Whiney players....

[Felix]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.