Whiney players....

[prosfilaes]

If you are invited to that game, and everyone else is having fun,

But how do we know that? As Wik and others have said, a lot of us don't find it particularly easy to talk to the DM about how his game sucks. And if we all have private chats with the DM, we may never know how the group feels about it.

The player behaviour described in the OP is never useful, whether it is right or wrong.

Social adeptness is not exactly part of the gamer stereotype, and forthrighness is for some reason frequently very difficult for many people. Also, the format here is frustrating; without any input from the player or further input from the OP, we don't know if this is the end-product of months of frustration that may have included fairly frank attempts to discuss the problem, or just the standard way the player handled things.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But how do we know that?

We don't. That is why it is an IF/THEN statement. IF the first part is true, THEN the second part follows.

Social adeptness is not exactly part of the gamer stereotype, and forthrighness is for some reason frequently very difficult for many people.

Giving advice on how to handle something often means suggesting a harder road. Hell, if the easier road always worked, then no one would be asking for advice.

RC

 

[Isida Kep'Tukari]

Very true. I posted here about a problem player about a month ago, and got a ton of advice, some of which I didn't want to hear, much of which was difficult for me to implement. (It was good advice, don't get me wrong, just a lot different than I thought I'd get.) Many people suggested outright, frank discussion with the player. That is very difficult for me. I'd almost prefer to solve in-game problems in the game, by way of changing storylines or tactics or just accepting the fact that I have a much different gaming style and moving on.

Also, for many reasons, sometimes you can't ask a player to leave a game. Sometimes your group is the only players you're going to get. My player is the wife of another in a two couple group. I could not kick that player out without alienating the entire group and damaging the friendships I have there.

Subtlety is often preferable to outright confrontation for many people. Perhaps this won't work in some situations, but I feel it is the goal of the DM to manipulate the players in a way that they feel they are in control, but enjoy the manipulation anyway. A good DM's plot should be, in a way, invisible; everything the players do seems to affect their own actions, and they are in control of the world. Even if you, the DM, know differently.

For this whiney player, it seems, from the limited information available, that this player wants more control. Having him be the DM this time around could be the best possible outcome of the situation. Sometimes going from DM to player is hard, as you're used to knowing everything, and knowing only half the information can make you feel powerless. The OP may have been running his game in a more open manner (allowing the player to know the exact level and CR of all monsters in an encounter), which could have contributed to the feeling of frustration for the player, because he didn't know how the DM would manipulate the situation to allow the PCs to survive and/or shine.

If the OP ends up DMing again, I'd suggest a little more mystery. Keep NPC character sheets hidden; have him not reveal the true extent of his power, don't let the PCs know the specific details of his class levels and whatnot. Even if the low-level rogues are low-level (for example) describe them in a way to bring a sense of threat, even as the PCs mow through them. ("The shifty men in their sleek leather armor slink around the battlefield like cats circling mice. Their daggers and short swords seems puny in comparison to your fighter's longsword, but their movements make it clear they're no strangers to death. They circle and swirl, getting into position, finally beginning their dash to surround you and take you down!") Sounds more ominous than it is. The PCs might feel vindcated and lucky for beating them then.

It allows powerful villains to seem less so, giving the PCs a sense of confidence (until it's time for the villain to kick some butt) and lets less-powerful threats still seem threatening. In this case, what the PCs can't know can't hurt them. When the OP DMs again, be more vague in your specifics, and more devious in your descriptions. Keep your DMing materials behind a screen or in a folder.

And try, if at all possible, to have one thing, even a small thing, each session, for each player. It lets them know you're thinking about them.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

For this whiney player, it seems, from the limited information available, that this player wants more control.

And it seems that's not unreasonable if the initial amount of control is very low (which, to me, seems to be the case here for at least one situation). If the OP approaches the discussion in a conciliatory, way, saying that he understands the player's point of view, I'd expect a much more friendly and cooperative reaction.

Playing devil's advocate here:
1) The player is asked to meta-game and have his PC act contrary to the PC's best judgment (that is, if the PC knows that the enemy archmage is the most powerful and feared in the land, or something like that).
2) The player is feeling railroaded. The OP didn't say "well, sure, they could have all fled and I'd have improvised a new adventure" -- the sense I got is that this is the adventure he wanted to run, and it was ridiculous for the player to suggest fleeing. Perhaps the player felt it would be disrespectful to the DM for the party to not go along with what he had prepared?
3) The player is feeling that the game is fixed so the PCs will always win. Personally, against overwhelming opposition, I'd rather have a TPK than survive because the DM fudged the rolls or intentionally played the enemies as stupid. If the PCs won through an exceptionally clever plan and astounding luck, that would be different.

The player was in a bad situation. He could go along when his PC wouldn't, in which case he's meta-gaming and expecting to be saved by DM fudging. He could flee and have the party win without him, which reinforces that his PC isn't important. He could flee and have the party die, in which case the other players would be angry at him. Or he could flee and get the party to go with him, in which case the DM is annoyed that they're avoiding his storyline.

As to the golems, the player doesn't have a leg to stand on IMO, but what might work best is to try to be helpful. "Yeah, I know iron golems are a pain for a wizard. Some of the Summon Monster spells might work here, such as Lantern Archons. If you wanted to take those spells, I'd help you stat out the various creatures so we're ready to go when you want to use them. Never hurts to have a few more tricks up your sleeves."

 

[Bagpuss]

I agree with the whiner.

Based on the information provided in the original post I am as well.

 

[Slaygrim]

Wow! So many responses to a thread that I though was gone and buried. I only made it through the first page of responses before writing this up.

Okay guys, allow me to explain a little bit more here.

This campaign is designed to tie into an epic campaign I will be running at a much later date. I was well aware of the power of the NPC's but they were necessary considering the next campaign.

I never told the players the levels of the NPC's, but they like to "guess" and discuss amongst themselves rather than stay in character. I'm more of a roleplaying person and the rest of my group is more into playing the game to roll the dice. I wouldn't want to discuss the levels of the NPC's any more than is necessary, but these players are different.

Yes, there is a huge difference between gaming style in the group. The problem is that we don't know many other gamers. I recently called up an old friend to see if he would join the group as he is more of a roleplayer. Now that the whiner player is taking over as the DM, I am hoping my old friend and myself will be able to "set the tone" of our group by roleplaying our characters more. I hope the other players will have a better influence in that regard and become more into the story of the game rather than the dice.

As per this encounter, I see it as part of the story. The NPC's had done enough damage to innocents and to the PC's for them to stop amongst themselves and say, "Oh well, they are too powerful. Let's leave." but that was the attitude this player was displaying. HIs CHARACTER who is supposed to be a hero was being played like a gamer playing a fake character with too much information. I think if he is roleplaying he will fight to the death if needs be. Besides, he should trust me that I am not going to wipe out the characters.

As for the battle, yes, it appeared overpowering. But that's why you play the game. Because it WASN'T. The whole idea was that the ritual was going down and it was a race against time. The 19th level wizard could not participate in the initial battle because he had to finish the ritual before the PC's interfered.

When the PC's ran into the 19th level wizard immediately after, the wizard (and the PC's knew this before hand) had already battled through this dungeon himself, expending spells. So he was depleted some. I did this to a point to bring him down to an acceptable level of challenge. Yes, the PC's may not have put the pieces together, but the whining began before finding out on their own, and continued afterward even after getting through the battle.

And this isn't common. Normally the PC's have been walking through encounters. Yes, there has been a strong opponent here or there but they have overcome all. And these aren't typical 10th level characters. They are characters maximized. The PC's each designed their characters to be very powerful and each had their fair share of magical items. In fact, they were carrying around magic items to the equivalent of 15th level characters. Their magical buffs were still up as well.

The point is, that the whining isn't just for this, it's constant. Over nearly everything. A battle is too easy. A battle is too hard. A battle doesn't let me work my abilities. A spell ruins my character. All of this is out of character whining. I just wish they'd play their damned character.

__________

As far as the Iron Golems. They weren't put in the adventure to nerf the PC. They were not the only encounters either. The first dungeon had 2 Iron Golems, and the rest were undead that he could battle. He still whined about the Iron Golems. To the point to where I had to redesign the final dungeon and replace the golems with Helmed Horrors so he could "fight". There were other creatures too. It wasn't as if the entire gaming session had the golems, it was a couple battles, nothing more.

I will go back and try to read more of the responses here.

 

[Slaygrim]

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.

Gothmog, your post was the closest to the reality as I see it. You almost describe the player to a "T". Now this guy is an old friend. I like him. But he does display an ENORMOUS ego, and I suspect you may be pretty close when you mention inferiority issues and responding by wanting to be the MAN in the game. That description does seem to be pretty close to how I am seeing it. Because we had problems in the past with this. Another player in the game dueled this one before:

Years ago both players were gaming wizards, and something happened to where the two players came head to head BIG TIME. They ended up getting into a fight. I remember the whiny player telling the other player, (something akin to this) "There is no way my wizard will let you take that item." and the other wizard blew him off. A duel was issued. Here is the problem. The whiny player challenged this other wizard but didn't want to duel on the spot. The other wizard said, "If we are going to do this, we are doing this right now." Well to make a long story short, the whiny player lost. He had a Cube of Force that he planned on using to win the battle, but the other wizard had enough dimension doors memorized to get into the cube repeatedly if necessary. He ended up winning the fight this way. I cannot remember specifics, we are talking 5 years ago or more. After he lost the whiny player couldn't take it. He sat there the rest of the game punishing everyone else by moping, almost suggesting he character wouldn't go on. He also blamed everyone and everything else for losing. He blamed being "forced to fight" on the spot rather than taking time to memorize all of the spells he wanted. The problem was in character the other wizard called him out on the spot, saying if you want to duel we do it now. No one forced him to agree with it, even if he agreed reluctantly he still did it and they still had a near full set of spells. But he used this as something to blame other than himself for losing. He always does this. It's never his fault. Ever. In fact, all the years I have know the guy he has never mentioned he was wrong one time that I can recall.

I am hoping his adventure will be better, and that I can influence the rest of the players to roleplay more and make a story out of it rather than a roll of the dice.

 

[Felix]

Yes, there is a huge difference between gaming style in the group. The problem is that we don't know many other gamers. I recently called up an old friend to see if he would join the group as he is more of a roleplayer. Now that the whiner player is taking over as the DM, I am hoping my old friend and myself will be able to "set the tone" of our group by roleplaying our characters more. I hope the other players will have a better influence in that regard and become more into the story of the game rather than the dice.

What this paragraph means is that you are recruiting a friend to direct the game style of a game you aren't running, contrary to what the other members of the group prefer. Can you see how this may be divisive?

Original Post
I get to play and I am really resisting the urge to give him loads of trouble and a taste of his own medicine.​

You may as well leave the game if this is your intention. Purposefully sabotaging someone else's game is small, petty and vindictive. Much, much worse than simply being annoying.

As per this encounter, I see it as part of the story. The NPC's had done enough damage to innocents and to the PC's for them to stop amongst themselves and say, "Oh well, they are too powerful. Let's leave." but that was the attitude this player was displaying. HIs CHARACTER who is supposed to be a hero was being played like a gamer playing a fake character with too much information.

It's his character, not your story's character. Sure the encounter was part of the story, but that doesn't mean that you should expect to dictate exactly how things will work out: players screw with DMs' plans all the time, and it is the ability to adjust that measures your skill as a DM. Getting upset at a character for not doing things the way you want him to is incredibly unproductive.

I think if he is roleplaying he will fight to the death if needs be. Besides, he should trust me that I am not going to wipe out the characters.

A coward PC will only be roleplaying if he fights to the death? If a player blindly trusts that the DM won't kill all the characters, that's roleplaying? Ridiculous: that's metagaming.

As for the battle, yes, it appeared overpowering. But that's why you play the game. Because it WASN'T.

If something appears overpowering to my PC, I am going to react to the situation based on those appearances. It is unreasonable for you to be upset with him for not wanting to rush head-long into that fight, and hypocritical to accuse him of metagaming when you suggest he should simply attack because he trusts the DM.

The whole idea was that the ritual was going down and it was a race against time. The 19th level wizard could not participate in the initial battle because he had to finish the ritual before the PC's interfered.

When the PC's ran into the 19th level wizard immediately after, the wizard (and the PC's knew this before hand) had already battled through this dungeon himself, expending spells. So he was depleted some. I did this to a point to bring him down to an acceptable level of challenge. Yes, the PC's may not have put the pieces together, but the whining began before finding out on their own, and continued afterward even after getting through the battle.

You attempted to mitigate the circumstances so that the participants of a 19th level, 16th level, and 15th level casters, along with two big monsters, was actually a reasonable challenge for the party. That's fine. But if the PCs take a look at that fight and balk, don't blame them: you made it look really, really tough, and that's what they're reacting to. That's what they're roleplaying. And the only reaction isn't, "They'll kill me, but I'll charge anyway in a futile gesture to save the orphans, or whomever I'm being heroic for."

And this isn't common.

You mean presenting them with an Encounter Level 18 challenge isn't common for your 10th level party? I'd hope so.

Normally the PC's have been walking through encounters. Yes, there has been a strong opponent here or there but they have overcome all.

There's a difference between squeaking through in fear of your life and walking over the opponents. I hope there's some of both.

And these aren't typical 10th level characters. They are characters maximized.

This doesn't matter so much, actually. When you power-up lower level characters, they become glass cannons. They walk over encounters of their level, but they don't have the HP or saves to survive the upper-level challenges.

In fact, they were carrying around magic items to the equivalent of 15th level characters.

This does not make them the equivalent of 15th level characters; it only makes it hard for you to challenge them without killing them.

Their magical buffs were still up as well.

Doesn't matter. A character's spell buffs are part of his powers and resources. That they're still up doesn't make them any more powerful, it just means they've decided to use a part of their resources to make the fight a little easier.

The point is, that the whining isn't just for this, it's constant. Over nearly everything. A battle is too easy. A battle is too hard. A battle doesn't let me work my abilities. A spell ruins my character. All of this is out of character whining. I just wish they'd play their damned character.

Considering that you have very specific ideas about exactly how they should play their character (not fighting to the death isn't roleplaying), I have a hard time convicting your player based on your description, even though I think whining is possibly the most annoying and distracting thing a player can do.

As far as the Iron Golems. They weren't put in the adventure to nerf the PC. They were not the only encounters either. The first dungeon had 2 Iron Golems, and the rest were undead that he could battle.

Original Post
While exploring an ancient Netherese Ruins the place was guarded by multiple Iron Golems. His character, a spellcaster, clearly was useless offensively as the Iron Golems are immune to most forms of magic. Thus, he was delegated to the role of the "buffer", having to cast spells that suped up the fighters. Throughout the entire dungeon there were spots still guarded by Iron Golems.

What matters is that I didn't arrange for the place to be filled with more than constructs... at least until the end of the dungeon where they did end up fighting undead... only then the undead had spell resistance that was hard to overcome, so he complained about that too.​

This does not sound like "2 Iron Golems and the rest were undead that he could battle". Which of your descriptions is more consistent with what happened?

 

[Slaygrim]

I don't really agree, but I digress.

I know that I always hated playing in games where the PCs didn't have a chance to do anything heroic, either because they were constantly being bailed out of deliberately impossible situations by DMPCs or simply because they were never presented with a fair challenge (i.e., a challenge that they had a possibility of overcoming).

Admittedly, there might be people who really enjoy being treated like this. I don't. The "whiner" apparently doesn't either. I suspect that he's a lot like me in that he seems to want to play a hero in D&D -- and he's currently stuck in a game where the DM appears to think that his job is to foil that ambition in any way possible.

Like TheAuldGrump, I wouldn't waste my time discussing things (or "whining" even) in this situation. For me, the best solution would be to leave the group and find a DM who was more into helping me realize my aspirations to play a heroic character, rather than taking every possible opportunity to keep that from happening.

jdrakeh, you really seem to be arguing something else. The PC's DID have a chance of overcoming the battle... and they DID. The point was that the player whined before hand, whined during, and whined after. If he would have just sat there, played his character heroically as he should have been playing a hero, then he would have won the day and that would be it. Sure there was a risk of a character dying but that is the whole point of playing. I'd hate to play a campaign to where I never was in risk.

So you are here arguing that you would hate playing a campaign where you didn't have a chance to do anything heroic. That wasn't this. What IS heroic is these PC's walking in to face an apparant overwhelming disadvantage, yet walking in and fighting the fight. That is heroic. Heroic isn't always facing an opponent that you know you can beat.

 

[Slaygrim]

What this paragraph means is that you are recruiting a friend to direct the game style of a game you aren't running, contrary to what the other members of the group prefer. Can you see how this may be divisive?

It could be. The thing is that the leading candidate for gaming a "roll of the dice" kind of game is this player, and he is now ceasing being the player and becoming the DM. I am hoping that with me and this new player playing our characters from a roleplaying perspective, that it will get the other players to feel comfortable opening up.

The other players have been following his lead, and two of the other three I am certain will be completely fine roleplaying more. In fact, two of the other three are completely happy with the way I DM'd and one of them threatened to leave the game because of the whiner whining so much. He only stayed and finished the game because I asked him to. I told him I put a lot of work into this campaign and it's the last session of it. I asked him to stay so he did.

The other player, his character failed his save against the assassin's death attack and he died. He was an elf too, so he's not likely to come back. How did he handle his characters death? Perfectly. He thought it sucked at first but quickly got over it and went to do some research for his next character.

I can't imagine if that was the whiner who's character died. It would have raised HELL.

Original Post
I get to play and I am really resisting the urge to give him loads of trouble and a taste of his own medicine.​

You may as well leave the game if this is your intention. Purposefully sabotaging someone else's game is small, petty and vindictive. Much, much worse than simply being annoying.

Felix, your position is starting to look like you've already made up your mind and are determined to put me down. Be careful you don't digress from someone who's just trying to be a third party offering their advice.

I said I am resisting the urge. I definitely will not do it, but I was merely admitting the idea does give me a sense of justice. But I won't. Enough said about that.

It's his character, not your story's character. Sure the encounter was part of the story, but that doesn't mean that you should expect to dictate exactly how things will work out: players screw with DMs' plans all the time, and it is the ability to adjust that measures your skill as a DM. Getting upset at a character for not doing things the way you want him to is incredibly unproductive.

I wasn't upset about a character taking things a different direction. I was upset with a player throwing up his hands in frustration and practically quitting. It ruined the entire mood of the game. If he would have acted calmly and played his character rather than throw a tantrum then things would have progressed just fine. And not just from the adventure standing point, but for the group as a whole.

There was no way out of the dungeon once they entered it. They knew this. Throwing a fit and talking about leaving when the only way out is on the other side of the enemies isn't playing your character, it's acting like a baby.

A coward PC will only be roleplaying if he fights to the death? If a player blindly trusts that the DM won't kill all the characters, that's roleplaying? Ridiculous: that's metagaming.

This is a Straw Man Argument. I did not once say that the only way to roleplay is to roleplay brave. His character is supposed to be brave. He's always played him brave. It was nothing more than a player allowing his short temper to influence the game.

Another Straw Man, I did not suggest that the DM will not kill a character, but that the player himself should trust me that I am not going to put him in a situation of certain death. The ONLY way through the dungeon was through this battle. If he had any sense of calm about him and would have just finished the game, there wouldn't have been an issue at all. The other players (other than the whiney players friend-who follows his lead) were completely FINE.

You don't seem to be offering a third party view on this anymore. You seem determined to find fault in me. I am trying to explain what happened. You seem to be trying to explain my fault, with the wrong idea of what happened.

If something appears overpowering to my PC, I am going to react to the situation based on those appearances. It is unreasonable for you to be upset with him for not wanting to rush head-long into that fight, and hypocritical to accuse him of metagaming when you suggest he should simply attack because he trusts the DM.

ANY DM worth a damn isn't going to throw the PC's in a situation of certain death for no reason. THAT is what he should trust. His PC not going into the fight was not him playing his PC, it was him over reacting as usual to any sort of challenge.

My brother, who games with us as well, said it best. He told the whiny player, "Geez man, I bet on your way over here today you were like, 'Man... I HOPE there isn't any challenging encounters today...' " And I had to laugh because that's how he is EVERY battle that is a challenge. He throws a fit, says they are all going to die, says it's too tough, or something to that effect. He'll even challenge me in front of everyone saying I shouldn't have done this encounter. Every time. Maybe you need him to play with your group for a time.

You attempted to mitigate the circumstances so that the participants of a 19th level, 16th level, and 15th level casters, along with two big monsters, was actually a reasonable challenge for the party. That's fine. But if the PCs take a look at that fight and balk, don't blame them:

I don't. Not for balking. I got aggravated that the whiny player made a big stink, brought everyone down, and threatened to end the adventure by walking away, knowing full well that he COULDN'T walk away since there was one way out. He didn't even wait to give the STORY a chance.

you made it look really, really tough, and that's what they're reacting to.

That is what HE reacted to. The others were fine.

You mean presenting them with an Encounter Level 18 challenge isn't common for your 10th level party? I'd hope so.

Like I said, this particular scene was important to future events and required a high level opponent.

Doesn't matter. A character's spell buffs are part of his powers and resources. That they're still up doesn't make them any more powerful, it just means they've decided to use a part of their resources to make the fight a little easier.

It made them more equal to the challenge. The other players were confident enough to keep playing the game without threatening to walk off.

Original Post
While exploring an ancient Netherese Ruins the place was guarded by multiple Iron Golems. His character, a spellcaster, clearly was useless offensively as the Iron Golems are immune to most forms of magic. Thus, he was delegated to the role of the "buffer", having to cast spells that suped up the fighters. Throughout the entire dungeon there were spots still guarded by Iron Golems.

What matters is that I didn't arrange for the place to be filled with more than constructs... at least until the end of the dungeon where they did end up fighting undead... only then the undead had spell resistance that was hard to overcome, so he complained about that too.​

This does not sound like "2 Iron Golems and the rest were undead that he could battle". Which of your descriptions is more consistent with what happened?

Let me make this clear. There were two dungeons in this campaign. The first one had two Iron Golems. He complained about them then. A big fit, complaining about how I DM because I used Iron Golems. This was a challenge in front of the group and it makes me feel like I am not doing my job right, especially when I was the only one willing to DM and I put a lot of work into trying to make this fun.

The second dungeon was the Netherese one, and this one had more Iron Golems, just like I said. However I also said two other things. 1. I went back and changed a lot of the IG's over to Helmed Horrors. 2. I also said that the 19th Level Wizard ALSO fought through the dungeon and he faced a lot of those IG's and HH's, clearing many of them out for when the PC's followed him in.