Sometimes an encounter doesn't cater to a particular character's strengths. It happens. Sometimes, the entire party may be unprepared for an encounter and needs to make a hasty retreat to arm themselves with their newfound knowledge.
But a couple of invisible stalkers? Go cry, gunslinger.
I've found players are always quick to say a fight was unfair if they couldn't think of a way to contribute, this is irrespective of how well the fight was handled or other conditions
Agreed. Some players feel that an encounter is unfair if the enemy is flying, and the PC is not optimized for ranged combat (perhaps doesn't even have a ranged weapon.) Other players of spellcasters feel that encounters are unfair when the enemies have spell resistance.
I've found players are always quick to say a fight was unfair if they couldn't think of a way to contribute, this is irrespective of how well the fight was handled or other conditions.
I would have to agree that one of the most universal ways to make any player unhappy is to put them in a situation where they feel like they have no way to meaningfully impact an encounter's outcome.
However, there are a lot of different reasons a player can end up feeling that way. Sometimes, they're missing a dozen obvious options, or just aren't properly prepared for things they ought to know are common issues at their current level of play. Level eight characters should be aware that invisibility is a thing their enemies have access to, and have some method of dealing with it.
I'd say a good rule of thumb with encounter design is that every player/character should have at least one fairly direct and common-sense option for contributing. It doesn't have to be an option that plays to the character's strengths (making the melee guy pull out a bow for a bit is fair) but it shouldn't render a character effectively useless.
I brought up the "common-sense" angle for a reason. Simply put, if after the encounter the player asks "Well what was I supposed to do, the DM should be able to give a reasonable answer in a single short sentence. I've known a few GMs who were expected players to follow some really long and complex logic chains, usually involving some random minor detail that was mentioned in passing three sessions ago.
My personal standard for unfair encounter was set a while back by "CR = APL + 7 Lich with Greater Invisibility and Nondetection Casts Circle of Death (Made Persistent with a Rod) in the surprise round."
I'd say a good rule of thumb with encounter design is that every player/character should have at least one fairly direct and common-sense option for contributing. It doesn't have to be an option that plays to the character's strengths (making the melee guy pull out a bow for a bit is fair) but it shouldn't render a character effectively useless.
I disagree on the specifics, even though I agree with you completely on the general theory that meaningful choices/contributions are the very heart of roleplaying.
However I don't think that every encounter should allow every PC the opportunity to contribute by default, as it risks making the choices they made during character creation and the choices that brought them to face that encounter less meaningful.
(Although this may not apply as much to games which are less sandbox style now that I think about it)
Your player is whining, end of story. Sometimes you are either not meant to win, or can't win due to unforeseen events. He/she sounds like a young kid that uses to much out of game knowledge to trivialize content for their own ego boosting reasons. Move on. Next time, they will have something to counter invisible monsters and it won't be because of meta-gaming.
|
I've found players are always quick to say a fight was unfair if they couldn't think of a way to contribute, this is irrespective of how well the fight was handled or other conditions.
This is so very true. Any time a player doesn't see the big picture or doesn't think of a way to deal with a situation, many are quick to cry foul. While every can get frustrated at something during a game, some players just take anything that they can't instantly solve with a roll of the dice as an unfair challenge personally directed at them.
I'd say a good rule of thumb with encounter design is that every player/character should have at least one fairly direct and common-sense option for contributing. It doesn't have to be an option that plays to the character's strengths (making the melee guy pull out a bow for a bit is fair) but it shouldn't render a character effectively useless.I disagree on the specifics, even though I agree with you completely on the general theory that meaningful choices/contributions are the very heart of roleplaying.
However I don't think that every encounter should allow every PC the opportunity to contribute by default, as it risks making the choices they made during character creation and the choices that brought them to face that encounter less meaningful.
(Although this may not apply as much to games which are less sandbox style now that I think about it)
I would say it's might be alright to have the odd encounter where character gets cut out, but that kind of thing ought to be done very sparingly. People don't play tabletop RPGs to sit around bored watching everyone else have fun.
Obviously, a character who has no points in any social skills isn't going to be doing much during a social encounter, and the guy with a -8 to stealth after armor check penalties won't be much good if the party is sneaking around, but even then the GM should try to have something for them to do beyond "Sit there and try not to bother the rest of us while we have fun without you."
