quit that game (because you don't like what it is).




As has already been suggested by several posters, simply quitting and finding another game that _is_ enjoyable for the 'whiner' seems like the best option, here.


----------



## EvilMountainDew (Feb 5, 2008)

I agree with the OP.  

I'd consider telling wrong CRs to the player, hiding the true numbers, just to mess with him.  It'd be entertaining to say in passing, "I just wrote up a sweet super-beefy Barbarian, CR 21."  And then throw them up against a couple barbarians.  See if he starts bitching.  

Then, of course when the truth comes out, tell him to chill the hell out.


----------



## Greylock (Feb 5, 2008)

Man, what this thread really, really needs at this point is for the so-called "whiny player" to sign up, read the whole proceedings, and then in classic fashion, turn the whole thread on it's nose by posting HIS version of the tale.

All I can do is hope...


----------



## prosfilaes (Feb 5, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If you are invited to that game, _and everyone else is having fun_,




But how do we know that? As Wik and others have said, a lot of us don't find it particularly easy to talk to the DM about how his game sucks. And if we all have private chats with the DM, we may never know how the group feels about it.



> The player behaviour described in the OP is never useful, whether it is right or wrong.




Social adeptness is not exactly part of the gamer stereotype, and forthrighness is for some reason frequently very difficult for many people. Also, the format here is frustrating; without any input from the player or further input from the OP, we don't know if this is the end-product of months of frustration that may have included fairly frank attempts to discuss the problem, or just the standard way the player handled things.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 5, 2008)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> But how do we know that?




We don't.  That is why it is an IF/THEN statement.  IF the first part is true, THEN the second part follows.



> Social adeptness is not exactly part of the gamer stereotype, and forthrighness is for some reason frequently very difficult for many people.




Giving advice on how to handle something often means suggesting a harder road.  Hell, if the easier road always worked, then no one would be asking for advice.

RC


----------



## Isida Kep'Tukari (Feb 5, 2008)

Very true.  I posted here about a problem player about a month ago, and got a ton of advice, some of which I didn't want to hear, much of which was difficult for me to implement.  (It was good advice, don't get me wrong, just a lot different than I thought I'd get.)  Many people suggested outright, frank discussion with the player.  That is very difficult for me.  I'd almost prefer to solve in-game problems in the game, by way of changing storylines or tactics or just accepting the fact that I have a much different gaming style and moving on.

Also, for many reasons, sometimes you _can't_ ask a player to leave a game.  Sometimes your group is the only players you're going to get.  My player is the wife of another in a two couple group.  I could not kick that player out without alienating the entire group and damaging the friendships I have there.

Subtlety is often preferable to outright confrontation for many people.  Perhaps this won't work in some situations, but I feel it is the goal of the DM to manipulate the players in a way that they feel they are in control, but enjoy the manipulation anyway.  A good DM's plot should be, in a way, invisible; everything the players do seems to affect their own actions, and they are in control of the world.  Even if you, the DM, know differently.

For this whiney player, it seems, from the limited information available, that this player wants more control.  Having him be the DM this time around could be the best possible outcome of the situation.  Sometimes going from DM to player is hard, as you're used to knowing everything, and knowing only half the information can make you feel powerless.  The OP may have been running his game in a more open manner (allowing the player to know the exact level and CR of all monsters in an encounter), which could have contributed to the feeling of frustration for the player, because he didn't know how the DM would manipulate the situation to allow the PCs to survive and/or shine.

If the OP ends up DMing again, I'd suggest a little more mystery.  Keep NPC character sheets hidden; have him not reveal the true extent of his power, don't let the PCs know the specific details of his class levels and whatnot.  Even if the low-level rogues _are_ low-level (for example) describe them in a way to bring a sense of threat, even as the PCs mow through them.  ("The shifty men in their sleek leather armor slink around the battlefield like cats circling mice.  Their daggers and short swords seems puny in comparison to your fighter's longsword, but their movements make it clear they're no strangers to death.  They circle and swirl, getting into position, finally beginning their dash to surround you and take you down!")  Sounds more ominous than it is.  The PCs might feel vindcated and lucky for beating them then.

It allows powerful villains to seem less so, giving the PCs a sense of confidence (until it's time for the villain to kick some butt) and lets less-powerful threats still seem threatening.  In this case, what the PCs can't know can't hurt them.  When the OP DMs again, be more vague in your specifics, and more devious in your descriptions.  Keep your DMing materials behind a screen or in a folder.  

And try, if at all possible, to have one thing, even a small thing, each session, for each player.  It lets them know you're thinking about them.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Feb 5, 2008)

Isida Kep'Tukari said:
			
		

> For this whiney player, it seems, from the limited information available, that this player wants more control.



And it seems that's not unreasonable if the initial amount of control is very low (which, to me, seems to be the case here for at least one situation).  If the OP approaches the discussion in a conciliatory, way, saying that he understands the player's point of view, I'd expect a much more friendly and cooperative reaction.

Playing devil's advocate here:
1) The player is asked to meta-game and have his PC act contrary to the PC's best judgment (that is, if the PC knows that the enemy archmage is the most powerful and feared in the land, or something like that).  
2) The player is feeling railroaded.  The OP didn't say "well, sure, they could have all fled and I'd have improvised a new adventure" -- the sense I got is that this is the adventure he wanted to run, and it was ridiculous for the player to suggest fleeing.  Perhaps the player felt it would be disrespectful to the DM for the party to not go along with what he had prepared? 
3) The player is feeling that the game is fixed so the PCs will always win.  Personally, against overwhelming opposition, I'd rather have a TPK than survive because the DM fudged the rolls or intentionally played the enemies as stupid.  If the PCs won through an exceptionally clever plan and astounding luck, that would be different.

The player was in a bad situation.  He could go along when his PC wouldn't, in which case he's meta-gaming and expecting to be saved by DM fudging.  He could flee and have the party win without him, which reinforces that his PC isn't important.  He could flee and have the party die, in which case the other players would be angry at him.  Or he could flee and get the party to go with him, in which case the DM is annoyed that they're avoiding his storyline. 

As to the golems, the player doesn't have a leg to stand on IMO, but what might work best is to try to be helpful.  "Yeah, I know iron golems are a pain for a wizard.  Some of the Summon Monster spells might work here, such as Lantern Archons.  If you wanted to take those spells, I'd help you stat out the various creatures so we're ready to go when you want to use them.  Never hurts to have a few more tricks up your sleeves."


----------



## Bagpuss (Feb 5, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I agree with the whiner.




Based on the information provided in the original post I am as well.


----------



## Slaygrim (Feb 5, 2008)

Wow!  So many responses to a thread that I though was gone and buried.  I only made it through the first page of responses before writing this up.

Okay guys, allow me to explain a little bit more here.

This campaign is designed to tie into an epic campaign I will be running at a much later date.  I was well aware of the power of the NPC's but they were necessary considering the next campaign.  

I never told the players the levels of the NPC's, but they like to "guess" and discuss amongst themselves rather than stay in character.  I'm more of a roleplaying person and the rest of my group is more into playing the game to roll the dice.  I wouldn't want to discuss the levels of the NPC's any more than is necessary, but these players are different.

Yes, there is a huge difference between gaming style in the group.  The problem is that we don't know many other gamers.  I recently called up an old friend to see if he would join the group as he is more of a roleplayer.  Now that the whiner player is taking over as the DM, I am hoping my old friend and myself will be able to "set the tone" of our group by roleplaying our characters more.  I hope the other players will have a better influence in that regard and become more into the story of the game rather than the dice.

As per this encounter, I see it as part of the story.  The NPC's had done enough damage to innocents and to the PC's for them to stop amongst themselves and say, "Oh well, they are too powerful.  Let's leave." but that was the attitude this player was displaying.  HIs CHARACTER who is supposed to be a hero was being played like a gamer playing a fake character with too much information.  I think if he is roleplaying he will fight to the death if needs be.  Besides, he should trust me that I am not going to wipe out the characters.

As for the battle, yes, it appeared overpowering.  But that's why you play the game.  Because it WASN'T.  The whole idea was that the ritual was going down and it was a race against time.  The 19th level wizard could not participate in the initial battle because he had to finish the ritual before the PC's interfered.

When the PC's ran into the 19th level wizard immediately after, the wizard (and the PC's knew this before hand) had already battled through this dungeon himself, expending spells.  So he was depleted some.  I did this to a point to bring him down to an acceptable level of challenge.  Yes, the PC's may not have put the pieces together, but the whining began before finding out on their own, and continued afterward even after getting through the battle.

And this isn't common.  Normally the PC's have been walking through encounters.  Yes, there has been a strong opponent here or there but they have overcome all.  And these aren't typical 10th level characters.  They are characters maximized.  The PC's each designed their characters to be very powerful and each had their fair share of magical items.  In fact, they were carrying around magic items to the equivalent of 15th level characters.  Their magical buffs were still up as well.

The point is, that the whining isn't just for this, it's constant.  Over nearly everything.  A battle is too easy.  A battle is too hard.  A battle doesn't let me work my abilities.  A spell ruins my character.  All of this is out of character whining.  I just wish they'd play their damned character.

__________

As far as the Iron Golems.  They weren't put in the adventure to nerf the PC.  They were not the only encounters either.  The first dungeon had 2 Iron Golems, and the rest were undead that he could battle.  He still whined about the Iron Golems.  To the point to where I had to redesign the final dungeon and replace the golems with Helmed Horrors so he could "fight".  There were other creatures too.  It wasn't as if the entire gaming session had the golems, it was a couple battles, nothing more.

I will go back and try to read more of the responses here.


----------



## Slaygrim (Feb 5, 2008)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> I think Lord Zadoz nailed it- this player is a strong tactical player who metagames out the wazoo, and you're more of a narrativist/storyteller.  Those two playstyles NEVER mesh well.
> 
> For what its worth, I agree with you Slaygrim- this player is an immature, whiny jackass who believes his playstyle is the only way, and you should conform to pre-established hard rules so he knows EXACTLY what to expect in game.  Don't get me wrong- the game needs rulese, but knowing that every encouter your face will consume roughly 20-25% of your resources makes for a DULL game.  I also suspect this guy has some serious inferiority issues and frustration with real life, and wants to cut losse and be "DA MAN" in game.  Nothing wrong with using the game for that, but there is if he's being a jerk about it and disrupting the group and gameplay.  In short, talk to this guy, or get rid of him.
> 
> ...




Gothmog, your post was the closest to the reality as I see it.  You almost describe the player to a "T".  Now this guy is an old friend.  I like him.  But he does display an ENORMOUS ego, and I suspect you may be pretty close when you mention inferiority issues and responding by wanting to be the MAN in the game.  That description does seem to be pretty close to how I am seeing it.  Because we had problems in the past with this.  Another player in the game dueled this one before:  

Years ago both players were gaming wizards, and something happened to where the two players came head to head BIG TIME.  They ended up getting into a fight.  I remember the whiny player telling the other player, (something akin to this) "There is no way my wizard will let you take that item." and the other wizard blew him off.  A duel was issued.  Here is the problem.  The whiny player challenged this other wizard but didn't want to duel on the spot.  The other wizard said, "If we are going to do this, we are doing this right now."  Well to make a long story short, the whiny player lost.  He had a Cube of Force that he planned on using to win the battle, but the other wizard had enough dimension doors memorized to get into the cube repeatedly if necessary.  He ended up winning the fight this way.  I cannot remember specifics, we are talking 5 years ago or more.  After he lost the whiny player couldn't take it.  He sat there the rest of the game punishing everyone else by moping, almost suggesting he character wouldn't go on.  He also blamed everyone and everything else for losing.  He blamed being "forced to fight" on the spot rather than taking time to memorize all of the spells he wanted.  The problem was in character the other wizard called him out on the spot, saying if you want to duel we do it now.  No one forced him to agree with it, even if he agreed reluctantly he still did it and they still had a near full set of spells.  But he used this as something to blame other than himself for losing.  He always does this.  It's never his fault.  Ever.  In fact, all the years I have know the guy he has never mentioned he was wrong one time that I can recall.  

I am hoping his adventure will be better, and that I can influence the rest of the players to roleplay more and make a story out of it rather than a roll of the dice.


----------



## Felix (Feb 5, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> Yes, there is a huge difference between gaming style in the group.  The problem is that we don't know many other gamers.  I recently called up an old friend to see if he would join the group as he is more of a roleplayer.  Now that the whiner player is taking over as the DM, I am hoping my old friend and myself will be able to "set the tone" of our group by roleplaying our characters more.  I hope the other players will have a better influence in that regard and become more into the story of the game rather than the dice.



What this paragraph means is that you are recruiting a friend to direct the game style of a game you aren't running, contrary to what the other members of the group prefer. Can you see how this may be divisive? 

*Original Post*
I get to play and I am really resisting the urge to give him loads of trouble and a taste of his own medicine.​
You may as well leave the game if this is your intention. Purposefully sabotaging someone else's game is small, petty and vindictive. Much, much worse than simply being annoying.



> As per this encounter, I see it as part of the story.  The NPC's had done enough damage to innocents and to the PC's for them to stop amongst themselves and say, "Oh well, they are too powerful.  Let's leave." but that was the attitude this player was displaying. HIs CHARACTER who is supposed to be a hero was being played like a gamer playing a fake character with too much information.



It's _his character_, not your story's character. Sure the encounter was part of the story, but that doesn't mean that you should expect to dictate exactly how things will work out: players screw with DMs' plans all the time, and it is the ability to adjust that measures your skill as a DM. Getting upset at a character for not doing things the way you want him to is incredibly unproductive.



> I think if he is roleplaying he will fight to the death if needs be.  Besides, he should trust me that I am not going to wipe out the characters.



A coward PC will only be roleplaying if he fights to the death? If a player blindly trusts that the DM won't kill all the characters, that's roleplaying? Ridiculous: that's metagaming. 



> As for the battle, yes, it appeared overpowering.  But that's why you play the game.  Because it WASN'T.



If something appears overpowering to my PC, I am going to react to the situation based on those appearances. It is unreasonable for you to be upset with him for not wanting to rush head-long into that fight, and hypocritical to accuse him of metagaming when you suggest he should simply attack because he trusts the DM.



> The whole idea was that the ritual was going down and it was a race against time.  The 19th level wizard could not participate in the initial battle because he had to finish the ritual before the PC's interfered.
> 
> When the PC's ran into the 19th level wizard immediately after, the wizard (and the PC's knew this before hand) had already battled through this dungeon himself, expending spells.  So he was depleted some.  I did this to a point to bring him down to an acceptable level of challenge.  Yes, the PC's may not have put the pieces together, but the whining began before finding out on their own, and continued afterward even after getting through the battle.



You attempted to mitigate the circumstances so that the participants of a 19th level, 16th level, and 15th level casters, along with two big monsters, was actually a reasonable challenge for the party. That's fine. But if the PCs take a look at that fight and balk, don't blame them: you made it look really, really tough, and that's what they're reacting to. That's what they're roleplaying. And the only reaction isn't, "They'll kill me, but I'll charge anyway in a futile gesture to save the orphans, or whomever I'm being heroic for."



> And this isn't common.



You mean presenting them with an Encounter Level 18 challenge isn't common for your 10th level party? I'd hope so.



> Normally the PC's have been walking through encounters.  Yes, there has been a strong opponent here or there but they have overcome all.



There's a difference between squeaking through in fear of your life and walking over the opponents. I hope there's some of both.



> And these aren't typical 10th level characters.  They are characters maximized.



This doesn't matter so much, actually. When you power-up lower level characters, they become glass cannons. They walk over encounters of their level, but they don't have the HP or saves to survive the upper-level challenges. 



> In fact, they were carrying around magic items to the equivalent of 15th level characters.



This does not make them the equivalent of 15th level characters; it only makes it hard for you to challenge them without killing them.



> Their magical buffs were still up as well.



Doesn't matter. A character's spell buffs are part of his powers and resources. That they're still up doesn't make them any more powerful, it just means they've decided to use a part of their resources to make the fight a little easier.



> The point is, that the whining isn't just for this, it's constant.  Over nearly everything.  A battle is too easy.  A battle is too hard.  A battle doesn't let me work my abilities.  A spell ruins my character.  All of this is out of character whining.  I just wish they'd play their damned character.



Considering that you have very specific ideas about exactly how they should play their character (not fighting to the death isn't roleplaying), I have a hard time convicting your player based on your description, even though I think whining is possibly the most annoying and distracting thing a player can do.



> As far as the Iron Golems.  They weren't put in the adventure to nerf the PC.  They were not the only encounters either.  The first dungeon had 2 Iron Golems, and the rest were undead that he could battle.




*Original Post*
While exploring an ancient Netherese Ruins the place was guarded by multiple Iron Golems. His character, a spellcaster, clearly was useless offensively as the Iron Golems are immune to most forms of magic. Thus, he was delegated to the role of the "buffer", having to cast spells that suped up the fighters. *Throughout the entire dungeon there were spots still guarded by Iron Golems*.

What matters is that I didn't arrange for the place to be filled with more than constructs... at least until the end of the dungeon where they did end up fighting undead... only then *the undead had spell resistance that was hard to overcome*, so he complained about that too.​
This does not sound like "2 Iron Golems and the rest were undead that he could battle". Which of your descriptions is more consistent with what happened?


----------



## Slaygrim (Feb 5, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I don't really agree, but I digress.
> 
> I know that I always _hated_ playing in games where the PCs didn't have a chance to do anything heroic, either because they were constantly being bailed out of deliberately impossible situations by DMPCs or simply because they were never presented with a fair challenge (i.e., a challenge that they had a possibility of overcoming).
> 
> ...




jdrakeh, you really seem to be arguing something else.  The PC's DID have a chance of overcoming the battle... and they DID.  The point was that the player whined before hand, whined during, and whined after.  If he would have just sat there, played his character heroically as he should have been playing a hero, then he would have won the day and that would be it.  Sure there was a risk of a character dying but that is the whole point of playing.  I'd hate to play a campaign to where I never was in risk.

So you are here arguing that you would hate playing a campaign where you didn't have a chance to do anything heroic.  That wasn't this.  What *IS* heroic is these PC's walking in to face an apparant overwhelming disadvantage, yet walking in and fighting the fight.  That is heroic.  Heroic isn't always facing an opponent that you* know* you can beat.


----------



## Slaygrim (Feb 5, 2008)

Felix said:
			
		

> What this paragraph means is that you are recruiting a friend to direct the game style of a game you aren't running, contrary to what the other members of the group prefer. Can you see how this may be divisive?




It could be.  The thing is that the leading candidate for gaming a "roll of the dice" kind of game is this player, and he is now ceasing being the player and becoming the DM.  I am hoping that with me and this new player playing our characters from a roleplaying perspective, that it will get the other players to feel comfortable opening up.

The other players have been following his lead, and two of the other three I am certain will be completely fine roleplaying more.  In fact, two of the other three are completely happy with the way I DM'd and one of them threatened to leave the game because of the whiner whining so much.  He only stayed and finished the game because I asked him to.  I told him I put a lot of work into this campaign and it's the last session of it.  I asked him to stay so he did.

The other player, his character failed his save against the assassin's death attack and he died.  He was an elf too, so he's not likely to come back.  How did he handle his characters death?  Perfectly.  He thought it sucked at first but quickly got over it and went to do some research for his next character.

I can't imagine if that was the whiner who's character died.  It would have raised HELL.



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> *Original Post*
> I get to play and I am really resisting the urge to give him loads of trouble and a taste of his own medicine.​
> You may as well leave the game if this is your intention. Purposefully sabotaging someone else's game is small, petty and vindictive. Much, much worse than simply being annoying.




Felix, your position is starting to look like you've already made up your mind and are determined to put me down.  Be careful you don't digress from someone who's just trying to be a third party offering their advice.

I said I am resisting the urge.  I definitely will not do it, but I was merely admitting the idea does give me a sense of justice.  But I won't.  Enough said about that.



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> It's _his character_, not your story's character. Sure the encounter was part of the story, but that doesn't mean that you should expect to dictate exactly how things will work out: players screw with DMs' plans all the time, and it is the ability to adjust that measures your skill as a DM. Getting upset at a character for not doing things the way you want him to is incredibly unproductive.




I wasn't upset about a character taking things a different direction.  I was upset with a player throwing up his hands in frustration and practically quitting.  It ruined the entire mood of the game.  If he would have acted calmly and played his character rather than throw a tantrum then things would have progressed just fine.  And not just from the adventure standing point, but for the group as a whole.

There was no way out of the dungeon once they entered it.  They knew this.  Throwing a fit and talking about leaving when the only way out is on the other side of the enemies isn't playing your character, it's acting like a baby.



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> A coward PC will only be roleplaying if he fights to the death? If a player blindly trusts that the DM won't kill all the characters, that's roleplaying? Ridiculous: that's metagaming.




This is a Straw Man Argument.  I did not once say that the only way to roleplay is to roleplay brave.  His character is supposed to be brave.  He's always played him brave.  It was nothing more than a player allowing his short temper to influence the game.

Another Straw Man, I did not suggest that the DM will not kill a character, but that the player himself should trust me that I am not going to put him in a situation of certain death.  The ONLY way through the dungeon was through this battle.  If he had any sense of calm about him and would have just finished the game, there wouldn't have been an issue at all.  The other players (other than the whiney players friend-who follows his lead) were completely FINE.  

You don't seem to be offering a third party view on this anymore.  You seem determined to find fault in me.  I am trying to explain what happened.  You seem to be trying to explain my fault, with the wrong idea of what happened.  



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> If something appears overpowering to my PC, I am going to react to the situation based on those appearances. It is unreasonable for you to be upset with him for not wanting to rush head-long into that fight, and hypocritical to accuse him of metagaming when you suggest he should simply attack because he trusts the DM.




ANY DM worth a damn isn't going to throw the PC's in a situation of certain death for no reason.  THAT is what he should trust.  His PC not going into the fight was not him playing his PC, it was him over reacting as usual to any sort of challenge.

My brother, who games with us as well, said it best.  He told the whiny player, "Geez man, I bet on your way over here today you were like, 'Man... I HOPE there isn't any challenging encounters today...' "  And I had to laugh because that's how he is EVERY battle that is a challenge.  He throws a fit, says they are all going to die, says it's too tough, or something to that effect.  He'll even challenge me in front of everyone saying I shouldn't have done this encounter.  Every time.  Maybe you need him to play with your group for a time.



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> You attempted to mitigate the circumstances so that the participants of a 19th level, 16th level, and 15th level casters, along with two big monsters, was actually a reasonable challenge for the party. That's fine. But if the PCs take a look at that fight and balk, don't blame them:




I don't.  Not for balking.  I got aggravated that the whiny player made a big stink, brought everyone down, and threatened to end the adventure by walking away, knowing full well that he COULDN'T walk away since there was one way out.  He didn't even wait to give the STORY a chance.



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> you made it look really, really tough, and that's what they're reacting to.




That is what HE reacted to.  The others were fine.



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> You mean presenting them with an Encounter Level 18 challenge isn't common for your 10th level party? I'd hope so.




Like I said, this *particular* scene was important to future events and required a high level opponent.  



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> Doesn't matter. A character's spell buffs are part of his powers and resources. That they're still up doesn't make them any more powerful, it just means they've decided to use a part of their resources to make the fight a little easier.




It made them more equal to the challenge.  The other players were confident enough to keep playing the game without threatening to walk off.  



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> *Original Post*
> While exploring an ancient Netherese Ruins the place was guarded by multiple Iron Golems. His character, a spellcaster, clearly was useless offensively as the Iron Golems are immune to most forms of magic. Thus, he was delegated to the role of the "buffer", having to cast spells that suped up the fighters. *Throughout the entire dungeon there were spots still guarded by Iron Golems*.
> 
> What matters is that I didn't arrange for the place to be filled with more than constructs... at least until the end of the dungeon where they did end up fighting undead... only then *the undead had spell resistance that was hard to overcome*, so he complained about that too.​
> This does not sound like "2 Iron Golems and the rest were undead that he could battle". Which of your descriptions is more consistent with what happened?




Let me make this clear.  There were two dungeons in this campaign.  The first one had two Iron Golems.  He complained about them then.  A big fit, complaining about how I DM because I used Iron Golems.  This was a challenge in front of the group and it makes me feel like I am not doing my job right, especially when I was the only one willing to DM and I put a lot of work into trying to make this fun.

The second dungeon was the Netherese one, and this one had more Iron Golems, just like I said.  However I also said two other things.  1.  I went back and changed a lot of the IG's over to Helmed Horrors.  2.  I also said that the 19th Level Wizard ALSO fought through the dungeon and he faced a lot of those IG's and HH's, clearing many of them out for when the PC's followed him in.


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 5, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> Wow!  So many responses to a thread that I though was gone and buried.  I only made it through the first page of responses before writing this up.
> 
> Okay guys, allow me to explain a little bit more here.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the response Slaygrim.  You confirmed pretty much everything I had assumed about this player based on previous experiences with this sort of person (both in gaming and non-gaming environments).    

Now, while some people here might take exception to your DMing style, don't let it get to you.  There is no right or wrong way to play.  A narrative campaign with set encounters that weaves into a bigger picture is great, and you should be commended for putting that much forethought into the game.  Also, you were a responsible DM for having the 19th level wizard have fought through the same dungeon and depleted many of his spells- it makes sense, and levels the playing field some.  

The only caution I'd give you is don't assume the players will take some action or force them to do so.  The problem with the former is that players do the damndest things, and will surprise you with a way to solve a problem you never considered.  The problem with the latter is that being "railroaded" into doing certain actions takes the autonomy of the characters out of the players hands, and that his VERY frustrating.  I don't see you railroading, but I can see how some people might think you are.  I can tell you from experience, with a guy who was and is a good friend from high school but was the ultimate railroad DM (to the point where he actually had a script of events he wanted played out), that being forced to do something the DM has in mind causes player resentment and frustration.  Its tempting for beginning DMs to do this, especially if you have an awesome scene in your mind- but resist the dark side.  If you make the players do something, why play the game?  A railraoding DM is much better off just writing stories.

You also confirmed something else I expected- that the group breezes through most encounters, and probably has an equivalent level of 13th or 14th due to gear, high point build, etc.  Being in a fight where they weren't the top dogs might have been jarring to them- and to an immature player like your whiner, its a severe ego blow to suddely be upstaged.  To the whiner, I'd reply "grow up- you're not the biggest, baddest thing in the world, otherwise this game would be boring as hell since there would be no challenge to you."

The bad news is, he won't see reason- EVER, and he will never EVER admit he's wrong or was acting childish.  People like this guy who are immature, have a huge ego, inferiority complexes, and who want attention desperately (whether to be a "badass" or portray themselves as a victim), do these things because its a part of their personality/neurobiochemistry.  So that leaves you with two choices- eject the guy from the group, or try to reason with him and make him see he's impacting other people's fun in the group.  If however the rest of the group has no problem with the whining (and I can't imagine they COULD think his antics were ok), then I'd chalk this one up to differing playstyles and that means you should do the mature thing and excuse yourself from the group.  You said you have another friend who is more narrative/roleplaying oriented- why not try to recruit some new non-gamers?  People who have never gamed before are the perfect new players- they don't come in with munchkin dreams of grandeur, and take guidance in their playstyle and likes from the other players in the group.  With this tactic, pretty soon you could wind up with a group of RP-heavy players, which seems like a better fit for your playstyle than the dice-slinging powergamers.

In any case, its good to hear more about this situation, and I wish you good luck in resolving it such that all parties are happy.


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 5, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> It could be.  The thing is that the leading candidate for gaming a "roll of the dice" kind of game is this player, and he is now ceasing being the player and becoming the DM.  I am hoping that with me and this new player playing our characters from a roleplaying perspective, that it will get the other players to feel comfortable opening up.
> 
> The other players have been following his lead, and two of the other three I am certain will be completely fine roleplaying more.  In fact, two of the other three are completely happy with the way I DM'd and one of them threatened to leave the game because of the whiner whining so much.  He only stayed and finished the game because I asked him to.  I told him I put a lot of work into this campaign and it's the last session of it.  I asked him to stay so he did.
> 
> ...




Oops, double post.


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 5, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> It could be.  The thing is that the leading candidate for gaming a "roll of the dice" kind of game is this player, and he is now ceasing being the player and becoming the DM.  I am hoping that with me and this new player playing our characters from a roleplaying perspective, that it will get the other players to feel comfortable opening up.
> 
> The other players have been following his lead, and two of the other three I am certain will be completely fine roleplaying more.  In fact, two of the other three are completely happy with the way I DM'd and one of them threatened to leave the game because of the whiner whining so much.  He only stayed and finished the game because I asked him to.  I told him I put a lot of work into this campaign and it's the last session of it.  I asked him to stay so he did.
> 
> ...




Oh, well this clears everything up.  The other players are fine with your DMing and this guy isn't, and he is ruining everyone else's fun?   He's been warned time and time again by you, he's ruining the mood of the game, and he's annoying the other players? He gets the big ol' boot to the butt.  Goodbye to little miss princess jackass.  Enough said.


----------



## Tiberius (Feb 5, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> So you are here arguing that you would hate playing a campaign where you didn't have a chance to do anything heroic.  That wasn't this.  What *IS* heroic is these PC's walking in to face an apparant overwhelming disadvantage, yet walking in and fighting the fight.  That is heroic.  Heroic isn't always facing an opponent that you* know* you can beat.




No, that's patently ridiculous. No reasonable person walks into a fair fight, let alone one in which they know to have a disadvantage. These are adventurers. Their lives are on the line. Why would they, absent ZOMG-this-dude's-gonna-destroy-my-city/nation/planet-RIGHT-NOW motivation, risk their lives in that manner?


----------



## Slaygrim (Feb 5, 2008)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> I think this guy was 24.  It happened while I was in grad school about a year after I moved to Columbia, MO.  This guy tried to affect this Dennis Leary "too cool for words" thing (which is supremely annoying in and of itself), but if something didn't go his way, he also liked making himself out to be the victim- and before this incident he regaled us with several stories of how crappy the world was and how poorly things went for him.  The group was playing 2e AD&D, and the other guys in the group were friends I'd made when I moved up there.  One of the guys asked if this guy could play "since he hasn't gotten to play in a long time."  Gee, I wonder why?  That was his first and only time to play with the group- and the other players all agreed he'd never be allowed back.





Springfield/Columbia?  I'm in Saint Louis.  You seem like a cool guy, wouldn't mind gaming with you if I was only a little closer.


----------



## Slaygrim (Feb 5, 2008)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> No, that's patently ridiculous. No reasonable person walks into a fair fight, let alone one in which they know to have a disadvantage. These are adventurers. Their lives are on the line. Why would they, absent ZOMG-this-dude's-gonna-destroy-my-city/nation/planet-RIGHT-NOW motivation, risk their lives in that manner?




I didn't say they KNEW they would lose, I just said they KNEW they were in for a fight.

Keep in mind the PC's didn't know the "levels" of their opponent's.  The whiny player plays the "guessing game" on ALL of the NPC's and then reacts accordingly.  That's an issue.  Secondly, the PC's, while 10th level, were the equivalent of at least 12th level characters.  They all rolled very high stats, they had exceptionally good equipment, etc.  Also, like I said, once the NPC joined them, they won the battle against the beholder, the 16th level sorcerer, and the runic guardian in 2 friggin rounds.  They wiped the floor with them.  The 16th level guy did get off a Horrid Wilting spell before the NPC iced him with a prismatic spray, but that was it.  One of the PC's is a monstrous fighter wielding a two handled ax and hits for 25-40 damage a pop, swinging 3 times a round on a full attack while hasted.  The whiny player hasted the party.  That fighter axed the beholder in a single round.

The point is, that these are extremely competent characters AND players.  This battle was NOT beyond them.  If the whining ceased the second the NPC joined them, that would be one thing, but the whining player continued.  And then he continued again for the final battle with the 19th level wizard... who I may add had just battled through a dungeon and participated in a draining ritual to make it a fair encounter.  He fled the battle actually rather than fight the PC's + that NPC.  This all leads to the epic adventure I have planned for the future.


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 5, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> Springfield/Columbia?  I'm in Saint Louis.  You seem like a cool guy, wouldn't mind gaming with you if I was only a little closer.




Thanks.    I'm in Springfield now, was in Columbia until 2004 for grad and medical school.  I wouldn't mind gaming with you either- I also tend to prefer more narrative types of games.


----------



## Slaygrim (Feb 5, 2008)

This also was our first campaign in about 3 or so years.  I am really trying to learn how to be a better DM as well.  I've been on other forums asking for advice and ways to improve my game.  This is all a learning experience.

I think there have been times where I did kind of railroad the adventure rather than let the PC's take over and let me take the role of explaining what happens when they choose.  I am trying to find that fine line of allowing them that freedom and also keeping a basic storyline in play.


----------



## evilbob (Feb 5, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> Now this guy is an old friend...





			
				Gothmog said:
			
		

> The bad news is, he won't see reason- EVER, and he will never EVER admit he's wrong or was acting childish.



I'm sorry for your sake to say it, but I believe Gothmog is quite right.

Do yourself a favor and go online and look this up:  narcissistic personality disorder.  If you find it to be quite revealing about your friend, please keep it in mind.

In any case, I strongly advise you to try to learn one of the hardest lessons I've come across in life:  sometimes, your friends are jackasses.  Sometimes, slowly over time, you come to find out that you just have a crappy friend.  And it's not your fault, and you've done all you can do, and that's it.  Sadly, the absolute best thing you can possibly do in this situation is to leave it.  You won't ever change him, and you are not the one who should change.  The only option left is to leave.

The good news is that there are 6 billion other people on this earth, and a lot of them are not jackasses.  I'll say it again:  you CAN find other gamers, and you CAN find better friends.  It may take time, but its time well-spent.  Time spent with people like the one you describe is just not worth it.


----------



## sukael (Feb 6, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> He fled the battle actually rather than fight the PC's + that NPC.




Sounds like roleplaying to me. For one thing, the character would have had no way to know ICly that that 19th-level wizard was drained by the ritual (instead of just distracted), or that he had burned any high-level (eg. instant-kill) spells in the dungeon instead of just using standbys like _fireball_...

Did the PCs have any pressing (eg. time-limited) motivations to kill this NPC? I could well see a smart PC running away and then (if the party dies) coming back later with the aid of a few particularly sneaky hired-on rogues to kill the guy in his sleep, instead of in a straight combat.


----------



## Felix (Feb 6, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> Felix, your position is starting to look like you've already made up your mind and are determined to put me down.



I'm determined to give the other guy, _who is not here to defend himself_, the benefit of the doubt.

But: if you have been fair in what you have said - mind the if - bring it out in the open between you two. Have a conversation about this with him. Shoot, show him the thread. 

Frankly, there won't be much progress without him responding, because it seems you've already made up your mind. Were you looking for advice or confirmation?


----------



## Slaygrim (Feb 6, 2008)

sukael said:
			
		

> Sounds like roleplaying to me. For one thing, the character would have had no way to know ICly that that 19th-level wizard was drained by the ritual (instead of just distracted), or that he had burned any high-level (eg. instant-kill) spells in the dungeon instead of just using standbys like _fireball_...
> 
> Did the PCs have any pressing (eg. time-limited) motivations to kill this NPC? I could well see a smart PC running away and then (if the party dies) coming back later with the aid of a few particularly sneaky hired-on rogues to kill the guy in his sleep, instead of in a straight combat.




Well, they couldn't exit the dungeon the way in, and in all likeliness they had to defeat him to get out.  They did overhear him suggesting to the other NPC's that it was time to start the ritual.  
They also had defeated this NPC prior, as they caught him off guard, and hit him with a silence spell.  For all the PC's knew, they had a real shot.


----------



## Slaygrim (Feb 6, 2008)

Felix said:
			
		

> I'm determined to give the other guy, _who is not here to defend himself_, the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> But: if you have been fair in what you have said - mind the if - bring it out in the open between you two. Have a conversation about this with him. Shoot, show him the thread.
> 
> Frankly, there won't be much progress without him responding, because it seems you've already made up your mind. Were you looking for advice or confirmation?




I said in my first post, this was mostly just a rant.

I know I am not the perfect DM, and I know I make mistakes.  But I too know this player and he's consistently been a problem player.  Sometimes he will do just fine, but others he has to put down the DM and act ridiculous.  Look, when you're 28 years old and you're getting angry, pouting, and threatening to leave the table over something like this... then something is wrong.  I remember getting mad at the D&D table like that when I was 16.  I couldn't imagine getting that worked up and ruining the other players time just because I thought an encounter APPEARED to be overwhelming, much less continue after you already won the encounter.


----------



## prosfilaes (Feb 6, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Giving advice on how to handle something often means suggesting a harder road.  Hell, if the easier road always worked, then no one would be asking for advice.




But you aren't giving advice to the whining player; you're giving advice to the DM.



			
				Slaygrim said:
			
		

> Keep in mind the PC's didn't know the "levels" of their opponent's.  The whiny player plays the "guessing game" on ALL of the NPC's and then reacts accordingly




If the player knows the level from in-game knowledge, the same knowledge should tell the PC roughly the same amount of information. In a world where a 20th-level character can take on an army, no sane person would take on an enemy without having figured out approximate level.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Feb 6, 2008)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> And how much an adventure should change to match the characters is an open question. To some extent, the argument for this dungeon is an argument for realism over player fun. Most players want to play the character they created, and very few are happy if they're forced into situations where they can't. How flexible the players and characters are, and how much they enjoy adapting to situations that get in the way of playing the character as envisioned, is a player and game style issue that doesn't have one great answer.




I was about to side with the OP, when your post brought a few telltale details that were nagging me into new focus.

On one hand, letting the Wizard suck in an adventure seems like a valid simulationist choice.  But that doesn't this 19th level BBEG with friends not squishing the PCs like bugs strongly suggest exactly the opposite in campaign style?

If this is a "trust me, we'll have fun here" kind of DM, then the construct/undead reeks of failure on the part of the DM.

If this is a "it is a real rough world, you better look out for yourself", then the 19th level wizard encounter has more than a few peculiarities.

I do not condone the player's behavior -- sounds like he is an obstacle others' fun.  The DM has as much right to have fun as any player.  But DMs should realize that when they give mixed signals they are likely to earn a degree of grumbling from the players.


----------



## Slaygrim (Feb 6, 2008)

What mixed signals might those be?  I put together what I thought was a very interesting story-line, which is going to lead into an even greater story-line.  That's what I ran.  The only person who seems to think I "failed" was the whiny player.


----------



## Greylock (Feb 6, 2008)

Felix said:
			
		

> I'm determined to give the other guy, _who is not here to defend himself_, the benefit of the doubt.




That's something that's seriously bugging me, too. Now, I know it's the norm of this sort of chat to often talk about someone who's not around, and likely never to be around, but Slaygrim has put some words in this fellow's mouth, but more than anything, he's put a hell of a lot of spin on his words and actions. And has done so to a degree that suggests an agenda on his part more strongly to me than it tells of the actual payer in question.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 6, 2008)

Greylock said:
			
		

> And has done so to a degree that suggests an agenda on his part more strongly to me than it tells of the actual payer in question.




I do have to say that the initial post in this thread reeked of "My player's a thankless whiner and I'm a faultless master of the game!" -- which is, in part, why I responded as I did (the other part of it is, simply, that the ecounters in question would have earned me the same kind of 'That's weak!' response from every player I've ever met who was worth keeping).


----------



## Sol.Dragonheart (Feb 6, 2008)

I am honestly baffled that you cannot see why the player in question is becoming so frustrated.  In the first example you gave where he complained, you made a critical mistake, which is essentially telling him that he has no say in how his character should react to given situations.  

Why can't characters in your world estimate the given power of a character that can, if he so chooses, stop the flow of time, summon Angels from the heights of the Heavens, cause the earth itself to shift and break apart in a massive radius, etc.  

And if the players character has any inkling that the person he's attempting to stop has this level of power, it's perfectly reasonable and in fact logical to retreat rather than pointlessly throw his life away.  But no, according to your DMing style, the player should just shut up, play the encounter out, and do what *you* think his character would do, since you know so much more about roleplaying and how his character would react in the situation. 

Do you really not see how that can be frustrating to a player?  All I'll ask is, if the players had decided to retreat, what would have happened?  Because it sounds to me like this was a railroad encounter they couldn't avoid and the player you're talking about annoyed you because he objected to this.


----------



## Bagpuss (Feb 6, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> It get's worse.  While exploring an ancient Netherese Ruins the place was guarded by multiple Iron Golems.  His character, a spellcaster, clearly was useless offensively as the Iron Golems are immune to most forms of magic. (snip)  What matters is that I didn't arrange for the place to be filled with more than constructs... at least until the end of the dungeon where they did end up fighting undead... only then the undead had spell resistance that was hard to overcome, so he complained about that too.  _"There's NOTHING I can do.  I need to roll of 16+ to beat his spell resistance.  That's stupid.  I guess I'll just back up and stand there."_
> 
> You think that's bad?




Bad adventure design yes, but I think this in particular is a really valid complaint. If the Undead didn't have SR then at least he would have felt useful. There are a number of constructs that aren't so immune to magic as Iron Golems as well. Sticking to one or two sort of creature types that completely nerf a character core abilities is just bad adventure design.

Even if the adventure was all constructs and undead, and they weren't immune to magic, I'd be annoyed in I was playing the Rogue or Scout like character since I'd never be able to use sneak/skirmish attack.

Even if the tomb or whatever is meant to be sealed for thousands of years fine some way to sneak in other creatures that give the players a chance to use their core abilities. Maybe vermin have discovered a way in or an Umber Hulk has recently tunnelled in, etc. Maybe the builder didn't get a bulk discount on Iron Golems and had some other constructs that are so resistant/immune to magic guard the tomb.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 6, 2008)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> But you aren't giving advice to the whining player; you're giving advice to the DM.




True, but there has been enough "What if the player was gold, and it was the DM?" stuff in this thread to merit a response to the same.  IMHO, if you're not enjoying a game, you should simply not play.  Disrupting a game helps no one.

RC


----------



## Slaygrim (Feb 6, 2008)

Greylock said:
			
		

> That's something that's seriously bugging me, too. Now, I know it's the norm of this sort of chat to often talk about someone who's not around, and likely never to be around, but Slaygrim has put some words in this fellow's mouth, but more than anything, he's put a hell of a lot of spin on his words and actions. And has done so to a degree that suggests an agenda on his part more strongly to me than it tells of the actual payer in question.




Right.


----------



## DestroyYouAlot (Feb 6, 2008)

Felix said:
			
		

> I'm determined to give the other guy, _who is not here to defend himself_, the benefit of the doubt.




That's just plain dumb, oh advocate of the absent-and-oppressed whiner.  Giving the member of this community who's asking for advice would be the right way to go, here - the guy who doesn't post doesn't need your sensitivity (nor could he benefit from it).



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I was about to side with the OP, when your post brought a few telltale details that were nagging me into new focus.
> 
> On one hand, letting the Wizard suck in an adventure seems like a valid simulationist choice.  But that doesn't this 19th level BBEG with friends not squishing the PCs like bugs strongly suggest exactly the opposite in campaign style?
> 
> ...




I gotta say that I don't see the conflict in these playstyles.  YMMV.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 6, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> IMHO, if you're not enjoying a game, you should simply not play.




Eff you and your common sense, Crowking!


----------



## Slaygrim (Feb 7, 2008)

Thanks DYA.

It's not like I am endlessly ragging on this player.  I've said he can sometimes be good, and I have said he is an old friend.  I do *not* want to kick him out and am searching for alternate ways to resolve the issue without conflict, which involves trying to make some changes and improve myself as well.  I've said this more than once.  Yet some people on here seem to want to attack me endlessly as if I am the one causing all of the issues.

I'll repeat, NONE of the other players had an issue with ANYTHING.  Well, perhaps his buddy that he brought in, but they are really close, so they will be more likely to stick with each other, but the other players are fine.  If it were all me, I'd be happy to step aside and be a player all of the time.  I would rather be the player than the DM any day.  Not only is it fun to portray your character and not know what to expect next, but I don't have to deal with problem players as much as well.

The whiner has a long history of complaining in a non-constructive manner.  He'll scoff at me when I am DMing, challenge me, complain, pout, and make a scene.  If you want to act like he is the victim, fine.  If any of you are going to act like that I must assume you are a similar type of player because I can't make heads or tails of any other reason why you'd defend this type of behavior, even IF I made mistakes as a DM.  Pouting, throwing a temper tantrum, and making the campaign difficult for other players due to your behavior is unacceptable PERIOD, far more than DM mistakes on CR.

And don't say the adventure was too hard.  It wasn't.  I had it specifically set up to make the encounter an an even playing field.  While the PC's were 5 at 10th level, they all have very high stats, are very competent players, and are loaded with more magical items than your typical 10th level character.  More like a 14th or 15th level character.  All things considered they were more like a party of 12 or 13th level regular powered characters.  Not only that, but they were aided by a 15th level NPC (whom the PC's were informed of before hand that he was a spy against the common enemy) *and* the PC's learned throughout the dungeon that the enemy battled most of the constructs and monsters, thus clearly they weren't at full capacity and prepared to battle the PC's.  

All things considered, it was a pretty tough battle, but one I expected them to overcome.  The other players were fine with it, just the one who always has a problem with something wanted to complain... besides perhaps his friend he brought into the game whom has strong ties to the player and not to me.  But even he didn't raise much of a stink.

Was I perfect?  No, there were some things I did that could have been improved upon.  But when I do something that's messed up, I am open to talk about it maturely away from the table or after the game.  I am not about to throw a fit, ruin everyone's time by moping around, etc.  It's a game, my life goes on afterwards.  

I picked up some good things I want to do here.  I want to open a stronger dialogue with the player, express my concerns to him and listen to his complaints as well.  This was we can get it out in the open and hopefully move on.  Knowing my friend, I expect him to be more condescending to me when we have this conversation but I am trying to avoid looking at it this way.  It's hard because I know him and he doesn't admit he does anything wrong, ever.  Since I have known him, about 13 years, I honestly do not know if I could think of a single time I would recall him admitting he was at fault on something.  Knowing him so well it's hard to be optimistic about this but I will try to.  Like I said, he is a good friend and I like the guy, but we just have completely different styles of gaming and it's a struggle.  Which is why I am considering for the first time in forever of bringing in new people to add to the diversity of the group.

I hope it works out.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Feb 7, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> What mixed signals might those be?  I put together what I thought was a very interesting story-line, which is going to lead into an even greater story-line.  That's what I ran.  The only person who seems to think I "failed" was the whiny player.




The mixed signals are with respect to how you design adventures.

If your world has primarily "status quo" encounters, then they are what they are because that is the logic of the world.  Some days the Wizard (or Rogue or Fighter) will be useless because the world is just uncaring that way.  But then the PCs should logically flee when faced with your 19th level BBEG because there is no sane reason to believe survival would be possible.

If your world has mostly "tailored" encounters, then facing the 19th level BBEG makes perfect sense -- there is bound to be some way for (most of) the party to survive because the DM is going to wave his magic wand behind the screen to make that true.  If that were the case, then your ancient crypt was presumably designed to torture the Wizard on purpose.  (It is simply not true that the _only_ challenges that could have inhabited that crypt were impossibly high SR creatures.)


----------



## Slaygrim (Feb 7, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> The mixed signals are with respect to how you design adventures.
> 
> If your world has primarily "status quo" encounters, then they are what they are because that is the logic of the world.  Some days the Wizard (or Rogue or Fighter) will be useless because the world is just uncaring that way.  But then the PCs should logically flee when faced with your 19th level BBEG because there is no sane reason to believe survival would be possible.




They *couldn't* flee.  There was only one way forward as the way the PC's came in was sealed.  The player knew this.  The character knew this.  The player was acting out his whining through the character in a way that didn't make sense as he knew the only way to survive was to go through the battle.



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> If your world has mostly "tailored" encounters, then facing the 19th level BBEG makes perfect sense -- there is bound to be some way for (most of) the party to survive because the DM is going to wave his magic wand behind the screen to make that true.  If that were the case, then your ancient crypt was presumably designed to torture the Wizard on purpose.  (It is simply not true that the _only_ challenges that could have inhabited that crypt were impossibly high SR creatures.)




Okay, we get it.  You don't like the adventure.   Thanks for stopping by.


----------



## Felix (Feb 7, 2008)

DestroyYouAlot said:
			
		

> That's just plain dumb, oh advocate of the absent-and-oppressed whiner.



Not only is this clever, but it also adds to the discussion in a meaningful way.



> Giving the member of this community who's asking for advice would be the right way to go, here - the guy who doesn't post doesn't need your sensitivity (nor could he benefit from it).



It's not sensitivity that's spurring me to give the whiner the benefit of the doubt: there is a serious problem between Slaygrim and Whiner that's disturbing their game, according to Slaygrim. If you take him at his word the only reasonable advice is to get rid of the guy, as a few on this thread have already said. Seriously, that's the only solution because the guy is a spoiled brat.

But.

If you take a step back and give the guy the benefit of the doubt, you may find that some of the problem lies with Slaygrim; it may have been miscommunication, divergent playstyles, or something about Slaygrim's DMing that Whiner hates but goes unnoticed by Slaygrim. By examining how Slaygrim runs his games, we may find something small that he can change that will result in a much greater improvement in Whiner's behavior.

Then again, maybe not. Slaygrim seems resistant to that line of questioning; perhaps because he's gotten defensive about how he runs his game in a thread that was meant to be a rant; perhaps because Whiner really is an immature spoiled brat. But we're not going to know, and Slaygrim isn't going to be very well equipped to deal with the problem unless we first extinguish the possibility that he may be doing something that's exacerbating the issue.

Or is that just plain dumb?


----------



## Felix (Feb 7, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> Okay, we get it.  You don't like the adventure.   Thanks for stopping by.



This is exactly not what Ridley's Cohort is saying. If your adventure design is based on verisimilitude, then Iron Golems and undead in a sealed crypt makes perfect sense. You did however appeal to the idea that your players should trust you not to run them through anything that they couldn't reasonably manage. 

These two adventure design philosophies are not always at odds, but neither are they always consistent with one another. He suggests, while not condoning the actions taken by Whiner, that it may frustrate a player to have to both deal with a simulationist game world and trust that you wouldn't present them with anything that will simply mop the floor with them.

Does that make more sense?


----------



## Bagpuss (Feb 7, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> he knew the only way to survive was to go through the battle.




I love how you seem to imply nothing could be wrong with your DM style, yet keep posting stuff like this.



> Okay, we get it.  You don't like the adventure.   Thanks for stopping by.




Obviously you don't get it. So far you have told us your adventures consist of...

- railroad plots
- An NPC that outshines the party and comes to the rescue
- Multiple encounters designed to render this players character virtually useless
- but also some other good stuff as well (it ain't all bad)

and you still think he's the one totally at fault for complaining. Maybe he didn't go about things the right way but he has some valid complaints. 

If the first dungeon you run has Iron Golems, and undead with SR, and he feels useless and complains. Then the next dungeon also has Iron Golems, isn't he going to feel like you just ignored him? Does he know you changed it from 100% Iron Golems to a couple and Helmed Horrors instead?


----------



## Sol.Dragonheart (Feb 7, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> They *couldn't* flee.





And that, right there, is the problem.  You're taking away what little independence the PCs have by creating situations like this, and that will create discontent.  You claim that your friend never admits when he made a mistake, or when he's wrong, yet you seem just as unwilling to evaluate the situation objectively and see if you have also made mistakes.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 7, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Eff you and your common sense, Crowking!




Just used up my quota for the year, too.......  

RC


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Feb 7, 2008)

Commenting as a player...  And admittedly as as someone who didn't read every detail of the last couple of pages (so I appologize if I ask a question that was already answered).

I don't like the sound of this last dungeoun.  Magic immune golumns and high DR undead?  That would put any primary spellcaster into a slump.  I have no problem with letting others have the limelight, but I want to be useful in the session as a whole if not a particular fight.  And I will always want to be useful in the Big Bad fight even if I'm not fighting the big bad.  Maybe I'm keeping the lower level masses off the people fighting the big bad.  Maybe I'm the one running around with potions and scrolls keeping others up and fighting.  Sure, I won't be the one to steal the spotlight for that session, but at least I'll be doing SOMETHING.  Those golums fights I when it was my turn I literaly said "I twiddle my thumbs" because I had nothing to do.  I looked over my character sheet.  I had run out of acid based spells and items.  My crossbow wasn't getting past the DR of the critters.  I... had... nothing! That session was not fun.

I have sat out multiple fights in a row (magic immunity issues).  One fight was okay, it was designed to let the fighters shine and they deserved to.  The problem was that it happened two or three fights in a row.  I was very, very bored by the end of the session.  Fortunately my DM learned his lesson and it hasn't happened since (at least from my point of view).

A tip to DMs:  even if it doesn't make much sense, put something in the dungeon for the PC you know is going to get hosed for the session.  Very high spell resistance?  FInd something that doesn't have it.  Golumn and undead?  Have vermin or spiders for the rogue to backstab.  It'll go a long way to say "I know this session will not be your best and I am sorry."

And for verification...

Did I pick up that they are a 10th level party with 15th level gear?  That could easily be the cause of battles either being too-easy (too good gear for 10th level fights) or too-hard (don't have the stats for a 15th level fight).  That is not easy to balance.


----------



## Slaygrim (Feb 7, 2008)

Felix said:
			
		

> Then again, maybe not. Slaygrim seems resistant to that line of questioning;




I already said that I could have done things a little better and that I am not 100% innocent.  The entire point of the thread is that I have a player who has always complained, always brought down the entire party if he doesn't get his way, etc.

I am going to try a few new things with him, and if that doesn't work I will not game with him anymore.


----------



## Slaygrim (Feb 7, 2008)

Felix said:
			
		

> This is exactly not what Ridley's Cohort is saying. If your adventure design is based on verisimilitude, then Iron Golems and undead in a sealed crypt makes perfect sense. You did however appeal to the idea that your players should trust you not to run them through anything that they couldn't reasonably manage.
> 
> These two adventure design philosophies are not always at odds, but neither are they always consistent with one another. He suggests, while not condoning the actions taken by Whiner, that it may frustrate a player to have to both deal with a simulationist game world and trust that you wouldn't present them with anything that will simply mop the floor with them.
> 
> Does that make more sense?




I guess.  My players should trust that I am not going to outright kill them for no reason.  That's the trust I am talking about.  No one I know wants to game with a DM who is going to kill them off.

Sure, they may end up facing a battle they can't win, but if that ever happens, it's going to be a part of a story, not so I can chuckle at them for dying.

This particular battle that has generated so much talk on here, it was part of a story.  The ritual the 19th level mage was doing was to free his Netherese Ancestor who was imprisioned 2000 years ago.  This is going to tie in to the epic campaign I will be running later on in the future.  I have a lot of ideas for that campaign and I am going to be trying a lot of new things to make it more fun for the players.  I am learning as we go along what they like and what they don't.


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 7, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Obviously you don't get it. So far you have told us your adventures consist of...
> 
> - railroad plots
> - An NPC that outshines the party and comes to the rescue
> ...



Wow. I read this whole thread, and got nothing of the sort.

Sounds like grasping and typical ENWorld criticizing, to me.

I'm with the OP - the whining player sounds like a git.


----------



## Slaygrim (Feb 7, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> I love how you seem to imply nothing could be wrong with your DM style, yet keep posting stuff like this.




Dude, seriously, wtf?  Get off my ass.  

A)  I never said that there was nothing wrong with my DMing style.  *No* DM has nothing wrong with their DMing style.

B)  I have consistently been saying that there are some things I need to adjust.  I am learning what the players like and they don't like.  

C)  MOST players have very very few complaints.  This one player, his complaints in one session usually outdo the complaints of 3 other players over several sessions.  Not only that, but the player directly challenges me in the middle of the campaign, is condescending to me, and pouts in his chair, ruining the time of everyone, even if no one else is complaining.  

But if you want to sit there and keep pointing the finger at me, the one trying to work this out and make things better, fine.  



			
				Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Obviously you don't get it. So far you have told us your adventures consist of...
> 
> - railroad plots
> - An NPC that outshines the party and comes to the rescue
> ...




I have repeatedly said it is not all the player, but this player DOES have major issues with whining.  If it were everyone, then I would assume it is almost completely on me, but since it is always that one player voicing his displeasure when everyone else is fine, I'm sorry, but I am going to be thinking that the major issue is how this guy plays the game.

As far as rendering the PC's useless... give me a break.  They had an ally for ONE BATTLE and this guy did defeat the 16th level sorcerer, but the PC's walked through the beholder and the runic guardian in 2 rounds.  They were *FAR* from rendered useless.  

Railroading... yes, some of that went on, and that is something I really am trying to work with fixing.  I didn't need to be told that to realize it, I have been realizing it as I was DMing and I am working on opening things up a LOT more with the next campaign.

With multiple encounters that render the player useless.  Not so.  It merely changed the role he had to play, and that's just how it works sometimes.  You explore an ancient wizard ruins you *will* be finding some constructs.  I am not going to keep constructs out of a sealed 2000 year old ruin because they are immune to a good portion of spells.  Sometimes the PC's will face something like this.  In such an occasion it's time for that player to show a little ingenuity by either summoning something to fight, using a wall of force to effect the battlefield, buff other players, etc.  If you just want to hurl fireballs then yeah, you're going to miss out on doing what you want sometimes.  That's just the way it goes.

I am not going to play a rogue and then complain I cannot sneak attack undead when I raid a lich's lair.



			
				Bagpuss said:
			
		

> If the first dungeon you run has Iron Golems, and undead with SR, and he feels useless and complains. Then the next dungeon also has Iron Golems, isn't he going to feel like you just ignored him? Does he know you changed it from 100% Iron Golems to a couple and Helmed Horrors instead?




These two dungeons were 4 adventures apart.  He wasn't useless against them, in fact, the only reason the players won the battle against the Death Knight, was BECAUSE this player buffed them up so much that they were ridiculous.  In that first dungeon there were two golems.  But in there, there was also MANY encounters where he could unload his memorized spells.  He was by no means sitting there throughout the adventure.

As was mentioned before, this player likes to see his character as the leader, the only one who matters, etc.  He attaches a lot of ego to his character.  So, if he faces an opponent that he cannot defeat, he gets pissy.  If he feels like he isn't the center show, such as a battle with a golem, then he doesn't like it.  He can't sit back and let the other players have their time in a sun.  This is a flaw HE has.  This isn't me.

Did he know I changed a lot of those constructs over?  No.  He doesn't need to know everything I do behind the DM screen.  But this definitely fed my aggravation that when I catered to him behind the scenes, and he still complains.

The best way I can handle this is to have a talk, hash out our problems, and make it a standard to discuss this after the game and not during.  If we cannot work it out, then we'll just have to stop gaming together.


----------



## Slaygrim (Feb 7, 2008)

Sol.Dragonheart said:
			
		

> And that, right there, is the problem.  You're taking away what little independence the PCs have by creating situations like this, and that will create discontent.  You claim that your friend never admits when he made a mistake, or when he's wrong, yet you seem just as unwilling to evaluate the situation objectively and see if you have also made mistakes.




Well apparently you cannot read, as I have consistently been saying that there are things I am working on improving with.  And I don't make every encounter like this one, this one-as I have said numerous times-is critical for the next big campaign.  The PC's were to witness (after the ritual) the return of this imprisoned Netherese Arcanist Halicron Indrid.  So yes, this one was railroaded a bit, but for good reason.  It's not like every single battle is like this.  This was the conclusion of a 10 adventure campaign.


----------



## Felix (Feb 7, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> I guess.  My players should trust that I am not going to outright kill them for no reason.  That's the trust I am talking about.  No one I know wants to game with a DM who is going to kill them off.
> 
> Sure, they may end up facing a battle they can't win, but if that ever happens, it's going to be a part of a story, not so I can chuckle at them for dying.



I don't think folks think you made that encounter to laugh at them; I don't anyway. But take a look at these two paragraphs: how is a player supposed to know when something is "part of the story"? If their actions are usually based on the idea that you'll give them stuff they can handle, and they run face-first into your story-encounters, they may get frustrated.

Just cautionary, man.


----------



## evilbob (Feb 7, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> The best way I can handle this is to have a talk, hash out our problems, and make it a standard to discuss this after the game and not during.  If we cannot work it out, then we'll just have to stop gaming together.



I think this is an excellent conclusion, and wish you luck.


----------



## Mr. Beef (Feb 7, 2008)

As someone who has only been on the Players side of the DM screen, and want's to try out his DMing prowress in the future, I'm going to try to stay balanced on my comment's without leaning to one side or the other.



			
				Slaygrim said:
			
		

> This guy whines CONSTANTLY.




I understand that a whining player is bad for everyone involved and sometimes makes you reconsider being the DM, but I think that you two are over the ages of angst (ages 13-18) and you want to make everything good for all the parties involved. 



			
				Slaygrim said:
			
		

> If faced with an opponant or battle that appears too tough for him, he will whine saying it's too strong of a battle and that there is no way his character would fight this battle.




Does he think that they are a bit too powerful for just him to take on by himself or for the entire party? If it's just him then I think he may be justified in whining, but he could probably bring it up in another fasion after the session is over and you can talk it out like adults. 



			
				Slaygrim said:
			
		

> Such as recently, the party is 4 10th level characters and they had to battle a 19th level wizard, a 16th level sorcerer, a 15th level wizard, a beholder, and a runic guardian.




Do the characters know the levels of their opponents or are they just guessing? Anyone with access to a MM will know the challenge level of a Beholder (13 if they have not changed anything). This makes me think that maybe you might have thrown a bit too much their way. 



			
				Slaygrim said:
			
		

> Of course this battle does appear to be too powerful, the gaming group completely forgot (I have no idea how) that the previous adventure the PC's learned that the 15th level wizard was actually a spy out to stop this 19th level wizards plot.




They may have forgotten because you threw a lot of stuff their way between their last encounter with the Wizard and this encounter. I know that in one of the games I used to play we all tried to remember bits and pieces of things, but sometimes people forget things  and we got to a point where someone always kept notes. 



			
				Slaygrim said:
			
		

> So the entire time before the battle, all I hear is whining.  _"Oh this is too powerful, we are out of our leagues.  My character wouldn't fight this, he'd just walk away." _ and all of this junk.  But of course the other PC's are going forward and fighting the battle so he reluctantly goes along. When the battle begins the 15th level wizard "enemy" immediately turns on his allies and aids the PC's in the battle.




This sounds like he has less to gripe about, but again how did they know this Wizard was level 15? I understand that things sometimes slip out or players sometimes see things that they should not see when they get up for a break, but how do they know this? 



			
				Slaygrim said:
			
		

> The battle actually secludes the main enemy from the battle (as was planned by me from the start) as he had to work on a ritual.  Thus it ended up being the 4 PC's and this 15th level wizard traitor against a 16th level sorcerer, a beholder, and a runic guardian.  In the end the battle went quick.  The sorcerer failed his save against prismatic spray and turned to stone on the first exchange, and the PC's destroyed the beholder and the runic guardian within two rounds.  This lead to the final battle which included all PC's + the 15th level wizard against the 19th level wizard.




I think 4 level 10 characters and a level 15 NPC might have a shot, but then again I have never faced these kinds of odds before. 



			
				Slaygrim said:
			
		

> Again, that player starts whining saying that once this wizard casts time stop they are all done for.  I wanted to rip my hair out.




This sounds like Metagaming to me and that is something that needs to be avoided. I think if this Wizard knew he was going to be facing 5 characters that have just buzzsawed through characters that are between 3 and 6 levels above them then the Wizard would have cast Time Stop a long time ago and did his ritual and been done with them afterwards. 



			
				Slaygrim said:
			
		

> I get to play and I am really resisting the urge to give him loads of trouble and a taste of his own medicine.




DON'T stoop to his level. Set an example of how a player should play by just playing your character to the back story you have written and don't gripe about a thing. If you feel you need to gripe about how something is being done, do it after the game. I'll state this again for the record: DON'T STOOP TO HIS LEVEL.


----------



## Sol.Dragonheart (Feb 8, 2008)

The point I and others are making here is that the player in question has reasonable objections that should be addressed.  In the first situation, you presented a combat scenario that was heavily slated against the players, with victory only possible through DM fiat, and retreat or escape barred by the same.    

In the second scenario, he was faced with the prospect of having his character do practically nothing throughout an entire dungeon.  All complaints of "metagaming" aside, D&D is still a game, and it's not fun to have nothing substantial to do with your character for 4-6 hours straight.  By the way, the question was not answered, as to whether or not the character had foreknowledge of this dungeons inhabitants, or time/the option to retreat and scribe spells for the encounters.  

I don't see why you are placing all the blame for the issues you are having with the player in question solely at his feet.  There is nothing wrong with considering his point of view and why he made the objections, despite the fact he may not have done so with the greatest of grace and diplomacy.


----------



## Slaygrim (Feb 8, 2008)

Sol.Dragonheart said:
			
		

> The point I and others are making here is that the player in question has reasonable objections that should be addressed.  In the first situation, you presented a combat scenario that was heavily slated against the players, with victory only possible through DM fiat, and retreat or escape barred by the same.




I see the problem with this if it were a regular occurrence, but it is not.  It was ONE battle in an ENTIRE campaign, and this final battle is setting up the next big campaign, so certain things had to happen in a certain order this one time.  I do not see the problem with that.  

If you think there is never a time and place for a battle to happen that would under normal circumstances be too tough, but under the right conditions the PC's found themselves game to the challenge, then we'll just disagree and that's that.  

A lot of epic stories have situations like this.  



			
				Sol.Dragonheart said:
			
		

> In the second scenario, he was faced with the prospect of having his character do practically nothing throughout an *entire dungeon*.




For the eighteenth time, this is NOT TRUE.  I have said this time after time after time.  In the first dungeon many adventures back, there was an entire dungeon full of enemies and battles.  In this dungeon there were TWO Iron Golems, and ONE Death Knight.  There were still a ton of other battles where that player did plenty.  There was another wizard in the party, HE had no complaints.  JUST the whiner.

As for the Netherese Dungeon, the final dungeon, I already said that I went ahead and changed the vast majority of constructs over from Iron Golems to Helmed Horrors after the first dungeon BECAUSE the player didn't like facing a single battle where he couldn't use Evocation like it was going out of style the next day.

So AGAIN, your assessment is off.  Imagine my frustration when you guys keep saying the same thing over and over about this and I keep on trying to set it straight but then the next post is saying the same thing, as if I never set the record straight.  I imagine your patience would wear thin.



			
				Sol.Dragonheart said:
			
		

> All complaints of "metagaming" aside, D&D is still a game, a*nd it's not fun to have nothing substantial to do with your character for 4-6 hours straight. *




*SIGH.*




			
				Sol.Dragonheart said:
			
		

> By the way, the question was not answered, as to whether or not the character had foreknowledge of this dungeons inhabitants, or time/the option to retreat and scribe spells for the encounters.




The PC's were aware that:

A)  The dungeon was an ancient stasis tomb imprisoning an Arcanist and that it had been sealed for 2000 years.

I don't know about you, but to me, I think I'd have a fairly good idea what I would be facing; Undead, or Constructs.

B)  Yes, they knew that the entrance they were taking to get into the dungeon was going to reseal itself after they entered well before going in.



			
				Sol.Dragonheart said:
			
		

> I don't see why you are placing all the blame for the issues you are having with the player in question solely at his feet.  There is nothing wrong with considering his point of view and why he made the objections, despite the fact he may not have done so with the greatest of grace and diplomacy.




Once AGAIN I do not blame every issue on this player.  I have said this MULTIPLE times too.      I'll not repeat it again.  You're wrong here.  Go back and read the last few posts to see numerous occasions where I firmly states I could have done things better.

I'm sure within the next few posts I'll end up repeating all of this again.


----------



## Felix (Feb 8, 2008)

> I'm sure within the next few posts I'll end up repeating all of this again.



Few folks who come into a 5-page thread read the whole thing before they post. *shrug* That's what you get with teh intarnet.

Anywho, have you talked to the guy yet by any chance?


----------



## White Whale (Feb 8, 2008)

Slaygrim, it seems as though you chose really bad examples to describe the Whiner. As has been pointed out by several people, the Whiner is actually justified in expressing concerns in those specific cases (overchallenging encounter and encounters where the player is 'useless').

If you really want sympathy you should provide examples where the Whiner has no reason to whine.


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 8, 2008)

Wow, Slaygrim, I feel for you.

This is indeed one of the worst examples of people not adequately reading the thread (and the posts within the thread) I've ever seen at ENWorld.

Ow.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 8, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Wow, Slaygrim, I feel for you.
> 
> This is indeed one of the worst examples of people not adequately reading the thread (and the posts within the thread) I've ever seen at ENWorld.
> 
> Ow.





Does this mean that there'll be a "whiney posters" thread soon?


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 8, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Does this mean that there'll be a "whiney posters" thread soon?



It's like the answer to the question: "why, if there is a Mother's Day and a Father's Day, is there no "Children's Day"?"

_Every_ thread is a "whiney posters" thread!


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 9, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Wow, Slaygrim, I feel for you.
> 
> This is indeed one of the worst examples of people not adequately reading the thread (and the posts within the thread) I've ever seen at ENWorld.
> 
> Ow.



Or one of the best examples of most posters disagreeing with the OP.

I did indeed read his post, and I did indeed feel that the whining _in the example cited_ was warranted.

It is also possible that the OP is 'punishing' the player, which, if true, only reinforces my opinion. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## cougent (Feb 9, 2008)

And we come full circle, whining, being childish, being rude are NEVER justified... well maybe if he is 12, but no not even then really.

Having an issue / problem / disagreement with the scenario and trying to resolve it to ones own satisfaction is acceptable, being a whiney brat is not... especially if he is not 12.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 9, 2008)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> I did indeed read his post, and I did indeed feel that the whining _in the example cited_ was warranted.




Ditto. I think that _most_ of the responders read it, as they cited specific portions of it in their replies or alluded to very specific things cited therein. It seems to be a case of "disagrees with what the OP posted" not "didn't read what the OP posted"


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 9, 2008)

cougent said:
			
		

> And we come full circle, whining, being childish, being rude are NEVER justified... well maybe if he is 12, but no not even then really.
> 
> Having an issue / problem / disagreement with the scenario and trying to resolve it to ones own satisfaction is acceptable, being a whiney brat is not... especially if he is not 12.



And being a bad DM _is?_ - that is the point of contention here - the scenario cited was built to make the PCs useless. Whee, fun. Let's play Scrabble instead. Call us when you finish the dice.

If this is what the bulk of the campaign is like I would uninvite the DM - regardless of whether the whiny player was gotten rid of as well. If the DM wants the battle to be between uberpowerful NPCs then why bother having the players at all?

It is possible to have both a bad DM and a bad player in the same game. But the evidence shown so far is much stronger that the DM is a core problem, and by his own example. We have not heard from the player, and we likely never will. Without his input all we can go by is the example given - which is not that of great DMing.

My reaction is fairly strong because I have been in games where the DM behaved in a similar fashion - and we did indeed give him the boot. The game is supposed to be fun for everyone, not just the DM.

The Auld Grump


----------



## cougent (Feb 9, 2008)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> And being a bad DM _is?_ - that is the point of contention here - the scenario cited was built to make the PCs useless. Whee, fun. Let's play Scrabble instead. Call us when you finish the dice.
> 
> If this is what the bulk of the campaign is like I would uninvite the DM - regardless of whether the whiny player was gotten rid of as well. If the DM wants the battle to be between uberpowerful NPCs then why bother having the players at all?
> 
> ...



I intentionally stayed out of the "Bad DM" debate, because I don't feel that's my place to say.  IMO, his example is horrible, but that is a sidebar, not the point.

It is quite possible to have both be wrong, but it just seems silly that when someone posts a question and then gives a bad example that most everyone ignores the question and lambastes the guy for his example.  "Here is how to deal with your whiney player, you suck as a DM.", I just don't see that as helpful or staying on topic.


----------



## prosfilaes (Feb 9, 2008)

cougent said:
			
		

> It is quite possible to have both be wrong, but it just seems silly that when someone posts a question and then gives a bad example that most everyone ignores the question and lambastes the guy for his example.  "Here is how to deal with your whiney player, you suck as a DM.", I just don't see that as helpful or staying on topic.




If the person is whining because the game sucks, part of the solution is going to be fixing the game. That's helpful and on topic. Also, when giving advice, you always have to remember there's two sides to an issue, and you're getting one side. Frequently the only way to understand why the defendant is acting the way they are is by figuring out what the plaintiff doesn't understand or isn't saying.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 9, 2008)

cougent said:
			
		

> I intentionally stayed out of the "Bad DM" debate, because I don't feel that's my place to say.  IMO, his example is horrible, but that is a sidebar, not the point.
> 
> It is quite possible to have both be wrong, but it just seems silly that when someone posts a question and then gives a bad example that most everyone ignores the question and lambastes the guy for his example.  "Here is how to deal with your whiney player, you suck as a DM.", I just don't see that as helpful or staying on topic.



Part of the solution is to _fix the game_. Given the description I would say that is the _biggest_ piece of the solution. Get rid of legitimate reasons to whine before complaining about the player whining. 

If you go out of your way to give players something to whine about then you will have whiny players. Which, by his own description, is what the OP did.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Slaygrim (Feb 10, 2008)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> And being a bad DM _is?_ - that is the point of contention here - the scenario cited was built to make the PCs useless. Whee, fun. Let's play Scrabble instead. Call us when you finish the dice.




Man, my patience has run out.  I am very sick of the idiots here painting straw men arguments.  The players were NOT in a situation where they were useless.   You're either making up stuff because you don't have a point or you are completely ignorant of what went on despite my going into better detail explaining everything.



			
				TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> If this is what the bulk of the campaign is like I would uninvite the DM - regardless of whether the whiny player was gotten rid of as well. If the DM wants the battle to be between uberpowerful NPCs then why bother having the players at all?




It wasn't like that.  Again, you are making  up.  The PC's wiped the floor with that battle in 2 rounds.  The NPC managed to take out the opposing sorcerer, but the wizard, the beholder, the guardian all fell to the PC's.  Get your facts straight.  I am sick of people on here not listening.  



			
				TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> It is possible to have both a bad DM and a bad player in the same game. But the evidence shown so far is much stronger that the DM is a core problem, and by his own example. We have not heard from the player, and we likely never will. Without his input all we can go by is the example given - which is not that of great DMing.




Kiss my ass.



			
				TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> My reaction is fairly strong because I have been in games where the DM behaved in a similar fashion - and we did indeed give him the boot. The game is supposed to be fun for everyone, not just the DM.
> 
> The Auld Grump




I am not that DM so get off my ass.  I have cited numerous times where I explained everything further, and each of your assessments here have been wrong.


----------



## Slaygrim (Feb 10, 2008)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> If the person is whining because the game sucks, part of the solution is going to be fixing the game. That's helpful and on topic.




Not when I have repeated MULTIPLE TIMES that NONE of the other players had a problem.  I have repeated MULTIPLE TIMES that this player has a problem EVERYTIME the group games and the entire group is SICK of his whining.

But no, it's 100% my fault.


----------



## shilsen (Feb 10, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> Not when I have repeated MULTIPLE TIMES that NONE of the other players had a problem.  I have repeated MULTIPLE TIMES that this player has a problem EVERYTIME the group games and the entire group is SICK of his whining.
> 
> But no, it's 100% my fault.



 I have a question for you, because I'm genuinely curious - why do you keep posting on this thread if it aggravates you so much? After all, if a bunch of random strangers on the internet tell you that you're a bad DM, why do you care and why does it upset you so?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 10, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> Not when I have repeated MULTIPLE TIMES that NONE of the other players had a problem.  I have repeated MULTIPLE TIMES that this player has a problem EVERYTIME the group games and the entire group is SICK of his whining.
> 
> But no, it's 100% my fault.




Or maybe he was the only one willing to say that there _was_ a problem.



			
				Slaygrim said:
			
		

> If faced with an opponant or battle that appears too tough for him, he will whine saying it's too strong of a battle and that there is no way his character would fight this battle. Such as recently, the party is 4 10th level characters and they had to battle a *19th level wizard, a 16th level sorcerer, a 15th level wizard, a beholder, and a runic guardian*. Of course this battle does appear to be too powerful, the gaming group completely forgot (I have no idea how) that the previous adventure the PC's learned that the 15th level wizard was actually a spy out to stop this 19th level wizards plot. So the entire time before the battle, all I hear is whining. "Oh this is too powerful, we are out of our leagues. My character wouldn't fight this, he'd just walk away."  and all of this junk. But of course the other PC's are going forward and fighting the battle so he reluctantly goes along.



Because, frankly, there _is_ a problem.
100% your fault, maybe not. But are you responsible, in major part? Most decidedly, yes.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Umbran (Feb 10, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> Kiss my ass.






Ah, time for a vacation.

Anyone else care to be uncivil, vacations can be arranged for you, too.  This sort of behavior is  unacceptable on these boards.


----------



## cougent (Feb 10, 2008)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> If the person is whining because the game sucks, part of the solution is going to be fixing the game.



I agree 100%, fixing the problems has to be done at a mature level though.  Start whining and you are more likely to be ignored than to get anything resolved.


			
				prosfilaes said:
			
		

> That's helpful and on topic. Also, when giving advice, you always have to remember there's two sides to an issue, and you're getting one side. Frequently the only way to understand why the defendant is acting the way they are is by figuring out what the plaintiff doesn't understand or isn't saying.



And here I disagree completely.  I agree that the player has a position, and that he can seek to make the situation right for himself _maturely_, but just as I don't try to understand criminals and terrorists, I do not try to understand whining and rudeness.  I will (and have) worked to resolve issues with my own players in the past (and will again in the future) but would never reward rudeness or whining by acquiescing to those demands.  Be mature, be civil, or be gone.

I still find attacking the side you did get to hear and declaring him "wrong" as totally innaprpriate, but thats just me.


----------



## cougent (Feb 10, 2008)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Part of the solution is to _fix the game_. Given the description I would say that is the _biggest_ piece of the solution. Get rid of legitimate reasons to whine before complaining about the player whining.



You previously stated that your strong reaction was from an experience with a bad DM, we all respond somewhat from our own experiences.  Mine being from having the extremely annoying whiney player. [post 59]  From my history the answer from one perspective would agree with you completely.  To my whiney player I was 100% wrong as well.  To 3 others he was 100% wrong, and to the other 4 there was no spoken opinion.  To "Get rid of legitimate reasons to whine" with my whiney player I would have had to quit / cancel the game since he felt I was always wrong.  Since neither he nor any of the other 7 players wanted to DM a game (yes I did inquire), I don't see how following his wishes would _fix the game._


			
				TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> If you go out of your way to give players something to whine about then you will have whiny players. Which, by his own description, is what the OP did.



I agree with the first sentence and totally don't see the second one in the OP.


----------



## prosfilaes (Feb 10, 2008)

cougent said:
			
		

> just as I don't try to understand criminals and terrorists, I do not try to understand whining and rudeness.




You do know that frequently they consider you to have been rude and committed crimes? If nobody is trying to understand each other, things deteriorate quickly.



> would never reward rudeness or whining by acquiescing to those demands.  Be mature, be civil, or be gone.




It's a solution that has been espoused here, and which has some merit. However, if you expell any players who are seen as complaining, the other may choose silence rather than expressing what they find lacking in your campaign; you may be expelling a player if that if you approached them in a mature and civil manner, they might improve; and you might end up expelling a significant part of your group if your standards on politeness are too rigid. 



> I still find attacking the side you did get to hear and declaring him "wrong" as totally innaprpriate, but thats just me.




I can't see that as viable over all cases. If the OP had said



> I try to play a fair game; I only get a TPK every couple sessions. But the players keep coming up after the game and complaining...




or even 



> I try to play a fair game; I only get a TPK every couple sessions. But one player keeps whining in game...




would you still find inappropriate to mention that the problem might be the OP's game? Between the two is only a matter of perception and degree.


----------



## jmucchiello (Feb 10, 2008)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Because, frankly, there _is_ a problem.
> 100% your fault, maybe not. But are you responsible, in major part? Most decidedly, yes.



How many times are you going to throw in his face "the problem" that he admitted was his fault? Did you read the whole thread? The guy said parts of the scenarios posted were problematic. And all you can do is post again and again that he is the problem. Old news. Move on.

I want to know what happens next but thanks to the posters who wouldn't stop riding the guy, we probably won't find out as I doubt he'll be back. Great way to welcome some one new to ENWorld.


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 10, 2008)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> How many times are you going to throw in his face "the problem" that he admitted was his fault? Did you read the whole thread? The guy said parts of the scenarios posted were problematic. And all you can do is post again and again that he is the problem. Old news. Move on.
> 
> I want to know what happens next but thanks to the posters who wouldn't stop riding the guy, we probably won't find out as I doubt he'll be back. Great way to welcome some one new to ENWorld.




Exactly- Slaygrim admitted he's a novice DM, and was also asking for advice in addition to venting about a crappy player.  He clearly stated that the NPC aiding in the fight was a setup for events in the following campaing, and had not used an NPC for a similar purpose in another fight previously in that campain at all.  And clearly the group didn't have trouble with the runic guardian or beholder- they mowed over them in 2 rounds.  True the Wiz 15 got lucky and toasted the Sor 16 with a spell, but those things happen in D&D.  And if the Wiz was occupying the Sor, then it sounds like the next round the party melee specialists would have carved the sorcerer into a million little pieces.  Bad move on the part of Slaygrim to make an "outclassing" encounter?  Maybe- but he did also take into account that the villian NPCs used up a lot of resources to battle through the dungeon- which is a GOOD DM move.  Bad move on the player's part to throw a whiny temper tantrum?  Most definitely.

Then, the "nerfing" of the wizard PC.  As I have said before, and other posters- the wizard PC wasn't useless in the iron golem fights.  He could buff other party members, use terrain modifying spells (wall of force for example), or summon critters to help take the heat off the front-line PCs.  And Slaygrim said repeatedly this was NOT a common occurrance- it only happend in two cases in the campaign.  This player expected to be able to evoke and blast 24/7 and never have to modify his tactics- which is a really stupid move on the part of the player to be honest.  He built a one-trick pony for a PC, and when his one trick didn't work, he threw a temper tantrum and blamed the DM for "screwing" him.  Sorry bub, you screwed yourself- no pity from me there.

Both of these occurrances were exceptions to the rule in Slaygrim's campaign, not the norm.  Plus, he told us of preivous experience with the guy throwing temper tantrums during a duel with another PC wizard, and that the other players were bothered by the whiner's behavior and one was thinking of leaving.  Further, he told us that the other players didn't have a problem with the game- more with the problem player.  The icing on the cake is the whiner complaining about an easy encounter.  The problem here isn't Slaygrim's- its the whiner player.  

Several posters rode Slaygrim hard about his DMing, while apparently not even reading or paying attention to his comments as he posted- and he got more and more frustrated.  I can definitely see why.  Did he make some mistakes?  Yes- and he admitted to them.  That takes some maturity to do so, and I commend him for that.  He's trying to learn and improve his game.  On the other hand, the whiner isn't contributing anything- in fact, by all accounts, he is DETRACTING from Slaygrim's and his players enjoyment of the game.  In fact, the whiner acts like he is "entitled" to whatever he wants, and uses whining tactics to get it.  Here's the deal bub- you want to treated like an adult, you have to act like one- then you'll earn respect instead of scorn, and rightfully deserved mocking.  

I feel for Slaygrim- he came here wanting to vent yes, but also for advice about how to handle this player.  Instead, he got barbed and criticized by posters who identified with the whiner (for whatever reasons- I'll leave it at that), and who didn't even apparently read his posts, just scolded him for "badwrongfun" DMing.  I've dealt with whiner players before (see my preivous posts) and crappy DMs.  Slaygrim isn't a crappy DM, but this player is most certainly a jackass and not worth keeping around.  If you're still reading this Slaygrim, keep up the good fight, and don't cave in to this guy.  If he keeps acting like this, don't be afraid to exclude him from the group and boot him- and don't feel bad about booting him- this guy would try anybody's patience.  And though it might not mean much, please accept my apologies for how you were treated here- IME most folks here are pretty helpful and civil.  You apparently just happened to get unlucky and draw a lot of flack from whiner player,  player entitlement sympathizers.


----------



## prosfilaes (Feb 10, 2008)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> This player expected to be able to evoke and blast 24/7 and never have to modify his tactics- which is a really stupid move on the part of the player to be honest.  He built a one-trick pony for a PC, and when his one trick didn't work, he threw a temper tantrum and blamed the DM for "screwing" him.  Sorry bub, you screwed yourself- no pity from me there.




So we can blame the player for "badwrongfun" now? As I said above, how flexible a player should be is not a right or wrong issue, it's a playing style issue.



> I feel for Slaygrim- he came here wanting to vent yes, but also for advice about how to handle this player.




Which he got. We also got evidence that he is sensitive to criticism and that his players may in fact not talking to him about problems, because he doesn't respond well to them. I've played with one DM who we didn't talk to about problems in the campaign because we thought he'd hold a grudge and it was easier for the game to just be over.



> I've dealt with whiner players before (see my preivous posts)




And you're more sensitive to that side. But that doesn't mean it's the only way to look at this case, or that it's the right way.


----------



## Felix (Feb 10, 2008)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> I feel for Slaygrim- he came here wanting to vent yes, but also for advice about how to handle this player. Instead, he got barbed and criticized by posters who identified with the whiner (for whatever reasons- I'll leave it at that), and who didn't even apparently read his posts, just scolded him for "badwrongfun" DMing. I've dealt with whiner players before (see my preivous posts) and crappy DMs. Slaygrim isn't a crappy DM, but this player is most certainly a jackass and not worth keeping around. If you're still reading this Slaygrim, keep up the good fight, and don't cave in to this guy. If he keeps acting like this, don't be afraid to exclude him from the group and boot him- and don't feel bad about booting him- this guy would try anybody's patience. And though it might not mean much, please accept my apologies for how you were treated here- IME most folks here are pretty helpful and civil. You apparently just happened to get unlucky and draw a lot of flack from whiner player, player entitlement sympathizers.




I'll agree with most of this; it's hard to deal with folks in long threads that don't read every post and raise issues that had been previously addressed.

I would, however, encourage Slaygrim to talk to the player about how both of you might work together to change habits that are frustrating to the other. Naturally, if no consensus can be reached, exodus or expulsion is the remaining solution; I would hope that it be left as a final solution, to be used after other avenues are explored first.

Good luck Slaygrim, and I hope your fortunes change in the game he is running.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 10, 2008)

Oh. Dear. God. We have a guy, who came here to whine about a whiner and then got himself suspended for whining when people gave him advice that he didn't like. But it just couldn't end there, no. He had his buddy sign up to whine for him by proxy about people siding with the whining player that the guy originally came here to whine about. Surely this is some kind of weirdo surreal satire. There is no possible way that this can be real.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 11, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Oh. Dear. God. We have a guy, who came here to whine about a whiner and then got himself suspended for whining when people gave him advice that he didn't like. But it just couldn't end there, no. He had his buddy sign up to whine for him by proxy about people siding with the whining player that the guy originally came here to whine about. Surely this is some kind of weirdo surreal satire. There is no possible way that this can be real.



You pass a sign post.
It says 'Welcome to the Whiny Zone'....

Gothmog - you may not agree, but my opinion is not likely to change -  I do not think that anyone is going to convince anyone of anything here - in my opinion the Iron Golems scenario was a poor choice - forcing a player into a role he was badly suited for - buffing is not a whole lot of fun when it is the only thing you can do; back to the Scrabble board. Call me when the fight is over. 

I was willing to bring up the DM's mistakes every time he tried to lay the whole of the blame on the player - who I feel to be less at fault, in the cited instances, than the DM. The player chose a poor method of handling an existent problem, he was not the root cause _of_ the problem. There may have been other problems with the player, but in the cited examples, the only examples that we have been given, the player was far from the only one at fault.

At the core is the problem of a 'storytelling DM' - For a lot of players that is not a fun game, to others it can be enjoyable, but most players I have found prefer to be the main characters in the story rather than the sidekicks.

The Auld Grump


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 11, 2008)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> You pass a sign post.
> It says 'Welcome to the Whiny Zone....




You have been eaten by a grue.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 11, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> You have been eaten by a grue.



I was wondering what I was doing in a series of twisting passages, all alike....

The Auld Grump


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 11, 2008)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> You pass a sign post.
> It says 'Welcome to the Whiny Zone'....
> 
> Gothmog - you may not agree, but my opinion is not likely to change -  I do not think that anyone is going to convince anyone of anything here - in my opinion the Iron Golems scenario was a poor choice - forcing a player into a role he was badly suited for - buffing is not a whole lot of fun when it is the only thing you can do; back to the Scrabble board. Call me when the fight is over.
> ...





Hey AuldGump,

Agreed, the iron golems weren't the best choice to use in this case- its always better to at least try to make sure players have fun and everyone can do something.  And Slaygrim admitted this was his first campaign, and he was learning the ropes.  Other golems or construct types could have worked as well, but maybe the OP was flipping through his MM and saw the iron golems were closest to the CR he needed for this party, and didn't have time to advance a less powerful golem and/or make up a new construct.  I understand where you're coming from completely- I played with a BAD DM once who intentionally made monsters to negate my character's abilities back in the early days of 3E, and he did it on a consistent basis (read, every adventure).  If I recall, he didn't like that my half-orc barbarian did so much damage and took his bada** monsters down so quick, so he instituted a rule that said that anytime a 1 was rolled on an attack, I had to roll for weapon breakage, with a big penalty for being stong and causing my weapon to break.  Strangely, no other PCs had to worry about this rule.  Factor that in with monsters that are immune to my weapons and/or power attack, or who can end my rage due to some kind of aura   .  Now THAT is a crappy DM.  

Slaygrim didn't seem to be doing this on a consistent basis, instead citing that its an exception to the way encounters usually went.  I guess what I'm saying is that if this occurs only a couple times in a campaign, I don't see it as a major problem- sometimes things happen IRL and in a game world we aren't optomized to deal with.  Thats when you try new solutions to problems and learn from your experiences.  Maybe its not as much fun to be buffing or summoning or modifying the terrain, but its a rare occurrance.

Now I'll agree that while the player isn't responsible for the adventure situations (Slaygrim is, and he admitted such), the player IS responsible for how he handled them, and how he detracted from the fun the group had.  Like I said before, if the problem player had approached Slaygrim in a mature and calm manner, this likely wouldn't have been an issue- but the player chose an immature way to handle the situation, which set Slaygrim on the defensive from the start.  Agreed that the root cause wasn't the player, but he has a consistent way of handling problems (whining and being disruptive) which IS a problem.

I don't really think its a storytelling DM vs other DMing or playstyles issue here.  I've played with strong gamist DMs and strong storytelling DMs, and had a blast in both cases.  I fall more on the storytelling or narrative side of the situation, but  I can enjoy gamist play as well with a good DM.  Storytelling DM doesn't automatically mean railroad or DMPC (in fact I've known more gamist DMs who do the railroad and DMPC thing)- it means that the DM has a strong plot that arcs throughout the campaign, and a good storytelling DM weaves the PCs into the plot as prophesied major players or agents for change who direct the plot and flow of the game.  This seems more like a personality conflict the more I see of it, and very likely a maturity/mental health issue on the part of the problem player.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 11, 2008)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> <SNIPS Some Very Good Points>This seems more like a personality conflict the more I see of it, and very likely a maturity/mental health issue on the part of the problem player.



Whereas I see a lack of maturity on both their parts. We also differ in our views as to who is the worse offender. But yes, a personality conflict is likely the real core.

Odd as it sounds, unconnected as it sounds, this discussion has me thinking that if 4e makes it more likely I will have a chance to play, rather than run, I may pick it up as a player, not to ever run the game. (It is strange, the way the mind works sometimes, isn't it?)

The Auld Grump


----------



## Squire James (Feb 11, 2008)

From the biased view of someone with over 20 years DM experience and about 1 year player experience, I'd say that the DM has a much more difficult job than the players and should generally be cut some slack.  A DM will make mistakes, and most of them will not be obvious until after he makes them.  At the very least, I think he deserves to be treated like a normal human being and not some sort of human punching bag.

I see about 3 mistakes in Slaygrim's final encounter (one of them being that 4 pieces of CR 7-9 beef with lots of HP would have made for a more interesting battle than one piece of CR 13 save or die finesse).  None of them were "whine-worthy".

Let's just say that in a similar position I would have saved myself only because I'd be shouting Slaygrim's "vacation inducing" comment at the computer screen rather than actually typing it in a message and hitting "submit reply".  By the time I am thinking clearly enough to make a post, I've recovered my temper enough to note that making such a reply is not worth it and just go on.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 11, 2008)

Squire James said:
			
		

> From the biased view of someone with over 20 years DM experience and about 1 year player experience, I'd say that the DM has a much more difficult job than the players and should generally be cut some slack.  A DM will make mistakes, and most of them will not be obvious until after he makes them.  At the very least, I think he deserves to be treated like a normal human being and not some sort of human punching bag.
> 
> I see about 3 mistakes in Slaygrim's final encounter (one of them being that 4 pieces of CR 7-9 beef with lots of HP would have made for a more interesting battle than one piece of CR 13 save or die finesse).  None of them were "whine-worthy".
> 
> Let's just say that in a similar position I would have saved myself only because I'd be shouting Slaygrim's "vacation inducing" comment at the computer screen rather than actually typing it in a message and hitting "submit reply".  By the time I am thinking clearly enough to make a post, I've recovered my temper enough to note that making such a reply is not worth it and just go on.



32+ years of GMing here - obviously we have had different experiences. I do see much that is complaint, if not whine, worthy. 

The biggest is that the DM _should have listened_. Whining was a poor way of expressing a very real series of problems. Encounters that make the PCs useless, or rely on powerful NPCs and poor tactics on the bad guys parts to be survivable, are poorly designed. Having _all the encounters in the location_ negate a PC's abilities is poor design. Not being willing to listen and acknowledge these are problems is poor DMing.

The problems described, and by the DM concerned, are serious enough that I likely would have left the group after the third week, if the game continued the way it has been described. It would not be worth my time and energy.

That said, yes, others gave much better advice to the DM than I did - Roguerouge in particular. For some reason the OP placing the bulk of the blame on the PC bothers me, hitting sore points from my previous experience as a player. And a part of it is realizing that the 19th level wizard should have been able to kill them all. It feels too much of a set piece rather than an encounter for the PCs to take part in.

Slaygrim might be better served looking up some good articles on adventure design, and on balancing encounters, than complaining that one of his players is complaining.

As a DM it is likely that my own flaws lie in the opposite direction - I second guess myself on whether an encounter will be fun and/or balanced for all the PCs - fretting more than it is, perhaps, worth. I do know that I have no whining players at the present time.

The Auld Grump


----------



## jmucchiello (Feb 11, 2008)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> I was willing to bring up the DM's mistakes every time he tried to lay the whole of the blame on the player - who I feel to be less at fault, in the cited instances, than the DM.



He never layed the whole blame on the player. You brought up his shortcomings repeatedly after he agreed with you about his mistakes. There's no call for that. You made your point two pages ago and you still haven't stop riding the guy now that he's gone.

Perhaps you should take your own advice and admit when you are wrong.


> At the core is the problem of a 'storytelling DM' - For a lot of players that is not a fun game, to others it can be enjoyable, but most players I have found prefer to be the main characters in the story rather than the sidekicks.



I entirely agree with this. But repeatedly saying "you're wrong" is not how to give someone advice.



> The problems described, and by the DM concerned, are serious enough that I likely would have left the group after the third week, if the game continued the way it has been described. It would not be worth my time and energy.



This proves you didn't read the thread or at least didn't read Slaygrim's posts. He said those two events occured 4 adventures apart.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 11, 2008)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> He never layed the whole blame on the player. You brought up his shortcomings repeatedly after he agreed with you about his mistakes. There's no call for that. You made your point two pages ago and you still haven't stop riding the guy now that he's gone.
> 
> Perhaps you should take your own advice and admit when you are wrong.
> I entirely agree with this. But repeatedly saying "you're wrong" is not how to give someone advice.
> ...



Yes, I did read all of Slaygrims's posts. Yes, he did lay the majority of the blame on the player. And yes, I knew that the events were not in the same adventure - if *you* had bothered reading *my* posts you would have seen that they are in fact written of as separate events. I stand by what I said. His own words, in the post that went into more detail was 'As per this encounter, I see it as part of the story.' And that is why I do not feel that he was sharing _any_ part of the blame.

I do agree that I could and should have been more politic - but at no point did he accept blame. His excuse is 'it's okay because it is storytelling' and he then goes on to describe the ritual that is the excuse to keep the 19th level wizard out of the fight.

Both Rakhir and Felix went into much better depth, my annoyance was with his saying that it was okay because he had the game on rails. A fixed battle with an assured outcome. The 'leftovers' alone were capable of killing the party, even without calling in the 19th level artillery. For it to go otherwise was a bit of sham.

And to be fair - the bulk of my responses were not to Slaygrim, but to folks defending those encounters, who were taking the stance that it was the player who was entirely in the wrong. Slaygrim at the end was reacting not only to my posts to him, but to my posts to others who had commented. 

I will apologize to that extent - to my mind I was not hitting Slaygrim over the head repeatedly, but other moles that were popping out of their holes. The effect is the same however, and for that I do apologize. I was treating each post as a separate argument, and replying in kind, the effect was me repeating myself over each time the same argument came up. Slaygrim had no reason to know what was going on in my mind, and in that light his response makes a tad more sense. 

He and I would both have been better served had I left the arguments to lie, though that is against my nature. It was not my intent to annoy him to the point where he got himself a temporary ban. I was not the one who called attention to that portion of his post, feeling that he was in high temper at that point. I would have responded to that post, possibly in more conciliatory a form.

That was part of the reason I started the other thread, on how a player should approach problems with a DM - I have had much more experience as a DM than as a player, and wanted to actually gain some advice that might be useful. I know how I handle and avoid such matters in my own games, I do not know how a player should handle it in someone else's.

And again, I am hitting a mole rather than responding to Slaygrim. At least I am consistent....

The Auld Grump


----------



## DonTadow (Feb 11, 2008)

Slaygrim said:
			
		

> (edit:  For more information, read post #76 by me)
> 
> I've got a player in my group who is the BIGGEST whiner, and I can't stand it.  The biggest problem is that he is the only other person who will DM with me, so having him around is the only way I actually get to play a character.
> 
> ...



Is he really whining or thinking logically about his character? 

I have a player who plays a merchant.  This merchant is an adequate psion though has no combat experience. He tends to not take part in serious pc battles because its not in his characters nature.  

My second question would be how on earth does your pcs know the levels of the enemies?  Unless they've seen them cast a spell and then guaged it, they really shouldn't know the exact crs.  Even as a gamist that's dm knowledge not player knowledge. 

As advice, you also seemed to have a set plot that you needed the pcs to do in order for them to accomplish the task.  This is a bit railroady and does not work with every player.  Encounters should be balanced for the pcs, not the pcs and super npc. 

that's not to say you can't throw powerful enemies at your pcs, you just got to leave it open enough that they have a chance against it using multiple techniques.  My pcs now are fighting a series of level 20 villians (6) at an average pc level of 7.  They fully could just turn around and walk away and do something else and that would be fine. They even had discussion of this. So far they've defeated 4 of them.  Not to go into detail, but there were multiple ways to weaken each villain before and during the combat that hte pcs creatively thought of or took advantage of.  One PC decided that a the sin of pride may have a vunerablity to mirrors another distracted the sin of gluttony with a heroe's feast.  

The PCs need to have control and if they feel that their own solutions won't solve the encounter you'll get responses that they feel trapped aind such. 

I'd also refrain from calling the pcs whiny.  It might nto happen the way you like, but communication between the dm and pcs are a great thing to have. It lets you know how to write up and edit adventures and lets them know what your style is.


----------



## Xath (Feb 11, 2008)

I'm curious as to how many other groups the players of this game have had experience with.  The "Whiny Player" and his friend seem to have experience playing in other groups, but nothing has been mentioned about the players that agree with the GM.  I've found, in general, that more "worldly" players will be more vocal about what they disagree with in a campaign, whereas, newer players or players with limited group experience are more inclined to go with the flow because they have no real basis of comparison.  

The OP has stated that "whiny player" also GMs in their group.  I've also found that sometimes GMs have difficulty letting go of the way they think things should be, especially if they have been GMing for a long stretch.  A lot of times it's an ego thing.  They're so used to the idea that they're the be all end all, that they buck against a GM that does things differently.  Especially one with limited experience.  

In my experience, you can soothe a disassociated GM/Player by occasionally asking them for their advice (outside of game session), or asking them how they would have handled an encounter.  This accomplishes 2 things.  1) You might learn something from a more experienced GM.  2) It gives the GM/Player the idea that they're not being entirely booted from their throne.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 11, 2008)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> The biggest is that the DM _should have listened_. Whining was a poor way of expressing a very real series of problems. Encounters that make the PCs useless, or rely on powerful NPCs and poor tactics on the bad guys parts to be survivable, are poorly designed. Having _all the encounters in the location_ negate a PC's abilities is poor design.





See, this is the thing that gets me on this thread.  The OP has repeatedly told us that he did not have _all the encounters in the location_ negate a PC's abilities.  There were (if memory serves) two iron golems (which nerf direct magical attacks, but which do not nerf indirect magical attacks) and undead (some of which could be simply blasted).  

If the biggest problem is that the DM should have listened, then it is equally true that the biggest problem on this thread is that those attacking said DM should have first listened to what he said.

Even then, I completely disagree with the idea that an area with magic resistant creatures negates the effectiveness of spellcasters.  Certainly, as has been pointed out many, many times, there are spells that allow you to be effective without directly affecting the creature.  And not just buffing, because (as we know) support roles are now officially "unfun".

You can summon a creature.  You can turn the floor beneath a resistant creature to mud, and then to stone, effectively trapping it.  You can damage the ceiling above it to cause damage, or you can damage the floor beneath it to cause it to fall.  IMC, one memorable fight ended when the party set up a Stone Guardian to chase them through a weakened section of floor, causing it to fall through to the level below.  The OP is clear that the players knew what sort of area they were entering; the player in question should have known that relying on sheer blasting power might not have worked.  A few divination spells would certainly be useful prior to heading in, because better information leads to better spell selection.

On top of that, it is a _good thing_, IMHO, for the DM to introduce situations in which the players cannot simply rely on the same tactics over and over again.  If Bob the Fighter charges into close combat every time an enemy is sighted, it is a good DM who designs some encounters that make charging into combat either impossible or a questionable tactic.  And there is nothing wrong with an entire adventuring site (such as natural caverns) that accomplish this function.  Situations that force players to occasionally change tactics lead (with good players) to greater depth in play, memorable encounters, and a greater sense of accomplishment.  These are all _good things_.

In this game, players have the option to create either a character with breadth of ability (but who, as a result of that breadth, lack the concentrated firepower of a specialist) or who focus on doing one thing really, really well (and who, by doing so, sacrifice at least a portion of that breadth of ability).  No player has the right to assume that, by selecting a narrow focus, he is guaranteed to make good use of that focus in every encounter, or on every adventure.  Indeed, setting up adventures that way does nothing more than eliminate the downside of selecting such a narrow focus, as there is no need for breadth of ability.  

The DM has every right to set up situations in the campaign world in whatever way seems best to him or her.  Being able to meet various sorts of challenges is part of the metagame of D&D....Do we have enough variety in character types/characters to succeed?  Are we too tightly focused?  How can we get past this thing which seems to be clearly beyond us?  Must we fight these iron golems, or is there a better way to get by (teleportational magic, gaseous form, etc.)?  Might a divination spell clue us in on the iron golem's instructions, so that we can simply walk past it by displaying the right sign, or saying the right word?

The only major DM problem I can see here is that the DM assumed that the players would engage with his encounters, instead of (in some cases) simply running away.  Of course, it has become far more popular with 3.x to assume that the players will follow along with the DM's storyline.  This is, after all, the era of the Adventure Path.  Anyone reading the DMG may well come to the conclusion that the DM is supposed to tailor encounters for the players, rather than allowing the players to choose what encounters they face based on seeking information and acting accordingly.  If the DM reads the WotC site in recent years, he might discover that "wandering encounters" are now "unfun".  If he reads WotC modules like _Barrow of the Forgotten King_, he might be forgiven if he thought that an adventure should be a series of encounters, one after the other, without deviation or room for choice.

(Can you tell that I prefer sandbox play?   )

Thankfully, though, the OP has acknowledged this problem.

To DonTadow:  As I understand it, the player accused of whining is frequently a DM.  I take it that he has a pretty good understanding of the rules, and thus is able to determine likely levels based upon effects seen at the table.  As someone who DMs almost exclusively, I find that I can guage encounters like this pretty quickly while playing.  I just try not to announce levels at the table, or otherwise interfere with the rest of the players' enjoyment of the game.

RC


----------



## jmucchiello (Feb 11, 2008)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> I will apologize to that extent - to my mind I was not hitting Slaygrim over the head repeatedly, but other moles that were popping out of their holes. The effect is the same however, and for that I do apologize. I was treating each post as a separate argument, and replying in kind, the effect was me repeating myself over each time the same argument came up. Slaygrim had no reason to know what was going on in my mind, and in that light his response makes a tad more sense.



I just hope he'll come back and see your apology. ENWorld was not well served by this thread.


> And again, I am hitting a mole rather than responding to Slaygrim. At least I am consistent....



Not really. I agree with core of your argument. It just went on too long, too far.


----------



## Felix (Feb 11, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The OP has repeatedly told us that he did not have all the encounters in the location negate a PC's abilities. There were (if memory serves) two iron golems (which nerf direct magical attacks, but which do not nerf indirect magical attacks) and undead (some of which could be simply blasted).



I'm going to re-post a selection my previous post #78:

-------------------


			
				Slaygrim said:
			
		

> As far as the Iron Golems. They weren't put in the adventure to nerf the PC. They were not the only encounters either. The first dungeon had 2 Iron Golems, and the rest were undead that he could battle.



*Original Post*
While exploring an ancient Netherese Ruins the place was guarded by multiple Iron Golems. His character, a spellcaster, clearly was useless offensively as the Iron Golems are immune to most forms of magic. Thus, he was delegated to the role of the "buffer", having to cast spells that suped up the fighters. Throughout the entire dungeon there were spots still guarded by Iron Golems.

What matters is that I didn't arrange for the place to be filled with more than constructs... at least until the end of the dungeon where they did end up fighting undead... only then the undead had spell resistance that was hard to overcome, so he complained about that too.​-------------------

These are two of his descriptions about the Iron Golem / SR Undead stuff. I think it's fairly evident that even if there were only two iron golems and one undead with SR, his first description of the events could easily lead readers to a much different conclusion. Of course, when he tried to clarify because people were repeatedly asking him about the encounter, his description of the encounter changed quite a bit; while his changed story may be closer to the truth, it could also be construed as someone getting defensive about their actions and changing their story to make it seem more reasonable.

So even if, as you say, Slaygrim repeatedly said "that he did not have all the encounters in the location negate a PC's abilities", he would have had to say that many times because his first post tells quite a different story. At that point it's a question of wether the reader remembers the first post's story, or the subsequent eratta.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 11, 2008)

Felix said:
			
		

> I think it's fairly evident that even if there were only two iron golems and one undead with SR, his first description of the events could easily lead readers to a much different conclusion. Of course, when he tried to clarify because people were repeatedly asking him about the encounter, his description of the encounter changed quite a bit; while his changed story may be closer to the truth, it could also be construed as someone getting defensive about their actions and changing their story to make it seem more reasonable.




Presumably......Or it could be that people asked about the context of the encounter, and he answered.  If the "allegedly whiney player" didn't complain about any non-resistant encounters, Slaygrim could easily have omitted them from his initial post.  

But let us say that there were a dozen iron golems.  

"Even then, I completely disagree with the idea that an area with magic resistant creatures negates the effectiveness of spellcasters. Certainly, as has been pointed out many, many times, there are spells that allow you to be effective without directly affecting the creature. And not just buffing, because (as we know) support roles are now officially "unfun".

You can summon a creature. You can turn the floor beneath a resistant creature to mud, and then to stone, effectively trapping it. You can damage the ceiling above it to cause damage, or you can damage the floor beneath it to cause it to fall. IMC, one memorable fight ended when the party set up a Stone Guardian to chase them through a weakened section of floor, causing it to fall through to the level below. The OP is clear that the players knew what sort of area they were entering; the player in question should have known that relying on sheer blasting power might not have worked. A few divination spells would certainly be useful prior to heading in, because better information leads to better spell selection.

On top of that, it is a good thing, IMHO, for the DM to introduce situations in which the players cannot simply rely on the same tactics over and over again. If Bob the Fighter charges into close combat every time an enemy is sighted, it is a good DM who designs some encounters that make charging into combat either impossible or a questionable tactic. And there is nothing wrong with an entire adventuring site (such as natural caverns) that accomplish this function. Situations that force players to occasionally change tactics lead (with good players) to greater depth in play, memorable encounters, and a greater sense of accomplishment. These are all good things.

In this game, players have the option to create either a character with breadth of ability (but who, as a result of that breadth, lack the concentrated firepower of a specialist) or who focus on doing one thing really, really well (and who, by doing so, sacrifice at least a portion of that breadth of ability). No player has the right to assume that, by selecting a narrow focus, he is guaranteed to make good use of that focus in every encounter, or on every adventure. Indeed, setting up adventures that way does nothing more than eliminate the downside of selecting such a narrow focus, as there is no need for breadth of ability. 

The DM has every right to set up situations in the campaign world in whatever way seems best to him or her. Being able to meet various sorts of challenges is part of the metagame of D&D....Do we have enough variety in character types/characters to succeed? Are we too tightly focused? How can we get past this thing which seems to be clearly beyond us? Must we fight these iron golems, or is there a better way to get by (teleportational magic, gaseous form, etc.)? Might a divination spell clue us in on the iron golem's instructions, so that we can simply walk past it by displaying the right sign, or saying the right word?"​
All of that still applies.

So, yes, perhaps TheAuldGrump simply doesn't believe Slaygrim about his elaboration on the encounters.  Even so, there is a certain irony in a poster saying, effectively, "you ought to listen better" while ignoring the words of the person he is speaking to.  Or perhaps my sense of humour is more warped than most, and the irony is only apparent to me.

RC


----------



## Felix (Feb 11, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Or perhaps my sense of humour is more warped than most, and the irony is only apparent to me.



Your sense of perception is rivaled only by your willingness to forgive unclarity in description while damning it in comprehension. If you allow that Slaygrim's descriptions don't necessarily read internally consistent, then what divining rod would you recommend to AuldGrump to decide which description is more accurate and ought be listened to?

Group problems often have two sides to them, and here we're only getting one. So if anyone seems like they're not listening to Slaygrim, consider the possibility that they're trying to figure out what the other side would have to say. If you'd like to channel DestroyYouAlot and only listen to the one side while disregarding the possibility of another, be my guest, but you'd be neglecting that sense of perception of yours.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 11, 2008)

Felix said:
			
		

> Your sense of perception is rivaled only by your willingness to forgive unclarity in description while damning it in comprehension.




Cute.  

Say that three times fast, if you can.

I allow that, in general, communication always has a certain amount of "unclarity" inherent in it, and that Slaygrim is not more unclear than many posters to this (or any other) forum.  This is an artifact not only of language, but also (as in this case) that a person is not always trying to get across the minutia of a point.  

Even so, saying "you should listen better" while not listening is a classic example of irony.  Pointing out that it is a classic example of irony doesn't in any way, shape, or form, damn unclarity in comprehension.

(And, in case it isn't clear, that's not an insult intended or implied to TheAuldGrump either; it's the kind of thing I'm sure I would do without realizing it, and probably have done in the past.)



> If you allow that Slaygrim's descriptions don't necessarily read internally consistent, then what divining rod would you recommend to AuldGrump to decide which description is more accurate and ought be listened to?




A clarification, taken at face value, should always be accepted as clarifying an earlier statement.



> Group problems often have two sides to them, and here we're only getting one. So if anyone seems like they're not listening to Slaygrim, consider the possibility that they're trying to figure out what the other side would have to say.




Naturally....but within the context of _useful_ response, it might be better to channel what they think the other side should _ideally_ say, not what the other side _might say_.  Ideally, the other side would tell Slaygrim that he might want to talk to his other players, and that he might want to consider both what they have to say and his DMing overall.  Ideally, the other side would want to avoid confrontational language, and what might seem like "attacks" because, ideally, the other side would want Slaygrim to become a better DM.

However, the poster responding to Slaygrim might also realize that, as it is Slaygrim who has asked for advice, and not the other party, it might be helpful to Slaygrim if he was given the benefit of the doubt.

In other words, IMHO, an ideal response would address both the idea that Slaygrim might have DMing issues, and that the "alleged whiny player" might be at fault.  Ideally, the responding poster might point out that whining is never the best way to resolve a problem as well.



> If you'd like to channel DestroyYouAlot




Speaking of unclarity, what are you trying to say here?  Is DestroyYouAlot the "AWP" in question?  Or are you attempting to insult one or both of us?



> and only listen to the one side while disregarding the possibility of another, be my guest




Hmmm....Again, an ideal response would address both the idea that Slaygrim might have DMing issues, and that the "alleged whiny player" might be at fault.  Ideally, the responding poster might point out that whining is never the best way to resolve a problem as well.  I imagine that there must be some way to view that as "listen[ing] to the one side while disregarding the possibility of another", but I guess I just don't see it.

Before you paint that brush in too broad of strokes, you might want to go back and see what I wrote.

And none of this responds to the point that I made, and have since repeated, that even if there were dozens of iron golems, this would not be a case of bad DMing on that basis.  But, then again, that's probably that sense of perception of mine again.


RC


P.S.:  "Unlcarity" is a great word.  I don't think I've encountered it before.


----------



## Felix (Feb 11, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Cute.
> 
> Say that three times fast, if you can.



I can type "Ctrl+V" as many times as you like.



> Even so, saying "you should listen better" while not listening is a classic example of irony.



And repeating that he isn't listening to Slaygrim presumes that what AuldGrump _is_ listening to is wrong; I don't think that your problem with AuldGrump is that he isn't listening, but rather he's paying attention to stuff you've dismissed. He is listening; he's just hearing something different than you are. Naturally, that must mean he's wrong. Must it?



> Pointing out that it is a classic example of irony doesn't in any way, shape, or form, damn unclarity in comprehension.



The only way for it to be ironic is for AuldGrump to be "not listening". He has directly responded to Slaygrim and other posters several times, utilizing the same quote-comment software we are. He's reading, listening, hearing, whatever you call it. So the only way for him to be "not listening" as you say is for him to be hearing it wrong. Unclearly comprehending something is a nice way to say "hearing it wrong", don't you think?

Besides, it made me look cute.



> (And, in case it isn't clear, that's not an insult intended or implied to TheAuldGrump either; it's the kind of thing I'm sure I would do without realizing it, and probably have done in the past.)



*Shrug*

To do something you advise others against is hypocritical. To refuse to change your actions when presented with a reason to do so is to be obdurate. I don't think I've ever been complimented by being called an obdurate hypocrite.



> A clarification, taken at face value, should always be accepted as clarifying an earlier statement.



Precisely: taken at face value.

And if it's not taken at face value, what then?



> Naturally....but within the context of _useful_ response, it might be better to channel what they think the other side should _ideally_ say, not what the other side _might say_.  Ideally, the other side would tell Slaygrim that he might want to talk to his other players, and that he might want to consider both what they have to say and his DMing overall.  Ideally, the other side would want to avoid confrontational language, and what might seem like "attacks" because, ideally, the other side would want Slaygrim to become a better DM.



This world would be damned to perdition were our past actions judged in comparison to our ideal. It's even worse when the only evidence for your actions is second-hand from the plaintiff. I don't think that's a terribly productive way to sort out the past, even if it provides a good direction to our future.



> However, the poster responding to Slaygrim might also realize that, as it is Slaygrim who has asked for advice, and not the other party, it might be helpful to Slaygrim if he was given the benefit of the doubt.



Someone present for the discussion shouldn't need others to defend him: he's there to answer questions on his own.



> In other words, IMHO, an ideal response would address both the idea that Slaygrim might have DMing issues, and that the "alleged whiny player" might be at fault.  Ideally, the responding poster might point out that whining is never the best way to resolve a problem as well.



Many times posters who are not completely sympathetic to Slaygrim said that they don't condone whining as a response, but that the whiner may have some reason to take issue; TheAuldGrump included. Me too. We're ideal respondents?



> Speaking of unclarity, what are you trying to say here?  Is DestroyYouAlot the "AWP" in question?  Or are you attempting to insult one or both of us?



DestroyYouAlot, whom I doubt is the Whiner, said it was dumb to give someone absent the benefit of the doubt. TheAuldGrump responds to Slaygrim's posts and you're telling him he doesn't listen. Both are rather dismissive.



> Hmmm....Again, an ideal response would address both the idea that Slaygrim might have DMing issues, and that the "alleged whiny player" might be at fault.



Again, you describe many of the posts by un-Slaygrim-sympathetic posters.



> And none of this responds to the point that I made, and have since repeated, that even if there were dozens of iron golems, this would not be a case of bad DMing on that basis.  But, then again, that's probably that sense of perception of mine again.



Maybe you're right. Maybe it's just bad adventure design.



> P.S.:  "Unlcarity" is a great word.  I don't think I've encountered it before.



Hey, happy to expand your horizons. And the horizons of the Oxford English Dictionary, while I'm at it. Can't be too ambitious. Care to subscribe to my newsletter?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 11, 2008)

Felix said:
			
		

> And repeating that he isn't listening to Slaygrim presumes that what AuldGrump _is_ listening to is wrong




No, it does not.  

We can be having a conversation, where I am completely in the wrong, and you are in the right.  If you are not listening to me, and you tell me I need to listen more, then the irony is still there.  It is ironic independent of who is right and wrong, or to what degree of "rightness" or "wrongness" one attributes to either party.

The only context is that required is my telling you to listen more while not listening to you very well myself.  

Now, you may argue that he _*is*_ listening to Slaygrim very well, but that's another kettle of fish.  

(And, contrary to your opinion, I don't have a "problem with AuldGrump" in terms of the "listen more to your players" advice -- "listen more to your players is _always_ good advice.  Nor did I say TheAuldGrump was wrong in that, although I disagree, for stated reasons, about whether or not the AWP's character was negated in the encounter sequence described.)



> DestroyYouAlot, whom I doubt is the Whiner, said it was dumb to give someone absent the benefit of the doubt. TheAuldGrump responds to Slaygrim's posts and you're telling him he doesn't listen. Both are rather dismissive.




You are taking offense here unnecessarily.  It is absolutely my position that, in a lot of cases, it seems as though people here are not actually reading what they are responding to.  Of course, it could well be the "reader filter" problem; i.e., we all read through a "filter" that says, effectively, "If I wrote this, what would I be trying to convey?"

This isn't exclusive to any one "side" of the discussion.



> Again, you describe many of the posts by un-Slaygrim-sympathetic posters.




You don't need to be sympathetic to Slaygrim in order to be the "ideal poster", IMHO.  The "ideal poster" does, however, seek and accept clarification.



> Maybe you're right. Maybe it's just bad adventure design.




Please do not put words into my mouth.  As I said earlier (twice now),

"Even then, I completely disagree with the idea that an area with magic resistant creatures negates the effectiveness of spellcasters. Certainly, as has been pointed out many, many times, there are spells that allow you to be effective without directly affecting the creature. And not just buffing, because (as we know) support roles are now officially "unfun".

You can summon a creature. You can turn the floor beneath a resistant creature to mud, and then to stone, effectively trapping it. You can damage the ceiling above it to cause damage, or you can damage the floor beneath it to cause it to fall. IMC, one memorable fight ended when the party set up a Stone Guardian to chase them through a weakened section of floor, causing it to fall through to the level below. The OP is clear that the players knew what sort of area they were entering; the player in question should have known that relying on sheer blasting power might not have worked. A few divination spells would certainly be useful prior to heading in, because better information leads to better spell selection.

On top of that, it is a good thing, IMHO, for the DM to introduce situations in which the players cannot simply rely on the same tactics over and over again. If Bob the Fighter charges into close combat every time an enemy is sighted, it is a good DM who designs some encounters that make charging into combat either impossible or a questionable tactic. And there is nothing wrong with an entire adventuring site (such as natural caverns) that accomplish this function. Situations that force players to occasionally change tactics lead (with good players) to greater depth in play, memorable encounters, and a greater sense of accomplishment. These are all good things.

In this game, players have the option to create either a character with breadth of ability (but who, as a result of that breadth, lack the concentrated firepower of a specialist) or who focus on doing one thing really, really well (and who, by doing so, sacrifice at least a portion of that breadth of ability). No player has the right to assume that, by selecting a narrow focus, he is guaranteed to make good use of that focus in every encounter, or on every adventure. Indeed, setting up adventures that way does nothing more than eliminate the downside of selecting such a narrow focus, as there is no need for breadth of ability. 

The DM has every right to set up situations in the campaign world in whatever way seems best to him or her. Being able to meet various sorts of challenges is part of the metagame of D&D....Do we have enough variety in character types/characters to succeed? Are we too tightly focused? How can we get past this thing which seems to be clearly beyond us? Must we fight these iron golems, or is there a better way to get by (teleportational magic, gaseous form, etc.)? Might a divination spell clue us in on the iron golem's instructions, so that we can simply walk past it by displaying the right sign, or saying the right word?"​
All of that still applies.



> Hey, happy to expand your horizons. And the horizons of the Oxford English Dictionary, while I'm at it. Can't be too ambitious. Care to subscribe to my newsletter?




Always glad to have my horizons expanded.  However, I'm afraid "unclarify" is in Marriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unclarity) so I wouldn't put money on it not being in the OED Unabridged.    

But, if you have an "obscure word reference" newsletter, I'd be happy to subscribe.  One can never know too many obscure words!


RC


----------



## Felix (Feb 12, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Even then, I completely disagree with the idea that an area with magic resistant creatures negates the effectiveness of spellcasters.



Would you say that a multi-session dungeon of undead, constructs, oozes and vermin would be bad adventure design with regard to a party of rogues without major opportunity for the avoidance of combat?



> You can summon a creature.



Which creature would you summon to deal damage to something with DR 15/Adamantine?



> You can turn the floor beneath a resistant creature to mud, and then to stone, effectively trapping it.



In the event that your two of your highest level spells are _Transmute Rock to Mud_ and _Transmute Mud to Rock_, and you have them prepared, and the dungeon is made up of only natural, uncut and unworked rock, that's quite right.



> You can damage the ceiling above it to cause damage, or you can damage the floor beneath it to cause it to fall.



Unless it's worked stone.



> The OP is clear that the players knew what sort of area they were entering; the player in question should have known that relying on sheer blasting power might not have worked. A few divination spells would certainly be useful prior to heading in, because better information leads to better spell selection.



One of the hard choices about playing a wizard is that you can effectively control the pace. To best use your spell selection, you ought to know what is coming. Often that means casting spells that take time, and then preparing your spell slots anew. I don't know that this party was on a tight timeline, but if they were such spells would have made their arrival to the ritual a touch late.

Also, I recall Slaygrim appealing to realism for populating his dungeon with constructs. Did he mention how the PCs knew the place was going to be full of them? Did he relate to them that living things wouldn't survive in a sealed crypt, and that made it self-evident that the dungeon would be populated by constructs and undead?



> On top of that, it is a good thing, IMHO, for the DM to introduce situations in which the players cannot simply rely on the same tactics over and over again.



This is indeed a good thing...



> And there is nothing wrong with an entire adventuring site (such as natural caverns) that accomplish this function.



...but even the best of things cloy.



> The DM has every right to set up situations in the campaign world in whatever way seems best to him or her.



Absolutely, DMs have that right. But that right does not necessitate that the situations they set up are any good.

Variety is a good thing, and that can mean that throwing enemies which are more than usually difficult at the PCs. I just don't see that a dungeon filled with CR 13, DR 15/Adamantine, Fort-save-or-Con-Damage constructs necessarily fits that bill.

---------

Slaygrim, if you are still reading this and are up for responding: you mention in your first post, "Heaven forbid the guy gets hit by a Mordenkainens Disjunction and loses magical items." Have the PCs been subject to one or more Disjunctions?

---------

Edentulous termagant. A wonderful way to describe mother-in-laws, without actually being vulgar.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 12, 2008)

Felix said:
			
		

> <Snip>These are two of his descriptions about the Iron Golem / SR Undead stuff. I think it's fairly evident that even if there were only two iron golems and one undead with SR, his first description of the events could easily lead readers to a much different conclusion. Of course, when he tried to clarify because people were repeatedly asking him about the encounter, his description of the encounter changed quite a bit; while his changed story may be closer to the truth, it could also be construed as someone getting defensive about their actions and changing their story to make it seem more reasonable.
> 
> So even if, as you say, Slaygrim repeatedly said "that he did not have all the encounters in the location negate a PC's abilities", he would have had to say that many times because his first post tells quite a different story. At that point it's a question of wether the reader remembers the first post's story, or the subsequent eratta.



Or, as in my case, distrusts the errata as self serving. I tend to distrust changing stories - most often correctly, sometimes spectacularly in the wrong. (I am reminded of of Jefferson's "It is easier to believe that two Yankee professors would lie than that stones would fall from heaven!" The fact that Jefferson was wrong in the specifics does not mean that he was wrong in the general. I lean towards Occam's razor myself. Sometimes I cut myself with it.)

The thing is that _I had no real evidence either way_ - and the question presented was whether I should have taken him at his first description or the later? The answer is another matter, which in truth was 'let it lie' - the question was not really worth answering. If the OP was able to build a more solid base from the advice given then the truth or inaccuracy of his descriptions really did not matter.

I should have stopped playing web forum Whack-a-Mole and tried coming up with actually useful advice. As I said, others had already provided useful commentary. An approach for the player was also important, which I realized later.

Basically I was repeating over and over 'the player had the right to whine in this instance' (which I still believe to be the case) rather than - 'maybe he will not whine as much if you can talk to him out of game about his dissatisfaction with your style of play'. The message is much the same, the emotional freight far different. It seemed like the some of support the OP was receiving ignored the fact that there were reasons for the player to be unhappy, and I guess (no, I am not certain) that I felt that the lessons imparted by other posters would be ignored in favor of the posts telling him that he was in the right.

Xath- I suspect that you are right, and given myself as an example, the older gamers (GMs in particular) have a feeling that their way is the right way. I often have an easier time playing in a game run by either a very experienced GM (who's style of play is often closer to my own), a very new GM (I am all for helping a fledgling GM learn the ropes), or a GM who is trying to change his style (if someone is looking for help changing things in areas he knows he has problems then he is doing the right thing). Part of this may have something to do with the fact I have taught classes in RPGs for the last eight years or so - I go into teacher mode, which is a different setting than player mode.... (I wish there was a rolling eyes icon.)

Hell, the current GM who sometimes runs a Spycraft game I play in brought me in because he wanted advice - I suspect that somewhere in my being this remains under a student/teacher heading. Though I pride myself on the fact that other players have remarked on how much better he is as a GM now.  :\  (His last group imploded on him, now he has players waiting for a seat.) I am not above being self serving myself.

The Auld Grump, too wordy, conditional, and self righteous to be a true apology, but more sincere this way.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 12, 2008)

Felix said:
			
		

> Would you say that a multi-session dungeon of undead, constructs, oozes and vermin would be bad adventure design with regard to a party of rogues without major opportunity for the avoidance of combat?




No, I would not.  Or at least, not on that basis.  



> Which creature would you summon to deal damage to something with DR 15/Adamantine?




Obviously something capable of dealing more than 15 points of damage, such as a Fiendish Giant Crocodile.  Or something whose melee capability doesn't rely on directly dealing damage.  Fiendish Dire Wolves, for example, have a Trip attack that could be of use in such a fight.  Even creatures that have no hope of doing damage can Aid Another, help to flank, and absorb attacks that would otherwise be directed at party members.

Hopefully, as I said earlier, you've done some work to determine what spells might be useful before entering the dungeon.  I, for one, would imagine undead, constructs, and possibly some form of vermin or ooze in a tomb that's been "sealed" for centuries (vermin or ooze because they might get in through the cracks).  It would, presumably, be possible to seal an Outsider in the tomb as well.  If I were to encounter anything else, it would make be believe that there was probably another (and open) entrance/exit elsewhere.

I realize that divination spells were nerfed in 3e, but Gather Information or Knowledge (History) might be of some use.  The existance of a tomb implies that someone built that tomb at some point, and there might well be something known about the place, or about similar locations.

We know that the golems were guardians, which makes them unlikely to leave their posts.  So, it is presumably true that the players knew both the opponent and the conditions when battle was joined.  If the golem doesn't leave its post, the party can retreat and prepare whatever spells it needs.  If the golem does leave its post, faster party members could lead it just about anywhere and then return, bypassing the guardian at the guard post.

If it comes to a battle, _black tentacles_ isn't a terrible choice, because the golem isn't immune to it.  Remember, the golem is only immune to spells that allow a save and/or allow spell resistance, and are not damage-causing electricity-based spells (which do not harm the golem, but do _slow_ it).  

Generally speaking, in a fight with an iron golem, the wizard's role is one of battlefield control.  Anything he can do to eliminate damage against his party is a good thing.  _Spectral hand_ combined with _shocking grasp_ is useful, automatically _slowing_ the golem with a successful touch attack for three rounds without a save.  

Of course, if the group was well aware of what it was going to face, or had the leisure to scout and then make plans, having a rust monster on tap would be ideal.

In any event, are you actually trying to claim that the wizard _was or should have been_ unable to do anything when fighting an iron golem?


RC


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Feb 12, 2008)

I personally think that it is a sign of a good DM that the spellcasters meet occasional encounters where their favorite tricks work poorly.  Really that applies to all the PCs.  Forcing the players out of their tactical comfort zone puts a premium on teamwork and mental versatility.  Variety is the spice of life, after all.

That was not my reading of the crypt scenario based on the first post, and I was clearly not the only one who saw things that way.  Obviously a player voicing concerns in a manner _that is perceived as constant whining_ is not very useful, regardless of the rightness (or wrongness) of the player's discontent.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 12, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I personally think that it is a sign of a good DM that the spellcasters meet occasional encounters where their favorite tricks work poorly.  Really that applies to all the PCs.  Forcing the players out of their tactical comfort zone puts a premium on teamwork and mental versatility.  Variety is the spice of life, after all.




Agreed.



> That was not my reading of the crypt scenario based on the first post, and I was clearly not the only one who saw things that way.




Potentially.

And there is, IMHO, a lot more potential that what the AWP was complaining about was not the situation, per se, but the perceived _requirement_ that the situation be faced in such-and-such a manner.  But then, I'm all for the sandbox, as either player or DM, and the idea of a railroady-type-game is a harder cheese for me to swallow than one where my character might have to switch roles on the basis of the challenges the party is facing.

And, when I first read the OP, one of my first reactions was, "Is Slaygrim railroading his players?"  And I thought, "Maybe I should say _don't railroad your players_", and in some ways I did.  I also suggested that he talk to the other players to see if they quietly shared the AWP's viewpoint.

_But_.....I have been reminded over and over on EN World that there is no "wrongbadfun" way to play this game, and there are apparently lots of folks who are happier with a more railroady game than a sandbox, so it really depends upon what he wants, and what the other players want.

Also, I admit, when I am a player in a game, I try to work with the GM, because I am well aware that the GM shoulders a greater burden than any single player in the game....or even all the players combined.  So, overall, I fall on the GM's side when there is a question about player-vs-GM satisfaction.  

(I tend to think that a truly poor GM will put himself out of a job, in any event.)

And, Arioch knows, the one time recently that I suggested that a DM might have done a better job communicating with his players (dino-riding druid thread), I reaped a veritable deluge for so suggesting.  On the InterWeb, apparently, one is damned no matter what side one takes.  So it is better to take it all with a huge grain of salt.    



> Obviously a player voicing concerns in a manner _that is perceived as constant whining_ is not very useful, regardless of the rightness (or wrongness) of the player's discontent.




Agreed.


RC


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 12, 2008)

After reading through all of this I can really understand why the OP lost his temper. I was saying the same thing to the screen as I read him having to say over and over that there were other things that the wizard could unleash his might against besides the iron golems.

I am both a player and a DM I believe that you should trust your DM. If you can't if you believe that he does nothing but railroad and make your character inefficent then instead of  being whiny you either talk to the DM or leave. You don't suck the fun out of the game for everyone else.

The big encounter that the PCs won sounds like a really interesting encounter to me. Yes they had help but they also had a lot of clues that things were not as they seemed. If I was in that situation and I trusted my DM I would realize that things are not as they seem.

I am lucky that my players trust me because at second level they encoutered a 15 level cleric who could have wiped the floor with them but instead of whining they played along defeated him really easily and accepted his surrender and allowed him to leave the plane. I know that the cleric is really a member of the resitance and he fought to only maintain his cover.

The players have speculated on why they won and as one put it they realize that something is going on. And that it is a clue. I love my players.

As a player and a DM I think story is very important to the game I get tired of the idea that every encounter has to be tailored to the PCs. I like the fact in game that sometimes you need to run away or times when you plow through the enemy even if you are to high level to really get any XP from it.  

From what I read and took form what the OP was saying was that this player has to be in the spotlight. I have played with players like that. I played in one game where this one players had just made a minmaxed paladin that always outfought by fighter. Finally we ended up in a non magic zone and I finally got to shine and the player did nothing but whine about how unfair it was that he could not use all his abilities.

As a DM I have told my players that there will be sometimes that one or two of them might not have full use of their abilties in every encounter. That I would be doing this to allow everyone a chance to be the hero and to shine.

The clue to me that this player is a whiny baby is that he whined even after the PCs won. That and he whined because he was not the star in the dungeon.

I do think there are two different styles of play here. You have a DM who wants the world to make sense and to have a story. And you have a player who does not care about any of that he just wants his character to always shine and use all his abilities.

It is a hard thing to overcome. 

To be honest my sympthies lie with the DM because the player has not shown any maturity at all he has gone out of his way to ruin the fun at the table with his moaning. If the game was not fun for him he should have opened his mouth and talked to the DM and if still didn't like the game then he should have acted like an adult and quit the game.


----------



## Felix (Feb 12, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> No, I would not.  Or at least, not on that basis.



De gustibus non disputandem est.



> Obviously something capable of dealing more than 15 points of damage, such as a Fiendish Giant Crocodile.



That croc will take his time dealing 1-13 damage if he hits. Better than sitting on your thumbs, of course. And the summoning choices for Evil are much better, would you agree?



> Hopefully, as I said earlier, you've done some work to determine what spells might be useful before entering the dungeon.  I, for one, would imagine undead, constructs, and possibly some form of vermin or ooze in a tomb that's been "sealed" for centuries (vermin or ooze because they might get in through the cracks).  It would, presumably, be possible to seal an Outsider in the tomb as well.  If I were to encounter anything else, it would make be believe that there was probably another (and open) entrance/exit elsewhere.
> 
> I realize that divination spells were nerfed in 3e, but Gather Information or Knowledge (History) might be of some use.  The existance of a tomb implies that someone built that tomb at some point, and there might well be something known about the place, or about similar locations.



Again, depends on the timeframe and the DMs inclination to give out information. May or may not be plausible or productive.



> We know that the golems were guardians, which makes them unlikely to leave their posts.



This depends entirely upon how the DM orders his dungeon, not upon the creature itself; you're projecting how you would run the creatures onto his game. He may have run them differently, and that possibility should be allowed.



> Of course, if the group was well aware of what it was going to face, or had the leisure to scout and then make plans, having a rust monster on tap would be ideal.



Quite: "if".



> In any event, are you actually trying to claim that the wizard _was or should have been_ unable to do anything when fighting an iron golem?



Against one iron golem? No. Against a series of Iron Golems? Well, it does get a little harder once your spells wear thin.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 12, 2008)

Felix said:
			
		

> De gustibus non disputandem est.




De gustibus non est disputandum.



> This depends entirely upon how the DM orders his dungeon, not upon the creature itself




And that, I think, should really end the discussion on this point, no?

Unless I am mistaken (and we all know that happens!), we agree that running into one, or even more than one, iron golem is not a problem.  We agree that a dungeon may be ordered so that running into iron golems is a problem, or it may be ordered so that the players have multiple options.  Likewise a dungeon with oozes, vermin, and constructs for rogue PCs -- the dungeon might be ordered to allow other rogue skills than sneak attack to shine, and the creatures may be of CRs where sneak attack isn't really necessary.

We may disagree about where the problem lies in this particular instance, but then there is no real way that we will ever _know_, especially if we discount the clarifications of the OP as evidence.

Which leaves us with statements of general principle, and here I agree with TheAuldGrump that you should always try to maximize your communication with your players, and with Ridley's Cohort that "a player voicing concerns in a manner that is perceived as constant whining is not very useful, regardless of the rightness (or wrongness) of the player's discontent".

I also agree with Elf Witch about trusting the DM, but I would extend that to trusting the players as well.  If you don't trust the people you are playing with to try to make the game better (or at least to not intentionally make it worse), why are you playing with those people?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 12, 2008)

In this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=218774&page=2), I wrote

I believe that everyone, whether they know it or not, has "deal breakers" where it comes to games (as well as other types of relationships). It is perfectly fair to say, "This isn't what I want from a game; this is a deal-breaker for me." It is perfectly fair to decide that something is a deal-breaker, and that it makes the game not worth playing. It is perfectly fair -- and mature -- not to compromise on things you believe are "deal breakers". You are under no obligation whatsoever to play in (or run) a game that you are not enjoying.

However, the same is true for everyone at the table, including the DM. There really are cases where what the DM/other players want from the game is incompatable with what you want from the game. There really are cases where what you need "fixed" to make the game work for you is the very reason that everyone else is there. It is equally true that there really are things that need fixing in some games, because they are detracting from everyone's enjoyment -- including the DM's. Sometimes the DM just doesn't know what the problem is, or how to fix it.

Talking about this stuff in a mature manner is, therefore, always valuable.

Damaging the game because you are not enjoying it is not, IMHO, ever valuable. Leaving in the middle of a game is a tactic designed to damage the game, as is an attempt to sabotage the game to "force" an issue. IMHO, when you sit down to play you agree (like the hypocratic oath) "above all, to do no harm" intentionally to the game, no matter what chair you sit in (DM or player).

Violate that agreement, and I have no sympathy for you at all.

(And that is a general "you" that applies to anyone, not "you" in particular.)​
That viewpoint certainly informs my response in this thread.  In effect, the OP says that he has a player that is intentionally harming his game.  Regardless of what the reason for that behaviour may be, it is never IMHO acceptable.

If someone says, in effect, "X is abusing my goodwill; what should I do?" my foremost answer will never be "What are you doing to invite that abuse?"  Instead, I will always respond "End the abuse; thereafter, see what you part you might have played, and end that behaviour as well".  If the AWP started this thread, complaining about the DM in question, my response would be the same -- if you think the situation is abusive, end it.

RC


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 12, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I also agree with Elf Witch about trusting the DM, but I would extend that to trusting the players as well.  If you don't trust the people you are playing with to try to make the game better (or at least to not intentionally make it worse), why are you playing with those people?
> 
> 
> RC




Trust works both ways. As a DM I trust my players to open their mouths and tell me when they are upset and not having fun. If they don't tell me then I have to guess. For example I had a situation where a character failed a save and basically had to sit out part of a battle. I know she was upset. So I talked to her about it.

She was honest with me that part of the problem was that she had a bad week at work and that was the icing on her cake so to speak. I brought up to the rest of the players the idea of taking certain effects and spells out of the game. After much discussion they voted to keep the effects in the game. 

Later this same player came to me and said you know what I am not having fun with my character how can we fix it? We made her a new character and she is having a lot of fun.

As a DM I try and give my players a good time but I am not perfect. I need to know that I can trust my players to come to me with any suggestions or complaints.

As a player I try and give my DMs feedback on what I enjoy and what I see as a problem. I always try and give the DM the benefit of the doubt that he is not just trying to screw with my character.

I will not play with as a DM or a player if I don't trust the others. Life is to short to play in bad games and I have found that a bad game is better than no game to be untrue.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 12, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Life is to short to play in bad games and I have found that a bad game is better than no game to be untrue.




I could not agree more.

RC


----------



## evilbob (Feb 13, 2008)

Me either.


----------



## cougent (Feb 13, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> After reading through all of this I can really understand why the OP lost his temper. I was saying the same thing to the screen as I read him having to say over and over that there were other things that the wizard could unleash his might against besides the iron golems.
> 
> I am both a player and a DM I believe that you should trust your DM. If you can't if you believe that he does nothing but railroad and make your character inefficent then instead of  being whiny you either talk to the DM or leave. You don't suck the fun out of the game for everyone else.
> 
> ...



I completely agree.

I have thrown completely overwhelming odds at my players specifically to see how they do react.  Some may call that railroading as I do expect them to react a certain way (run, hide, avoid, etc.) but the choice to engage, attack, and probably die is their option at any time.  I depend and count on my players to either make good, informed decisions; or be mature enough to accept the consequences of bad ones.  They agree with this, I have a good set of players (now) but it took some pruning to get there.  The running joke is that I am out to kill them... but I do a poor job since most of them have lived to ripe old age.  Not a style of play for everyone, but for us immanently more fun than guaranteed success outcomes in every scenario.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 16, 2008)

Tewligan said:
			
		

> Dear God, how old was that guy? I cannot STAND adults who throw tantrums - it's actually embarrassing even to be around people like that. They promptly get made fun of to their face.




*Throws Datafax to table*
WORTHLESS!


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 16, 2008)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> I personally think that it is a sign of a good DM that the spellcasters meet occasional encounters where their favorite tricks work poorly.




There's a difference between rendering a character's favorite _tactics_ useless and rendering all of their chosen, class-based, _abilities_ useless. I agree that the first of these is a sign of good DMing. I think the latter is a marker of _horrible_ DMing. In the former case, a player still has options -- they just have to figure out how to use their abilities differently. In the latter case, you've just punished a player for specializing in certain things by making those things totally useless. And, pardon, but that's _crap_.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 16, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> There's a difference between rendering a character's favorite _tactics_ useless and rendering all of their chosen, class-based, _abilities_ useless. I agree that the first of these is a sign of good DMing. I think the latter is a marker of _horrible_ DMing. In the former case, a player still has options -- they just have to figure out how to use their abilities differently. In the latter case, you've just punished a player for specializing in certain things by making those things totally useless. And, pardon, but that's _crap_.




As a player and a DM I totally disagree with this. As long as it does not happen every session then I think it is okay to sometimes make it hard to use a classes special abilities. I have played a magic user going through a dead magic zone. Sure it was kind of sucky but I found other things to do to make my character useful.

In another game we ended up on the abyssal plane which made it hard for the paladin/cleric he was out of touch with his god and unable to get new spells He was basically a fighter for a couple of sessions. It was a fun part of the campaign.

I have played a rogue fighting undead and constructs and I never thought my DMing was screwing with my character because there were plenty of times where my rogue was dealing more damage than the fighter.

It is a matter of balance. Sometimes it is your turn to shine and sometimes it is someone elses. I just don't get the whine that the game is unfun because for a session or two I can't use my special abilities. As long as I am there with my friends having fun rolling dice, role playing maybe watching another player get their time in the spotlight I have had a fun game.


----------



## DonTadow (Feb 16, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> As a player and a DM I totally disagree with this. As long as it does not happen every session then I think it is okay to sometimes make it hard to use a classes special abilities. I have played a magic user going through a dead magic zone. Sure it was kind of sucky but I found other things to do to make my character useful.
> 
> In another game we ended up on the abyssal plane which made it hard for the paladin/cleric he was out of touch with his god and unable to get new spells He was basically a fighter for a couple of sessions. It was a fun part of the campaign.
> 
> ...



I agree, the biggest job for a DM is to provide challenge for your players.  This means challenging the complete character.   If you've made a one dimensional charactter in my game you probably won't last long.  If there is heavy magic warding, then the wizard better prepare his bow. If the monsters are immune to physical damage the fighter should figure out what skills he got that can even the odds.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 16, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> As long as it does not happen every session then I think it is okay to sometimes make it hard to use a classes special abilities.




Making it hard and making it _impossible_ are two different things. You may be totally happy having the DM mechanically nerf all of your charcter's special abilites, making them totally useless as a result. A lot of people don't like that. I don't know about you but, when I play RPGs, I play for fun. Having the GM nullify my character for an entire game session or three, making it impossible for me to do most (if not all) of the things that I created my character to do is _not_ fun.



> I just don't get the whine that the game is unfun because for a session or two I can't use my special abilities.




What _I_ don't get is that you don't get that having the DM use fiat to veto the power of every choice you made when creating a charcter, effectively turning them into the mechanical equivalent of a 0-Level NPC, might not be fun for a lot of people. If you can't play the character you create, or you're not allowed to anything by way of GM fiat, why would you even bother to show up? At that point, there isn't much 'game' at all. It's tantamount to showing up for a 'game' of Monopoly and not being allowed to buy property or spend money, only roll dice.

If complaining about not being allowed to play the charcter I designed makes me a "whiner" in your games, I think it's safe to say that I'd find your games horribly, horribly, unfun. When I play D&D, for example, and I create a wizard, I expect to be actually be _playing a wizard_. Not a 'wizard' without powers who can't do anything heroic because the GM designed the "adventuere" specifically to nerf all of my powers. When I sign up for D&D, I expect to play D&D, not 0-Level Potato Farmers with Unuseable PC Class Abilities.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 16, 2008)

In other news, is this thread _really_ only ten posts long? Because, man, that looks weird.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 16, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Making it hard and making it _impossible_ are two different things. You may be totally happy having the DM mechanically nerf all of your charcter's special abilites, making them totally useless as a result. A lot of people don't like that. I don't know about you but, when I play RPGs, I play for fun. Having the GM nullify my character for an entire game session or three, making it impossible for me to do most (if not all) of the things that I created my character to do is _not_ fun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wow it still blows my mind that people think if you can't cast spells then you are totally useless. Let me guess you also don't like playing in a game where you actually run out of spells? Or if you can't sneak attack then your rogue is useless?

Under your style of play you can never have any magic dead zones, undead or constructs or send clerics to the abyssal plane or simply have a spellcaster run out of spells  because you then nullify some or all that characters powers for the session.  

How do you deal with spells like sleep or hold person or fear? Those can take you out of a battle?

Losing spells or not being able to backstab does not make you a zero level NPC you still have your BAB and your skills and there are other things you can do. How about aiding another which gives them a +2 to their attack. Or do what I did in the null magic zone. I used my bow and since my sorcerer had a pretty good dex I threw vials of acid and alchemical fire. Yeah the fighters that night got more glory but I did get to play and use my high chr and diplomacy to save the party butts during part of the session.

The paladin/cleric stuck in the abyssal plane made good use of his weapons skill and bab while he was there. 

When I played the rogue fighting undead I use my tumble skills to get in hit and get out without being touched. I threw holy water and saved the fighter when he got paralyzed.

It is not DM fiat or the DM being a meenie it s a DM giving a challange that makes the party think outside of the box. And sometimes it is the DM giving other players a chance to shine.

We had the choice to go the abyss we knew that the paladin/cleric would run out of spells and that we would end up being dependent on healing potions and the bard to keep us alive. But we still went and everyone had a good time. 

As for the null magic zone we also had a choice to go around it but we voted as a group to go through because it was faster. 

I have never played in a game with a DM who was going out of his way to ruin a players time.

Comparing it to Monopoly is not the same thing at all. Because there is more to DnD then just casting a spell or back stabbing or rolling to hit. There is also role playing. solving puzzles, interacting with the game world. coming up with tactics there is more to DnD than just being great at killing things. That is hardly the same as playing monopoly and not being allowed to buy property or spend money. I guess if you play a beer and pretzels game then this is not true and I can see why it might not be fun to play in a game that has more plot and a different kind of challange.

You said that you find a game I play in or run to be unfun well to that I would have to say that I would find it boring to have to DM for you I would never be allowed to throw any challange that might disrupt you being able to use your abilites at 100%. I could never have a world that has areas destroyed by magical wars that leave null zones or weird wacky areas. I would never be able to really push you because you would not have fun if you actually ran out of spells and the day was not over. I would never be able to send you into Cyre in Eberron if you were playing a mage or a cleric because how wacky magic acts there.

I accept that not all people want to play the way my group does but I would not go as far as you did and say that a DM that does this is a horrible DM.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 16, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I agree, the biggest job for a DM is to provide challenge for your players.  This means challenging the complete character.   If you've made a one dimensional charactter in my game you probably won't last long.  If there is heavy magic warding, then the wizard better prepare his bow. If the monsters are immune to physical damage the fighter should figure out what skills he got that can even the odds.





This is how I DM as well and how I like to play. I never design a one trick pony character. And I point this out to my players to make sure that they have a well rounded character that is good in more than one kind of situation.


----------



## jmucchiello (Feb 16, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> If complaining about not being allowed to play the charcter I designed makes me a "whiner" in your games, I think it's safe to say that I'd find your games horribly, horribly, unfun. When I play D&D, for example, and I create a wizard, I expect to be actually be _playing a wizard_. Not a 'wizard' without powers who can't do anything heroic because the GM designed the "adventuere" specifically to nerf all of my powers. When I sign up for D&D, I expect to play D&D, not 0-Level Potato Farmers with Unuseable PC Class Abilities.




That's nice to know. Too bad it has nothing to do with the OP really. How does facing golems nerf a wizard's class abilities? Even a dungeon of strictly golems does not nerf any wizard class ability. You just can't do direct damage. I've read the wizard description and I can't find the class ability called direct damage that was nerfed. Or are you saying that the only thing heroic about wizards are their direct damage spells? Well placed wall of force? Useless!  Enlarge Person on the fighers? Worthless! Haste? Who needs an extra attack per round!?!

Nice use of hyperbole though. Potato Farmer PCs! Good stuff.


----------



## moritheil (Feb 17, 2008)

Rackhir said:
			
		

> Part of the problem here is that there's obviously a lack of trust between the players and you.




I'd say that's the whole problem.



			
				evilbob said:
			
		

> _stop gaming with this person_.  Once again, because it bares repeating:  do not game with him any more.




And that's the solution.


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 18, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Comparing it to Monopoly is not the same thing at all. Because there is more to DnD then just casting a spell or back stabbing or rolling to hit. There is also role playing. solving puzzles, interacting with the game world. coming up with tactics there is more to DnD than just being great at killing things. That is hardly the same as playing monopoly and not being allowed to buy property or spend money. I guess if you play a beer and pretzels game then this is not true and I can see why it might not be fun to play in a game that has more plot and a different kind of challange.




The Monopoly comparison is apt.  Complaining that your usual abilities don't work against certain monsters, and so having to face those monsters is unfair has a parallel situation in Monopoly.  When a player is sent to Jail in Monopoly, all they can do is "useless" roll the dice and not get a full turn.  It's totally unfair . . . and totally a normal part of the game, as are creatures with immunities in D&D.


----------



## DonTadow (Feb 18, 2008)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> The Monopoly comparison is apt.  Complaining that your usual abilities don't work against certain monsters, and so having to face those monsters is unfair has a parallel situation in Monopoly.  When a player is sent to Jail in Monopoly, all they can do is "useless" roll the dice and not get a full turn.  It's totally unfair . . . and totally a normal part of the game, as are creatures with immunities in D&D.



I would never compare d and d to monopoly. The situation you speak of is not like rolling to get out of jail. Rolling to get out of jail comprises of one action rolling to get out of jail. If you are finding that your spells do not work against particular enemis you have or may hve a range of other options including relying on your melee and ranged skills. Trying flank and aid your partner.  Using a boat load of secondary effect spells. Using items, potions and such.  Using the room and location to your advantage. 

 If we're going to pick out board games to compare it to, the situation you're talking about is more akin to something more complex, lets say settlers of cataan. In that game you trade commodities and build roads, cities and settlements.  Everyone has a particular strategy. Say you're the road building kind of guy.  Your strategy is to build roads to block out opponents.  However, your opponents block you out first.  

At this point you can continue to build roads or you can switch to a new strategy that can be just as effective.  There are many strategies in Cattan and a good player , even though they like any, can adapt to all.


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 18, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> I would never compare d and d to monopoly.




I didn't start that comparison.  The original poster on this comparison said having lots of golems he couldn't take down with his usual spells was unfair, and said it was like note being able to build houses in Monopoly.

All I'm saying it's exactly like Monopoly in the sense that "bad things can happen to you in the game" and "sometimes those bad things mean you can't do the usual things", as part of the inherent design of the game.  It totally ruins your "I'm going to buy a lot of real estate" build when you're stuck in Jail.

Monsters with immunities or damage reduction is a very normal part of the game, in every edition.  Skeletons are an opponent nearly every player is familiar with by the time their first character hits level 2 . . .


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 18, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Wow it still blows my mind that people think if you can't cast spells then you are totally useless. Let me guess you also don't like playing in a game where you actually run out of spells? Or if you can't sneak attack then your rogue is useless?



It's just a matter of taste. I think for the vast majority of players there's a point at which their PC's contribution to mission success becomes unacceptably low. For you the Aid Another action is above that threshold. For me it's below it. I also think rogues lose an unacceptable amount of contribution when they can't sneak attack.


----------



## Glyfair (Feb 18, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's just a matter of taste. I think for the vast majority of players there's a point at which their PC's contribution to mission success becomes unacceptably low. For you the Aid Another action is above that threshold. For me it's below it. I also think rogues lose an unacceptable amount of contribution when they can't sneak attack.



Obviously there are a lot of variables here.  Most importantly, there is the individual group.  If your group is the sort that can sit around a tavern for a 4 hour session just interacting with teh characters, then having all of your special abilities made useless for a session won't bother you as much as a player in a "kick in the doors" style campaign.

Also, there is the issue of expectations.  I remember back in the AD&D days when it wasn't uncommon to have campaigns where entire campaigns were spent in areas where teleport spells were useless (IIRC the "D" series was like this).  That's punishing the player for taking the teleport spell.  If a player has a special ability, then he should expect to make use of it an appropriate amount.  It also shouldn't have to wait for the exact right time that the DM decides that it's appropriate for you to use your ability.

For me, if I'm going to spend an entire night in a largely combat oriented session where I can't contribute because the DM has made all my abilities useless, then I might as well not show up.  That's not fun.  

But, don't confuse it with making my major abilities useless, in order to allow me to use my secondary abilities.  That's fun done right.  Just make sure you don't set up that situation, but create the situation where another character then can just destroy the encounter with his abilities so I don't get to use my secondary abilities.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 18, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's just a matter of taste. I think for the vast majority of players there's a point at which their PC's contribution to mission success becomes unacceptably low. For you the Aid Another action is above that threshold. For me it's below it. I also think rogues lose an unacceptable amount of contribution when they can't sneak attack.





Like I said I don't understand this. I have been in dungeon crawls where the rogue is getting to do a lot more than everyone else with his scouting, disarming traps and getting to with sneak attack do as much or more damage than the party fighter. The rogue shines in this situation. 

So why should he always get to shine? In undead encounters cleric and paladins rock. There are times that party mage shines.

There is a big difference between never getting to shine and using all your abilities and sometimes not being able to.

And I think that it is a matter of balance not every encounter has to be planned so that everyone gets an equal chance to shine.  As a DM you try and do your best but there are times that because of the plot and the encounter that it becomes impossible. Like rogues with undead or constructs.

Maybe I feel this way because I play in story heavy games as a player and a DM I like the world to make sense. Even if I am not using all my abilities during a session I am still contributing to the story. I hate missing sessions because for me being told what happened is not the same as seeing it happpen.

The people comparing it to monopoly I have this question have you ever played and the dice have been against you so you don't end with good property or even three of the same so you can't build? I have. If you did how did you behave? Did you whine and complain that this sucks and is unfun and throw your cards down and get huffy basically spoil everyone else's fun and whine about why did I bother to come? 

Because that is exactly how I see the whine of ohh noo there are undead I can't sneak atttack why am I here this sucks there are iron golems and I am blaster mage that sucks or WTF you brought in monsters with SR that's is just unfair you are nerfing my character.

I would not play monopoly with someone who behaves this way and I don't want to play DnD withsome one who behaves this way.


----------



## moritheil (Feb 19, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Like I said I don't understand this. I have been in dungeon crawls where the rogue is getting to do a lot more than everyone else with his scouting, disarming traps and getting to with sneak attack do as much or more damage than the party fighter. The rogue shines in this situation.
> 
> So why should he always get to shine? In undead encounters cleric and paladins rock. There are times that party mage shines.
> 
> ...





The primary difference between you and the other poster is that you see it as "shining" where as he sees it as closer to the bare minimum of "functioning."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 19, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> The people comparing it to monopoly I have this question have you ever played and the dice have been against you so you don't end with good property or even three of the same so you can't build? I have. If you did how did you behave? Did you whine and complain that this sucks and is unfun and throw your cards down and get huffy basically spoil everyone else's fun and whine about why did I bother to come?
> 
> Because that is exactly how I see the whine of ohh noo there are undead I can't sneak atttack why am I here this sucks there are iron golems and I am blaster mage that sucks or WTF you brought in monsters with SR that's is just unfair you are nerfing my character.
> 
> I would not play monopoly with someone who behaves this way and I don't want to play DnD withsome one who behaves this way.





This is well said.

RC


----------



## BastionLightbringer (Feb 19, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> The people comparing it to monopoly I have this question have you ever played and the dice have been against you so you don't end with good property or even three of the same so you can't build? I have. If you did how did you behave? Did you whine and complain that this sucks and is unfun and throw your cards down and get huffy basically spoil everyone else's fun and whine about why did I bother to come?
> 
> Because that is exactly how I see the whine of ohh noo there are undead I can't sneak atttack why am I here this sucks there are iron golems and I am blaster mage that sucks or WTF you brought in monsters with SR that's is just unfair you are nerfing my character.
> 
> I would not play monopoly with someone who behaves this way and I don't want to play DnD withsome one who behaves this way.





That's not the same. If monopoly had different rules and the banker chose who he handed properties to and lets say he decided to give everyone good properties and 3 of the same, but not you, he decided that you should have to play the game at a disadvantage. Would you still be happy?

Monopoly is luck of the die, The OP is what the DM plans out ahead of time. 

just my 2 cents


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 19, 2008)

BastionLightbringer said:
			
		

> That's not the same. If monopoly had different rules and the banker chose who he handed properties to and lets say he decided to give everyone good properties and 3 of the same, but not you, he decided that you should have to play the game at a disadvantage. Would you still be happy?
> 
> Monopoly is luck of the die, The OP is what the DM plans out ahead of time.
> 
> just my 2 cents




So, if the DM used random dungeon creation tables, and just followed the dice, it would be okay, but if the DM were trying to allow the players to make decisions based on world knowledge, logic, and verisimilitude, it would not be?    

Those of us with children know that, at about 5 years of age, it is important to let kids know that, if they want people to play when they are winning, they need to be good sports when they are not winning.  Likewise, if you want folks to play when the spotlight is on you, you should show a little grace when the spotlight is on someone else.

To my mind, this isn't difficult to understand.  

RC


----------



## BastionLightbringer (Feb 19, 2008)

* "So, if the DM used random dungeon creation tables, and just followed the dice, it would be okay, but if the DM were trying to allow the players to make decisions based on world knowledge, logic, and verisimilitude, it would not be?"*


Well, yes. If the Dm did everything randomly, then a PC can't really complain. If a Dm sets out to intentionally minimize your effectiveness for an entire dungeon crawl(I dont remember if it was stated how many sessions it took), I think a little whining ishould be tolerated.

As a DM, I do try to plan ahead to counter the PCs favorite/typical/overused solutions (or powers/magic item, etc) at certain encounters, but not a whole adventure.

As for the 2nd part of your post, I agree kids need to learn how to win & lose. But I don't stack the deck against my kids so they have to lose. But thats not what I am talking about. I just thought the monoply game comparison was a poor one.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 19, 2008)

BastionLightbringer said:
			
		

> Well, yes. If the Dm did everything randomly, then a PC can't really complain. If a Dm sets out to intentionally minimize your effectiveness for an entire dungeon crawl(I dont remember if it was stated how many sessions it took), I think a little whining ishould be tolerated.




A little whining, IMHO, should never be tolerated during the game, at least not over the age of 9 years.

If you are enjoying the game enough to stay, then stay, and try to make it enjoyable for everyone.

If you are not enjoying the game enough to stay, then do not stay, but don't try to ruin it for everyone else.

That is a pretty simple code for acceptable behaviour, IMHO.



> As a DM, I do try to plan ahead to counter the PCs favorite/typical/overused solutions (or powers/magic item, etc) at certain encounters, but not a whole adventure.




So, do you believe that only a bad DM would ever run an adventure on another plane where the ability to use magic was severely reduced?  

RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 19, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Like I said I don't understand this.



I'm not sure that there is anything to understand. The problem is actually simpler than it appears.    Some people like brussel sprouts, some people don't. The sprouts-haters are saying "I don't like brussel sprouts" and you're saying "I don't understand, why would anyone not like brussel sprouts?" It's just a matter of taste.

You make some very interesting points about your enjoyment of story and balance through shine opportunities. I enjoy it when superhero games are like that. More Justice League-style than X-Men. Superman rendered helpless by kryptonite so Green Arrow is the only one who can save the team, that kind of thing. The see-saw is tilting wildly, but still balanced because it swings each way just as much. I think these wild swings make for an appealing story.

But not an appealing wargame. In D&D, the wargame elements form a larger part (not, by any means, all however) of the game's draw for me. Story takes more of a back seat. That's probably why in D&D I want a see-saw that, while balanced, doesn't swing as wildly.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 19, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that there is anything to understand. The problem is actually simpler than it appears.    Some people like brussel sprouts, some people don't. The sprouts-haters are saying "I don't like brussel sprouts" and you're saying "I don't understand, why would anyone not like brussel sprouts?" It's just a matter of taste.




I view this more like some people liking steak, while other folks are saying they only eat sugary things, or drink sugar water, and if there isn't enough sugar in it what's the point?  Only a bad host would serve anything with less sugar than a hostess twinkie!

Needing to shine 24/7 is rather like having Attention Defecit Disorder, IMHO.  It's more than simply not liking sprouts.


RC


----------



## BastionLightbringer (Feb 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> A little whining, IMHO, should never be tolerated during the game, at least not over the age of 9 years.
> 
> If you are enjoying the game enough to stay, then stay, and try to make it enjoyable for everyone.
> 
> ...




I guess we have different opinions. I run a small group(3-4 players max), and I would hate to reduce a player's effectiveness for an entire adventure spanning 4-6 session (6weeks). So I wouldn't do it, but that doesnt mean only a bad Dm would.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 19, 2008)

BastionLightbringer said:
			
		

> I guess we have different opinions. I run a small group(3-4 players max), and I would hate to reduce a player's effectiveness for an entire adventure spanning 4-6 session (6weeks). So I wouldn't do it, but that doesnt mean only a bad Dm would.




I guess this is just another example of how the "sandbox/character pool" playstyle is inherently easier to prep for.  In the S/CP playstyle, the DM creates the adventure locations, and the players determine which of their PCs are most likely to shine in that setting, if and when they choose to explore it.  So, if you know you are going into a setting that contains no living things, you choose an appropriate character.  If you know you are going into the Great Dead Magic Zone, you choose an appropriate character.

(Which isn't always the character you think, because a rogue can still shine in a tomb filled with constructs and undead, if there are plenty of traps, and if the rogue is high enough level to stand with the other party members in a fight despite not having sneak attack damage.)

(Of course, some people believe they can shine at -- and enjoy playing -- support roles, too.)

RC


----------



## BastionLightbringer (Feb 19, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I guess this is just another example of how the "sandbox/character pool" playstyle is inherently easier to prep for.  In the S/CP playstyle, the DM creates the adventure locations, and the players determine which of their PCs are most likely to shine in that setting, if and when they choose to explore it.  So, if you know you are going into a setting that contains no living things, you choose an appropriate character.  If you know you are going into the Great Dead Magic Zone, you choose an appropriate character.
> 
> (Which isn't always the character you think, because a rogue can still shine in a tomb filled with constructs and undead, if there are plenty of traps, and if the rogue is high enough level to stand with the other party members in a fight despite not having sneak attack damage.)
> 
> ...



 I am not sure who plays that type of game, because that does not even come close to describing my style. There is no choosing of characters for an adventure, the players only have one character each.

Actually I'm not even sure we are talking about the same thing anymore. My original post was saying that monopoly was not the same as the scenario in th OP(which I still stand by).


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 19, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that there is anything to understand. The problem is actually simpler than it appears.    Some people like brussel sprouts, some people don't. The sprouts-haters are saying "I don't like brussel sprouts" and you're saying "I don't understand, why would anyone not like brussel sprouts?" It's just a matter of taste.
> 
> You make some very interesting points about your enjoyment of story and balance through shine opportunities. I enjoy it when superhero games are like that. More Justice League-style than X-Men. Superman rendered helpless by kryptonite so Green Arrow is the only one who can save the team, that kind of thing. The see-saw is tilting wildly, but still balanced because it swings each way just as much. I think these wild swings make for an appealing story.
> 
> But not an appealing wargame. In D&D, the wargame elements form a larger part (not, by any means, all however) of the game's draw for me. Story takes more of a back seat. That's probably why in D&D I want a see-saw that, while balanced, doesn't swing as wildly.




Actually I can understand it if you are playing a more wargame type DnD where story takes a back seat. In a game like that I can see being frustrated if you can't play your character the way he was built.

The OP did say that story was important to him and to some of his group. As a story type DM/player I can well understand that sometimes you have situations that can cause a PCs  to not be able fully use their abilities. Like in the game I played in with the dead magic zones. A big part of the story was based on playing in a world that was recovering from a huge magical war. As I said it was a little sucky when we ended up in one and I was playing a sorcerer but I still had a blast role playing in those sessions.

What I don't get is some of the posters saying that DM who do this are bad DMs and that the player who was whining was in the right.

First of all it is a matter of taste so calling it bad or horible and telling the op he was a bad DM was really uncalled for. He had a problem with one player the rest were fine with the game. It seemed to me that the whiner was trying to get the game changed to suit him.

What I don't get or understand is that the people who don't like their PC abilities nerfed in game any way thinking that everyone else plays the same type of game they enjoy and that the whiney player had a right to whine because the game was not up to his satisfaction.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 19, 2008)

BastionLightbringer said:
			
		

> That's not the same. If monopoly had different rules and the banker chose who he handed properties to and lets say he decided to give everyone good properties and 3 of the same, but not you, he decided that you should have to play the game at a disadvantage. Would you still be happy?
> 
> Monopoly is luck of the die, The OP is what the DM plans out ahead of time.
> 
> just my 2 cents




Monopoly is set up that you have to land on property to buy it and that you have to all the same set to build. You get there by rolling dice. And so the game supports the fact that some players may have better luck than others on getting the good property and winning the game.

DnD has monsters in that have SR, they have undead that can't be crited or sneak attacked. In Eberron there is Cyre where divine healing magic does not work and where arcane magic is wonky. There are a lot of situtions built into the game that can nerf a PC abilities. Spells not having the right weapon to hurt creatures that have DR. So I would have to say that DnD has in its basic design situations that sometimes takes away a PC special abilities. I have never read in either the DMG or the DMG2 or any of the monster manuals something that says don't use iron golems if you ahve a blaster mage or don't use undead if you have a rogue and don't ever use a creature with SR if you have mages in the party.

And don't consider it bad DMing to *sometimes* use these things. I also have a rule in my game that if the PCs can do it so can the NPCs and vice versa which means if the PCs can cast spells like sleep, slow, hold person, dominate then so can the NPCs.


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 19, 2008)

BastionLightbringer said:
			
		

> and I would hate to reduce a player's effectiveness for an entire adventure spanning 4-6 session (6weeks).



Has this length of time for an "adventure" been mentioned anywhere else in this thread?


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 19, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Has this length of time for an "adventure" been mentioned anywhere else in this thread?




No not that I am aware of.  When I have talked about any time length I have said a session or an encounter.


----------



## usdmw (Feb 19, 2008)

My players and I have an understanding that some scenarios - even extended ones - will be focused on a particular character. He or she is the star. This enables plots and subplots which would be unlikely in an 'everyone has a spotlight on them all the time' campaign scheme.

This works much like a television show, Buffy for example. Some episodes are Buffy-centric, some are Willow-centric, etc. The other characters are there, and they're important, but they aren't always standing center-stage. Everyone takes their turn being the star.

I realize that not everyone would enjoy this style of game. Some people are unwilling to play second-fiddle for a time, even with the understanding that they'll get to solo later.

Also, I must comment that I think the premise that hazards should be designed with the characters' skill-set in mind is very wonky. The players should be able to adapt, and I think that a character can always find something interesting to do, even if it's not an EFFECTIVE thing to do. 

Some scenarios such as ancient ruins, long-sealed, are character agnostic. They exist outside the character's existence, and weren't designed with the characters in mind. The DM shouldn't design them to specifically thwart the characters, but neither should he design them to match the characters' strengths.

On the other hand, active intelligent enemies should try to anticipate the capabilities of likely opponents and neutralize those abilities.

If I were playing in a game where the hazards were designed so that I could specifically overcome them with my skills/spells/magical items I would be bored and somewhat insulted.


----------



## BastionLightbringer (Feb 19, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Monopoly is set up that you have to land on property to buy it and that you have to all the same set to build. You get there by rolling dice. And so the game supports the fact that some players may have better luck than others on getting the good property and winning the game.
> 
> DnD has monsters in that have SR, they have undead that can't be crited or sneak attacked. In Eberron there is Cyre where divine healing magic does not work and where arcane magic is wonky. There are a lot of situtions built into the game that can nerf a PC abilities. Spells not having the right weapon to hurt creatures that have DR. So I would have to say that DnD has in its basic design situations that sometimes takes away a PC special abilities. I have never read in either the DMG or the DMG2 or any of the monster manuals something that says don't use iron golems if you ahve a blaster mage or don't use undead if you have a rogue and don't ever use a creature with SR if you have mages in the party.
> 
> And don't consider it bad DMing to *sometimes* use these things. I also have a rule in my game that if the PCs can do it so can the NPCs and vice versa which means if the PCs can cast spells like sleep, slow, hold person, dominate then so can the NPCs.




Yes I know the rules of monopoly. My question is: how does a randomly decided game of chance(ie:monopoly) compare to a dungeon filled with creatures that a DM hand picked? I am still waiting for an answer on that.


----------



## paz (Feb 19, 2008)

BastionLightbringer said:
			
		

> Yes I know the rules of monopoly. My question is: how does a randomly decided game of chance(ie:monopoly) compare to a dungeon filled with creatures that a DM hand picked? I am still waiting for an answer on that.



We appear to be going round in circles here. Monopoly was initially mentioned in this post by someone arguing from a similar point of view to you:



			
				jdrakeh said:
			
		

> What _I_ don't get is that you don't get that having the DM use fiat to veto the power of every choice you made when creating a charcter, effectively turning them into the mechanical equivalent of a 0-Level NPC, might not be fun for a lot of people. If you can't play the character you create, or you're not allowed to anything by way of GM fiat, why would you even bother to show up? At that point, there isn't much 'game' at all. It's tantamount to showing up for a 'game' of Monopoly and not being allowed to buy property or spend money, only roll dice.




I've read this whole thread, and it seems to be the case that most people arguing against the OP's POV (regarding the golem encounters) are saying that it's unfair to set things up so a character can't do anything useful for a whole adventure.

The counter-arguments seem to be:
- It wasn't a whole adventure, just 1-2 encounters.
- The GM replaced some golems with other creatures to placate this player.
- It was only the very obvious actions that wouldn't have been effective, there were plenty of other ways he could make a difference.
- Even if the player in question's point was valid, whining like a spoilt brat in the middle of a session, spoiling everyone else's fun, wasn't the right way to react.

Can anyone explain what I'm missing here? I'm struggling to see why the reaction to the OP has been so harsh.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Feb 19, 2008)

paz said:
			
		

> Can anyone explain what I'm missing here? I'm struggling to see why the reaction to the OP has been so harsh.




As far as I can tell...  poor initial wording.

How it was initially phrased there was no indication that there were things the mage could blast in the session.  This was rectified in later posting but it was already too late; the discussion had moved on to a "100% spotlight" extreme vs a "DM hates my character" extreme.

As far as usefullness goes I will voice that I myself am in the camp that I don't require 100% of the spotlight but I will complain (hopefully politely) if I feel that I was completely useless in a session.

If I feel that the DM built the session against me, I will speak up. (Notice: having a session where I am challanged is one thing - having a session where I am a glorifed commoner is another.)  I am not saying that the OP did this.  But if the player felt that the OP did (justified or not) then the player was correct in speaking up.

That said, I do not agree with how the player spoke up.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 19, 2008)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> As far as I can tell...  poor initial wording.
> 
> How it was initially phrased there was no indication that there were things the mage could blast in the session.  This was rectified in later posting but it was already too late; the discussion had moved on to a "100% spotlight" extreme vs a "DM hates my character" extreme.
> 
> ...




I think part of this is the term useless. I think useless can be very subjective. For example for some players not being able to do max damage say like a rogue fighting undead can make them feel useless.  For others it may mean not being able to do anything at all because their character was taken out of the game because they were under a spell or they died. Or they feel useless  compared to another player.

I recently had a player tell me that she felt useless in the game. She was playing an archer and she felt that she could not be as effective as the monk and cleric in combat. Two encounters I planned to give her chance to really shine didn't work because of bad dice rolls on her part. In the one encounter against a flying enemy she kept rolling badly and in the end the bard using a wand of magic missle killed the flying enemy.

In the second encounter she was failed a will save and was out of the combat for two rounds in the end she did help bring down the bad guys but to her it was a hollow victory.

When we talked she kept using the term useless. I didn't feel she was useless at all she was playing a ranger and had used her track and wildnerness skills to lead the party through the forrest. She could not get over the fact that the cleric and monk did more damage. 

So she brought in a new character a sorcerer and I hope she will be happy we have only played once since she changed characters.

Know she didn't whine at all over this and she didn't bring it up until after the game. I still think  she was wrong on the idea of feeling useless but you can't tell someone else that their feelings are wrong it is how they feel.

Which is why I think these kind of threads often go in circles because a lot of what is being discussed is a subjective feeling.


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 20, 2008)

BastionLightbringer said:
			
		

> Well, yes. If the Dm did everything randomly, then a PC can't really complain. If a Dm sets out to intentionally minimize your effectiveness for an entire dungeon crawl(I dont remember if it was stated how many sessions it took), I think a little whining ishould be tolerated.




How about if the DM buys adventures, and does not customize them for the party?  Is he then also a jerk if the module involves undead?


----------



## BastionLightbringer (Feb 20, 2008)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> How about if the DM buys adventures, and does not customize them for the party?  Is he then also a jerk if the module involves undead?




I think your missing the point. 1st of all, I never said anyone was a jerk. Second, original post said that the DM purposely placed magic resistant golems throughout the dungeon, than at the end threw in some highly spell resistant undead. Than mentioned hitting the guy with a Mordenkainens Disjunction spell(not sure if he actually did or not). I actually think he should use purchased adventures, then the whiney player would feel less like the DM is picking on him.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 20, 2008)

I'd reduce it to a simple, if often overlooked question:

Does everyone (DM and players) have fun? If not, then there's something wrong. 

If a player has no fun not being able to blast things, and has no fun buffing or summoning, then trying to "teach" (or even "train") him to "take it and like it" is the wrong choice. I know, many have fun doing exactly that, but then, they often forget that their taste is not universal. There's nothing wrong with saying: "I only have fun (or "have the most fun") playing an elf/archer/blast wizard/backstabbing rogue, anything else is not fun". Either the DM can accomodate that playstyle, or they should split.

Some encounters or foes having resistances to a particular playstyle/PC power are ok, but it should never come to the point that a player would have rather stayed at home for a session.

You can't make a player or DM like something, you can only compromise, and make sure that every session is fun for all involved. Maybe not 100% fun, but as close to it as you can get. Usually, that's not too difficult to manage either.

If someone has no fun in a dungeon crawl, and has lots of fun in social encounters, then that doesn't mean one cannot run a dungeon crawl - just that one should make sure there will be social interaction during it, which can be from encounters in the dungeon, or by adding NPCs to the party, or by having the intra-party interaction stimulated.

If the player likes to blast stuff, add stuff to be blasted.


----------



## evilbob (Feb 20, 2008)

paz said:
			
		

> Can anyone explain what I'm missing here? I'm struggling to see why the reaction to the OP has been so harsh.



To me, it seems like this issue has touched quite a nerve with some people.  I think a few folks in particular have had bad experiences with very poor GMs and this situation reminded them enough of those experiences that they voiced their opinion in favor of the whiner.  (By contrast, I've had an extremely similar experience with a whiny player, so I immediately sympathized with the OP.)  That said, I think the majority of posters have at least condemned the whiner's actions, if not his motives.

Additionally, the thread has also recently focused on what people believe is the right amount of "spotlight" time, or how they believe characters should and/or should be able to act in-game.  Personally, this thread has taught me that there are several people out there that I would not care to game with, and thankfully I feel like I have learned a bit from this thread about how best to recognize these people more quickly so that I will be able to amicably resolve the situation before personal feelings come into play.  I think that's an important point:  try to learn how best to tell if the group/player/GM you're getting ready to play with is expecting a vastly different style of play than you prefer before things get too complicated.  It can save everyone some hurt feelings in the end.

(Lastly, I wanted to mention that there are certainly many modules you can purchase that include one, multiple, or entire swaths of encounters that make some characters unable to use their primary damage function.  Ravenloft is a current, popular example that includes huge numbers of encounters with undead - making a rogue's life miserable, so long as all he wants to do is deal damage with sneak attack.  Then again, as many have said, there's no reason a player can't be perfectly happy playing a rogue in Barovia - he just needs to change his tactics and do other things besides damage.  Is this wrong?  I believe it is not.  Is it wrong for some players?  Sure.  How to fix it?  Don't play a rogue in Ravenloft!)


----------



## Fenes (Feb 20, 2008)

evilbob said:
			
		

> (Lastly, I wanted to mention that there are certainly many modules you can purchase that include one, multiple, or entire swaths of encounters that make some characters unable to use their primary damage function.  Ravenloft is a current, popular example that includes huge numbers of encounters with undead - making a rogue's life miserable, so long as all he wants to do is deal damage with sneak attack.  Then again, as many have said, there's no reason a player can't be perfectly happy playing a rogue in Barovia - he just needs to change his tactics and do other things besides damage.  Is this wrong?  I believe it is not.  Is it wrong for some players?  Sure.  How to fix it?  Don't play a rogue in Ravenloft!)




Or don't play Ravenloft, if you want to play a rogue.


----------



## DonTadow (Feb 20, 2008)

BastionLightbringer said:
			
		

> * "So, if the DM used random dungeon creation tables, and just followed the dice, it would be okay, but if the DM were trying to allow the players to make decisions based on world knowledge, logic, and verisimilitude, it would not be?"*
> 
> 
> Well, yes. If the Dm did everything randomly, then a PC can't really complain. If a Dm sets out to intentionally minimize your effectiveness for an entire dungeon crawl(I dont remember if it was stated how many sessions it took), I think a little whining ishould be tolerated.
> ...



So you prefer a DM to present you with cookie cutter dungeons to make everyone feel good about themselves?  

I don't play that game. 

I create challenges for the players. A challenge can "seem" dire some times. This in no way means the player is out of it.  If all you think you can do is "aid another" then that player lacks imagination.  

3.5 is designed so that no one player is one dimensional.  That's why there are a boat load of skills and magic items. If your sneak attack or magic is nerfed, there are other things that you can do to be quite helpful.

It comes down to creativity of the player.  A more important skill than anything written on a piece of paper.  Therea re some players who see this situation and go into their bag of tricks to see what they can do about it.  There are some who just give up and complain.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 20, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> So you prefer a DM to present you with cookie cutter dungeons to make everyone feel good about themselves?
> 
> I don't play that game.
> 
> ...




It comes down to having fun. There are some who think that their way is the only way to have fun. And there are some that understand that while some players want a challenge, others don't.

If I want to play a flirting swashbuckler doing daring deeds, then I don't have fun playing a game where I am forced to become a ressource-managing support character using alchemy to battle undead for any length of time.


----------



## evilbob (Feb 20, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> If I want to play a flirting swashbuckler doing daring deeds, then I don't have fun playing a game where I am forced to become a ressource-managing support character using alchemy to battle undead for any length of time.



As a side-note, I'll say that while this is a good example, in my own experiences and from what I've read, this is never the case.  When people talk about their character being "nerfed" or feeling "useless," in my experience it is 100% of the time talking about doing enough *damage*.  It's never "I didn't get to RP as much as I'd like" or "I can't use my X ability enough," it's _always_ "I don't do as much damage as X character."  It's always about damage.  Many people seem to believe that DPS (DPR?) = worth of character.  Not that this is invalid, or wrong, or anything like that:  D&D is open to any interpretation or any style of play, and that's fine.  I'm just saying it's just the only type complaint I've heard of this nature.

I'm still just not certain why these folks don't just play a barbarian:  you'll never get as much of a "damage high" as this class (until you're level 13+ or so, anyway).


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 20, 2008)

BastionLightbringer said:
			
		

> I think your missing the point. 1st of all, I never said anyone was a jerk. Second, original post said that the DM purposely placed magic resistant golems throughout the dungeon, than at the end threw in some highly spell resistant undead. Than mentioned hitting the guy with a Mordenkainens Disjunction spell(not sure if he actually did or not). I actually think he should use purchased adventures, then the whiney player would feel less like the DM is picking on him.




Just to clarify the DM had two iron golems and other things that the player could blast. This player also whined when the party had to fight bandits which he could blast because they were to easy. He also whined about an encounter that he thought was to hard. He whined before the encounter during the encounter and after the encounter even when the party won the day.

The Mordenkaines Disjunction did not happen in the dungeons.

This player is always going to feel as if the DM is picking on him. No matter what the DM does.  

There are some players that you can't please no matter what you do.


----------



## BastionLightbringer (Feb 20, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> So you prefer a DM to present you with cookie cutter dungeons to make everyone feel good about themselves?
> 
> I don't play that game.




I'm not sure where you got this conclusion from. I said I try to limit a characters effectiveness, just not for an entire adventure(which in my game could take 4-6 sessions).

People keep bringing up games of chance(monopoly) and purchasing adventures that are not tailor-made for the PCs as examples to back up the OP. But remember the OP was a situation where the *DM has knowledge of a characters specialty, then took it away for an entire dungeon crawl*. Thats what I am talking about. Thats all. I wouldn't do it for an *ENTIRE* adventure. But thats just my opinion. I am not saying your a bad DM if you do, just like I dont think I'm a bad DM because I dont.



			
				DonTadow said:
			
		

> I create challenges for the players. A challenge can "seem" dire *some* times. This in no way means the player is out of it.
> [/QOUTE] (emphasise mine)
> 
> Exactly, so do I. I just spread the challenges out to all the characters, not just heaping it on one for several sessions as I believe the OP states.
> ...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> So you prefer a DM to present you with cookie cutter dungeons to make everyone feel good about themselves?
> 
> I don't play that game.




Oh, my friend, I could not agree with you more.

I was looking at the 3e DMG the other day, and that book does indeed have a small word count devoted to the idea that, as a DM, the encounters you create cause certain types of play to be rewarded, and that you should be aware of this because play that is rewarded will certainly be modelled by your players.  If you want to run a detailed campaign world where things like rations and ammo matter, and Bob has ADD and can't be bothered to count ammo, then Bob might not be a good fit for your game.  It doesn't mean that you have to run the game Bob wants.

I think that the OP touched a nerve because folks see themselves in the Allegedly Whiney Player.  They read the OP, and say, "Heck, I've acted like that....and I was justified in doing so, gosh darn it!"  I think this because I've acted like the AWP myself, both as relates to D&D and as relates to real life, from time to time.  And it is seductively easy to claim that one is justified in being a jerk, instead of facing oneself and admitting that one has been a jerk.  It is much, much easier than apologizing for being a jerk.  So, we all have a tendency to want to defend jerks who are jerks in ways that we've been jerks.  And most of us (if not all of us) have been whiney players (or whiney DMs) at some point.

That's just human nature.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

BastionLightbringer said:
			
		

> But remember the OP was a situation where the *DM has knowledge of a characters specialty, then took it away for an entire dungeon crawl*. Thats what I am talking about. Thats all. I wouldn't do it for an *ENTIRE* adventure.





3.X is a game in which you, as a player, have a choice between making a generalist who can do many things well, or a specialist who can do only one thing very, very well indeed.  To some degree, each player must choose between these poles when deciding how to build a character.

If the DM never allows the players to encounter situations where a specialist might be unable to use his specialty with its normal effectiveness for an entire adventure, then there is no choice to be made.  Every player should automatically make a specialist, because (1) the characters are more powerful in their niche, and (2) every adventure is going to cater to that niche to a greater or lesser degree.

If the DM doesn't want to encourage a party of specialists, he should do exactly what the OP has done:  present a world, which makes sense internally, and which does not cater to specialist builds.


RC


----------



## BastionLightbringer (Feb 20, 2008)

Agree to disagree. I've said pretty much all I could on this subject. I do agree what *most* of the Op defenders are saying. Its just it seemed a little much in the OP. 

Thanks for listening to my opinion
Bastion


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

BastionLightbringer said:
			
		

> Agree to disagree.





Always an acceptable outcome.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 20, 2008)

evilbob said:
			
		

> As a side-note, I'll say that while this is a good example, in my own experiences and from what I've read, this is never the case.  When people talk about their character being "nerfed" or feeling "useless," in my experience it is 100% of the time talking about doing enough *damage*.  It's never "I didn't get to RP as much as I'd like" or "I can't use my X ability enough," it's _always_ "I don't do as much damage as X character."  It's always about damage.  Many people seem to believe that DPS (DPR?) = worth of character.  Not that this is invalid, or wrong, or anything like that:  D&D is open to any interpretation or any style of play, and that's fine.  I'm just saying it's just the only type complaint I've heard of this nature.
> 
> I'm still just not certain why these folks don't just play a barbarian:  you'll never get as much of a "damage high" as this class (until you're level 13+ or so, anyway).




I have noticed that too about the damage. 

As a player that is not what makes me feel useless it is when I am in a game and the DM does not give me a chance to interact with the NPCs and focuses all the story aspects on one or two characters and I end up feeling that all I am there is to help out in combat.

In one Eberron game I got so frustrated over sitting at the table listening to the two 'stars" role play that I brought a book and read until it was time for me to roll the dice. The DM took notice of that and asked me what the trouble was after the session and I told him honestly that I was bored. 

He was like I have noticed that they tend to hog the spotlight but what can I do about it?  I told him how about when they are off doing their secret meetings (that they never shared any information they got with the rest of us) how about letting us do something you know shift back and forth. 

He could not see doing that because it would bog the game down even further. So I then suggested that he curtail their secret meetings, but no that was part of the story. 

I ended up feeling like nothing more than a cohort. The good thing that came out of that was I started my own game and got me over my fear of DMing.

Now one of the problem of the Eberron game was that the DM said make characters when I asked what kind of campaign he wanted to run he was vague. So after talking to him I made a character from Cyre. I was starting out as a ranger going for Cyrean Avenger. The DM when told of the character concept was like that is cool I can do a lot with that.

Another player my roommate made a cyrean character as well. Two others made characters that were involved with the dreaming dark and one was a gatekeeper. The entire campaign revolved around shutting down gates and the dreaming dark. Both myself and my roomate got so frustrated that we asked to bring in new characters that actually had something to do with gates or the dreaming dark. The DM was not happy about us changing out characters midgame.

I quit the game in the end. The DM who is a friend told me later that he was sorry but he just could not juggle all the characters backgrounds and that if I had been more pateint he was eventually going to do something with my background. I guess playing for 18 months I was not patient enough.  

What I learned from that was to have a reason my characters are together. My campign focuses on fighting Tiamat's spawn so I told my players to make characters that would want to fight Tiamat's Spawn. And I asked them to tell me why Bahumt would call them to come to his aid.

Now the characters do have different things they want to do the cleric/paladin wants to fight corruption in the church, the monk has amnesia and the spellscale wants to find out the secret of where his people came from. 

I try every session to add something about their backstories lay ground work, clues. Not every session will have a lot to do with every character's background. But I don't go sesions ignoring it either.

It is a matter of balance and my players know that and that I am commited to making the game fun for everyone. But sometimes some sessions might be more fun for another player but that soon it will be there turn.

I bring that philosophy to every aspect of the game from role playing to combat. I try and make the game fun for everyone, Itry and give all the players something to do but sometimes for that session some players may have more to do than others. 

It seesm to work because the only thing they are whining about is when am I going to hurry up and get over my broken knee so we can play again.


----------



## Nikroecyst (Feb 20, 2008)

I didn't read the entire thread but I am going to drop my two cents, casue I used to DM at a table with three whinny players.

Mostly it comes down to undermining your authority, IMO. 

If he don't like it, tell em to find a differnt DM/Group. I have had to do this to players in the past when they have consistantly disrupted my games.

There must be some kinda good reason he comes back to your table night after night?

P.S. The encounters did look a lil over powered.


----------



## Greylock (Feb 20, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Just to clarify the DM had two iron golems and other things that the player could blast...




With what, his fists?


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 20, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> No not that I am aware of.



Yeah, that's what I thought.



			
				paz said:
			
		

> I'm struggling to see why the reaction to the OP has been so harsh.



Indeed. No wonder Slaygrim was so frustrated, what with the number of wildy inappropriate and ridiculous assumptions being bandied about (_especially_ when the OP clarified things).


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 20, 2008)

Greylock said:
			
		

> With what, his fists?




He could blast the death knights that were also there. And even the undead could be blasted sure they had SR but that did not stop him from being able to blast them. It just meant that if he didn't get through their SR he lost the spell. Which comes down to the roll of the dice like everything else in combat.

And he had no trouble blasting the bandits, the rune mage, the beholder and the BBEG wizard.

But everyone who feels so sorry for the whiney player seems to foget all that.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 20, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's what I thought.
> 
> 
> Indeed. No wonder Slaygrim was so frustrated, what with the number of wildy inappropriate and ridiculous assumptions being bandied about (_especially_ when the OP clarified things).




I felt bad for him. I know he broke the rules and down came the banhammer but he was provoked and of course the ones who provoked him were clever enough to do it in way that didn't get them banned. 

I hope he comes back and sees that not everyone thought he as a horrible DM.


----------



## DonTadow (Feb 20, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> It comes down to having fun. There are some who think that their way is the only way to have fun. And there are some that understand that while some players want a challenge, others don't.
> 
> If I want to play a flirting swashbuckler doing daring deeds, then I don't have fun playing a game where I am forced to become a ressource-managing support character using alchemy to battle undead for any length of time.



 What in the world is stopping you from playing a flirting swashbuckler doing daring deeds if you're fighting undead.  Why don't you use your swashbuckling technique to disarm, or trip up the undead. Or dash around throwing bottles of greek fire and tanglefoot bags at them.  Or get real creative and coat your weapon with some holy oil and go toe to toe.  Why not go around and flank the undead, showing off with your sword prowess while the cleric does the real damage (and gets an advantage).  The DM did not nerf your character. Your lack of imagination nerfed your character. Too many people think rpg pcs are MMO robots. 

"I am a mage, i must cast spells or i am useless". 

This is the great thing about tabletops.  This is not the case 10 times out of 10. 

Players who talk about nerfed characters on situations where their character is not hte star often lack the imagination required to play a tabletop game.  You don't have to deal damage to roleplay a character.  There's a guy in my game who plays a vampire psionist, who does not fight and rarely uses his psionics  (he is a merchant who the pcs stumbled upon). But he is essential to the party using all types of environmental and generic items.  

This does not come down to having fun. It comes down to i can't have fun unless my character's star powers are shined. 



			
				BastionLightbringer said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where you got this conclusion from. I said I try to limit a characters effectiveness, just not for an entire adventure(which in my game could take 4-6 sessions).



We are disagreeing about "limited effectiveness".  If my players know that the sacred what knock is located in the crypt of the undead horror. Well, they are going to make preparations so that they are alll as effective as possible against undead.  I don't buy the design that every dungeon has exactly one encounter to make every player shine.  It just does not happen. In this case adventures seem more like plays with acts that focus on a particular character.  Players stepping up saying oooh here's my part.  



			
				rc said:
			
		

> I was looking at the 3e DMG the other day, and that book does indeed have a small word count devoted to the idea that, as a DM, the encounters you create cause certain types of play to be rewarded, and that you should be aware of this because play that is rewarded will certainly be modelled by your players. If you want to run a detailed campaign world where things like rations and ammo matter, and Bob has ADD and can't be bothered to count ammo, then Bob might not be a good fit for your game. It doesn't mean that you have to run the game Bob wants.



I agree with you. So in my design, i reward creative play.  I have both specialists and generalists in my game, but my specialists are diverse enough where when their out of spell points they aren't sitting around pouting on rocks. They are slinging arrow, reading scrolls, and helping the party strategize.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 20, 2008)

I think you miss the point. The exmaple was: I have no fun fighting undead and using alchemy. Got that? I do not want to be creative if I do not want to fight undead in the first place.

Or, to put it in an example you may understand better: If you want to play a D&D paladin, and your DM runs a bunnies & burrows adventure, polymorphing your character in a bunny at the start, should you get creative, or say "I want to play D&D, not B&B"?

Is that so difficult to get? I want to have fun in a game, and some things and adventures are no fun at all. I don't want to get creative and adapt to such, I want to avoid it.

So, if a DM wants to run Ravenloft, and an undead campaign, I'll simply say "not my taste", and leave.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> I think you miss the point. The exmaple was: I have no fun fighting undead and using alchemy. Got that? I do not want to be creative if I do not want to fight undead in the first place.
> 
> Or, to put it in an example you may understand better: If you want to play a D&D paladin, and your DM runs a bunnies & burrows adventure, polymorphing your character in a bunny at the start, should you get creative, or say "I want to play D&D, not B&B"?




Okay, I get it:

D&D has undead.

You don't want to fight undead.

You thought you were playing Bunnies & Burrows!

 

While I jest, that argument sounds seriously like claiming that you want to play chess, but only if no one uses queens or rooks.  You might get some takers, but the game isn't really the same thing that most folks mean when they say "chess".

(And, yes, if your DM is running an adventure that includes unusual circumstances, and you are otherwise enjoying the game, you should roll with it.  If you are not otherwise enjoying the game, you shouldn't be there.  Which is exactly what you conclude, I note.)

RC


----------



## cougent (Feb 20, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I think that the OP touched a nerve because folks see themselves in the Allegedly Whiney Player.  They read the OP, and say, "Heck, I've acted like that....and I was justified in doing so, gosh darn it!"  I think this because I've acted like the AWP myself, both as relates to D&D and as relates to real life, from time to time.  And it is seductively easy to claim that one is justified in being a jerk, instead of facing oneself and admitting that one has been a jerk.  It is much, much easier than apologizing for being a jerk.  So, we all have a tendency to want to defend jerks who are jerks in ways that we've been jerks.  And most of us (if not all of us) have been whiney players (or whiney DMs) at some point.
> 
> That's just human nature.



And there it is, the dirty little secret truth that underlies all of the "worst DM" posts.  In both this and another thread I posted several different ways that while I listen to player complaints and frustrations, I don't listen or tolerate whining in any form... and I got repeatedly rebuked for that position.  There are people who want to whine, and they want it allowed at all costs, and so they defend fellow whiners as vehemently as possible.  Forget the real issues, forget the OP scenario, they really just want to defend being whiney.  OK, defend away, you will still get booted from my games.  Be mature, be civil, or be gone.

And let me save you some response time, I am the worst DM ever, you would hate my game, you would hate my style, I am always wrong, etc.  Fortunately there are many bad players in my area that want just that in a DM so I stay pretty busy.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

cougent said:
			
		

> And there it is, the dirty little secret truth that underlies all of the "worst DM" posts.  In both this and another thread I posted several different ways that while I listen to player complaints and frustrations, I don't listen or tolerate whining in any form... and I got repeatedly rebuked for that position.  There are people who want to whine, and they want it allowed at all costs, and so they defend fellow whiners as vehemently as possible.  Forget the real issues, forget the OP scenario, they really just want to defend being whiney.  OK, defend away, you will still get booted from my games.  Be mature, be civil, or be gone.




Exactly.



> And let me save you some response time, I am the worst DM ever, you would hate my game, you would hate my style, I am always wrong, etc.  Fortunately there are many bad players in my area that want just that in a DM so I stay pretty busy.




  Nail on the head, my friend.  Nail on the head.   

RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 20, 2008)

evilbob said:
			
		

> Many people seem to believe that DPS (DPR?) = worth of character.



People like metrics. Damage dealt is a clear numerical measure of a character's worth, or contribution, to the team's combat effort. All else being equal, if PC A is consistently dealing 50 pts a round and PC B is dealing 10, then PC B is looking pretty feeble by comparison.

Difficulty arises because there are a lot of non-damage contributions a PC can make such as buffs, debuffs, healing and save-or-dies. But to some extent it might be possible to convert these to damage. For example if a wizard takes out three 70hp foes with a SoD in one round, we could count this as 3*70 = 210 pts  of contribution. One could calculate the amount of extra damage dealt due to a bard's inspire courage or a wizard's haste (a heckuva lot in the latter case). You could even do the same for defensive buffs like a druid's barkskin. Calculate how much longer the recipient will stay up thanks to the higher ac, work out how much more damage is dealt as a result and you have a metric for measuring the contribution of barkskin. The same can be done with in combat healing.

We can by this system calculate the worth of Aid Another incidentally. Plus 2 to hit, best case scenario, converts to 4 hit points of damage when Power Attacking with a 2h weapon. Not too bad at 1st level, but progressively worse and worse as you go up levels because the expected damage becomes so much higher.

Defence is important because if your character goes down because of a lack of hit points, armour class or saves, he's not dealing damage any more. This is the problem with the barbarian imo - poor AC and poor will save. (Plus rage just tends to get you killed when it wears off.) The extra hit points aren't enough to make up for it. I currently play a warblade and he's much more effective in melee than a barbarian would be, mostly due to the lack of weaknesses.


----------



## DonTadow (Feb 20, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> I think you miss the point. The exmaple was: I have no fun fighting undead and using alchemy. Got that? I do not want to be creative if I do not want to fight undead in the first place.
> 
> Or, to put it in an example you may understand better: If you want to play a D&D paladin, and your DM runs a bunnies & burrows adventure, polymorphing your character in a bunny at the start, should you get creative, or say "I want to play D&D, not B&B"?
> 
> ...



So you're comparing a natural occurance in dungeons to a the DM rail roading your character. Nice.  But two different things.  Again , just like the monopoly thing.  The first option leaves you, the player, many options, many options other than just alchemy.  The second polymorphing example is the DM railroading and changing the character you built.  It is the DM's fault if your character is useless because you had nothing to do with this character. HOwever, in the first example it is your fault if, with all the skills, items and feats in 3e, that you made a useless character whose only trick is sneak attack.  

You are obviously a pretty close minded player.  It is either all or nothing with you.  Either your wizard casts spells in battle or he's useless.  Tell me, does your wizard get all suicidial when he runs out of spells for the day?  

My mom used to tell me something, and I'm going to share it with you. There would be times that I wanted a specific toy, and she would take it because i was bad, and I"d have to play with something else and I'd whine about it because all i could concentrate on was the toy i wanted. Sure the toy i had wasn't he man, but it was still fun. I still could have fun with it if i tried.  

so she'd say, "You aren't trying to have fun". And that's your problem.  the minute you hear undead you sit, pout and fold your arms and don't even try to have fun.  If you don't like alchemy do something else.  Why are you playing the game like you're limited to four buttons.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> People like metrics. Damage dealt is a clear numerical measure of a character's worth, or contribution, to the team's combat effort.




And, because combats in 3e take so much longer than in any previous edition, players learn to judge their value by their contribution to combat.

The writers of 4e seem to think that an extended "non-combat resolution system" is necessary to make non-combat actions equally important.  In reality, all that is required is that combats themselves are handled more rapidly.

RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 20, 2008)

cougent said:
			
		

> In both this and another thread I posted several different ways that while I listen to player complaints and frustrations, I don't listen or tolerate whining in any form



What's the difference?


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Feb 20, 2008)

DonTadow - Please don't attribute someone's difference of opinion to a lack of imagination or close-mindedness.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 20, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> What's the difference?




Complaint:  In general use, a complaint is an expression of displeasure, such as poor service at a store, or from a local government, etc. ...

Whining:  Habitually complaining; "a whining child"

Within the context of a D&D game, a complaint is generally given as between equals, with a reasonable amount of respect, is short, and is not intended to disrupt play.  OTOH, the purpose of whining is frequently to disrupt play, essentially trying to hold the rest of the game hostage to the whims of the person so behaving.


RC


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 20, 2008)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> So you prefer a DM to present you with cookie cutter dungeons to make everyone feel good about themselves?
> 
> I don't play that game.
> 
> I create challenges for the players. A challenge can "seem" dire some times.




Nod.  I'm reminded of a lot of other conversations here, about WOTC nerfing the game in 3e by trying to ensure only challenges that PC's can overcome and treasure welfare by level, etc.  Basically, the argument is D&D was created to be a bit difficult, with a chance of failure and some true challenges, but WOTC has been trying to ensure the players always win.

Gygax said something about if you can't abide danger to your character, maybe you should go play Candyland with your little sister instead.

Somebody else said the true essence of D&D is when you're down to a few hit points and looking through your character sheet trying to figure out how to save the party with some iron rations and a pint of oil.  I agree that's "what is best in life".  Other folks think it's something else . . . damage done or builds in action, I guess.

Seems there's many ways to play this game.


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 20, 2008)

cougent said:
			
		

> And there it is, the dirty little secret truth that underlies all of the "worst DM" posts.  In both this and another thread I posted several different ways that while I listen to player complaints and frustrations, I don't listen or tolerate whining in any form... and I got repeatedly rebuked for that position.  There are people who want to whine, and they want it allowed at all costs, and so they defend fellow whiners as vehemently as possible.  Forget the real issues, forget the OP scenario, they really just want to defend being whiney.  OK, defend away, you will still get booted from my games.  Be mature, be civil, or be gone.
> 
> And let me save you some response time, I am the worst DM ever, you would hate my game, you would hate my style, I am always wrong, etc.  Fortunately there are many bad players in my area that want just that in a DM so I stay pretty busy.





Cougent, you just went and sucked all the fun out of this thread by being so right.  I tried to state the same thing earlier, just more diplomatically.  Congrats my friend- you won the thread!


----------



## noretoc (Feb 20, 2008)

I think the OP might have been trolling.  IMO anyone who come here saying "My player was whining because I threw a encounter that was way too high for them, then had my npc save them"  and "He was complaining because I put in monsters that he could do nothing against" is looking to have people start fighting.  Either that or the dude really dosen't read any posts here ever.  Anyone should know better than to post that, unless you WANT people getting on you. 

Just my opinon.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Feb 20, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> In other news, is this thread _really_ only ten posts long? Because, man, that looks weird.




Ignoring your problems makes them go away, right? Right? Bueller?


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Feb 20, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I felt bad for him. I know he broke the rules and down came the banhammer but he was provoked and of course the ones who provoked him were clever enough to do it in way that didn't get them banned.




Isn't that weird how that works?


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 20, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> Isn't that weird how that works?




I know you are being sarcastic but I am going to answer seriously. There is a reason so many people are going to Circvs Maximvs and say they don't come her as often or at all. One of the reason is stuff like this where you just have to swallow and swallow someone behaving like a jerk and not being allowed to tell them look you are being a jerk.

The people who do this may not be actully breaking the rules but they are breaking the spirit of the rules.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 21, 2008)

Well, I think that some DMs are so sure they are right that whenever a player complains, it's seen as whining, since they missed all the other clues about something not being right.

In any case, there's a lot of "badwrongfun" in this thread - meaning, if someone does not like the same playstyle they prefer, he's "unimaginative" "whining", "uncreative", "pouting" and so on.

That's not the case. Sometimes, people simply know what they want, and don't want to play a game they have no fun in. 

I am sure there are a lot of people who still think they know what's best for everyone,. but I do hope that there are as many - or more - who do not forget that the only goal of D&D is to have fun - for everyone to have fun. Not for everyone to play the same style.

Someone mentioned "normal dungeon enviroment". To those, it must be shocking to hear that I don't play D&D for dungeon crawling. So, dungeon crawling by itself would be a "no fun" mark for me. I can stomahc it if it happens once in a while, but if the DM is unwilling to add some other form roleplay to the dungeon crawl, then I'll quit.

If a player wants to blast stuff with a wizard, then the DM should accomodate them. That doesn't mean he can't bring the odd iron golem, or dead magic zone, but when the player indicates that a whole adventure of such is not fun, the response should be "ok, noted, won't happen again", not "stop whining, and take it and like it!!!!!".

Whining in itself is bad form, but by no means makes a complaint less legitimate. The right course of action is for the player to stop whining (if he really is whining, far too often, any complaint is seen as whining if it's kept up when it is not responded to), and the DM to either change the game to make it more fun for everyone, or kick the player out.

Does that mean a DM has to run the game the players want, even if it's not fun? Of course not. But neither should a DM expect everyone to like his game. Just because a DM likes Dungeon Crawls, and ressource management makes him not a bad DM - and neither does preferring social challenges to monster killing. But if a DM expects his way to appeal to everyone, and considers any other playstyle wrong, then he's a bad DM.


----------



## Oryan77 (Feb 21, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> One of the reason is stuff like this where you just have to swallow and swallow someone behaving like a jerk and not being allowed to tell them look you are being a jerk.
> 
> The people who do this may not be actully breaking the rules but they are breaking the spirit of the rules.



I agree, it's a shame to see the OP get banned for getting frustrated at people treating him like he's a jerk. He's a new poster here and several regulars (including a certain moderator) are quite good at being pricks and flaming without actually breaking the rules. The OP just hasn't figured out how to "play that game" yet and he got banned for it.

I find it amusing how so many gamers play the _overly-sensitive_ card and at the same time reply in a way that insults others without being blunt about it. It's the less sensitive types that have to learn how to deal with their insults without being a _normal_ person that reacts in a _normal_ way (i.e. telling them to shove it).

I didn't bother participating in this thread because it was just the usual responses you get when a DM posts about problems at his table. The "veteran" DMs come flocking out to pick at every word the OP writes about his game and they inform him that he sucks...and I didn't feel like sticking up for the OP only to spar with the elitists. I've come to understand that the DMs doing this aren't as great as they think they are. I've met plenty of guys that believe they are gods among DMs; yet their players talk trash about their DMing skills behind their back. They are the same type of guys that would go online and trash another persons DMing skills  :\  So the OP might have made a DMing mistake...he explained himself and didn't need 6 pages worth of people still telling him he sucks when he said he has plenty of other players that don't whine about his DMing. He needed 6 pages worth of advice on how to deal with a player that'll complain no matter how well he DMs.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 21, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The writers of 4e seem to think that an extended "non-combat resolution system" is necessary to make non-combat actions equally important.




Or maybe they want to present a resolution system that isn't "the DM decides."


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 21, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> .
> 
> 
> If a player wants to blast stuff with a wizard, then the DM should accomodate them. That doesn't mean he can't bring the odd iron golem, or dead magic zone, but when the player indicates that a whole adventure of such is not fun, the response should be "ok, noted, won't happen again", not "stop whining, and take it and like it!!!!!".
> ...




I think this is one of the big miscommunications that has gone on in this thread. And that is people have been talking in extremes. I have been debating a lot with you over this and now you come and say what I have been saying all along. That it is not bad DMing to *sometimes * bring in things like dead zones, iron golems what have you. 

The OP never said his entire campaign was based on things that made it hard for the blaster wizard it was *two seperate * sessions and he did later point out that there were things in them for the blaster wizard. It was not something that happened every seesion. 

I agree with you that it is poor planning to have an entire campain with session after session where a player can't use his abilities. A DM should let a player know hey this is going to be a heavy undead campaign so players can design characters who fit into that kind of campign.

I really don't think any of us who have basically been on the side of the OP feels that it is good DMing to *always* set up encounters that nerf a players chosen abilities. 

One of the things that was frustrating me was that I felt the other side was saying you can *never* plan an encounter or a situation that might not allow a player to use his full abilities. That was how it sounded. And that was what I have been debating about.

There is a difference between having a legitmate gripe and talking to the DM about it and being a whiney baby. Personally if the OP was telling it how it really was the player was not being reasonable becuase he whined about more than just the iron golems he whined when he felt that an encounter was to easy and he whined when he thought an encounter was to hard. 

I think the OP was looking for advice on how to handle this player. As a DM myself I would be lost on how to deal with a player who complained about every type of encounter I made. 

I sometimes get great advice here but sometimes the advice gets lost when people bring in their own bones and issues. Like in this case instead of reading that on *two occasions * the DM had encounters that did not allow the player to use his abilities to the max some people who may have been burned by a DM who did this all the time jumped on the wagon about how unfun it is when DMs do this that they came to play not twiddle their thumbs.

What I think they are really saying is that it has not been fun to play in a game where they *never* get to use their abilities. Not that they *always* have to in every encounter.


----------



## cougent (Feb 21, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> What's the difference?



Oh you just want me to give an example so *I* can get jumped all over for it, I see how you are you sneaky devil.  

OK, here goes:
(Complaint / Frustration)
DM makes a call, any call, pick one that you like... lets say a Psionic attack that has no effect on the critter.
Player A:  Huh?  What do you mean it has no effect?  I am pretty sure it DOES have an effect, I just re-read that right before the game tonight and I really think you are wrong on that call.
DM:  I don't think so, but we can check it later to make sure.  For now my call stands
Player A (frustrated even more now):  Lets check it now, I really think I am right on this one, I especially prepared this attack just for a situation like this and now if you rule it down it will just blow it all to pieces!
DM:  OK, 5 minutes for food and drink for anybody that needs it, lets do this fast.

(Whining)
DM makes a call, any call, pick one that you like... lets say a Psionic attack that has no effect on the critter.
Player W:  What the F***?  that's total BS!  This is just like last week when you screwed me over on the Iron Golem thing, I prepared this attack just for a situation just like this and your screwing it all up.  If John was the freakin wizard you wouldn't pull this crap, your just doing this to me, you suck! (dice fly across room)
DM response:  OK, who has next initiative?

That's as close as I can get to illustrating the difference right now, if you see it then you understand where I am coming from, if you don't see it then you are obviously a lot more patient and forgivng person than I will ever be.

DISCLAIMER:  the above examples represent attempts to create examples on the fly and NOT necessarily real life situations.  Some dramatization and dramatic license has been taken to illustrate a point.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 21, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> There is a difference between having a legitmate gripe and talking to the DM about it and being a whiney baby. Personally if the OP was telling it how it really was the player was not being reasonable becuase he whined about more than just the iron golems he whined when he felt that an encounter was to easy and he whined when he thought an encounter was to hard.




And my point is that there are two points, which have to be treated seperately.

There's the whining, and there's the fact that a player has no fun. Simply stating "the player is whining, so he's wrong" is not correct. One has to check if one could make the campaign better suited to said players wishes without ruining it for the DM and the rest of the players. And one has to check if the player can stop whining - or, if it even is whining. (Of course, said complaining/whining can be a cause for making the game unfun for the DM or the rest of the players, so that has to be taken into consideration as well.)

But I really think too many people focus on the "whining" part, and not on the part that one player, for whatever reason there is, is not having fun in the game. And that means something is wrong. (And yes, if the personalities of the two involved people won't mesh well together, splitting seems the best option.)


----------



## Fenes (Feb 21, 2008)

cougent said:
			
		

> OK, here goes:
> (Complaint / Frustration)
> DM makes a call, any call, pick one that you like... lets say a Psionic attack that has no effect on the critter.
> Player A:  Huh?  What do you mean it has no effect?  I am pretty sure it DOES have an effect, I just re-read that right before the game tonight and I really think you are wrong on that call.
> ...




In my experience, it often happens like this:

DM makes a call, any call, pick one that you like... lets say a Psionic attack that has no effect on the critter.
Player A:  Huh?  What do you mean it has no effect?  I am pretty sure it DOES have an effect, I just re-read that right before the game tonight and I really think you are wrong on that call.
DM:  I don't think so, but we can check it later to make sure.  For now my call stands
Player A (frustrated even more now):  Lets check it now, I really think I am right on this one, I especially prepared this attack just for a situation like this and now if you rule it down it will just blow it all to pieces!
DM: Who has next initiative?
Player W:  What the F***?  that's total BS!  This is just like last week when you screwed me over on the Iron Golem thing, I prepared this attack just for a situation just like this and your screwing it all up.  If John was the freakin wizard you wouldn't pull this crap, your just doing this to me, you suck! (dice fly across room)
DM: Stop whining! I made my call, I won't hold up the game for this, we can check later!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 21, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Or maybe they want to present a resolution system that isn't "the DM decides."




Excepting, of course, that what we have been presented so far is "the player rolls a lot of dice, and the DM decides".    

RC


----------



## evilbob (Feb 21, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> In my experience, it often happens like this:



That is seriously your experience?  Because that is horrible - you need to find a better group of people to game with.  I mean, both sides have some fault to them but the player (assuming W is the same as A in that example) is behaving especially poorly.

Especially the "dice fly across the room" bit - if I saw anyone do that I would excuse myself from the game.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 21, 2008)

evilbob said:
			
		

> That is seriously your experience?  Because that is horrible - you need to find a better group of people to game with.  I mean, both sides have some fault to them but the player (assuming W is the same as A in that example) is behaving especially poorly.
> 
> Especially the "dice fly across the room" bit - if I saw anyone do that I would excuse myself from the game.




I took the quoted example to make a point - the point being that sometimes, a DM either has to change, or tell the player straight away he'd better leave since nothing will change. Not dismiss a complaint as whining after ignoring it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 21, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> I took the quoted example to make a point - the point being that sometimes, a DM either has to change, or tell the player straight away he'd better leave since nothing will change. Not dismiss a complaint as whining after ignoring it.




If that was your point, then no one has been arguing with it AFAICT.  I haven't seen anyone say "Don't talk to your players" or "Don't take their complaints seriously."  Nor have I seen anyone say "If things aren't going to change, hide that from the player, and keep on keeping on!"

Indeed, all of the advice I've read, from anyone, on this thread, seems to boil down to (1) communicate with your players, and (2) at some point, something's gotta give.

The only disagreement I am aware of is that we differ at what point, and what has to give.

RC


----------



## Fenes (Feb 21, 2008)

My other point is that even if someone is whining - and definitions of what qualifies as whining vary - his complaints are not invalidated by that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 21, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> My other point is that even if someone is whining - and definitions of what qualifies as whining vary - his complaints are not invalidated by that.




Of course not.  Which is why, for example, I advised the OP to speak with his other players.

However, I also argued (as did others) that while there may be a real problem -- and definitions of what qualifies as a real problem vary   -- his whining is not made valid by that.

If there is a real problem, and mature behaviour cannot fix it, you can be fairly certain that whining will not fix it, either.  If speaking calmly and reasonably to the DM doesn't help, you should simply leave the game.  

Even if there is a real problem, but the player makes no attempt to deal with it maturely, you as a DM should not have to tolerate whining.  If speaking calmly and reasonably to the player doesn't help, you should ask that player to leave the game.  And, yes, "ask" is a euphemism here.

Simply because you don't have to tolerate whining, it does not imply that you should not consider potential problems that said whining might have uncovered.  Ultimately, though, there is a great deal of spread in potential playstyles, and just because one person believes something to be a problem doesn't mean it is.  You should try to examine it honestly, but should not feel that you have to change your playstyle unless you want to.

(It is also a given that, in some cases, this will mean that you have no players, and you might therefore be forced to reexamine what you really want if you want to DM in a more than theoretical sense.)


RC


----------



## DonTadow (Feb 21, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> But I really think too many people focus on the "whining" part, and not on the part that one player, for whatever reason there is, is not having fun in the game. And that means something is wrong. (And yes, if the personalities of the two involved people won't mesh well together, splitting seems the best option.)



Still sounds like the fault of the player.  People havea  tendancy to want to blame everyone but themselves.  Unless the DM is not communicating with you, I can't see why the DM is at fault.  

If I as a dM tell you this is a low magic campaign, and that there are lots of antimagic zones in the world, why on earth would you set your heart on playing an uber wizard?  

If this is just one adventure, and you know ahead of time where you are going, why did your character not better prepare? 

I can't think of one instance where I felt a pc or npc i built was helpless, and I"ve been in some pretty lopsided battles.  If you are set on playing your character one way without any creativity, you are limiting your own experience and fun of dungeons and dragons, not the DM.


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 21, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> But I really think too many people focus on the "whining" part, and not on the part that one player, for whatever reason there is, is not having fun in the game. And that means something is wrong. (And yes, if the personalities of the two involved people won't mesh well together, splitting seems the best option.)



Of course that was the focus, because that's the right thing to do in the context of the OP. The problem was constant "whining" by one particular player, when no other players were complaining. Those who focused on the "whining" part were correct in doing so. Slagging the DM, even after he clarified his points, was not only unproductive, it was wrong.

As for the whiny player's possible issues with the game, that was long since dealt with in Raven Crowking's posts - among other peoples' - that suggested to talk to the player to determine what he likes and if that's a good fit for the game (and _not_ go on about how "bad" those encounters supposedly were - even after clarification by the OP. I don't think we want cougent's post to become eerily predictive, now do we?).


----------



## Fenes (Feb 21, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> Of course that was the focus, because that's the right thing to do in the context of the OP. The problem was constant "whining" by one particular player, when no other players were complaining. Those who focused on the "whining" part were correct in doing so. Slagging the DM, even after he clarified his points, was not only unproductive, it was wrong.




And that's my point - the important issue is that a player is not happy. Whining is a symptom, not the core issue.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 21, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> And that's my point - the important issue is that a player is not happy. Whining is a symptom, not the core issue.




 

The core issue as that two people at that table aren't happy.  One is doing his best to make everyone happy; the other is doing his best to make everyone else as unhappy as he is.  If you think the second is in the right......well, colour me confused.

 

RC


----------



## White Whale (Feb 21, 2008)

I don't think anyone has behaved as a jerk, no more than the OP anyway. 

The first post consists of several examples of badly balanced encounters, which most people pointed out. When confronted with this the OP tries to justify these examples by saying that 'they are important to the story'. More, the 'multiple iron golems guarding spots throughout the dungeon' and 'undead with high SR' mysteriously turn into just two golems. Then, when several posters question the new modified story, the OP becomes aggressive. 

It is clear that Slaygrim takes no criticism and blames all the problems on the 'whiney' player; he never admits that the player in question may have a legitimate reason for complaining, even in the flawed examples in the first post.


----------



## Felix (Feb 22, 2008)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I know you are being sarcastic but I am going to answer seriously. There is a reason so many people are going to Circvs Maximvs and say they don't come her as often or at all. One of the reason is stuff like this where you just have to swallow and swallow someone behaving like a jerk and not being allowed to tell them look you are being a jerk.
> 
> The people who do this may not be actually breaking the rules but they are breaking the spirit of the rules.



There are also rules against calling someone out on the tone of their post in a post (the accepted remedy being to notify a moderator), so I can understand why you haven't accused anyone by name. But I think this comes as close to an accusation as one can without crossing that particular line. There also exists an "Email Member" option for this kind of situation; perhaps it is an option you may want to pursue.

Sort of a, "finish this conversation outside" kind of solution.

Anyway, it's available if there's anything you wish to articulate.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 22, 2008)

Old Gumphrey said:
			
		

> Ignoring your problems makes them go away, right? Right? Bueller?




On message boards? Yes. Yes, it does.


----------



## cougent (Feb 22, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> In my experience, it often happens like this:
> 
> DM makes a call, any call, pick one that you like... lets say a Psionic attack that has no effect on the critter.
> Player A:  Huh?  What do you mean it has no effect?  I am pretty sure it DOES have an effect, I just re-read that right before the game tonight and I really think you are wrong on that call.
> ...



I hope you are a player in that scenario?
There can be whiny DM's as well, and I would not tolerate that as a player just as I don't tolerate whiny players as a DM.  I got over being 9 when I was, well 9.  I have no desire to relive it now in my 40's from either side of the screen.



			
				Fenes said:
			
		

> *My other point is that even if someone is whining* - and definitions of what qualifies as whining vary - *his complaints are not invalidated by that*.



And here we will have to agree to disagree, because whining to me DOES in fact invalidate any point you wanted to make.  Whining is not an acceptable form of communication to expressing anything to me.



			
				Fenes said:
			
		

> And that's my point - the important issue is that a player is not happy. Whining is a symptom, not the core issue.



And even as the "ogre DM" that I am, I would want to resolve that; if possible within reason.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 22, 2008)

Felix said:
			
		

> There are also rules against calling someone out on the tone of their post in a post (the accepted remedy being to notify a moderator), so I can understand why you haven't accused anyone by name. But I think this comes as close to an accusation as one can without crossing that particular line. There also exists an "Email Member" option for this kind of situation; perhaps it is an option you may want to pursue.
> 
> Sort of a, "finish this conversation outside" kind of solution.
> 
> Anyway, it's available if there's anything you wish to articulate.




I am aware that there are these options and I am very careful to walk away from my computer when I start to get mad. Which is why I have never been banned because believe me I have wanted to say somethings.

Slaygrim would have been smart to do what you suggested either that or put the person on ignore. Ignore is a great tool.


But it does not change the fact that there are posters who seem to go out of their way grind a point home. They have certain issues that if brought up they just can't see past their own blind spot. And with some of these people there is no way of communicating with them they can't see any other side.

I find it sad that we have lost some good people who used to add to intelllegent conversation over here because they are no longer willing to deal with some of these passive aggressive BS that sometimes goes on over here.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 22, 2008)

Fenes said:
			
		

> And my point is that there are two points, which have to be treated seperately.
> 
> There's the whining, and there's the fact that a player has no fun. Simply stating "the player is whining, so he's wrong" is not correct. One has to check if one could make the campaign better suited to said players wishes without ruining it for the DM and the rest of the players. And one has to check if the player can stop whining - or, if it even is whining. (Of course, said complaining/whining can be a cause for making the game unfun for the DM or the rest of the players, so that has to be taken into consideration as well.)
> 
> But I really think too many people focus on the "whining" part, and not on the part that one player, for whatever reason there is, is not having fun in the game. And that means something is wrong. (And yes, if the personalities of the two involved people won't mesh well together, splitting seems the best option.)




The reason I focused on the whining part was that it did not seem like the player from the OP description was willing to do anything other then whine.

I do agree that whining is just a symptom of a greater problem. 

If you have a problem with something in the game don't just go to your DM and complain yes let him know what the problem is but it would also be helpful to have some suggestions on how to make it better.

This player is also a DM. I do think that may be a big part of the problem some DMs are not good players they just don't like the lack of control they have as a player. But as a DM instead of just complaining this encounter is to hard ,this encounter is to easy he could give advice to the DM to make the game better.

I think what would have been more helpful to the OP when he came here for help was instead of back seating DMing and telling him that he was a bad DM and the player was right to whine. 

It would have been more helpful to suggest ways to talk to the player. To point out that while the whining was annoying the player was unhappy and had he talked to the player. 

I don't think he got help here what he got instead was a lot of people who have not sat at his game telling him he was a bad DM frustrating him to the point by harping on things that he kept trying to clairfy that he lost it and got banned.


----------



## jezter6 (Feb 22, 2008)

Gaming anymore has become much more complicated since we were kids. I don't remember having ANY of these "I'm not in the spotlight" issues playing D&D. I can't believe that, as adults, we're suddenly more prone to act like the kids many of us were when we started playing. It's all "ME ME ME" anymore with everyone (DM's and Players), and it's actually quite disturbing. 

It's like growing up - in reverse. As people are beginning to whine and act like kids around the table (and on the forums), they are acting less and less like the kids who sat around a gaming table pounding mountain dew and cheetos till 4 in the morning just having a good time playing a game. It's now all about social contracts and the like. Which one of you lawyers brought that from the office to the gaming table?

As for something thread useful (or rather, just closely related):

I remember a campaign I played in during high school. I had just moved to a new town, so I jumped into the first gaming group I could find. It was obvious that the group had been together for a long time, and they were all friends and almost 5-10 years older than myself. I joined up and they allowed me to bring in my PC from my last game (with a few modifications to make him 'FR compliant' as opposed to my old DM's homebrew world). 

A few sessions in, I got the picture of the story arc. The DM's best friend was the whole point of the game. That PC's survival was necessary to the overall story. Now, 90% of you would immediately jump from this game and probably whine about how crappy the DM was.

I played in this campaign for 5+ years as the buffing cleric - and had a BLAST doing it. He was nerfed, nearly killed, killed, resurrected, turned into a female - many times, and we had fun. I had fun. That's what mattered. I played 3rd fiddle (one of the other players came 2nd). I had my moments of shine, plenty of heroic moments, and could let the 'main player' have his moments more often than me.


----------



## DonTadow (Feb 22, 2008)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> Gaming anymore has become much more complicated since we were kids. I don't remember having ANY of these "I'm not in the spotlight" issues playing D&D. I can't believe that, as adults, we're suddenly more prone to act like the kids many of us were when we started playing. It's all "ME ME ME" anymore with everyone (DM's and Players), and it's actually quite disturbing.
> 
> It's like growing up - in reverse. As people are beginning to whine and act like kids around the table (and on the forums), they are acting less and less like the kids who sat around a gaming table pounding mountain dew and cheetos till 4 in the morning just having a good time playing a game. It's now all about social contracts and the like. Which one of you lawyers brought that from the office to the gaming table?
> 
> ...



My first couple of games were very much like that as well.  The story was about this guy who had these five pieces of demonic armor he had to look for. But only this particular PC could wear them.  The campaign lasted two years, and I played the buffying cleric who was always in trouble with his god.  The other pcs and i were just support for his plots but we had a great time doing it.  I don't think I ever got a storyline, but i still had fun.


----------



## Greylock (Feb 22, 2008)

jezter6 said:
			
		

> A few sessions in, I got the picture of the story arc. The DM's best friend was the whole point of the game. That PC's survival was necessary to the overall story. Now, 90% of you would immediately jump from this game and probably whine about how crappy the DM was.




No. I would just leave the game. No snarks. No whinges. Finish the session, be nice, then a few days on, send a polite email withdrawing from the game that doesn't mention any problems, just polite regret.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Feb 22, 2008)

I've read this entire thread.

For me, the crucial point is that nobody likes a whiner.  It doesn't matter whether the complaints are justified or not.  If there's a complaint, make it short, to the point, and state it calmly.  Do not whine.  When you whine, everybody just wishes that you would shut up and looks upon you with secret contempt.

I recall a game session I was in a couple of years ago.  The characters were up against an encounter way too tough for us, and we had to make a fighting retreat.  One PC went down, and the player immediately started whining about how the encounter had been too tough, how he hated to lose his PC, how the whole thing was unfair.

In the end, his PC was rescued but my PC got killed trying to hold the retreat and dragged away to be eaten by Barghasts.  I was sure frustrated, but I remained calm and remembered it was just a game and made myself look like a cool guy by comparison.

In the after-game review session, I noted that the encounter had been tough and the PCs hadn't really had a chance to avoid it.  The DM admitted she had made some mistakes.  Everybody voiced their frustrations in an adult manner and it was fine.

Nobody likes a whiner, whether their complaint is justified or not.


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 22, 2008)

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> For me, the crucial point is that nobody likes a whiner.




For me, the crucial point is that, despite the player in question addressing the issue inappropriately, the DM not be relieved of all responsibility for creating an environment hostile to the players. I think it is evident that _both_ parties bore a large degree of responsibility for creating a potentially unfun game environment. 

The DM for created a campaign that completely deprotagonizes PCs in several different ways (by virtue of encounters that render PCs totally useless, or encounters that relegate PCs to second fiddle status because they _require_ the intervention of NPCs to be overcome). This is confirmed by the several examples provided by Slaygrim. Bully for him if he thinks that this spells F-U-N, though I think one would be a fool to think that this kind of thing is considered fun by most players (or even by a large-ish minority of them). 

The player in question _apparently_ addressed this issue of unfun in a similarly inappropriate manner (I say "apparently" because we only have Slaygrim's word for it, and he's shown a willingness to flex the truth elsewhere in this thread by revising his initial posts to portray himself as totally blameless). If this is, in fact, how the player responded, I think that he was every much as responsible for potential group-level unfun as the DM. 

Point being, making your campaign all about NPCs or ensuring that PCs have _absolutely no chance to be heroic_ is as much a sure fire way to ruin the game for other players as throwing a fit about the DM's making his campaign all about NPCs or ensuring that PCs have _absolutely no chance to be heroic_ is.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 22, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> For me, the crucial point is that, despite the player in question addressing the issue inappropriately, the DM not be relieved of all responsibility for creating an environment hostile to the players. I think it is evident that _both_ parties bore a large degree of responsibility for creating a potentially unfun game environment.
> 
> The DM for created a campaign that completely deprotagonizes PCs in several different ways (by virtue of encounters that render PCs totally useless, or encounters that relegate PCs to second fiddle status because they _require_ the intervention of NPCs to be overcome). This is confirmed by the several examples provided by Slaygrim. Bully for him if he thinks that this spells F-U-N, though I think one would be a fool to think that this kind of thing is considered fun by most players (or even by a large-ish minority of them).
> 
> ...





Well according to theOP only one player had an issue the rest didn't so unless he is being dishonest about that part then I don't think the rest of his players feel that the game is not fun. Also if the game was so unfun for the whiney player why did he stay?

When it comes down to one player not having a good time but the rest of the players are having a good time then I don't think it is a matter of the DM being a bad DM and not providing a fun game for everyone. Most likely the player in question has a different play style than the rest of the players and the DM and does not mesh with the group.

What I really think was going on here though was an issue of a DM who does not make a good player.

He also did admit later that he made some mistakes he said that several times. 

You should never have a NPC take over but there is nothing wrong with having an NPC help the party. Maybe I read it wrong but the NPC sorcerer helped the party but did not take over the party also help kill the beholder and rune mage. 

I keep noticing that some people keep focusing on the iron golem/undead and the last encounter but don't seem to remember that the player was also upset over the bandits which he was he able to use his full abilites against because he thought it was to easy. 

To me it seems like this player was unhappy about everything in the game. 

Instead of staying in a game where everything makes you so unhappy that you feel the need to whine and ruin everyone else's fun the adult thing to do is to accept that maybe this game is not for you.

I have read several books about DMing and I think they are have one problem they talk about how to make the game fun for all different types of players. But I think that is impossible unless the players themselves are willing to work with you. For example if you have mainly role players and one hack in slasher it won't work unless the hack n slasher is willing to not disrupt the role playing when he gets bored. Vice versa if you have mainly kick in the door players and one role player the role player needs to accept that the game will mostly be action.

Also DMs need to have some fun as well. It should not be all about the players. If a DM is a story telling type DM then his players need to accept this about him if they want him to DM for them. A DM trying to DM a game that he is not enjoying is not going to make a fun game for anyone.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Feb 22, 2008)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> For me, the crucial point is that, despite the player in question addressing the issue inappropriately, the DM not be relieved of all responsibility for creating an environment hostile to the players. I think it is evident that _both_ parties bore a large degree of responsibility for creating a potentially unfun game environment.
> 
> The DM for created a campaign that completely deprotagonizes PCs in several different ways (by virtue of encounters that render PCs totally useless, or encounters that relegate PCs to second fiddle status because they _require_ the intervention of NPCs to be overcome). This is confirmed by the several examples provided by Slaygrim. Bully for him if he thinks that this spells F-U-N, though I think one would be a fool to think that this kind of thing is considered fun by most players (or even by a large-ish minority of them).




Jdrakeh, I told you I read the entire thread.  Don't tell me "confirmed by the several examples provided by Slaygrim" when it is in fact not.  His game sounded pretty cool to me.  Obviously one of us is the abnormal outlier whose opinions are not shared by the vast majority of gamers, and I don't think it's me.

I think using a high level caster who has already used many of his high level spells as an opponent is an interesting and unique idea.  I'll have to try it sometime.  I think throwing the occasional golem encounter at a caster is fair cop.  (Especially at a wizard, who can always prepare different spells if his usual selection isn't working.)

Slaygrim probably made some mistakes.  He admitted to doing too much railroading, and he didn't do enough to make the group aware of the tactical situation during one particular adventure.  (Hidden ally on their side; good possibility the big bad wizard was already out of many of his most dangerous spells.)

That doesn't justify a constant stream of complaints in the middle of the game.  If there's any possibility that any of the group is having fun, whining is going to kill it.  A bad in-game situation is one thing, but a player who can't stop complaining about their bad rolls or bad tactical situation or dislike of something in the middle of the game is a killjoy of the first order.  Whether there's justification behind the complaints or not, nobody wants to listen to it.  Save the belly-aching for later.



> The player in question _apparently_ addressed this issue of unfun in a similarly inappropriate manner (I say "apparently" because we only have Slaygrim's word for it, and he's shown a willingness to flex the truth elsewhere in this thread by revising his initial posts to portray himself as totally blameless).




Again I read the whole thread, so this smearing of Slaygrim doesn't fly.  I know what he said and didn't say.

If you're not going to accept his word that this guy was whining, why even reply to the thread?



> Point being, making your campaign all about NPCs or ensuring that PCs have _absolutely no chance to be heroic_ is as much a sure fire way to ruin the game for other players as throwing a fit about the DM's making his campaign all about NPCs or ensuring that PCs have _absolutely no chance to be heroic_ is.




It's like you're posting from some parallel universe.  "All about NPCs", "Absolutely no chance to be heroic"?  Where do you even get that?  It's like you just read Treasure Island and started complaining about how the pirates always win.

Because they had NPC back-up in one battle in one game session of a campaign?  Bizarre.  I think you're pretty far outside the mainstream of players here.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Feb 22, 2008)

White Whale said:
			
		

> It is clear that Slaygrim takes no criticism and blames all the problems on the 'whiney' player; he never admits that the player in question may have a legitimate reason for complaining, even in the flawed examples in the first post.





Apart from the posts where he says that he's a relatively new DM, agrees that he should take a look at his own practices, says that some of this may be his fault, and otherwise agrees that he could communicate better with his players, I agree with you 100%.

RC


----------



## jdrakeh (Feb 22, 2008)

Well, I obviously disagree with you here, WolfWood. That said, insulting my reading comprehension, intellect, and sanity won't win me over.


----------



## Arnwyn (Feb 22, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Apart from the posts where he says that he's a relatively new DM, agrees that he should take a look at his own practices, says that some of this may be his fault, and otherwise agrees that he could communicate better with his players, I agree with you 100%.



Heh.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 22, 2008)

Please stop any posts that are likely to be construed as personal insults, guys. The topic can be discussed without getting personal.


----------



## cougent (Feb 23, 2008)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> I don't think we want cougent's post to become eerily predictive, now do we?).



Sorry, I have a nasty habit of doing that.  

I want to respond to some of the other stuff, but I think I have banged my head against the "whiny justified" wall enough already, so I will now bow out and just lurk and laugh.

Slaygrim, if you are still lurking in the shadows, I would play in your "horrible" game anytime, it sounds fun to me!  I love a challenge and being forced to think on my feet in character, sign me up!


----------



## Felix (Feb 23, 2008)

Ovid may have something to inform this discussion:

"Treason doth never prosper:
what's the reason?​Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason."​
I just thought there might be an element of this with regard to what is, or is not, whining.


----------



## haakon1 (Feb 23, 2008)

Felix said:
			
		

> Ovid may have something to inform this discussion:
> "Treason doth never prosper:
> what's the reason?​Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason."​




Ovid?  I thought that was Shakespeare, from Richard III or something?  Sounds like iambic pentameter to me, and it rhymes well in English, but I guess that could be down to the translator.

I love the quote, so it would be good if I knew the source.


----------



## Felix (Feb 23, 2008)

haakon1 said:
			
		

> Ovid?  I thought that was Shakespeare, from Richard III or something?  Sounds like iambic pentameter to me, and it rhymes well in English, but I guess that could be down to the translator.
> 
> I love the quote, so it would be good if I knew the source.



From memory I thought it was Robert Herrick, but a Google turned up Ovid several times. *shrug* The quote by any other author would sound just as pithy, neh?


----------



## White Whale (Feb 24, 2008)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Apart from the posts where he says that he's a relatively new DM, agrees that he should take a look at his own practices, says that some of this may be his fault, and otherwise agrees that he could communicate better with his players, I agree with you 100%.
> 
> RC



This is not my impression at all. Whenever confronted with flaws in his examples, Slaygrim modifies his story or justifies his choices by "it's important for the next adventure". When further pressured he admits that he isn't "perfect, nobody is", yet he never admits any guilt in the specific examples he gave (which are the origin of this discussion in the first place).

More, he did not create this thread to ask for help and advice by fellow DMs; the first post is as he says himself "a rant".

Perhaps if he had come across as less arrogant ("This is a flaw HE [the whiner] has. It isn't me."!) and more humble he'd receive more understanding from other posters.


----------



## Elf Witch (Feb 24, 2008)

White Whale said:
			
		

> More, he did not create this thread to ask for help and advice by fellow DMs; the first post is as he says himself "a rant".
> 
> Perhaps if he had come across as less arrogant ("This is a flaw HE [the whiner] has. It isn't me."!) and more humble he'd receive more understanding from other posters.




But sometimes you need to rant. You can get so frustrated with a player or a DM that you just need to vent.

If this player whines as much as he said he did I can understand the need to rant. There is nothing more frustrating than dealing with someone who complains about everything in a non constructive way.

I think part of the reason for his post was that he was angry and he didn't want to take it out on the player and act like a jerk himself when the player became the new DM.

I have seen a lot of posts in years here from people who were basically just posting to let off steam.


----------

