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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[robus]

I'm genuinely curious - do you believe that this is a universal social compact, or just specific to certain tables?

For example, my main table (despite ... more elderly players) has an agreement that we don't do sexual themes. I don't think this is a universal compact. There are also agreement regarding pizza; I would hesitate to apply that to gluten-free tables.

Yes, I think it is generally understood that when you are invited to play in a game that you will actually be able to participate and not just sit and watch others play. That's called spectating which is something else entirely .

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Iry]

Yet some people choose it. Because the playstyle is different. When you're playing HC, you can't just worry about DPS, you have to worry about surviving. Your builds will be different, your strategies will be different, and the game experience will be different. Some people like that, some people don't. And that's fine.

That doesn't relate to the argument, though. When you die in Diablo HC you are not forced to sit and stare at a blank screen, or watch other people play Diablo on youtube (equivalent of watching), or in any way, shape, or form locked out of playing the game for hours. You press a few buttons and get back into the action. Yes, you're a brand new character but being forced to not play Diablo is never part of the equation unless the servers are down.

You have the echoes of that in 5e. Yes, death is pretty darn uncommon (compared to the past). Save or die is now save or suck. But even so, the way the game is run, the implicit social compact of the table, will shape the decisions of the characters. If you're into heroic fantasy, of winning, of knowing that every encounter has been calibrated to ensure that the party will be able to win it with good resource management and that the monsters will not sideline the players, you will prepare and play one way. If you are playing a different style of campaign, where the players (and the characters) are unsure of this, then the players and the characters will prepare and behave differently."

That doesn't seem to have anything to do with forcing the player to not play D&D for hours, since we know the DM has plenty of tools and options to keep the player in the action in SOME capacity even if you die.

Different tables have different approaches to challenges. As I stated in the other thread, I don't run my main table the same way as I do my introductory games for kids. My main table plays a cautious, prepared approach, because they know that it is possible that the character will be removed from play for a good part of the gaming session. And they are okay with that. It's like Diablo HC. They enjoy knowing that there are no safety nets, and while I once let them run monsters, it is their preference to kvetch at the table when they are knocked out. If it's permanent (or near permanent), then we look into having another character join the party- in the future.

Different tables have different preferences. Of course the players at my main table don't want to lose, but for them, it makes the game more fun overall. Not everyone agrees, or plays that way. Not everyone has to play Diablo III on HC, and that's fine too.

They are not related. These are two separate things that only sometimes overlap, and that is entirely within the power of the DM to prevent. Losing or Dying does NOT mean the player has to sit out of the game for several hours. A DM might make the choice that being forced out of the game for several hours is how things work at his table, and that is his preference and power, but in no way is that a requirement. A DM can get you back into the game in some capacity (many ideas previously mentioned by both you and many other posters) as easily as cutting a fart or taking you aside for a minute to explain the situation.

People die. People lose. People fail. But being sidelined for hours is not a consequence of dying, losing, or failing. The DM chooses to leave the player sidelined for hours.

Now, a DM might not be able to think of any great ideas on the spot, and that kind of thing happens. But it's also something they can fix for future sessions by thinking of things between sessions or just looking up threads like this.

 

[robus]

If you are invited to play on a soccer (futbol) team, is it reasonable that you will never have to sit on the bench?

What about a baseball team?

If my table doesn't abide by your universal social compact, are we doing it wrong?

If it's a game with friends then no, I don't expect to be benched - everyone gets to play.

And of course you can play in any way you want, but I don't think I'm out of line to suggest that most people, when showing up for a game they've been invited to play, actually expect to play

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Fanaelialae]

So ... you do realize that there have now been several conversations about this topic. You are aware that other people play differently than you do. And you are calling the way that other people enjoy playing "punishment" and "elitism."

It's certainly fair to say that you wouldn't enjoy playing the same way that others play; D&D embraces a variety of playstyles! But using pejorative terms to describe the playing of other people is unnecessarily dismissive, and is unlikely to sway people to agree with you.

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but I have followed both threads.

There HAVE been posters saying, "If you don't sideline the player for an extended period of time he will never learn", which is punishment by any definition by my reckoning.

There HAVE been posters who have said about players who don't like to be sidelined, "Wah wah wah, grow up". That is the elitism I am referring to.

I'm not calling badwrongfun on every DM who had ever sidelined a player (as I've stated before, I use sidelining within moderation myself), as you seem to be suggesting. I feel that you are seriously mischaracterizing what I am saying.

 

[robus]

After reviewing this thread and the poll, would you acknowledge that there are people (if not "most," then at least "many," or "some") that might disagree with you?

Yes, they might - but there does seem to be some ongoing confusion between sidelining characters and players (which is why I made my original simple declaration).

And with that I'll leave it there.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

somehow looseing my character for about a month or so (several levels of play) me not having anything to do for hours until this session ends and I can roll infront of the DM to make a new character is being compaired to being stuned for 2d4 rounds...

Depending on the edition, rolling up a new character and getting it introduced into the game could easily take less time than it would take to play out eight rounds of combat. If you only play for four hours, once per month, then eight rounds of combat could easily be a month worth of play. All of these things are comparable, which is what makes discussion so difficult.