D&D 5E Sidelining Players- the Good, the Bad, the Ugly, and the Poll

[OB1]

I voted #1, even though I don't sideline players as a DM, player decisions (and occasionally very unlucky dice) do.

 

[Seramus]

If the game is entertaining enough, "not playing" does not automatically mean "not enjoying" or "not having fun".

Sorry I missed your post earlier!

If the DM knows that the player is totally okay with watching, then there's no problem. But Option 1 is not limited to players who are totally okay with watching.

But running multiple characters is a really neat idea, for GMs who allow it. I've had good success in the multiple-character games I've run.

 

[Teemu]

I have a hard time believing that 60% of the folks answering the poll would be a-ok sidelining a player, possibly for hours.

I think the poll's just badly worded and people look at the word "player" and think, "Yeah, player characters should face consequences for their actions."

Does anyone actually think that player characters should NOT face consequences? I doubt it.

 

[Gadget]

I believe the example that resulted in the huge kerfuffle in the other thread involved the DM employing an extreme 'Gygaxian Gotcha', such that a 7th or 8th level PC failed a save on a trap on a Dungeon Door and suffered the effects of the Imprisonment spell. Unless it is a more 'Tomb of Horrors' style campaign where the players know what to expect going in, this would be a bit unusual in 5e. Most, put-the-PC-out-of-action effects in 5e (other than death) are fairly temporary until high level, and once PC obtain that level they usually have plenty of get-out-of-dodge tools in their collective tool belt as well.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I have a hard time believing that 60% of the folks answering the poll would be a-ok sidelining a player, possibly for hours.

I have a hard time believing that 40% of responders wouldn't be okay with sidelining a player, even for just ten minutes, unless they had a backup plan in place to prevent the player from getting bored. It's kind of presented as an all-or-nothing question, though.

 

[Teemu]

I have a hard time believing that 40% of responders wouldn't be okay with sidelining a player, even for just ten minutes, unless they had a backup plan in place to prevent the player from getting bored. It's kind of presented as an all-or-nothing question, though.

Yes, my point is that the poll is poorly worded. The first option at 60% would imply that you're fine with forcing a player to simply spectate the game for who knows how long without any way to participate. Option two is apparently supposed to be the option where you'll allow the player to participate in other ways, such as taking over NPCs or other temporary characters, or something along those lines.

Are 60% of the responders actually of the mind that it's cool to force a player to do nothing but spectate for hours? I really doubt that.

 

[Seramus]

I have a hard time believing that 40% of responders wouldn't be okay with sidelining a player, even for just ten minutes, unless they had a backup plan in place to prevent the player from getting bored. It's kind of presented as an all-or-nothing question, though.

The OP specified 'a significant period of time.'
Not just a mere 10 minutes.

For purposes of this thread, and this poll, sidelining a player means that that the player's character is no longer available to play for a significant period of time.

 

[Shiroiken]

Suck it up Buttercup; actions have consequences. Other playerstyles are fine, but not at my game. If I'm a player in a game that is more lenient, that's okay, but I'm likely to be less engaged.

Besides, nowadays there are more options of things to do while sidelined (smartphones would actually be good here, unlike every other time). Of course, I also prefer playing via VTT (Roll20), so you can do lots of other things while sidelined, since you're at your own house

 

[Seramus]

Besides, nowadays there are more options of things to do while sidelined (smartphones would actually be good here, unlike every other time). Of course, I also prefer playing via VTT (Roll20), so you can do lots of other things while sidelined, since you're at your own house

As a personal preference that is totally cool. But I don't think it should be okay in a general sense to sideline a player from playing D&D (for an extended period of time) because they have other things they can do to occupy themselves that involve not playing D&D.

Unless you've got two different games running simultaneously, or something

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The OP specified 'a significant period of time.'
Not just a mere 10 minutes.

Ten minutes is just about the minimum period of time that I would consider significant in this context, but it was never really defined. That's like one character getting dropped from a bugbear ambush, and the rest of the fight proceeding without incident while the one player looks on.

If you want to say that a period is only significant if it would be too harsh to make the player sit out for that long, then that's tautological.