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

[Lanefan]

Sometimes it's okay to look at something and say "For the average player, this might be bad for the hobby". Not that it would be bad for your specific group of consenting players who love that sort of thing, more power to you. But for the hobby as a whole.

Like permanent level loss. An individual table might love it, but it's bad for this particular hobby as a whole.

Speak for yourself.

Speak only for yourself.

What's bad for the hobby, IMO, is the steady decrease in negative events or consequences within the game...of which level loss is certainly one. Why is it bad, you ask? Because it leads to just that much more whining when something bad does happen, instead of bad things being just as much an accepted part of the game as good things.

Lan-"now get off my lawn"-efan

 

[Sadras]

If you're not having a good time and I'm DMing, why are you staying? Is it some sort of sense of obligation to the DM? For me, if you're not having fun at my table, I'd much, much rather you went and did something more fun. You owe me absolutely nothing. I am offering a game. If you aren't enjoying it, please, by all means, go do something more fun. If for some reason I've removed a character from play for an extended period of time, I'd probably tell the player flat out and offer to let the player go.

It's baffling to me that anyone would ever have any problems with a player who wasn't having a good time, politely excusing themselves and going off to do something else.

I don't believe anyone here would disagree with any of this.

@Sadras, you've repeatedly made a distinction between the notion that this is a playstyle thing and bad DMing.

Sure, because the play-experience provided GM4PG is just (no words)! I mean we are not talking two hours or a climactic battle like Charles had, we are talking about sessions! of nothing where the flashy DMPC stepped in some time later to rescue the character. Nevermind the rest of the stuff this DM disallows at the table. I don't like to speak badly about DM's, but this guy had the motherload of bad DMing techniques and what is worse is he still plays like this now.
If I cannot draw a distinction between this guy and anyone else...

To me, any DM who would sideline a player for an extended period of time (say 2 hours, although, to be honest, even 1 is probably pushing it) and then get expect that player to stay at the session and actually get angry or hurt or offended that the player politely bows out and goes off to do something else, is a bad DM.

I understand.
But to be clear you have a lot of and's in that sentence.
(1) Player is out for 2 hours; and
(2) DM expects player to stay; and
(3) DM gets angry/hurt/offended if player leaves.

I will agree with you, this is a bad DM.

EDIT: There are many assumptions on the above example. The most obvious being a talk between player and DM never happened.

 

[Lanefan]

Here's the thing about games I run. I like tactical wargaming. And I want to present a sense of reality - of verisimilitude - because I think it leads to better stories and more dramatic play. And to really get that across there needs to be consequences. HOWEVER - I also enjoy roleplay, and want to encourage my players to roleplay out character flaws and misconceptions about the game world from the POV of their respective characters because I think those too lead to better stories and more dramatic play. At least as long as these flaws don't get too obnoxious. But character flaws lead to problems and occasionally even character deaths.

Up to here I'm absolutely with you.

The last thing I would ever want to do is to punish a PLAYER for roleplaying out a CHARACTER's personal flaws. Being sidelined for too much time, IMO, has the potential to do just that.

I think here you're missing that the player, having built in those flaws etc., has probably done so in full knowledge that things might go sideways and that there might be times when either the character role-plays itself right out of the party, or dies out of it; and is ready for whatever consequences may arise.

To me, the social contract involves balancing face time / action between characters. I expect both as DM and player that face time is more or less roughly balanced between the players if one or more goes off on their own for some sort of side quest or errand. As a DM, if an individual character goes off and tries to pull an encounter that lasts too long, I start to ask the other players what they're up to or I start inventing encounters for them if they're being too passive. Because I don't think a session where a single or limited numbers of players take all the face time is fair or fun for the others. Same principle really applies to characters sidelined from in-game consequences. I try to speed things along so the sidelined players still get their own share of face time.

All good, though I don't worry about it so much on a session-to-session basis as I do on a longer-term basis. Also, my players are all aware that sometimes their character(s) might be out of action for a while, be it through their own misfortune or through someone else doing something alone or through a temporary party split.

Lan-"if the game's not just as entertaining to watch as to play, you're doing something wrong"-efan

 

[JonnyP71]

To me, any DM who would sideline a player for an extended period of time (say 2 hours, although, to be honest, even 1 is probably pushing it) and then get expect that player to stay at the session and actually get angry or hurt or offended that the player politely bows out and goes off to do something else, is a bad DM.

That someone would choose to stay is perfectly fine. But, leaving is also perfectly fine. The fact that a DM would get offended to the point of possibly consider booting the player from the group (which was at least one of the reactions from the other thread) is a DM I never, ever want to sit at a table with. Anyone who takes their game that seriously is someone I will not enjoy playing with.

That'll be me then. And the feeling is mutual btw.

If you care to read that section of the thread without the benefit of hindsight, you'll see that all the information regarding the DM being very pedantic about character creation, etc came out AFTER my comments.

But you know, I would get offended if a player got up and left if their character was sidelined for more than a few minutes, because it IS rude. The game is about the whole group, not just them. Though equally, as DM I would ensure I would get them involved again as soon as is possible - this might be 30 minutes, it might be 1-2 hours - we've had 20 minute breaks for food/refreshments and used that time to create new characters for example, or in another case a player took over the role of Strahd.

But if they wanted to go elsewhere for that time I would not make any effort to get them involved again - not then, nor in the future, because they are demonstrating that they don't care about the outcome if they themselves are not directly involved, which is an attitude I don't want at my table.

And yes, it may be selfish of me too - but if I do spend several evenings preparing, then yes, I expect at least a little bit of common courtesy in return.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Up to here I'm absolutely with you.
I think here you're missing that the player, having built in those flaws etc., has probably done so in full knowledge that things might go sideways and that there might be times when either the character role-plays itself right out of the party, or dies out of it; and is ready for whatever consequences may arise.

Of course they have. And I want to facilitate roleplaying flawed characters and/or perceptual limitations - at least as long we're not talking about someone making constantly and unrealistically suicidal or disposable characters - without withholding appropriate consequences but also without making things excessively painful for the player. Because, once again, leads to better stories in my experience.

 

[Dualazi]

What's bad for the hobby, IMO, is the steady decrease in negative events or consequences within the game...of which level loss is certainly one. Why is it bad, you ask? Because it leads to just that much more whining when something bad does happen, instead of bad things being just as much an accepted part of the game as good things.

Lan-"now get off my lawn"-efan

I agree, although for a slightly tangential reason, that being that there's less encounter diversity when most of the adverse effects begin at HP loss and end at death. Item loss, level loss, stat loss, all things that can be temporary or permanent as needed but add a lot of spice and alternate concerns to how the players assess a given situation. Having lost those things makes players a little more cavalier, I think, especially if the DM usually throws level-appropriate encounters at them.

 

[Hussar]

That'll be me then. And the feeling is mutual btw.

If you care to read that section of the thread without the benefit of hindsight, you'll see that all the information regarding the DM being very pedantic about character creation, etc came out AFTER my comments.

But you know, I would get offended if a player got up and left if their character was sidelined for more than a few minutes, because it IS rude. The game is about the whole group, not just them. Though equally, as DM I would ensure I would get them involved again as soon as is possible - this might be 30 minutes, it might be 1-2 hours - we've had 20 minute breaks for food/refreshments and used that time to create new characters for example, or in another case a player took over the role of Strahd.

But if they wanted to go elsewhere for that time I would not make any effort to get them involved again - not then, nor in the future, because they are demonstrating that they don't care about the outcome if they themselves are not directly involved, which is an attitude I don't want at my table.

And yes, it may be selfish of me too - but if I do spend several evenings preparing, then yes, I expect at least a little bit of common courtesy in return.

See, if it's 30 minutes, then fair enough. I'm not so impatient as that. But, you're insisting that I wait around for 2 hours because I might get to play? And then getting hurt and offended that I choose not to sit there for two hours? Yeah, no thanks. Sorry, your time spent preparing the game in no way entitles you to any special consideration. None. That you want to hold that over me to try to guilt trip me into staying so that I can bask in the glory of your special game is a ginormous warning sign that this game is not for me.

 

[Sadras]

The last time a character (and by extension the player) was sidelined in my campaign is when the rest of the party never healed him in a tense fight verse a solo. His character lay unconcious, but stabilised, while the rest of the party (3 characters) either battled the solo or were performing a deadly skill challenge (1 character) in another part of the dungeon.

This was over an hour wait on the player's part.
To be fair he was reading up on spells, getting drinks and going over some issues on his character sheet.

If he had threatened to leave due to boredom (not that he would have), I'm sure the table would have made an effort to heal him.

 

[JonnyP71]

Sorry, your time spent preparing the game in no way entitles you to any special consideration. None. That you want to hold that over me to try to guilt trip me into staying so that I can bask in the glory of your special game is a ginormous warning sign that this game is not for me.

And your aggressive approach towards all who disagree with your views is the only warning sign I'd need...

 

[Maxperson]

What I find mind boggling here is why anyone would stay. If you're not having a good time and I'm DMing, why are you staying? Is it some sort of sense of obligation to the DM? For me, if you're not having fun at my table, I'd much, much rather you went and did something more fun. You owe me absolutely nothing. I am offering a game. If you aren't enjoying it, please, by all means, go do something more fun. If for some reason I've removed a character from play for an extended period of time, I'd probably tell the player flat out and offer to let the player go.

It's baffling to me that anyone would ever have any problems with a player who wasn't having a good time, politely excusing themselves and going off to do something else.

---------------- Edit to add a thought.

[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], you've repeatedly made a distinction between the notion that this is a playstyle thing and bad DMing.

To me, any DM who would sideline a player for an extended period of time (say 2 hours, although, to be honest, even 1 is probably pushing it) and then get expect that player to stay at the session and actually get angry or hurt or offended that the player politely bows out and goes off to do something else, is a bad DM.

That someone would choose to stay is perfectly fine. But, leaving is also perfectly fine. The fact that a DM would get offended to the point of possibly consider booting the player from the group (which was at least one of the reactions from the other thread) is a DM I never, ever want to sit at a table with. Anyone who takes their game that seriously is someone I will not enjoy playing with.

I think that you and [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] have two out of three right. When getting together for a game of D&D the social conventions are that you will be playing in the game and staying for the entire session(unless prior provisions have been made). The DM was rude to sideline the player for the whole session. The player was rude for leaving early. Both violated the social conventions. AND you have a bad DM.

That's how I see it anyway.