Whiney players....
- Thread starter Slaygrim
- Start date
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
Felix said:
Actually, I think it was mentioned earlier that the 15th level wizard announced his true loyalties during the fight. Still, though, for many players, the requirement that a much higher level NPC step in to save their bacon and hog the spotlight is just as appealing as having to fight an encounter that is unfairly weighted against them in direct contradiction of the RAW (i.e., not at all appealing).
Lord Zardoz
Explorer
I suspect the Whiner has a play style that skews towards the tactical side of things, and that you run a game that skews towards narrative gaming.
He seems to expect that you wont put fights in the game unless the fight its self is a level appropriate challenge, something that is not overwhelmingly difficult, but not a cakewalk either. Being the DM, he does not have the benefit of knowing what is fully going on, so the low level bandit fight would seem like a waste of time. Forgetting about the traitor is the sort of thing I tend to deal with by having my players throw semi-trivial Int checks so I can remind them of things their character ought to know. My players wont remember something that happened 3 games previous and 2 months ago, but I will.
But the dungeon of Golems and High spell resistance monsters? I would be quite angry as a player if I was in an adventure where nearly every monster I faced was immune to what I could do. As a DM, I avoid running games where the challenges are tailored to exploit the party's weaknesses or where the game would call for a Rogue if my players are a Fighter, a Ranger, a Sorcerer and a Cleric. Stocking the dungeon with monsters that do not need food and could be functioning after several thousand years is Ok from a narrative standpoint, but not from a gameplay standpoint. I think I would have thrown in some other monsters for which time would not be an issue, like Demons, Devils, Elementals, misc Undead (sans high spell resistance), Gargoyles, or creatures subjected to something like a Bind spell that would be in stasis until someone entered. Not that I would not use the Golems, I just would avoid All Golems All the Time.
END COMMUNICATION
He seems to expect that you wont put fights in the game unless the fight its self is a level appropriate challenge, something that is not overwhelmingly difficult, but not a cakewalk either. Being the DM, he does not have the benefit of knowing what is fully going on, so the low level bandit fight would seem like a waste of time. Forgetting about the traitor is the sort of thing I tend to deal with by having my players throw semi-trivial Int checks so I can remind them of things their character ought to know. My players wont remember something that happened 3 games previous and 2 months ago, but I will.
But the dungeon of Golems and High spell resistance monsters? I would be quite angry as a player if I was in an adventure where nearly every monster I faced was immune to what I could do. As a DM, I avoid running games where the challenges are tailored to exploit the party's weaknesses or where the game would call for a Rogue if my players are a Fighter, a Ranger, a Sorcerer and a Cleric. Stocking the dungeon with monsters that do not need food and could be functioning after several thousand years is Ok from a narrative standpoint, but not from a gameplay standpoint. I think I would have thrown in some other monsters for which time would not be an issue, like Demons, Devils, Elementals, misc Undead (sans high spell resistance), Gargoyles, or creatures subjected to something like a Bind spell that would be in stasis until someone entered. Not that I would not use the Golems, I just would avoid All Golems All the Time.
END COMMUNICATION
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Heh, I am afraid that my reaction, once I read the situation, was 'the player needs to get a new DM'. That sounded like a game that was no fun at all for the players. My first reaction was to how to handle whiny players, but this time the player was in the right. 
Whining was likely not the best way to handle it, but my reaction would actually have been to leave the game, and let the DM play by himself - not much better, in fact worse. But while it would lead to hard feelings it would also mean that I would not have to go through that again. If I tried running something like that I would be playing in an otherwise empty room.
The players want to be the main characters on stage, at least most of the time. If you look around at the complaints that people have about the Forgotten Realms you will find that the relative unimportance of the PCs is one that recurs frequently, for much the same reason. The players want to have fun.
The Auld Grump
Whining was likely not the best way to handle it, but my reaction would actually have been to leave the game, and let the DM play by himself - not much better, in fact worse. But while it would lead to hard feelings it would also mean that I would not have to go through that again. If I tried running something like that I would be playing in an otherwise empty room.
The players want to be the main characters on stage, at least most of the time. If you look around at the complaints that people have about the Forgotten Realms you will find that the relative unimportance of the PCs is one that recurs frequently, for much the same reason. The players want to have fun.
The Auld Grump
prosfilaes
Adventurer
evilbob said:
Then what's the point of posting here? Why is it more fair to judge the "whiner" by "one encounter" than the OP, especially as the OP is the one who wrote the description?
Sure, as soon as the fight starts the wizard announces his loyalties. My post was describing my reaction to the apparent overwhelming opposition and counting the (soon to switch sides) wizard as part of the problem; I doubt I'd have stayed long enough to find out that I had a hidden ally.jdrakeh said:
But yeah, I agree that having a Dick Marvil save your bacon isn't always a pleasure.
jdrakeh said:
Just correct this extremely common misconception: there is nothing in the RAW about making sure CRs are balanced against party level. CR's are just a way of giving the DM a measure of the difficulty of the encounter. In fact, the DMG actively encourages that around 5% of encounters should be in the "impossible" range (CR +4 or higher over the party level).
An encounter with a high CR relative to the group is perfectly fine as long as: it's clearly winnable, clearly avoidable or has some other resolution clear to the players.
Perhaps I overused the word clear, but I think that's the key to these kinds of encounters.
To address the OP; what the whiny player is demonstrating is a lack of trust in his DM(rightly or not is impossible to determine from a single one sided post) - this is probably what the OP needs to discuss with that player. If the lack of trust can't be overcome, the game will not be fun for either person.
Gothmog
First Post
I think Lord Zadoz nailed it- this player is a strong tactical player who metagames out the wazoo, and you're more of a narrativist/storyteller. Those two playstyles NEVER mesh well.
For what its worth, I agree with you Slaygrim- this player is an immature, whiny jackass who believes his playstyle is the only way, and you should conform to pre-established hard rules so he knows EXACTLY what to expect in game. Don't get me wrong- the game needs rulese, but knowing that every encouter your face will consume roughly 20-25% of your resources makes for a DULL game. I also suspect this guy has some serious inferiority issues and frustration with real life, and wants to cut losse and be "DA MAN" in game. Nothing wrong with using the game for that, but there is if he's being a jerk about it and disrupting the group and gameplay. In short, talk to this guy, or get rid of him.
Also Slaygrim, how does this player know the levels and power of these encounters? Are you telling him at the time in game, or after the game? I'd be REALLY irked if a player stopped a fight complaining that it was too powerful, and how could I give them an encounter so high above their CR. This is one of the things I REALLY hate about D&D 3.x- the assumption on many player's parts that things have to be exactly RAW, and if they aren't, the DM is somehow a bad DM. I've dealt with whiny players like this before- and every time it stems from entitlement issues, the player wanting to be the "badass" and ALWAYS look super-cool. In short, immaturity.
For the other posters- look at what Slaygrim has said. He said he told the party BEFORE this big fight that there was an ally wizard pretending to work with the BBEG, who would help them- but the party forgot this. In addition, the 19th level wizard was otherwise occupied with a ritual, and wouldn't be part of the first fight. This is not a case of a DMPC- this is a case of a DM using an interesting plot twist to keep the narrative and story entertaining. I mean, God forbid he deviate from the "kick open the door, kill everything, loot it" playstyle.
And his encounter with the bandits who were basically fodder so the assassin could scope out the party's abilities is GOOD DMing- it makes logical sense in the world, for the assassin, and makes the story more interesting. It also doesn't sound like the other players have any problem with this DM- just the jackass player.
Finally, the iron golems. He said this tomb has been sealed for thousands of years, and the only logical critters in there would be golems and undead. I'm guessing this dude is a blaster wizard, with almost no spells that are utility or buffing. This guy built his wizard to be useless in some situations. Now, how many times has this guy blasted happily away, killing dozens of enemies to the fighter's handful? Yes, the spotlight was off him for a while- and thats fine. In the course of Slaygrim's campaign, it made logical sense to have a tomb with undead and golems- and in that case the wizard assumes a different role- that of support. Its not like EVERY encounter for the rest of the campaign will be golems and undead. I'm not argueing that players shouldn't have fun, but this guy needs to seriously grow up and consider other people's feelings and the fun of the group, rather than just himself. Complaining like this and whining is also highly disrespectful to the DM and other players- he's basically saying "you people don't know what you're doing, and I'm going to make myself the center of attention again by pitching a hissy fit."
I really feel sorry for you having to play while this guy DMs Slaygrim. I can guarantee he took this personally based on his immaturity, and he will take it out on your character. Don't retaliate by being an ass- think of the good of your group and be the bigger man. If he gets nasty or overbearing, just excuse yourself from playing and tell him when he grows up to let you know.
For what its worth, I agree with you Slaygrim- this player is an immature, whiny jackass who believes his playstyle is the only way, and you should conform to pre-established hard rules so he knows EXACTLY what to expect in game. Don't get me wrong- the game needs rulese, but knowing that every encouter your face will consume roughly 20-25% of your resources makes for a DULL game. I also suspect this guy has some serious inferiority issues and frustration with real life, and wants to cut losse and be "DA MAN" in game. Nothing wrong with using the game for that, but there is if he's being a jerk about it and disrupting the group and gameplay. In short, talk to this guy, or get rid of him.
Also Slaygrim, how does this player know the levels and power of these encounters? Are you telling him at the time in game, or after the game? I'd be REALLY irked if a player stopped a fight complaining that it was too powerful, and how could I give them an encounter so high above their CR. This is one of the things I REALLY hate about D&D 3.x- the assumption on many player's parts that things have to be exactly RAW, and if they aren't, the DM is somehow a bad DM. I've dealt with whiny players like this before- and every time it stems from entitlement issues, the player wanting to be the "badass" and ALWAYS look super-cool. In short, immaturity.
For the other posters- look at what Slaygrim has said. He said he told the party BEFORE this big fight that there was an ally wizard pretending to work with the BBEG, who would help them- but the party forgot this. In addition, the 19th level wizard was otherwise occupied with a ritual, and wouldn't be part of the first fight. This is not a case of a DMPC- this is a case of a DM using an interesting plot twist to keep the narrative and story entertaining. I mean, God forbid he deviate from the "kick open the door, kill everything, loot it" playstyle.
And his encounter with the bandits who were basically fodder so the assassin could scope out the party's abilities is GOOD DMing- it makes logical sense in the world, for the assassin, and makes the story more interesting. It also doesn't sound like the other players have any problem with this DM- just the jackass player.Finally, the iron golems. He said this tomb has been sealed for thousands of years, and the only logical critters in there would be golems and undead. I'm guessing this dude is a blaster wizard, with almost no spells that are utility or buffing. This guy built his wizard to be useless in some situations. Now, how many times has this guy blasted happily away, killing dozens of enemies to the fighter's handful? Yes, the spotlight was off him for a while- and thats fine. In the course of Slaygrim's campaign, it made logical sense to have a tomb with undead and golems- and in that case the wizard assumes a different role- that of support. Its not like EVERY encounter for the rest of the campaign will be golems and undead. I'm not argueing that players shouldn't have fun, but this guy needs to seriously grow up and consider other people's feelings and the fun of the group, rather than just himself. Complaining like this and whining is also highly disrespectful to the DM and other players- he's basically saying "you people don't know what you're doing, and I'm going to make myself the center of attention again by pitching a hissy fit."
I really feel sorry for you having to play while this guy DMs Slaygrim. I can guarantee he took this personally based on his immaturity, and he will take it out on your character. Don't retaliate by being an ass- think of the good of your group and be the bigger man. If he gets nasty or overbearing, just excuse yourself from playing and tell him when he grows up to let you know.
Last edited:
Gothmog
First Post
jdrakeh said:
Hmm, 3.0 DMG, page 102.
"5% Overpowering difficulty EL 5+ higher than the party"
Or on page 49 in 3.5 DMG, bottom right of the page on the table- same text as above.
I'm not a fan of following RAW for the sake of following it (some games and playstyles use different assumptions), but if you're going to quote RAW, know that overpowering encounters ARE part of the game.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
