Whiney players....

[Ridley's Cohort]

I personally think that it is a sign of a good DM that the spellcasters meet occasional encounters where their favorite tricks work poorly. Really that applies to all the PCs. Forcing the players out of their tactical comfort zone puts a premium on teamwork and mental versatility. Variety is the spice of life, after all.

That was not my reading of the crypt scenario based on the first post, and I was clearly not the only one who saw things that way. Obviously a player voicing concerns in a manner that is perceived as constant whining is not very useful, regardless of the rightness (or wrongness) of the player's discontent.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I personally think that it is a sign of a good DM that the spellcasters meet occasional encounters where their favorite tricks work poorly. Really that applies to all the PCs. Forcing the players out of their tactical comfort zone puts a premium on teamwork and mental versatility. Variety is the spice of life, after all.

Agreed.

That was not my reading of the crypt scenario based on the first post, and I was clearly not the only one who saw things that way.

Potentially.

And there is, IMHO, a lot more potential that what the AWP was complaining about was not the situation, per se, but the perceived requirement that the situation be faced in such-and-such a manner. But then, I'm all for the sandbox, as either player or DM, and the idea of a railroady-type-game is a harder cheese for me to swallow than one where my character might have to switch roles on the basis of the challenges the party is facing.

And, when I first read the OP, one of my first reactions was, "Is Slaygrim railroading his players?" And I thought, "Maybe I should say don't railroad your players", and in some ways I did. I also suggested that he talk to the other players to see if they quietly shared the AWP's viewpoint.

But.....I have been reminded over and over on EN World that there is no "wrongbadfun" way to play this game, and there are apparently lots of folks who are happier with a more railroady game than a sandbox, so it really depends upon what he wants, and what the other players want.

Also, I admit, when I am a player in a game, I try to work with the GM, because I am well aware that the GM shoulders a greater burden than any single player in the game....or even all the players combined. So, overall, I fall on the GM's side when there is a question about player-vs-GM satisfaction.

(I tend to think that a truly poor GM will put himself out of a job, in any event.)

And, Arioch knows, the one time recently that I suggested that a DM might have done a better job communicating with his players (dino-riding druid thread), I reaped a veritable deluge for so suggesting. On the InterWeb, apparently, one is damned no matter what side one takes. So it is better to take it all with a huge grain of salt.

Obviously a player voicing concerns in a manner that is perceived as constant whining is not very useful, regardless of the rightness (or wrongness) of the player's discontent.

Agreed.


RC

 

[Elf Witch]

After reading through all of this I can really understand why the OP lost his temper. I was saying the same thing to the screen as I read him having to say over and over that there were other things that the wizard could unleash his might against besides the iron golems.

I am both a player and a DM I believe that you should trust your DM. If you can't if you believe that he does nothing but railroad and make your character inefficent then instead of being whiny you either talk to the DM or leave. You don't suck the fun out of the game for everyone else.

The big encounter that the PCs won sounds like a really interesting encounter to me. Yes they had help but they also had a lot of clues that things were not as they seemed. If I was in that situation and I trusted my DM I would realize that things are not as they seem.

I am lucky that my players trust me because at second level they encoutered a 15 level cleric who could have wiped the floor with them but instead of whining they played along defeated him really easily and accepted his surrender and allowed him to leave the plane. I know that the cleric is really a member of the resitance and he fought to only maintain his cover.

The players have speculated on why they won and as one put it they realize that something is going on. And that it is a clue. I love my players.

As a player and a DM I think story is very important to the game I get tired of the idea that every encounter has to be tailored to the PCs. I like the fact in game that sometimes you need to run away or times when you plow through the enemy even if you are to high level to really get any XP from it.

From what I read and took form what the OP was saying was that this player has to be in the spotlight. I have played with players like that. I played in one game where this one players had just made a minmaxed paladin that always outfought by fighter. Finally we ended up in a non magic zone and I finally got to shine and the player did nothing but whine about how unfair it was that he could not use all his abilities.

As a DM I have told my players that there will be sometimes that one or two of them might not have full use of their abilties in every encounter. That I would be doing this to allow everyone a chance to be the hero and to shine.

The clue to me that this player is a whiny baby is that he whined even after the PCs won. That and he whined because he was not the star in the dungeon.

I do think there are two different styles of play here. You have a DM who wants the world to make sense and to have a story. And you have a player who does not care about any of that he just wants his character to always shine and use all his abilities.

It is a hard thing to overcome.

To be honest my sympthies lie with the DM because the player has not shown any maturity at all he has gone out of his way to ruin the fun at the table with his moaning. If the game was not fun for him he should have opened his mouth and talked to the DM and if still didn't like the game then he should have acted like an adult and quit the game.

 

[Felix]

No, I would not. Or at least, not on that basis.

De gustibus non disputandem est.

Obviously something capable of dealing more than 15 points of damage, such as a Fiendish Giant Crocodile.

That croc will take his time dealing 1-13 damage if he hits. Better than sitting on your thumbs, of course. And the summoning choices for Evil are much better, would you agree?

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.

Again, depends on the timeframe and the DMs inclination to give out information. May or may not be plausible or productive.

We know that the golems were guardians, which makes them unlikely to leave their posts.

This depends entirely upon how the DM orders his dungeon, not upon the creature itself; you're projecting how you would run the creatures onto his game. He may have run them differently, and that possibility should be allowed.

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.

Quite: "if".

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?

Against one iron golem? No. Against a series of Iron Golems? Well, it does get a little harder once your spells wear thin.

 

[Raven Crowking]

De gustibus non disputandem est.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

This depends entirely upon how the DM orders his dungeon, not upon the creature itself

And that, I think, should really end the discussion on this point, no?

Unless I am mistaken (and we all know that happens!), we agree that running into one, or even more than one, iron golem is not a problem. We agree that a dungeon may be ordered so that running into iron golems is a problem, or it may be ordered so that the players have multiple options. Likewise a dungeon with oozes, vermin, and constructs for rogue PCs -- the dungeon might be ordered to allow other rogue skills than sneak attack to shine, and the creatures may be of CRs where sneak attack isn't really necessary.

We may disagree about where the problem lies in this particular instance, but then there is no real way that we will ever know, especially if we discount the clarifications of the OP as evidence.

Which leaves us with statements of general principle, and here I agree with TheAuldGrump that you should always try to maximize your communication with your players, and with Ridley's Cohort that "a player voicing concerns in a manner that is perceived as constant whining is not very useful, regardless of the rightness (or wrongness) of the player's discontent".

I also agree with Elf Witch about trusting the DM, but I would extend that to trusting the players as well. If you don't trust the people you are playing with to try to make the game better (or at least to not intentionally make it worse), why are you playing with those people?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

In this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=218774&page=2), I wrote

I believe that everyone, whether they know it or not, has "deal breakers" where it comes to games (as well as other types of relationships). It is perfectly fair to say, "This isn't what I want from a game; this is a deal-breaker for me." It is perfectly fair to decide that something is a deal-breaker, and that it makes the game not worth playing. It is perfectly fair -- and mature -- not to compromise on things you believe are "deal breakers". You are under no obligation whatsoever to play in (or run) a game that you are not enjoying.

However, the same is true for everyone at the table, including the DM. There really are cases where what the DM/other players want from the game is incompatable with what you want from the game. There really are cases where what you need "fixed" to make the game work for you is the very reason that everyone else is there. It is equally true that there really are things that need fixing in some games, because they are detracting from everyone's enjoyment -- including the DM's. Sometimes the DM just doesn't know what the problem is, or how to fix it.

Talking about this stuff in a mature manner is, therefore, always valuable.

Damaging the game because you are not enjoying it is not, IMHO, ever valuable. Leaving in the middle of a game is a tactic designed to damage the game, as is an attempt to sabotage the game to "force" an issue. IMHO, when you sit down to play you agree (like the hypocratic oath) "above all, to do no harm" intentionally to the game, no matter what chair you sit in (DM or player).

Violate that agreement, and I have no sympathy for you at all.

(And that is a general "you" that applies to anyone, not "you" in particular.)​

That viewpoint certainly informs my response in this thread. In effect, the OP says that he has a player that is intentionally harming his game. Regardless of what the reason for that behaviour may be, it is never IMHO acceptable.

If someone says, in effect, "X is abusing my goodwill; what should I do?" my foremost answer will never be "What are you doing to invite that abuse?" Instead, I will always respond "End the abuse; thereafter, see what you part you might have played, and end that behaviour as well". If the AWP started this thread, complaining about the DM in question, my response would be the same -- if you think the situation is abusive, end it.

RC

 

[Elf Witch]

I also agree with Elf Witch about trusting the DM, but I would extend that to trusting the players as well. If you don't trust the people you are playing with to try to make the game better (or at least to not intentionally make it worse), why are you playing with those people?


RC

Trust works both ways. As a DM I trust my players to open their mouths and tell me when they are upset and not having fun. If they don't tell me then I have to guess. For example I had a situation where a character failed a save and basically had to sit out part of a battle. I know she was upset. So I talked to her about it.

She was honest with me that part of the problem was that she had a bad week at work and that was the icing on her cake so to speak. I brought up to the rest of the players the idea of taking certain effects and spells out of the game. After much discussion they voted to keep the effects in the game.

Later this same player came to me and said you know what I am not having fun with my character how can we fix it? We made her a new character and she is having a lot of fun.

As a DM I try and give my players a good time but I am not perfect. I need to know that I can trust my players to come to me with any suggestions or complaints.

As a player I try and give my DMs feedback on what I enjoy and what I see as a problem. I always try and give the DM the benefit of the doubt that he is not just trying to screw with my character.

I will not play with as a DM or a player if I don't trust the others. Life is to short to play in bad games and I have found that a bad game is better than no game to be untrue.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Life is to short to play in bad games and I have found that a bad game is better than no game to be untrue.

I could not agree more.

RC

 

[evilbob]

Me either.

 

[cougent]

After reading through all of this I can really understand why the OP lost his temper. I was saying the same thing to the screen as I read him having to say over and over that there were other things that the wizard could unleash his might against besides the iron golems.

I am both a player and a DM I believe that you should trust your DM. If you can't if you believe that he does nothing but railroad and make your character inefficent then instead of being whiny you either talk to the DM or leave. You don't suck the fun out of the game for everyone else.

The big encounter that the PCs won sounds like a really interesting encounter to me. Yes they had help but they also had a lot of clues that things were not as they seemed. If I was in that situation and I trusted my DM I would realize that things are not as they seem.

I am lucky that my players trust me because at second level they encoutered a 15 level cleric who could have wiped the floor with them but instead of whining they played along defeated him really easily and accepted his surrender and allowed him to leave the plane. I know that the cleric is really a member of the resitance and he fought to only maintain his cover.

The players have speculated on why they won and as one put it they realize that something is going on. And that it is a clue. I love my players.

As a player and a DM I think story is very important to the game I get tired of the idea that every encounter has to be tailored to the PCs. I like the fact in game that sometimes you need to run away or times when you plow through the enemy even if you are to high level to really get any XP from it.

From what I read and took form what the OP was saying was that this player has to be in the spotlight. I have played with players like that. I played in one game where this one players had just made a minmaxed paladin that always outfought by fighter. Finally we ended up in a non magic zone and I finally got to shine and the player did nothing but whine about how unfair it was that he could not use all his abilities.

As a DM I have told my players that there will be sometimes that one or two of them might not have full use of their abilties in every encounter. That I would be doing this to allow everyone a chance to be the hero and to shine.

The clue to me that this player is a whiny baby is that he whined even after the PCs won. That and he whined because he was not the star in the dungeon.

I do think there are two different styles of play here. You have a DM who wants the world to make sense and to have a story. And you have a player who does not care about any of that he just wants his character to always shine and use all his abilities.

It is a hard thing to overcome.

To be honest my sympthies lie with the DM because the player has not shown any maturity at all he has gone out of his way to ruin the fun at the table with his moaning. If the game was not fun for him he should have opened his mouth and talked to the DM and if still didn't like the game then he should have acted like an adult and quit the game.

I completely agree.

I have thrown completely overwhelming odds at my players specifically to see how they do react. Some may call that railroading as I do expect them to react a certain way (run, hide, avoid, etc.) but the choice to engage, attack, and probably die is their option at any time. I depend and count on my players to either make good, informed decisions; or be mature enough to accept the consequences of bad ones. They agree with this, I have a good set of players (now) but it took some pruning to get there. The running joke is that I am out to kill them... but I do a poor job since most of them have lived to ripe old age. Not a style of play for everyone, but for us immanently more fun than guaranteed success outcomes in every scenario.