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

[Seramus]

1. (a) The "consequences r lyfe!" crowd v. (b) the "playerz just wanna have fun" crowd. In essence, (a) believes that the game is more fun with the possibility of failure, and (b) believes the game is more fun when you are, um, playing it.

But those are not mutually exclusive choices. You can have the possibility of failure without sidelining (except in the case of Death).

Option 1-
Players can be sidelined; it is good, but not necessary, for the DM to have options available for the player being sidelined.

That's not the way it reads. If Option 2 is "Sideline, but Have Alternatives" and Option 3 is "You can have consequences without sidelining" then Option 1 is logically "Sideline without alternatives".

Having Option 1 Being "Maybe, Kinda, Possibly Have Alternatives If You Feel Like It" is... Not what I am getting when I read your opening post, especially since you presented your argument as if you could never have consequences without sidelining.

 

[Oofta]

Sometimes bad stuff happens, and getting turned into a statue is a possible consequence. While it normally gets resolved quickly, if it doesn't I do try to give the player something else to do. Run some of my monsters, give him an npc, wash my car, something.

So it really depends on how long the downtime is. A few rounds? Suck it up. Hours on end? Ask not what your PC can do, ask what you can do for your DM.

While I'm not a big Michael Baye fan, I do love gnomes. Especially rapier wielding gnomish paladins.

I think I shall never see anything as lovely as a rapier wielding gnome
Nothing else calls to my heart, nothing else can brighten my soul
It is the siren call of the rapier wielding gnome that brings me home
Even when I am merely responding to some silly and lame poll
I cannot resist the call, surely to temptation I once more fall
Is it the high squeaky voice, the twiddling of the mustache that calls me so?
The beady little eyes, the generous nose, are these the source of the call?
No, it is none of those...it is the flashing holy rapier with that holy glow!​

Hmmmm ... maybe I should leave the poetry to Mr Baye.

Oh, and I promise this is the last time I bring up rapier wielding gnomish paladins. Today. Or at least for the next few hours.

 

[ExploderWizard]

56% of voters (so far) think it's okay to force a player to sit around not playing for hours?

Option 1 seems like the one where the DM does nothing. The player just sits there.
Option 2 seems like the one where the DM offers alternatives like playing monsters.
Option 3 seems like the one where the DM uses different punishments.

And Option 1 is winning?

Option one is winning because a large part of the player base still enjoys playing a game. A game sometimes means losing and part of losing some games means temporary elimination. Ever play dodge ball? When you get tagged with the ball, then you are eliminated until the end of the game.

That being said as a DM, I try and make it point to offer a sidelined player options if the amount of time their character is out of action is extended. In this way, the character still feels the effects of the loss but the player has something to do.

Sometimes, the sidelining of a character can be the source of great amusement. Just a couple sessions ago in a game that I am participating in as a player, my friend's raging barbarian got hit by a hold person spell. We were fighting a drider and gobs of wolf spider allies. The barbarian was unable to make the saving throw for about 8 rounds. He was nearly surrounded by spiders having a free for all biting the hell out of him round after round. We were all laughing and asking the DM how many bites it would take to turn him into spiderman. He got bit so many times that his character can now drink wolf spider venom like ale.

Stuff happens. You can either get an attitude and cast a cloud over the whole game, or laugh it off and be a good sport.

 

[Daniel Van Patten]

With all the respect in the world, I do feel like my argument from the other thread is being misrepresented here. There are tons of great consequences for failure that don't involve sidelining, and the OP doesn't seem to represent that. It kind of reads like option three is completely free of consequences.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

56% of voters (so far) think it's okay to force a player to sit around not playing for hours?

Option 1 seems like the one where the DM does nothing. The player just sits there.
Option 2 seems like the one where the DM offers alternatives like playing monsters.
Option 3 seems like the one where the DM uses different punishments.

And Option 1 is winning?

It's not a punishment. It's a consequence. It's a thing that happens, as a result of your choices as a player and the way that the world works. It's not something that the DM inflicts on players.

Another way to ask this question would be, "Is it okay for PC actions to have lasting consequences?"

Option 1 is that actions always have consequences, even if sometimes those consequences are negative.
Option 2 is that actions should only have consequences if they are positive, and the DM is obligated to protect the players from negative consequences.
Option 3 is that actions should never have consequences, and the outcome will always be positive regardless of what they do.

It's not surprising that most DMs respect their players enough to allow them to fail.

 

[Seramus]

Option one is winning because a large part of the player base still enjoys playing a game. A game sometimes means losing and part of losing some games means temporary elimination. Ever play dodge ball? When you get tagged with the ball, then you are eliminated until the end of the game.

Yeah, but that doesn't have to exist. I mean, there are definitely some players who really enjoy sitting and watching the events of the game whether they are playing or not. But for those players who would prefer to be in the action in some capacity, even a diminished or distorted capacity, theres... just no need for temporary elimination. Not for any great length of time. Not for HOURS like the previous thread was discussing.

It's not a punishment. It's a consequence. It's a thing that happens, as a result of your choices as a player and the way that the world works. It's not something that the DM inflictson players.

All three options have consequences.

The question is whether or not sidelining someone for an extended period of time is acceptable.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yeah, but that doesn't have to exist. I mean, there are definitely some players who really enjoy sitting and watching the events of the game whether they are playing or not. But for those players who would prefer to be in the action in some capacity, even a diminished or distorted capacity, theres... just no need for temporary elimination. Not for any great length of time. Not for HOURS like the previous thread was discussing.
All three options have consequences.

The question is whether or not sidelining someone for an extended period of time is acceptable.

With regard to elimination, it is the PC I'm referring to not the player. No is talking about making the player go sit in a corner for hours. With a character out of action, I prefer that a player play an NPC or a monster or something. I would never ask a player to remain but sit silent and watch. That's crap.

 

[Seramus]

With regard to elimination, it is the PC I'm referring to not the player. No is talking about making the player go sit in a corner for hours. With a character out of action, I prefer that a player play an NPC or a monster or something. I would never ask a player to remain but sit silent and watch. That's crap.

Asking the player to play an NPC or a Monster is most strongly represented by Option 2. And in the original thread, which this one branched off, the player in question was given no other options. So he left the game and saw a movie.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[The Crimson Binome]

All three options have consequences.

The question is whether or not sidelining someone for an extended period of time is acceptable.

If you charge a mindflayer, and you get mindblasted in the face, then the consequence of your decision is that you get sidelined until recovery. If something else happens, other than that, then it's a meta-game consequence of the DM taking pity on one player at the expense of the rest of the table.

Meta-gaming is always bad. It is always a violation of the basic tenets of role-playing. Sometimes, occasionally, it may be preferable to the alternatives. You really need to examine it on a case-by-case basis, but as a good default position, sidelining a player for ten minutes while they're stunned is generally okay and sidelining a player for six hours when their PC dies is less okay.