Whiney players....

[Elf Witch]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!)