Whiney players....

[Fenes]

(Lastly, I wanted to mention that there are certainly many modules you can purchase that include one, multiple, or entire swaths of encounters that make some characters unable to use their primary damage function. Ravenloft is a current, popular example that includes huge numbers of encounters with undead - making a rogue's life miserable, so long as all he wants to do is deal damage with sneak attack. Then again, as many have said, there's no reason a player can't be perfectly happy playing a rogue in Barovia - he just needs to change his tactics and do other things besides damage. Is this wrong? I believe it is not. Is it wrong for some players? Sure. How to fix it? Don't play a rogue in Ravenloft!)

Or don't play Ravenloft, if you want to play a rogue.

 

[DonTadow]

"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.

So you prefer a DM to present you with cookie cutter dungeons to make everyone feel good about themselves?

I don't play that game.

I create challenges for the players. A challenge can "seem" dire some times. This in no way means the player is out of it. If all you think you can do is "aid another" then that player lacks imagination.

3.5 is designed so that no one player is one dimensional. That's why there are a boat load of skills and magic items. If your sneak attack or magic is nerfed, there are other things that you can do to be quite helpful.

It comes down to creativity of the player. A more important skill than anything written on a piece of paper. Therea re some players who see this situation and go into their bag of tricks to see what they can do about it. There are some who just give up and complain.

 

[Fenes]

So you prefer a DM to present you with cookie cutter dungeons to make everyone feel good about themselves?

I don't play that game.

I create challenges for the players. A challenge can "seem" dire some times. This in no way means the player is out of it. If all you think you can do is "aid another" then that player lacks imagination.

3.5 is designed so that no one player is one dimensional. That's why there are a boat load of skills and magic items. If your sneak attack or magic is nerfed, there are other things that you can do to be quite helpful.

It comes down to creativity of the player. A more important skill than anything written on a piece of paper. Therea re some players who see this situation and go into their bag of tricks to see what they can do about it. There are some who just give up and complain.

It comes down to having fun. There are some who think that their way is the only way to have fun. And there are some that understand that while some players want a challenge, others don't.

If I want to play a flirting swashbuckler doing daring deeds, then I don't have fun playing a game where I am forced to become a ressource-managing support character using alchemy to battle undead for any length of time.

 

[evilbob]

If I want to play a flirting swashbuckler doing daring deeds, then I don't have fun playing a game where I am forced to become a ressource-managing support character using alchemy to battle undead for any length of time.

As a side-note, I'll say that while this is a good example, in my own experiences and from what I've read, this is never the case. When people talk about their character being "nerfed" or feeling "useless," in my experience it is 100% of the time talking about doing enough damage. It's never "I didn't get to RP as much as I'd like" or "I can't use my X ability enough," it's always "I don't do as much damage as X character." It's always about damage. Many people seem to believe that DPS (DPR?) = worth of character. Not that this is invalid, or wrong, or anything like that: D&D is open to any interpretation or any style of play, and that's fine. I'm just saying it's just the only type complaint I've heard of this nature.

I'm still just not certain why these folks don't just play a barbarian: you'll never get as much of a "damage high" as this class (until you're level 13+ or so, anyway).

 

[Elf Witch]

I think your missing the point. 1st of all, I never said anyone was a jerk. Second, original post said that the DM purposely placed magic resistant golems throughout the dungeon, than at the end threw in some highly spell resistant undead. Than mentioned hitting the guy with a Mordenkainens Disjunction spell(not sure if he actually did or not). I actually think he should use purchased adventures, then the whiney player would feel less like the DM is picking on him.

Just to clarify the DM had two iron golems and other things that the player could blast. This player also whined when the party had to fight bandits which he could blast because they were to easy. He also whined about an encounter that he thought was to hard. He whined before the encounter during the encounter and after the encounter even when the party won the day.

The Mordenkaines Disjunction did not happen in the dungeons.

This player is always going to feel as if the DM is picking on him. No matter what the DM does.

There are some players that you can't please no matter what you do.

 

[BastionLightbringer]

So you prefer a DM to present you with cookie cutter dungeons to make everyone feel good about themselves?

I don't play that game.

I'm not sure where you got this conclusion from. I said I try to limit a characters effectiveness, just not for an entire adventure(which in my game could take 4-6 sessions).

People keep bringing up games of chance(monopoly) and purchasing adventures that are not tailor-made for the PCs as examples to back up the OP. But remember the OP was a situation where the DM has knowledge of a characters specialty, then took it away for an entire dungeon crawl. Thats what I am talking about. Thats all. I wouldn't do it for an ENTIRE adventure. But thats just my opinion. I am not saying your a bad DM if you do, just like I dont think I'm a bad DM because I dont.

I create challenges for the players. A challenge can "seem" dire some times. This in no way means the player is out of it.
[/QOUTE] (emphasise mine)

Exactly, so do I. I just spread the challenges out to all the characters, not just heaping it on one for several sessions as I believe the OP states.

Lets see if that clears some things up.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So you prefer a DM to present you with cookie cutter dungeons to make everyone feel good about themselves?

I don't play that game.

Oh, my friend, I could not agree with you more.

I was looking at the 3e DMG the other day, and that book does indeed have a small word count devoted to the idea that, as a DM, the encounters you create cause certain types of play to be rewarded, and that you should be aware of this because play that is rewarded will certainly be modelled by your players. If you want to run a detailed campaign world where things like rations and ammo matter, and Bob has ADD and can't be bothered to count ammo, then Bob might not be a good fit for your game. It doesn't mean that you have to run the game Bob wants.

I think that the OP touched a nerve because folks see themselves in the Allegedly Whiney Player. They read the OP, and say, "Heck, I've acted like that....and I was justified in doing so, gosh darn it!" I think this because I've acted like the AWP myself, both as relates to D&D and as relates to real life, from time to time. And it is seductively easy to claim that one is justified in being a jerk, instead of facing oneself and admitting that one has been a jerk. It is much, much easier than apologizing for being a jerk. So, we all have a tendency to want to defend jerks who are jerks in ways that we've been jerks. And most of us (if not all of us) have been whiney players (or whiney DMs) at some point.

That's just human nature.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

But remember the OP was a situation where the DM has knowledge of a characters specialty, then took it away for an entire dungeon crawl. Thats what I am talking about. Thats all. I wouldn't do it for an ENTIRE adventure.

3.X is a game in which you, as a player, have a choice between making a generalist who can do many things well, or a specialist who can do only one thing very, very well indeed. To some degree, each player must choose between these poles when deciding how to build a character.

If the DM never allows the players to encounter situations where a specialist might be unable to use his specialty with its normal effectiveness for an entire adventure, then there is no choice to be made. Every player should automatically make a specialist, because (1) the characters are more powerful in their niche, and (2) every adventure is going to cater to that niche to a greater or lesser degree.

If the DM doesn't want to encourage a party of specialists, he should do exactly what the OP has done: present a world, which makes sense internally, and which does not cater to specialist builds.


RC

 

[BastionLightbringer]

Agree to disagree. I've said pretty much all I could on this subject. I do agree what most of the Op defenders are saying. Its just it seemed a little much in the OP.

Thanks for listening to my opinion
Bastion

 

[Raven Crowking]

Agree to disagree.

Always an acceptable outcome.