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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Seramus]

I don't think that's fully accurate- in regards to it being the "DM v. the player."

It's about social expectations for that table. To me, it wouldn't be rude to the DM; it would be rude to the DM and to the rest of the table (the other players).

That's not true for all tables.

But that's just one person projecting their expectations on the entire table. I'm sure each actual player is an individual with their own feelings, where some might be in favor, and some not, while others would be apathetic. In the words of Lanfan to another poster, we can only speak for ourselves. So, when we're all speaking for ourselves, who takes priority?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

But that's just one person projecting their expectations on the entire table. I'm sure each actual player is an individual with their own feelings, where some might be in favor, and some not, while others would be apathetic. In the words of Lanfan to another poster, we can only speak for ourselves. So, when we're all speaking for ourselves, who takes priority?

That would be up to the player, who knows the rest of their group better than we do, to judge for themselves.

 

[Caliban]

Social dynamics are tricky. It's tricky with two people, and it's trickier with more than two! So the answer to your question is- no individual takes priority over the group, including the DM. At least not at my table. But others may play differently.

I would say that no individual takes priority over the group, but at the same time the group doesn't take priority of the individual. This is hobby, a game. Not a sports team, not a cult. If the group isn't including the individual, the individual has the right to remove them selves from the group until such a time as they can be included again.

If the group thinks that is rude, the group needs to get over itself. (Since apparently "the group" is also a sentient entity with feelings that can be hurt in your view.)

Personally, I don't subscribe to communistic hive-mind view points, but I've never been a particularly social person. To me, talking about "social compacts" is just another way of saying "we are going to judge you for breaking rules we won't tell you about until after you've broken them". And that's just rude.

 

[Seramus]

You can't analyze a social dynamic solely by focusing on the individual. At a good table (at least, at my tables), the DM subordinates many of his "fun" desires for the group dynamics, and so do the players. But the overall fun (the social fun, the group fun) is increased. Maybe it would be the most "fun" for a DM to simply kill all the players, over and over again. But that's probably not the best, most fun, time for everyone.

Social dynamics are tricky. It's tricky with two people, and it's trickier with more than two! So the answer to your question is- no individual takes priority over the group, including the DM. At least not at my table. But others may play differently.

That takes us back to the original question though. If both the DM and the non-Watcher are supposed to subordinate their "fun" desires for the group dynamic, which one gets their way? The one that subordinates their fun to respect the wishes of the non-Watcher, or the one that subordinates their fun to respect the wishes of the Please Stayer?

I've played at over 40 different tables, and I think this kind of thing has only been talked about once. So I don't imagine many groups know the expected dynamic in this situation.

That would be up to the player, who knows the rest of their group better than we do, to judge for themselves.

It definitely seems like DM4PG was caught by surprise by the reactions of his group, and I cannot imagine he would be alone in this.

 

[JonnyP71]

Social dynamics are tricky. It's tricky with two people, and it's trickier with more than two! So the answer to your question is- no individual takes priority over the group, including the DM. At least not at my table. But others may play differently.

Ideally yes, and it is very much a juggling act.

In my experience however, the DM is key. Get the right DM for the group and the game will thrive, but if a DM is unhappy with a system, or a setting, or the playstyle or attitude of a the group as a whole, the entire game will suffer. If one player is a bad fit for a table then usually the group can continue without them without any major problems.

My Tuesday group is currently on a hiatus due to the regular DM having issues at his workplace. Of the other 6 players, 3 of us are more than competent at DMing, but there doesn't seem to be the will to get something organised as he was so damn good, and his campaign was highly entertaining.

My Friday group rely heavily on me being organised, I keep all the character and treasure sheets between sessions and maintain a blog to refresh their memories of some of the finer details of the adventures - particularly useful this week for example as we've had a break due to real life responsibilities. I put a lot of work into ensuring the game session goes ahead, thus I need to be enthusiastic enough about the game in order to motivate myself to do that (a side effect of ADHD).

I also play most saturdays, and there we have another regular DM - if he is unable to make the session it is normally cancelled, despite the rest of us being capable of DMing.

The group as a whole is the most important aspect - but the DM is the most important individual at the table.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Caliban]

That's part of the social compact of being in a group. An individual can disassociate himself from everyone else, and everyone else can disassociate themselves from that individual. Ideally, neither happens. But there is no right for someone to do whatever they want, and still expect everyone else to just deal with it.

To me, talking about "social compacts" is just another way of saying "we are going to judge you for breaking rules we won't tell you about until after you've broken them". And that's just rude.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*