Whiney players....

[haakon1]

Comparing it to Monopoly is not the same thing at all. Because there is more to DnD then just casting a spell or back stabbing or rolling to hit. There is also role playing. solving puzzles, interacting with the game world. coming up with tactics there is more to DnD than just being great at killing things. That is hardly the same as playing monopoly and not being allowed to buy property or spend money. I guess if you play a beer and pretzels game then this is not true and I can see why it might not be fun to play in a game that has more plot and a different kind of challange.

The Monopoly comparison is apt. Complaining that your usual abilities don't work against certain monsters, and so having to face those monsters is unfair has a parallel situation in Monopoly. When a player is sent to Jail in Monopoly, all they can do is "useless" roll the dice and not get a full turn. It's totally unfair . . . and totally a normal part of the game, as are creatures with immunities in D&D.

 

[DonTadow]

The Monopoly comparison is apt. Complaining that your usual abilities don't work against certain monsters, and so having to face those monsters is unfair has a parallel situation in Monopoly. When a player is sent to Jail in Monopoly, all they can do is "useless" roll the dice and not get a full turn. It's totally unfair . . . and totally a normal part of the game, as are creatures with immunities in D&D.

I would never compare d and d to monopoly. The situation you speak of is not like rolling to get out of jail. Rolling to get out of jail comprises of one action rolling to get out of jail. If you are finding that your spells do not work against particular enemis you have or may hve a range of other options including relying on your melee and ranged skills. Trying flank and aid your partner. Using a boat load of secondary effect spells. Using items, potions and such. Using the room and location to your advantage.

If we're going to pick out board games to compare it to, the situation you're talking about is more akin to something more complex, lets say settlers of cataan. In that game you trade commodities and build roads, cities and settlements. Everyone has a particular strategy. Say you're the road building kind of guy. Your strategy is to build roads to block out opponents. However, your opponents block you out first.

At this point you can continue to build roads or you can switch to a new strategy that can be just as effective. There are many strategies in Cattan and a good player , even though they like any, can adapt to all.

 

[haakon1]

I would never compare d and d to monopoly.

I didn't start that comparison. The original poster on this comparison said having lots of golems he couldn't take down with his usual spells was unfair, and said it was like note being able to build houses in Monopoly.

All I'm saying it's exactly like Monopoly in the sense that "bad things can happen to you in the game" and "sometimes those bad things mean you can't do the usual things", as part of the inherent design of the game. It totally ruins your "I'm going to buy a lot of real estate" build when you're stuck in Jail.

Monsters with immunities or damage reduction is a very normal part of the game, in every edition. Skeletons are an opponent nearly every player is familiar with by the time their first character hits level 2 . . .

 

[Doug McCrae]

Wow it still blows my mind that people think if you can't cast spells then you are totally useless. Let me guess you also don't like playing in a game where you actually run out of spells? Or if you can't sneak attack then your rogue is useless?

It's just a matter of taste. I think for the vast majority of players there's a point at which their PC's contribution to mission success becomes unacceptably low. For you the Aid Another action is above that threshold. For me it's below it. I also think rogues lose an unacceptable amount of contribution when they can't sneak attack.

 

[Glyfair]

It's just a matter of taste. I think for the vast majority of players there's a point at which their PC's contribution to mission success becomes unacceptably low. For you the Aid Another action is above that threshold. For me it's below it. I also think rogues lose an unacceptable amount of contribution when they can't sneak attack.

Obviously there are a lot of variables here. Most importantly, there is the individual group. If your group is the sort that can sit around a tavern for a 4 hour session just interacting with teh characters, then having all of your special abilities made useless for a session won't bother you as much as a player in a "kick in the doors" style campaign.

Also, there is the issue of expectations. I remember back in the AD&D days when it wasn't uncommon to have campaigns where entire campaigns were spent in areas where teleport spells were useless (IIRC the "D" series was like this). That's punishing the player for taking the teleport spell. If a player has a special ability, then he should expect to make use of it an appropriate amount. It also shouldn't have to wait for the exact right time that the DM decides that it's appropriate for you to use your ability.

For me, if I'm going to spend an entire night in a largely combat oriented session where I can't contribute because the DM has made all my abilities useless, then I might as well not show up. That's not fun.

But, don't confuse it with making my major abilities useless, in order to allow me to use my secondary abilities. That's fun done right. Just make sure you don't set up that situation, but create the situation where another character then can just destroy the encounter with his abilities so I don't get to use my secondary abilities.

 

[Elf Witch]

It's just a matter of taste. I think for the vast majority of players there's a point at which their PC's contribution to mission success becomes unacceptably low. For you the Aid Another action is above that threshold. For me it's below it. I also think rogues lose an unacceptable amount of contribution when they can't sneak attack.

Like I said I don't understand this. I have been in dungeon crawls where the rogue is getting to do a lot more than everyone else with his scouting, disarming traps and getting to with sneak attack do as much or more damage than the party fighter. The rogue shines in this situation.

So why should he always get to shine? In undead encounters cleric and paladins rock. There are times that party mage shines.

There is a big difference between never getting to shine and using all your abilities and sometimes not being able to.

And I think that it is a matter of balance not every encounter has to be planned so that everyone gets an equal chance to shine. As a DM you try and do your best but there are times that because of the plot and the encounter that it becomes impossible. Like rogues with undead or constructs.

Maybe I feel this way because I play in story heavy games as a player and a DM I like the world to make sense. Even if I am not using all my abilities during a session I am still contributing to the story. I hate missing sessions because for me being told what happened is not the same as seeing it happpen.

The people comparing it to monopoly I have this question have you ever played and the dice have been against you so you don't end with good property or even three of the same so you can't build? I have. If you did how did you behave? Did you whine and complain that this sucks and is unfun and throw your cards down and get huffy basically spoil everyone else's fun and whine about why did I bother to come?

Because that is exactly how I see the whine of ohh noo there are undead I can't sneak atttack why am I here this sucks there are iron golems and I am blaster mage that sucks or WTF you brought in monsters with SR that's is just unfair you are nerfing my character.

I would not play monopoly with someone who behaves this way and I don't want to play DnD withsome one who behaves this way.

 

[moritheil]

Like I said I don't understand this. I have been in dungeon crawls where the rogue is getting to do a lot more than everyone else with his scouting, disarming traps and getting to with sneak attack do as much or more damage than the party fighter. The rogue shines in this situation.

So why should he always get to shine? In undead encounters cleric and paladins rock. There are times that party mage shines.

There is a big difference between never getting to shine and using all your abilities and sometimes not being able to.

And I think that it is a matter of balance not every encounter has to be planned so that everyone gets an equal chance to shine. As a DM you try and do your best but there are times that because of the plot and the encounter that it becomes impossible. Like rogues with undead or constructs.

Maybe I feel this way because I play in story heavy games as a player and a DM I like the world to make sense. Even if I am not using all my abilities during a session I am still contributing to the story. I hate missing sessions because for me being told what happened is not the same as seeing it happpen.

The people comparing it to monopoly I have this question have you ever played and the dice have been against you so you don't end with good property or even three of the same so you can't build? I have. If you did how did you behave? Did you whine and complain that this sucks and is unfun and throw your cards down and get huffy basically spoil everyone else's fun and whine about why did I bother to come?

Because that is exactly how I see the whine of ohh noo there are undead I can't sneak atttack why am I here this sucks there are iron golems and I am blaster mage that sucks or WTF you brought in monsters with SR that's is just unfair you are nerfing my character.

I would not play monopoly with someone who behaves this way and I don't want to play DnD withsome one who behaves this way.

The primary difference between you and the other poster is that you see it as "shining" where as he sees it as closer to the bare minimum of "functioning."

 

[Raven Crowking]

The people comparing it to monopoly I have this question have you ever played and the dice have been against you so you don't end with good property or even three of the same so you can't build? I have. If you did how did you behave? Did you whine and complain that this sucks and is unfun and throw your cards down and get huffy basically spoil everyone else's fun and whine about why did I bother to come?

Because that is exactly how I see the whine of ohh noo there are undead I can't sneak atttack why am I here this sucks there are iron golems and I am blaster mage that sucks or WTF you brought in monsters with SR that's is just unfair you are nerfing my character.

I would not play monopoly with someone who behaves this way and I don't want to play DnD withsome one who behaves this way.

This is well said.

RC

 

[BastionLightbringer]

The people comparing it to monopoly I have this question have you ever played and the dice have been against you so you don't end with good property or even three of the same so you can't build? I have. If you did how did you behave? Did you whine and complain that this sucks and is unfun and throw your cards down and get huffy basically spoil everyone else's fun and whine about why did I bother to come?

Because that is exactly how I see the whine of ohh noo there are undead I can't sneak atttack why am I here this sucks there are iron golems and I am blaster mage that sucks or WTF you brought in monsters with SR that's is just unfair you are nerfing my character.

I would not play monopoly with someone who behaves this way and I don't want to play DnD withsome one who behaves this way.

That's not the same. If monopoly had different rules and the banker chose who he handed properties to and lets say he decided to give everyone good properties and 3 of the same, but not you, he decided that you should have to play the game at a disadvantage. Would you still be happy?

Monopoly is luck of the die, The OP is what the DM plans out ahead of time.

just my 2 cents

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's not the same. If monopoly had different rules and the banker chose who he handed properties to and lets say he decided to give everyone good properties and 3 of the same, but not you, he decided that you should have to play the game at a disadvantage. Would you still be happy?

Monopoly is luck of the die, The OP is what the DM plans out ahead of time.

just my 2 cents

So, if the DM used random dungeon creation tables, and just followed the dice, it would be okay, but if the DM were trying to allow the players to make decisions based on world knowledge, logic, and verisimilitude, it would not be?

Those of us with children know that, at about 5 years of age, it is important to let kids know that, if they want people to play when they are winning, they need to be good sports when they are not winning. Likewise, if you want folks to play when the spotlight is on you, you should show a little grace when the spotlight is on someone else.

To my mind, this isn't difficult to understand.

RC