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

[Iry]

Really? That's why the thread was created? Let's ask the person who created this thread!

"Self, why did you create this thread?"

"Well, self, I created this thread because the other thread had devolved into arguments, and I was genuinely curious as to how other people played! I said, let's have a poll to get the pulse of enworld, and say .... hmmm... 'What does everyone think about sidelining players?' And that way, instead of focusing on a particular anecdote shared by one person, it could become a discussion about how people actually run/play at their tables."

But then again, maybe I was lying to myself. I never know!

To be fair, I don't think you understood the argument from the other thread, which explains why this Poll is worded so strangely, and why your replies keep referencing dying/losing without referencing sitting out of the game for hours. Which is a real headscratcher for me, because I know you wrote about 'sidelining for a signifigant amount of time' in your opening post, but you don't bring it up much in your later posts.

 

[CydKnight]

You won't do it because you can't. I mean look, I get what you are saying about people learning differently, but at least admit to yourself, if not to the rest of us that attempting to connect two unrelated events(playing and PC creation after the game) was a lame way to represent that.

Also, learn what a Strawman is.

Of course I can't because it didn't happen. I admit that you think it's a lame way to represent that. I simply offered a story related to the OP and provided my own personal observation of it so I'm not sure why you continue to bash it. You don't agree and I get that. What I don't get is that you can't just state that and move on.

straw man [strô man] NOUN

1.an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

It was pretty clear to me that you wanted me to speculate in a way that would make it easier for you to discount my original point since you were having a pretty rough time doing so based on what I originally posted. That speculation would have misrepresented that original point in my opinion thereby creating a strawman so I chose not to play. I suppose it was a little confusing for you (understandable after re-reading my last post) to comprehend since I would have been creating a strawman to be used against myself when traditionally a strawman would be used to argue against the opinions of others.

 

[Jester David]

Please excuse the caps, but I feel like some people keep missing the point.

Land on a couple snakes? You may not win, BUT YOU ARE STILL PLAYING.
Sent backwards in Candyland? You may not win, BUT YOU ARE STILL PLAYING.
Lost some Catan resources? You may not win, BUT YOU ARE STILL PLAYING.

You died in Diablo HC? You have to press a few buttons to make a new character, BUT YOU ARE STILL PLAYING.

The only example that comes close is repeatedly being sent to Jail in Monopoly, and in my anecdotal experience, even when I was sent to jail four times in an hour it was still for less than 10 minutes each.

What about when you go bankrupt in Monopoly? Or lose your armies in Risk?
There are LOTS of games that keep going to the last man standing.

It's not ideal to sideline a player. Not is it ideal to miss for an entire session because your dice hate you, but I don't think missing should be removed from the game.
If we removed everything that left one player bored and uninvolved at the table there wouldn't be much left in the game...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Iry]

First, while I'm not about punishing players for "making mistakes" or overly penalizing people, if the response to death is a new character of the exact same level and gear just spawns it sure trivializes death.
"My character died? Cool! Now I can try that new warlock/paladin build without the awkwardness of low levels."
Doubly so if the replacement character is a carbon copy.

Second, it's silly in a dungeon. Why is there suddenly a person in the dungeon that hadn't been opened in centuries?
And it's always weird when the player characters meet a random person and suddenly trust them with their lives. They're super suspicious of everyone they meet ever, but rando the fighter in the dungeon is cool.

Plenty of storytellers use other penalties upon death, like level loss or loot loss. That's certainly a conversation for another thread (and there are several cool threads about it on this forum). But it doesn't mean you have to force a player to not play D&D for several hours. If you know he's fine being a watcher, that's cool. But if he's not, he can run a hireling, play a monster, play whatever NPC might be in the area, or even roleplay someone's sentient magic weapon. Whatever is handy and convenient.

I mean, there are sooooo many options. So many neat and fun things a DM can offer. A player might be a total grump and hate every one of them, but that's probably an outlier situation. Why do they have to sit there if they don't like it?

 

[Iry]

I would suggest reading back through the other thread, which I participated in prior to this thread, before saying that I didn't understand the argument that I was making and responding to.

You're absolutely right, and I retract my claim that you do not seem to understand the argument from the other thread. I apologize.

But, since you do understand what the argument from the other thread is about, why do your recent posts seem to have so little to do with sitting out of the game for hours? Those are all great quotes of yours! Wonderful ideas! But you were just talking about people dying in Diablo HC like people disliking death was the topic of conversation, when it wasn't. The topic is being sidelined for an extended period of time. They can overlap on the Venn diagram, but as your own quotes from the other thread show, there are tons of great amazing notbadtotallycool things you can do to engage and entertain a player who might otherwise have to sit out for hours.

And what was all that stuff about consequences? I think that was really misleading.

 

[robus]

But, since you do understand what the argument from the other thread is about, why do your recent posts seem to have so little to do with sitting out of the game for hours? Those are all great quotes of yours! Wonderful ideas! But you were just talking about people dying in Diablo HC like people disliking death was the topic of conversation, when it wasn't. The topic is being sidelined for an extended period of time. They can overlap on the Venn diagram, but as your own quotes from the other thread show, there are tons of great amazing notbadtotallycool things you can do to engage and entertain a player who might otherwise have to sit out for hours.

For a second there I thought things were going to get super meta , but then I understood your meaning. Carry on...

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[robus]

To me it seems quite simple. Sidelining a character for an extended period, fine, sure, happens. Sidelining a player? Not ok, because it breaks the social contract of the table, which is players show up to participate in the game. If the DM is not providing game playing time (in some form or other) to every player at the table then they are not holding up their end up the bargain.