TheAuldGrump
First Post
I was wondering what I was doing in a series of twisting passages, all alike....jdrakeh said:
The Auld Grump
Whiney players....
- Thread starter Slaygrim
- Start date
The Auld Grump
Gothmog
First Post
TheAuldGrump said:
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
First Post
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.Gothmog said:
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
Explorer
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.
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
First Post
32+ years of GMing here - obviously we have had different experiences. I do see much that is complaint, if not whine, worthy.Squire James 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. 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
Hero
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.TheAuldGrump said:
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.
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.
Last edited:
TheAuldGrump
First Post
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.jmucchiello said:
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
First Post
Is he really whining or thinking logically about his character?Slaygrim said:
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
Moder-gator
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.
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
First Post
TheAuldGrump said:
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
Similar Threads
