jmucchiello
Hero
I just hope he'll come back and see your apology. ENWorld was not well served by this thread.TheAuldGrump said:
Not really. I agree with core of your argument. It just went on too long, too far.
Whiney players....
- Thread starter Slaygrim
- Start date
I'm going to re-post a selection my previous post #78:Raven Crowking said:
-------------------
Slaygrim said:
Original Post
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. Thus, he was delegated to the role of the "buffer", having to cast spells that suped up the fighters. Throughout the entire dungeon there were spots still guarded by Iron Golems.
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.
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. Thus, he was delegated to the role of the "buffer", having to cast spells that suped up the fighters. Throughout the entire dungeon there were spots still guarded by Iron Golems.
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.
These are two of his descriptions about the Iron Golem / SR Undead stuff. I think it's fairly evident that even if there were only two iron golems and one undead with SR, his first description of the events could easily lead readers to a much different conclusion. Of course, when he tried to clarify because people were repeatedly asking him about the encounter, his description of the encounter changed quite a bit; while his changed story may be closer to the truth, it could also be construed as someone getting defensive about their actions and changing their story to make it seem more reasonable.
So even if, as you say, Slaygrim repeatedly said "that he did not have all the encounters in the location negate a PC's abilities", he would have had to say that many times because his first post tells quite a different story. At that point it's a question of wether the reader remembers the first post's story, or the subsequent eratta.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Felix said:
Presumably......Or it could be that people asked about the context of the encounter, and he answered. If the "allegedly whiney player" didn't complain about any non-resistant encounters, Slaygrim could easily have omitted them from his initial post.
But let us say that there were a dozen iron golems.
"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?"
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?"
All of that still applies.
So, yes, perhaps TheAuldGrump simply doesn't believe Slaygrim about his elaboration on the encounters. Even so, there is a certain irony in a poster saying, effectively, "you ought to listen better" while ignoring the words of the person he is speaking to. Or perhaps my sense of humour is more warped than most, and the irony is only apparent to me.
RC
Your sense of perception is rivaled only by your willingness to forgive unclarity in description while damning it in comprehension. If you allow that Slaygrim's descriptions don't necessarily read internally consistent, then what divining rod would you recommend to AuldGrump to decide which description is more accurate and ought be listened to?Raven Crowking said:
Group problems often have two sides to them, and here we're only getting one. So if anyone seems like they're not listening to Slaygrim, consider the possibility that they're trying to figure out what the other side would have to say. If you'd like to channel DestroyYouAlot and only listen to the one side while disregarding the possibility of another, be my guest, but you'd be neglecting that sense of perception of yours.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Felix said:
Cute.
Say that three times fast, if you can.
I allow that, in general, communication always has a certain amount of "unclarity" inherent in it, and that Slaygrim is not more unclear than many posters to this (or any other) forum. This is an artifact not only of language, but also (as in this case) that a person is not always trying to get across the minutia of a point.
Even so, saying "you should listen better" while not listening is a classic example of irony. Pointing out that it is a classic example of irony doesn't in any way, shape, or form, damn unclarity in comprehension.
(And, in case it isn't clear, that's not an insult intended or implied to TheAuldGrump either; it's the kind of thing I'm sure I would do without realizing it, and probably have done in the past.)
A clarification, taken at face value, should always be accepted as clarifying an earlier statement.
Naturally....but within the context of useful response, it might be better to channel what they think the other side should ideally say, not what the other side might say. Ideally, the other side would tell Slaygrim that he might want to talk to his other players, and that he might want to consider both what they have to say and his DMing overall. Ideally, the other side would want to avoid confrontational language, and what might seem like "attacks" because, ideally, the other side would want Slaygrim to become a better DM.
However, the poster responding to Slaygrim might also realize that, as it is Slaygrim who has asked for advice, and not the other party, it might be helpful to Slaygrim if he was given the benefit of the doubt.
In other words, IMHO, an ideal response would address both the idea that Slaygrim might have DMing issues, and that the "alleged whiny player" might be at fault. Ideally, the responding poster might point out that whining is never the best way to resolve a problem as well.
Speaking of unclarity, what are you trying to say here? Is DestroyYouAlot the "AWP" in question? Or are you attempting to insult one or both of us?
Hmmm....Again, an ideal response would address both the idea that Slaygrim might have DMing issues, and that the "alleged whiny player" might be at fault. Ideally, the responding poster might point out that whining is never the best way to resolve a problem as well. I imagine that there must be some way to view that as "listen[ing] to the one side while disregarding the possibility of another", but I guess I just don't see it.
Before you paint that brush in too broad of strokes, you might want to go back and see what I wrote.
And none of this responds to the point that I made, and have since repeated, that even if there were dozens of iron golems, this would not be a case of bad DMing on that basis. But, then again, that's probably that sense of perception of mine again.
RC
P.S.: "Unlcarity" is a great word. I don't think I've encountered it before.
Last edited:
I can type "Ctrl+V" as many times as you like.Raven Crowking said:
And repeating that he isn't listening to Slaygrim presumes that what AuldGrump is listening to is wrong; I don't think that your problem with AuldGrump is that he isn't listening, but rather he's paying attention to stuff you've dismissed. He is listening; he's just hearing something different than you are. Naturally, that must mean he's wrong. Must it?
The only way for it to be ironic is for AuldGrump to be "not listening". He has directly responded to Slaygrim and other posters several times, utilizing the same quote-comment software we are. He's reading, listening, hearing, whatever you call it. So the only way for him to be "not listening" as you say is for him to be hearing it wrong. Unclearly comprehending something is a nice way to say "hearing it wrong", don't you think?
Besides, it made me look cute.
*Shrug*
To do something you advise others against is hypocritical. To refuse to change your actions when presented with a reason to do so is to be obdurate. I don't think I've ever been complimented by being called an obdurate hypocrite.
Precisely: taken at face value.
And if it's not taken at face value, what then?
This world would be damned to perdition were our past actions judged in comparison to our ideal. It's even worse when the only evidence for your actions is second-hand from the plaintiff. I don't think that's a terribly productive way to sort out the past, even if it provides a good direction to our future.
Someone present for the discussion shouldn't need others to defend him: he's there to answer questions on his own.
Many times posters who are not completely sympathetic to Slaygrim said that they don't condone whining as a response, but that the whiner may have some reason to take issue; TheAuldGrump included. Me too. We're ideal respondents?
DestroyYouAlot, whom I doubt is the Whiner, said it was dumb to give someone absent the benefit of the doubt. TheAuldGrump responds to Slaygrim's posts and you're telling him he doesn't listen. Both are rather dismissive.
Again, you describe many of the posts by un-Slaygrim-sympathetic posters.
Maybe you're right. Maybe it's just bad adventure design.
Hey, happy to expand your horizons. And the horizons of the Oxford English Dictionary, while I'm at it. Can't be too ambitious. Care to subscribe to my newsletter?
Raven Crowking
First Post
Felix said:
No, it does not.
We can be having a conversation, where I am completely in the wrong, and you are in the right. If you are not listening to me, and you tell me I need to listen more, then the irony is still there. It is ironic independent of who is right and wrong, or to what degree of "rightness" or "wrongness" one attributes to either party.
The only context is that required is my telling you to listen more while not listening to you very well myself.
Now, you may argue that he is listening to Slaygrim very well, but that's another kettle of fish.
(And, contrary to your opinion, I don't have a "problem with AuldGrump" in terms of the "listen more to your players" advice -- "listen more to your players is always good advice. Nor did I say TheAuldGrump was wrong in that, although I disagree, for stated reasons, about whether or not the AWP's character was negated in the encounter sequence described.)
You are taking offense here unnecessarily. It is absolutely my position that, in a lot of cases, it seems as though people here are not actually reading what they are responding to. Of course, it could well be the "reader filter" problem; i.e., we all read through a "filter" that says, effectively, "If I wrote this, what would I be trying to convey?"
This isn't exclusive to any one "side" of the discussion.
You don't need to be sympathetic to Slaygrim in order to be the "ideal poster", IMHO. The "ideal poster" does, however, seek and accept clarification.
Please do not put words into my mouth. As I said earlier (twice now),
"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?"
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?"
All of that still applies.
Always glad to have my horizons expanded. However, I'm afraid "unclarify" is in Marriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unclarity) so I wouldn't put money on it not being in the OED Unabridged.
But, if you have an "obscure word reference" newsletter, I'd be happy to subscribe. One can never know too many obscure words!
RC
Would you say that a multi-session dungeon of undead, constructs, oozes and vermin would be bad adventure design with regard to a party of rogues without major opportunity for the avoidance of combat?Raven Crowking said:
Which creature would you summon to deal damage to something with DR 15/Adamantine?
In the event that your two of your highest level spells are Transmute Rock to Mud and Transmute Mud to Rock, and you have them prepared, and the dungeon is made up of only natural, uncut and unworked rock, that's quite right.
Unless it's worked stone.
One of the hard choices about playing a wizard is that you can effectively control the pace. To best use your spell selection, you ought to know what is coming. Often that means casting spells that take time, and then preparing your spell slots anew. I don't know that this party was on a tight timeline, but if they were such spells would have made their arrival to the ritual a touch late.
Also, I recall Slaygrim appealing to realism for populating his dungeon with constructs. Did he mention how the PCs knew the place was going to be full of them? Did he relate to them that living things wouldn't survive in a sealed crypt, and that made it self-evident that the dungeon would be populated by constructs and undead?
This is indeed a good thing...
...but even the best of things cloy.
Absolutely, DMs have that right. But that right does not necessitate that the situations they set up are any good.
Variety is a good thing, and that can mean that throwing enemies which are more than usually difficult at the PCs. I just don't see that a dungeon filled with CR 13, DR 15/Adamantine, Fort-save-or-Con-Damage constructs necessarily fits that bill.
---------
Slaygrim, if you are still reading this and are up for responding: you mention in your first post, "Heaven forbid the guy gets hit by a Mordenkainens Disjunction and loses magical items." Have the PCs been subject to one or more Disjunctions?
---------
Edentulous termagant. A wonderful way to describe mother-in-laws, without actually being vulgar.
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Or, as in my case, distrusts the errata as self serving. I tend to distrust changing stories - most often correctly, sometimes spectacularly in the wrong. (I am reminded of of Jefferson's "It is easier to believe that two Yankee professors would lie than that stones would fall from heaven!" The fact that Jefferson was wrong in the specifics does not mean that he was wrong in the general. I lean towards Occam's razor myself. Sometimes I cut myself with it.)Felix said:
The thing is that I had no real evidence either way - and the question presented was whether I should have taken him at his first description or the later? The answer is another matter, which in truth was 'let it lie' - the question was not really worth answering. If the OP was able to build a more solid base from the advice given then the truth or inaccuracy of his descriptions really did not matter.
I should have stopped playing web forum Whack-a-Mole and tried coming up with actually useful advice. As I said, others had already provided useful commentary. An approach for the player was also important, which I realized later.
Basically I was repeating over and over 'the player had the right to whine in this instance' (which I still believe to be the case) rather than - 'maybe he will not whine as much if you can talk to him out of game about his dissatisfaction with your style of play'. The message is much the same, the emotional freight far different. It seemed like the some of support the OP was receiving ignored the fact that there were reasons for the player to be unhappy, and I guess (no, I am not certain) that I felt that the lessons imparted by other posters would be ignored in favor of the posts telling him that he was in the right.
Xath- I suspect that you are right, and given myself as an example, the older gamers (GMs in particular) have a feeling that their way is the right way. I often have an easier time playing in a game run by either a very experienced GM (who's style of play is often closer to my own), a very new GM (I am all for helping a fledgling GM learn the ropes), or a GM who is trying to change his style (if someone is looking for help changing things in areas he knows he has problems then he is doing the right thing). Part of this may have something to do with the fact I have taught classes in RPGs for the last eight years or so - I go into teacher mode, which is a different setting than player mode.... (I wish there was a rolling eyes icon.)
Hell, the current GM who sometimes runs a Spycraft game I play in brought me in because he wanted advice - I suspect that somewhere in my being this remains under a student/teacher heading. Though I pride myself on the fact that other players have remarked on how much better he is as a GM now. :\ (His last group imploded on him, now he has players waiting for a seat.) I am not above being self serving myself.
The Auld Grump, too wordy, conditional, and self righteous to be a true apology, but more sincere this way.
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
Felix said:
No, I would not. Or at least, not on that basis.
Obviously something capable of dealing more than 15 points of damage, such as a Fiendish Giant Crocodile. Or something whose melee capability doesn't rely on directly dealing damage. Fiendish Dire Wolves, for example, have a Trip attack that could be of use in such a fight. Even creatures that have no hope of doing damage can Aid Another, help to flank, and absorb attacks that would otherwise be directed at party members.
Hopefully, as I said earlier, you've done some work to determine what spells might be useful before entering the dungeon. I, for one, would imagine undead, constructs, and possibly some form of vermin or ooze in a tomb that's been "sealed" for centuries (vermin or ooze because they might get in through the cracks). It would, presumably, be possible to seal an Outsider in the tomb as well. If I were to encounter anything else, it would make be believe that there was probably another (and open) entrance/exit elsewhere.
I realize that divination spells were nerfed in 3e, but Gather Information or Knowledge (History) might be of some use. The existance of a tomb implies that someone built that tomb at some point, and there might well be something known about the place, or about similar locations.
We know that the golems were guardians, which makes them unlikely to leave their posts. So, it is presumably true that the players knew both the opponent and the conditions when battle was joined. If the golem doesn't leave its post, the party can retreat and prepare whatever spells it needs. If the golem does leave its post, faster party members could lead it just about anywhere and then return, bypassing the guardian at the guard post.
If it comes to a battle, black tentacles isn't a terrible choice, because the golem isn't immune to it. Remember, the golem is only immune to spells that allow a save and/or allow spell resistance, and are not damage-causing electricity-based spells (which do not harm the golem, but do slow it).
Generally speaking, in a fight with an iron golem, the wizard's role is one of battlefield control. Anything he can do to eliminate damage against his party is a good thing. Spectral hand combined with shocking grasp is useful, automatically slowing the golem with a successful touch attack for three rounds without a save.
Of course, if the group was well aware of what it was going to face, or had the leisure to scout and then make plans, having a rust monster on tap would be ideal.
In any event, are you actually trying to claim that the wizard was or should have been unable to do anything when fighting an iron golem?
RC
Similar Threads
