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

[S'mon]

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.

I don't really find it surprising at all. As GM I'm not constantly thinking about how to bring players back into game, in some editions like 4e a fight may take a whole session, and in 4e or high level 3e & 5e it may not seem practical to create a new PC at the table.
I think if the GM has nothing for the player to do, it's ok for the player to leave. Neither should be resentful.

 

[Sadras]

I don't really find it surprising at all. As GM I'm not constantly thinking about how to bring players back into game, in some editions like 4e a fight may take a whole session, and in 4e or high level 3e & 5e it may not seem practical to create a new PC at the table.

Ok, I'm not seeing where we are disagreeing.

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.

Did you purposefully not include my very next line? I may perhaps have been unclear, but I was referring to high level play where combats have been known to be lengthy.

 

[Hussar]

It is like you're saying the rest of us who do enjoy it are having BadWrongFun

Umm, we're not calling you rude, or calling for you to be ejected from games. In fact, we're not commenting on you at all. OTOH, you have repeatedly stated that GM4PG was rude, agreed with others who said that his actions were wrong and certainly didn't disagree with the notion that he should be ejected from a group.

Who's BadWrongFunning?

Look, it doesn't bother you to ride the pines for a session? Great. Fantastic. But, please don't presume to judge someone else just because they don't. Just because you don't have a problem with it, doesn't mean that everyone else should be just like you.

I mean, these were your posts in this thread:

I agree with [MENTION=6788862]JonnyP71[/MENTION] the DM was correct. You as a player might have no idea what might be planned ahead. Sticking around for only 15 minutes is bad form.

Note, you were agreeing with the statement that "The DM was correct". IOW, you flat out stated that GM4PG was in the wrong. I mean, [MENTION=6788862]JonnyP71[/MENTION] calls GM4PG ignorant and rude, and I'm missing where you have contradicted that. You later actually double down and claim that it's because of a Bad DM (TM) who is too young (somehow 25ish year old DM with nearly a decade of gaming experience is too young? - ).

The fact that the game allows for this kind of thing apparently doesn't matter. GM4PG was simply showing where this kind of thing can be a problem - sidelining a player for too long. Not that he ever claimed that any sidelining is unacceptable. Just that there might be a problem if you're not careful.

Instead, we have a detailed back and forth dragging out and examining every single statement the poor bugger makes to check that he's not some self entitled gamer who needs a spanking.

DM's truly, truly need to get over themselves.

 

[Daniel Van Patten]

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?

If you have a player that works 60 hours a week, has a spouse and kid, and only gets about 4-6 hours to hang out and have fun with their friends... why would any DM want to make them sit there doing nothing for 40 minutes?

 

[JonnyP71]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]

And based on the limited information we had at our disposal at the time, I stand by my statement.

It was poor form though for the DM to not allow him some other form of involvement in the session, but those details came out several pages after my initial reply.

As a DM, if a player got up and walked out because their character was sidelined for a while, that player would not be returning in a hurry. However, as a DM, I would ensure the player in question had some way of being involved in the session - eg playing an NPC, or creating a spare character to enter the game as soon as would be suitable. It only takes a minute or 2 to observe the necessary rolls - which hardly breaks the game for everyone else, the player can then work out the other character details by themself.

 

[S'mon]

Ok, I'm not seeing where we are disagreeing.



Did you purposefully not include my very next line? I may perhaps have been unclear, but I was referring to high level play where combats have been known to be lengthy.

Your reference to a climactic battle seems much narrower than what I was thinking of.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[hejtmane]

Me personally I will use save or suck spells it is life and makes the game challenging and have consequences. I also require every player to have a backup character (different from their current player) for when these type of situations arrive and I work them into the story line in that session. This way they are not sitting there twiddling their thumbs; now they may have to wait a bit to get worked into the story but nothing that makes them bored out of their gull all session.

 

[Caliban]

@Hussar

And based on the limited information we had at our disposal at the time, I stand by my statement.

The limited information being "No way for the players to get his character back." and that he called after the movie and confirmed that there was still no way of getting his character back? That information, included in his very first post?

That would seem to be all the info you would need to understand why he would leave the game and enjoy some time with his girlfriend - and that he was correct in his initial assessment of the situation.

What YOU would do as a DM doesn't enter into it. You weren't there. You weren't the DM.

Not sure why you are so intent on playing the blame game about an incident that happened over a decade ago in a game you weren't involved in.

 

[Daniel Van Patten]

So this is an interesting question, if you unpack it. Phrased this way, you end up with a Monty Haul campaign, where the DM is nothing more than an enabler to the PCs. And, again, if that's what the table wants, then that's fine.

I know you intended well, but you accidentally created a straw man. The situation I'm objecting to is a player doing nothing for 40+ minutes, not a player facing challenges. Because I don't think it should be a given that a challenge has to include spells/abilities that result in a player doing nothing for an extended period of time. There have been plenty of great alternatives listed in this thread, which include using abilities that hinder or force additional complications on the player, or even asking if they would like to play monsters. None of which involve doing nothing.

So, if given a conscious choice between using spells and abilities that hinder or complicate a player's life but still allow action in some form, versus spells that make them do nothing for an extended period of time, why use the latter?

Is it really "cheating" if your NPCs use different spells/abilities?