D&D 5E Is it fair to cast save-or-suck spells on the players?

[GMforPowergamers]

All we actually know is that in the situation where he walks away from the game to see a movie, the DM didn't expend effort to make sure there was a way to bring back a character without a player nor did the other players try to pursue a route that could do it.

Many DMs would have worked out ways to get him back, but if he's made it clear he's leaving the game for the night working out something to get his character back in when he's not there would actually be more disruptive.

I currently have a player who's out because of the birth of a child. We wrote his character out of the story and neither me as DM nor the other players are looking to bring his character back early. Same thing here - he's made it clear he's not going to be at the session, start of the next session is the right time to bring him back, not early.

what are you talking about???

Many DMs would have worked out ways to get him back, but if he's made it clear he's leaving the game for the night working out something to get his character back in when he's not there would actually be more disruptive.

is not at all what happened, and not what I said happned, it some other alternat world were you add crazy fact to make me look wrong...

let start with what you say we know

All we actually know is that in the situation where he walks away from the game to see a movie,

that's not what I said at all...you took away vital info...like me KNOWING MY CHARACTER COULD NOT COME BACK

 

[see]

Casting them on players? Definitely unfair.

But, casting them on PCs? Sauce for the goose.

 

[Roadkill101]

Yes it is fair. Your players use similar tactics against your monsters when able to, right? Turn-about being fair game and all.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes it is fair. Your players use similar tactics against your monsters when able to, right? Turn-about being fair game and all.

this mentality makes perfect sense, but I wonder if you really thought that through. The DM can loose 400 characters to SoS/SoD, and move on to play the next encounter...a player who looses 1 has to start making a new character before they can play again...or worse (like both my example and the OP) if your character is sidelined somehow out of action but still alive with nothing to do...

again even just being 'teleported' back to town could cause this.

 

[jgsugden]

Please, please, PLEASE go read the link to the original thread in the first post.

The players could have gotten everything they wanted and left peacefully, but instead decided to challenge a storied and epic githyanki lich-queen in her stronghold after knowing how much was against them.

And then, the DM came on these forums and asked if he should hold back and was given the advice time and time again to go fori. The players have unambiguously shown you they want a deadly and epic battle, to do otherwise is to undermine their agency.

There is literally no way it could be further from DM power trip to stomp on players. The DM gave a peaceful full-success option including dropping the illusion so the players would know all of what they were facing, and the players said "hold my beer, let's do this".

There is often more to a story than you hear from one storyteller. When one focuses on the facts in a story rather than the message the storyteller attempts to convey, they can find conflicts. Here, there was an overwhelming force against the PCs and the DM was questioning whether it was OK in the session that he had just run, not the session he was about to run, for the monsters to have used so many spells where one die roll determined success or failure for a PC.

Overwhelming force with save or suck spells available in many forms and from many casters.

The subsequent posts seem to be more about denying crticism than relating back to the original post.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I think that in this situation it's best to give all monsters and NPCs improvised weapons, no spellcasting except maybe prestidigitation if they're an archmage, and a stat array of 8 8 8 8 8 8. That should 'balance' things so PCs won't run crying

As to the OP 's situation: as other have mentioned, it seems to me that the issue isn't if the spell or ability is FAIR, it's whether everyone at the table can enjoy themselves. If it's in the book, it's fair. Hell, if it's part of the DM's campaign setting - wherever that may be - it's fair.

But sidelining a PC half an hour into a 5 hour session with no chance of escape is crap. I'd have left too. Why sit there if I can't DO anything? Seriously.

A DM has unlimited license and capability to cheat, and a responsibility to make sure everyone is given the chance to enjoy themselves. I have no issue with save-or-suck spells (or even save-or-die spells, in some circumstances), but there's a difference between disabling a character and disabling a player. The former is fine, the latter is as I said crap.

I hope it was a good movie. I also hope that either your DM learned something or you can find a new game.

 

[Sadras]

How is a 25 year old DM with almost a decade of experience a "young" DM? Good grief. That's a heck of a lot older and more experienced than a whole boatload of DM's.

We will have to disagree on this point. I don't think 8 years cuts it.

And, I'd point out that he mentioned that he asked if he could get back in the game in the initial post. Here's the relevant bit: All the relevant information is right there.

No it isn't.

I once got told I was being a jerk for leaving a game early... the reason I left was I was imprisoned (per spell) and PCs had no way to get me out. (snip) The DM said it was rude I should have stayed (I did stick around for about 15 mins after I was imprisoned) The thing was I was the only spellcaster, I knew no one could free me.

Okay what do we know from this:
1. He was imprisoned;
2. PCs had no way of getting him out;
3. His character was the only spellcaster;
4. He waited 15 minutes;
5. He was called a jerk for leaving the game early;
6. DM said his actions were rude.

Nowhere does he say he asked the DM if he could get out or if he would get out before the end of the session.
From 15 minutes of play as a player I have no idea what twist a DM might do in the story.

He knew he was stuck and wouldn't be able to participate for the rest of the session AND HE WAS RIGHT. Let's not forget here, that he was 100% right. And everyone jumped on him for being a bad player for politely excusing himself.

Yes he was right, and that DM roleplays the same even now according to GM.
However, how was I to know from that first post the DM didn't have a plan to release the character in a surprising twist but decided to ignore it since PG left the table.

Yup, I'll plant my flag on this hill every time. DM's need to get over themselves.

Putting aside your personal issues with DMs, the bottomline Hussar is that this was an example of a poor DM (who acts the same way even now).

Yes, GM was right for leaving that table/group. I agree with both you and PG there.
BUT Personally, I would have waited till the end of the session because its courteous. And given the DM the benefit of the doubt. If he failed (like he did), I would then talk to him after the game and offer some constructive criticism. I would evaluate the feeback from that and then decide if I'd be sticking around. Again in all fairness to PG, he was in his teens and its easy for me to say that now.

DMs go to a lot of trouble to create/host an enjoyable game, but they are only human, they sometimes make poor judgements for the group. Players are allowed to offer advice to encourage and improve the fun at the table. Sometimes its a case of differing playstyles, but other times its a case of inexperience.

Lastly, I don't believe its right to use a poor DM example to make one's case against save vs suck and refer to it the mechanic as 'failure design'. You do, again we will have to disagree.

Did you in early 2000's play in CT...

Yes but I wasn't in that game

If a player's character is taken out of play for an extended pearid by any means, it is not fun. There are work arounds a DM can come up with (give them an NPC, let them get an item to get them back in, have magic fail) but once they do so it ends the problem (problem being the extended time out of play) but doesn't mean the problem isn't there, just that they worked around it.

Say the party was 4th level, and the character was sidelined due to a save vs suck spell for one combat (10 minutes) are you ok with that?

Say the party is 10th level, and the character was sidelined due to a save vs suck spell for (40 minutes) are you ok with that?

Honestly, I think most of us here on Enworld would be ok with above. It doesn't happen every combat and its part of the risk/reward.

Okay let us bring it back to the OP.
The party is high level so there would be many movings parts and the choices even more intricate with the risks being as high as they are. Combat therefore you'd expect to be generally longer. The session was designed around this encounter, much forethought and planning was done beforehand. So now combat is a few hours, especially for a climactic battle such as this...why do you now call it a problem?

Yes it would be annoying as a player to be out of the combat, but I'd still have fun watching, advising and jesting with my mates and I would certainly prefer the DM to run the combat as best he could for the bad guys. I don't want any hollow victories. I definitely wouldn't use an example of a bad DM to make my point vs save vs suck.

This is all subjective preference, like some of us prefer certain editions or various mechanics (save vs suck, resting, GWM).
It is like you're saying the rest of us who do enjoy it are having BadWrongFun

 

[schnee]

Yeah, I'm old enough that my tables tend to be married people with kids.

If we did have a big climactic battle that sidelined someone the whole session (I wouldn't, but let's just take that as a given and roll with it), and they said they needed to go because they'd rather go home and play with their kid than just sit here, I'd totally understand.

OR, if they had to juggle some schedules to make it, they honestly feel sitting around isn't fun, and they would score serious points with their husband/wife/S.O. by leaving to go hang with them, then... hell, wish them luck, and tell them to have a great time!

If they groused and left in a huff, yeah, that would be annoying. I mean, when you tussle with multiple spell casters, that is always a possibility. You know what you are in for. You are going after a legendary character, in their Lair, and the DM warned it might be a TPK. Don't moan. It could be any of us.

It's all in the delivery.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

We will have to disagree on this point. I don't think 8 years cuts it.

how many years do you think are needed to be considered experienced?

Okay what do we know from this:
1. He was imprisoned;
2. PCs had no way of getting him out;
3. His character was the only spellcaster;
4. He waited 15 minutes;
5. He was called a jerk for leaving the game early;
6. DM said his actions were rude.

yup imprisoned with no way out... you even acknowlade

PCs had no way of getting him out;

Nowhere does he say he asked the DM if he could get out or if he would get out before the end of the session.
From 15 minutes of play as a player I have no idea what twist a DM might do in the story.

however you have to add or make up the idea of said twist...

Yes but I wasn't in that game

ok, well it totally went that way so I just assumed..

Say the party was 4th level, and the character was sidelined due to a save vs suck spell for one combat (10 minutes) are you ok with that?

10 mins, no problem...in 3e with a lot of players that could be 1 combat round.

Say the party is 10th level, and the character was sidelined due to a save vs suck spell for (40 minutes) are you ok with that?

more of a problem then 10 mins, but hey less then an hour isn't that big a deal.

Honestly, I think most of us here on Enworld would be ok with above. It doesn't happen every combat and its part of the risk/reward.

I agree

This is all subjective preference, like some of us prefer certain editions or various mechanics (save vs suck, resting, GWM).
It is like you're saying the rest of us who do enjoy it are having BadWrongFun

no one on this side said anyone was having badwrong fun...that's your side

 

[Sadras]

how many years do you think are needed to be considered experienced?

Obviously we all develop at different rates. I think a DM closer to 30 or over a decade of DMing out of school are my benchmarks. Then again, these days with the internet people can grow faster as ideas are shared.

yup imprisoned with no way out... you even acknowlade
however you have to add or make up the idea of said twist...

It is not that, I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt to the DM. It is strange for an experienced DM to sideline a PC for an entire session without some sort of twist or having prepared it secretly and it has been agreed with the player. The exception to the above being in the instance of the opening post which everyone at the table realises this is going to be a lengthy climactic battle and a combination or dice and strategy will decide the outcome. Ofcourse should a PC be sidelined that is where creative DMing kicks in to ensure the player does not get bored, but that does not mean the character cannot suffer save-vs-suck.

Poor DMs probably do this kind of thing (sideline PCs) often without second thought.

ok, well it totally went that way so I just assumed..

Well funny enough it was around that time, and I happened to only do a guest appearance (1-2 sessions) in that campaign. So I was not aware of all the details - so maybe there was a gf NPC, I just didn't know about it. If the DM's name is Dan - then I probably know you.

10 mins, no problem...in 3e with a lot of players that could be 1 combat round.

more of a problem then 10 mins, but hey less then an hour isn't that big a deal.

I agree

We are perhaps more in agreement than not on this issue.