Whiney players....

[Elf Witch]

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).

I have noticed that too about the damage.

As a player that is not what makes me feel useless it is when I am in a game and the DM does not give me a chance to interact with the NPCs and focuses all the story aspects on one or two characters and I end up feeling that all I am there is to help out in combat.

In one Eberron game I got so frustrated over sitting at the table listening to the two 'stars" role play that I brought a book and read until it was time for me to roll the dice. The DM took notice of that and asked me what the trouble was after the session and I told him honestly that I was bored.

He was like I have noticed that they tend to hog the spotlight but what can I do about it? I told him how about when they are off doing their secret meetings (that they never shared any information they got with the rest of us) how about letting us do something you know shift back and forth.

He could not see doing that because it would bog the game down even further. So I then suggested that he curtail their secret meetings, but no that was part of the story.

I ended up feeling like nothing more than a cohort. The good thing that came out of that was I started my own game and got me over my fear of DMing.

Now one of the problem of the Eberron game was that the DM said make characters when I asked what kind of campaign he wanted to run he was vague. So after talking to him I made a character from Cyre. I was starting out as a ranger going for Cyrean Avenger. The DM when told of the character concept was like that is cool I can do a lot with that.

Another player my roommate made a cyrean character as well. Two others made characters that were involved with the dreaming dark and one was a gatekeeper. The entire campaign revolved around shutting down gates and the dreaming dark. Both myself and my roomate got so frustrated that we asked to bring in new characters that actually had something to do with gates or the dreaming dark. The DM was not happy about us changing out characters midgame.

I quit the game in the end. The DM who is a friend told me later that he was sorry but he just could not juggle all the characters backgrounds and that if I had been more pateint he was eventually going to do something with my background. I guess playing for 18 months I was not patient enough.

What I learned from that was to have a reason my characters are together. My campign focuses on fighting Tiamat's spawn so I told my players to make characters that would want to fight Tiamat's Spawn. And I asked them to tell me why Bahumt would call them to come to his aid.

Now the characters do have different things they want to do the cleric/paladin wants to fight corruption in the church, the monk has amnesia and the spellscale wants to find out the secret of where his people came from.

I try every session to add something about their backstories lay ground work, clues. Not every session will have a lot to do with every character's background. But I don't go sesions ignoring it either.

It is a matter of balance and my players know that and that I am commited to making the game fun for everyone. But sometimes some sessions might be more fun for another player but that soon it will be there turn.

I bring that philosophy to every aspect of the game from role playing to combat. I try and make the game fun for everyone, Itry and give all the players something to do but sometimes for that session some players may have more to do than others.

It seesm to work because the only thing they are whining about is when am I going to hurry up and get over my broken knee so we can play again.

 

[Nikroecyst]

I didn't read the entire thread but I am going to drop my two cents, casue I used to DM at a table with three whinny players.

Mostly it comes down to undermining your authority, IMO.

If he don't like it, tell em to find a differnt DM/Group. I have had to do this to players in the past when they have consistantly disrupted my games.

There must be some kinda good reason he comes back to your table night after night?

P.S. The encounters did look a lil over powered.

 

[Greylock]

Just to clarify the DM had two iron golems and other things that the player could blast...

With what, his fists?

 

[Arnwyn]

No not that I am aware of.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

I'm struggling to see why the reaction to the OP has been so harsh.

Indeed. No wonder Slaygrim was so frustrated, what with the number of wildy inappropriate and ridiculous assumptions being bandied about (especially when the OP clarified things).

 

[Elf Witch]

With what, his fists?

He could blast the death knights that were also there. And even the undead could be blasted sure they had SR but that did not stop him from being able to blast them. It just meant that if he didn't get through their SR he lost the spell. Which comes down to the roll of the dice like everything else in combat.

And he had no trouble blasting the bandits, the rune mage, the beholder and the BBEG wizard.

But everyone who feels so sorry for the whiney player seems to foget all that.

 

[Elf Witch]

Yeah, that's what I thought.


Indeed. No wonder Slaygrim was so frustrated, what with the number of wildy inappropriate and ridiculous assumptions being bandied about (especially when the OP clarified things).

I felt bad for him. I know he broke the rules and down came the banhammer but he was provoked and of course the ones who provoked him were clever enough to do it in way that didn't get them banned.

I hope he comes back and sees that not everyone thought he as a horrible DM.

 

[DonTadow]

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.

What in the world is stopping you from playing a flirting swashbuckler doing daring deeds if you're fighting undead. Why don't you use your swashbuckling technique to disarm, or trip up the undead. Or dash around throwing bottles of greek fire and tanglefoot bags at them. Or get real creative and coat your weapon with some holy oil and go toe to toe. Why not go around and flank the undead, showing off with your sword prowess while the cleric does the real damage (and gets an advantage). The DM did not nerf your character. Your lack of imagination nerfed your character. Too many people think rpg pcs are MMO robots.

"I am a mage, i must cast spells or i am useless".

This is the great thing about tabletops. This is not the case 10 times out of 10.

Players who talk about nerfed characters on situations where their character is not hte star often lack the imagination required to play a tabletop game. You don't have to deal damage to roleplay a character. There's a guy in my game who plays a vampire psionist, who does not fight and rarely uses his psionics (he is a merchant who the pcs stumbled upon). But he is essential to the party using all types of environmental and generic items.

This does not come down to having fun. It comes down to i can't have fun unless my character's star powers are shined.

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).

We are disagreeing about "limited effectiveness". If my players know that the sacred what knock is located in the crypt of the undead horror. Well, they are going to make preparations so that they are alll as effective as possible against undead. I don't buy the design that every dungeon has exactly one encounter to make every player shine. It just does not happen. In this case adventures seem more like plays with acts that focus on a particular character. Players stepping up saying oooh here's my part.

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 agree with you. So in my design, i reward creative play. I have both specialists and generalists in my game, but my specialists are diverse enough where when their out of spell points they aren't sitting around pouting on rocks. They are slinging arrow, reading scrolls, and helping the party strategize.

 

[Fenes]

I think you miss the point. The exmaple was: I have no fun fighting undead and using alchemy. Got that? I do not want to be creative if I do not want to fight undead in the first place.

Or, to put it in an example you may understand better: If you want to play a D&D paladin, and your DM runs a bunnies & burrows adventure, polymorphing your character in a bunny at the start, should you get creative, or say "I want to play D&D, not B&B"?

Is that so difficult to get? I want to have fun in a game, and some things and adventures are no fun at all. I don't want to get creative and adapt to such, I want to avoid it.

So, if a DM wants to run Ravenloft, and an undead campaign, I'll simply say "not my taste", and leave.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think you miss the point. The exmaple was: I have no fun fighting undead and using alchemy. Got that? I do not want to be creative if I do not want to fight undead in the first place.

Or, to put it in an example you may understand better: If you want to play a D&D paladin, and your DM runs a bunnies & burrows adventure, polymorphing your character in a bunny at the start, should you get creative, or say "I want to play D&D, not B&B"?

Okay, I get it:

D&D has undead.

You don't want to fight undead.

You thought you were playing Bunnies & Burrows!



While I jest, that argument sounds seriously like claiming that you want to play chess, but only if no one uses queens or rooks. You might get some takers, but the game isn't really the same thing that most folks mean when they say "chess".

(And, yes, if your DM is running an adventure that includes unusual circumstances, and you are otherwise enjoying the game, you should roll with it. If you are not otherwise enjoying the game, you shouldn't be there. Which is exactly what you conclude, I note.)

RC

 

[cougent]

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.

And there it is, the dirty little secret truth that underlies all of the "worst DM" posts. In both this and another thread I posted several different ways that while I listen to player complaints and frustrations, I don't listen or tolerate whining in any form... and I got repeatedly rebuked for that position. There are people who want to whine, and they want it allowed at all costs, and so they defend fellow whiners as vehemently as possible. Forget the real issues, forget the OP scenario, they really just want to defend being whiney. OK, defend away, you will still get booted from my games. Be mature, be civil, or be gone.

And let me save you some response time, I am the worst DM ever, you would hate my game, you would hate my style, I am always wrong, etc. Fortunately there are many bad players in my area that want just that in a DM so I stay pretty busy.