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.
Arnwyn said:Has this length of time for an "adventure" been mentioned anywhere else in this thread?
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.
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: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.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.