Whiney players....

[BastionLightbringer]

"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?"


Well, yes. If the Dm did everything randomly, then a PC can't really complain. If a Dm sets out to intentionally minimize your effectiveness for an entire dungeon crawl(I dont remember if it was stated how many sessions it took), I think a little whining ishould be tolerated.

As a DM, I do try to plan ahead to counter the PCs favorite/typical/overused solutions (or powers/magic item, etc) at certain encounters, but not a whole adventure.

As for the 2nd part of your post, I agree kids need to learn how to win & lose. But I don't stack the deck against my kids so they have to lose. But thats not what I am talking about. I just thought the monoply game comparison was a poor one.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, yes. If the Dm did everything randomly, then a PC can't really complain. If a Dm sets out to intentionally minimize your effectiveness for an entire dungeon crawl(I dont remember if it was stated how many sessions it took), I think a little whining ishould be tolerated.

A little whining, IMHO, should never be tolerated during the game, at least not over the age of 9 years.

If you are enjoying the game enough to stay, then stay, and try to make it enjoyable for everyone.

If you are not enjoying the game enough to stay, then do not stay, but don't try to ruin it for everyone else.

That is a pretty simple code for acceptable behaviour, IMHO.

As a DM, I do try to plan ahead to counter the PCs favorite/typical/overused solutions (or powers/magic item, etc) at certain encounters, but not a whole adventure.

So, do you believe that only a bad DM would ever run an adventure on another plane where the ability to use magic was severely reduced?

RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

Like I said I don't understand this.

I'm not sure that there is anything to understand. The problem is actually simpler than it appears. Some people like brussel sprouts, some people don't. The sprouts-haters are saying "I don't like brussel sprouts" and you're saying "I don't understand, why would anyone not like brussel sprouts?" It's just a matter of taste.

You make some very interesting points about your enjoyment of story and balance through shine opportunities. I enjoy it when superhero games are like that. More Justice League-style than X-Men. Superman rendered helpless by kryptonite so Green Arrow is the only one who can save the team, that kind of thing. The see-saw is tilting wildly, but still balanced because it swings each way just as much. I think these wild swings make for an appealing story.

But not an appealing wargame. In D&D, the wargame elements form a larger part (not, by any means, all however) of the game's draw for me. Story takes more of a back seat. That's probably why in D&D I want a see-saw that, while balanced, doesn't swing as wildly.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not sure that there is anything to understand. The problem is actually simpler than it appears. Some people like brussel sprouts, some people don't. The sprouts-haters are saying "I don't like brussel sprouts" and you're saying "I don't understand, why would anyone not like brussel sprouts?" It's just a matter of taste.

I view this more like some people liking steak, while other folks are saying they only eat sugary things, or drink sugar water, and if there isn't enough sugar in it what's the point? Only a bad host would serve anything with less sugar than a hostess twinkie!

Needing to shine 24/7 is rather like having Attention Defecit Disorder, IMHO. It's more than simply not liking sprouts.


RC

 

[BastionLightbringer]

A little whining, IMHO, should never be tolerated during the game, at least not over the age of 9 years.

If you are enjoying the game enough to stay, then stay, and try to make it enjoyable for everyone.

If you are not enjoying the game enough to stay, then do not stay, but don't try to ruin it for everyone else.

That is a pretty simple code for acceptable behaviour, IMHO.



So, do you believe that only a bad DM would ever run an adventure on another plane where the ability to use magic was severely reduced?

RC

I guess we have different opinions. I run a small group(3-4 players max), and I would hate to reduce a player's effectiveness for an entire adventure spanning 4-6 session (6weeks). So I wouldn't do it, but that doesnt mean only a bad Dm would.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I guess we have different opinions. I run a small group(3-4 players max), and I would hate to reduce a player's effectiveness for an entire adventure spanning 4-6 session (6weeks). So I wouldn't do it, but that doesnt mean only a bad Dm would.

I guess this is just another example of how the "sandbox/character pool" playstyle is inherently easier to prep for. In the S/CP playstyle, the DM creates the adventure locations, and the players determine which of their PCs are most likely to shine in that setting, if and when they choose to explore it. So, if you know you are going into a setting that contains no living things, you choose an appropriate character. If you know you are going into the Great Dead Magic Zone, you choose an appropriate character.

(Which isn't always the character you think, because a rogue can still shine in a tomb filled with constructs and undead, if there are plenty of traps, and if the rogue is high enough level to stand with the other party members in a fight despite not having sneak attack damage.)

(Of course, some people believe they can shine at -- and enjoy playing -- support roles, too.)

RC

 

[BastionLightbringer]

I guess this is just another example of how the "sandbox/character pool" playstyle is inherently easier to prep for. In the S/CP playstyle, the DM creates the adventure locations, and the players determine which of their PCs are most likely to shine in that setting, if and when they choose to explore it. So, if you know you are going into a setting that contains no living things, you choose an appropriate character. If you know you are going into the Great Dead Magic Zone, you choose an appropriate character.

(Which isn't always the character you think, because a rogue can still shine in a tomb filled with constructs and undead, if there are plenty of traps, and if the rogue is high enough level to stand with the other party members in a fight despite not having sneak attack damage.)

(Of course, some people believe they can shine at -- and enjoy playing -- support roles, too.)

RC

I am not sure who plays that type of game, because that does not even come close to describing my style. There is no choosing of characters for an adventure, the players only have one character each.

Actually I'm not even sure we are talking about the same thing anymore. My original post was saying that monopoly was not the same as the scenario in th OP(which I still stand by).

 

[Elf Witch]

I'm not sure that there is anything to understand. The problem is actually simpler than it appears. Some people like brussel sprouts, some people don't. The sprouts-haters are saying "I don't like brussel sprouts" and you're saying "I don't understand, why would anyone not like brussel sprouts?" It's just a matter of taste.

You make some very interesting points about your enjoyment of story and balance through shine opportunities. I enjoy it when superhero games are like that. More Justice League-style than X-Men. Superman rendered helpless by kryptonite so Green Arrow is the only one who can save the team, that kind of thing. The see-saw is tilting wildly, but still balanced because it swings each way just as much. I think these wild swings make for an appealing story.

But not an appealing wargame. In D&D, the wargame elements form a larger part (not, by any means, all however) of the game's draw for me. Story takes more of a back seat. That's probably why in D&D I want a see-saw that, while balanced, doesn't swing as wildly.

Actually I can understand it if you are playing a more wargame type DnD where story takes a back seat. In a game like that I can see being frustrated if you can't play your character the way he was built.

The OP did say that story was important to him and to some of his group. As a story type DM/player I can well understand that sometimes you have situations that can cause a PCs to not be able fully use their abilities. Like in the game I played in with the dead magic zones. A big part of the story was based on playing in a world that was recovering from a huge magical war. As I said it was a little sucky when we ended up in one and I was playing a sorcerer but I still had a blast role playing in those sessions.

What I don't get is some of the posters saying that DM who do this are bad DMs and that the player who was whining was in the right.

First of all it is a matter of taste so calling it bad or horible and telling the op he was a bad DM was really uncalled for. He had a problem with one player the rest were fine with the game. It seemed to me that the whiner was trying to get the game changed to suit him.

What I don't get or understand is that the people who don't like their PC abilities nerfed in game any way thinking that everyone else plays the same type of game they enjoy and that the whiney player had a right to whine because the game was not up to his satisfaction.

 

[Elf Witch]

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

Monopoly is set up that you have to land on property to buy it and that you have to all the same set to build. You get there by rolling dice. And so the game supports the fact that some players may have better luck than others on getting the good property and winning the game.

DnD has monsters in that have SR, they have undead that can't be crited or sneak attacked. In Eberron there is Cyre where divine healing magic does not work and where arcane magic is wonky. There are a lot of situtions built into the game that can nerf a PC abilities. Spells not having the right weapon to hurt creatures that have DR. So I would have to say that DnD has in its basic design situations that sometimes takes away a PC special abilities. I have never read in either the DMG or the DMG2 or any of the monster manuals something that says don't use iron golems if you ahve a blaster mage or don't use undead if you have a rogue and don't ever use a creature with SR if you have mages in the party.

And don't consider it bad DMing to sometimes use these things. I also have a rule in my game that if the PCs can do it so can the NPCs and vice versa which means if the PCs can cast spells like sleep, slow, hold person, dominate then so can the NPCs.

 

[Arnwyn]

and I would hate to reduce a player's effectiveness for an entire adventure spanning 4-6 session (6weeks).

Has this length of time for an "adventure" been mentioned anywhere else in this thread?