I have played in all those modules and had a blast. It was fun to use my brain to figure things out then just roll dice to solve everything.
ok, I also know people who have fun skydiving, and boxing... I do not want to box, I do not want to jump out of a perfectly fine plane... if the DM wanted me to box or skydive I would say they were being a jerk... but if they say "you can only use out of game resources" I might ask if that means we can break out the bopper swords for the next fight...
Actually talk to the NPCs and figure out why the lighting was jumping. It was not that hard if you payed attention and actually talked to the NPCs to find the link.
well I have not played it, but by the description it was not easy, again almost none of the clues would come up as part of a normal investigation...
Once we figured it for two of them it was easy to find out the link with the others.
inless you don't see it... then it is a nightmare.
When a DM is running a module the players who agreed to play it in have to expect some limits to just how much freedom they have they need to follow the obvious clues to the next step in the module. Yes it can be limiting but it is not like the DM is hiding the fact that you are playing in a module.
I really don't understand what you are saying here. I read it 4 times, and still don't get it.
This player sounds like a player who does not like any challenges that he can't solve easily and expects the dice to do his thinking for him.
ok, and that is totally a playstyle. Infact I run games for people that would say it is cheating (yes active cheating) to use out of game knowledge and skill this way.
There is a good reason, way back when (2e and the beginning of 3e) we had powergamers who were very smart and fast talkers... they would dump Cha, then just "role-play" it, and if they had no investigation skills or perception would still play as if they were Sherlock homes... until we had a 15 year old with a stutter join our games and complain "Why is my 18 cha and really high Int and Wis Character not able to do what there 7 cha fighter can?"
I don't know where you are getting plural players having issues in this I am reading it as one player.
well we have no idea how many players have a problem with it... I do though
Well maybe you should have compromised with your girlfriend and told her look we will take turns picking out the restaurant and if she picked seafood then do what I have done many times I have gone out to places I didn't like. I ordered a drink and maybe an appetizer or a salad and ate when I got home or before I left. The point is the company as much as the food.
Your advice is dumb... I mean real dumb of cource we alternated who choose... but I never chose something she wont eat. I went to the seafood restaurant, and I still did not enjoy it... and she never should have expected to do so...
It doesn't sound like he bullied the player it sounds like the player is not a good fit.
person A says "I do not like X"
person B says "We are going to try X"
Person A trys X, but still doesn't like it, and mentions it
Person B is trying to teach person A a lesson
Person A is given a choose of taking something more X like or shutting up and continuing as is with what he hates"
Person B continues doing X (remembers he shared his feelings of not enjoying X) but keeps his mouth shut...
please fill X with something that doesn't make this sound jerky and bullying
First of all many DMs use rolling for stats I wouldn't have let him reroll I would have said okay you don't want to take the chance of rolling okay you can do a 25 point buy
.
that is what he wanted... so you would have given him what he wanted...
Not nearly as bad because the game designers themselves admit that core gets tested more than the options and that they can't possibly test all the options with everything to make sure that they have not put something in the game that can be broken.
yes, but again the core of 3.5 was more broken then a lot of the suplments, and again the exact example was less powerful then core options...
You are making an assumption and you are wrong. I never said that all people who like options are powergamers what I said was in the hands of a powergamer a lot of options can be brought in to break the game.
then I don't understand... there are powergamers that can powergame anything...
I never said they should not publish splatbooks in the very first post I made in this thread I said I like splatbooks and that the best way to handle it for individual DMs to say no to what they didn't want in their games.
and they should expect blow back from PCs if that PC wants to use that book... and the best way to handle that is to talk like adults and make it work somehow...
No a gunslinger use gun powder which the DM didn't want in her world she also knew that he is a huge powergamer and wanted to try and avoid it in the Pathfinder game while she was learning the ins and outs of the game.
and none of that matters if the player is also a jerk when given what he wants... on the other hand if the player who had personal problems was told "Hey I really didn't want to deal with it, but since we are friends sure... play what you want and I will just ignore anyone else having guns" then what?
I have said that all along that if players don't like what the DM is offering then say I don't want to play it if it turns out the whole table or the majority feel the same way then the DM needs to either change his restrictions or step down and let someone else DM. But if the majority is okay with what the DM wants to do then the player either needs to dedice can he play with the restrictions if he can't then he shouldn't play.
so whats the problem... player tried to play under restriction but bucked under them, so the group got a different game... sounds like your solution won out...
