D&D 5E Difficulty Playing D&D: Player Still Waiting Off Screen After 3+ Hours

[neobolts]

This is a tricky one. There's so much that could have been done better.

Impressions:
-The DM didn't shut your "ride for reinforcements" plan down, so that's good. You thought outside the box and the DM rolled with it. Some of the other posters are giving you are hard time for splitting off, but I'm not. Your choice was sound in terms of what's best for helping the town, so I'm going to assume that you we're trying to roleplay faithfully.
-The fact that you didn't like the fight being carried out in rounds or that the civilians behaved foolishly really is side stuff that doesn't get to the heart of the issue...which is you sat around doing nothing. The minutiae doesn't really matter to the problem. Sitting idle for hours and a critique of his DMing style are two separate issue. Sorry.
-The DM should have given you something to do. No one should sit without anything to do for hours.
-Not sure if you meant it to sound this way, but it comes off like the DM basically told you to sit down and shut up at one point. That's a bad sign.

Solutions:
-Cut back and forth between two fronts every few rounds. Have you and your troops run into a sizeable rear guard laying in ambush. (The DM attempted something along these lines, but you unfortunately missed the PM and didn't like this solution anyway.)
-Get you back to the town for the fight by some contrivance, even if it is a little forced. As a quick example, the soldiers have a single use teleport item. They are going to teleport you to the town being attacked so you can let the town know to hold out a bit longer for reinforcements.
-Offer to let you run an NPC during the battle. Quick brainstorm: You play the guard captain of the town under siege. She is a grizzled war vet. She's annoyed that the townspeople still aren't taking the threat of raiders seriously, and she's going to the front with the party to make a stand.

Conclusion:
-The DM could have done more to reward your plan and find a way to involve you in the action. Also, the interaction between you two sounds fairly abrasive and that may be the real issue.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

As others stated, some of this is on you. You wanted a big hero moment where your guy showed up to save the day, but that kind of paints the rest of your party as the chumps needing to have their bacon saved. It's kind of spotlight hoggy, and you didn't even tell them your plan to let them buy into it. You only gave one guy a cryptic "Yo, I got this covered!" and rode off.

So right there, the evil DM in me would find it funny if your guy rode up and found everything nicely resolved.

That said, there are some DM issues. The "siege" lasted a laughably short amount of time. D&D doesnt handle things like that if you jump straight to combat rounds. Were I running it, I wouldnt have moved to rounds until the attackers were inside, and only then played a few scenes out, with a vague sense of time between them. Otherwise you get a battle that lasts under a minute, as you note.

I would have also given you an NPC to control, so you could participate in the scene, as it's not fun sitting on the sidelines. However, as others noted, this was something you chose to do yourself, without talking to the group, so I'd be less inclined to be charitable with the NPC stats than I would had the need to split up been more telegraphed. The party in the game I currently run often has a base camp with the NPC's that accompany them, so if the scenario calls for splitting up, someone can run a squire, imp familiar, etc in order to participate, even if not to the full power they would if their more capable PC was there.

I'm also not sure your forces would have arrived in time. You account for a 4 hour trip back, but unless your goblins/hobgoblins are also riding awakened bard horses with Longstrider, they arent keeping up. I'm not sure what the orc army looked like, but one guy on a horse stomping out thunderwaves seems like a good target for 50 spears being thrown his way and a quick faceplant.

 

[tyrlaan]

Not much to say that [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] hasn't.

As a DM, I cringe at any split-the-party moments in a game because I instantly have to worry about scenarios pretty much like this one. Players that are bored or not entertained are the last thing I want as a GM, and keeping everyone engaged gets more challenging once there is guaranteed "off-camera" time for everyone. But then, I don't do the GM thing because I can just coast through it ;-)

As a player, I'm cognizant of the strain this puts on the GM and that it likely means I will lose screen time. I weigh these into my decision before taking an action that will bring me off-camera. While I look to the GM to keep me involved if I do split from the party, I also don't want to "tap the hornets' nest", so to speak, unless I feel the action I want to take is worth it. This isn't to say your plan wasn't worth it (honestly it sounds very cool and worth it to me); just additional food for thought.

 

[redrick]

Yeah, reading that post as a DM, I think it would have been hard for any DM to manage the full list of your activities and plans off-screen, while also managing more real-time actions of other characters. DM'ing is easiest when you are adjudicating actions and responding to PC and NPC actions as they come up. So, while I don't think your DM necessarily handled things perfectly, I also think it would have been tough to manage that split.

If a player character really wanted to do a long-term split from the rest of the party, I would either plan that session for a time when the player of the absent character wasn't going to be present, or ask the player to pick up another character who can stay with the rest of the party until his or her primary character returns from the solo mission. That would make things much, much easier for me as a DM, and hopefully make things a bit more entertaining for the player as well!

 

[epithet]

Here's what I would have done as a DM.

You and I would have worked out what should happen while your PC was off screen, and what effect on that the dice would have. Then you would have made a couple of rolls in the "dice tower" (or I would have made them) to determine whether your plan worked as intended, better, or not so much.

Meanwhile, you would have been given control of an NPC (one of the humanoids from the MM, based on your level - Guard, Scout, Veteran, Knight, etc.) to control in the town while you waited for your PC to return.

It seems from your description that the DM had planned out the orc attack too inflexibly, and did not adapt to the player's actions enough, but as you say... that's a story told from your POV, so that impression might not be fair.

One possibility is that the DM had imagined what the PCs would do in the scenario, and you didn't follow his script. That can sometimes lead to frustration as a DM has to scramble to throw together encounters on the fly, or resolve some plot point "off camera" that the PCs were "supposed to" deal with in person. Y'know what they say... dung transpires.

 

[iserith]

· As a DM, what would you do in this situation to ensure that everyone is included? (I DM a couple of games and I want to avoid doing this myself)

I don't mind when the group splits up so long as it enhances rather than detracts from the play experience. I manage it by flipping between the various sub-groups at a regular interval, usually when a particular thing is resolved or a conflict is revealed. Generally it's the latter because I want that cliffhanger to hold everyone's attention when they're not in the spotlight and be something that those not involved in the scene can't wait to see how it turns out. Wherever possible, I involve the off-screen players in helping me run the scenes they're not in by adding details or the like.

· Given the risk of being excluded, should plans that involve taking players off screen for more than a minute or two be prohibited? If plans that take a player off screen for an extended period are allowed, how much effort should the DM take in fast forwarding through that time?

I don't think splitting the party should be prohibited, but care must be taken by all parties to manage the table well. The players need to be aware that other people are waiting for their turn, so they should make it snappy and interesting. DMs should keep that spotlight moving.

· As a player, how would you respond if your DM did this? Is confronting the DM appropriate? Although we did have a Session Zero where people expressed an interest in playing a more strategic game, most players quickly decided that it is impossible to have fun without hitting things.

I would politely and directly talk to the group about my concerns and ask for their help in resolving the issue. I would do this over voice chat, not in text, and I would be willing to compromise.

· Is my indignation justified? At this point I am seriously considering quitting the game. I can understand and accept a plan failing if it has a fatal flaw or if the dice don't allow it. If there is a missing piece of information that causes it to fail that is fine too. But when a player makes a decent plan (was it a decent plan?) based on invested time researching, their class features specific to the situation, and knowledge of game world politics, is it reasonable to expect it to at the least take place at some time during the session instead of being shunted to the side?

Everybody, including you, had a hand in things turning out this way. In addition to talking about it directly and politely with the group and seeking their help, I would address myself to making sure that the other players (if not their characters) were aware of my plans when I strike out on my own. Part of this is making sure they're aware of what benefits may accrue to them or our plans as a whole in my doing whatever it is I want to do. This way they can be conscious of why I'm absent and can nudge the spotlight back on me if I've been sitting idle for too long.

I would also generally limit these side-quests to times when I think they'll really enhance the game experience. I've seen that some groups split up all the time, chiefly because they don't get along all that well and can't agree on a single course of action without tedious debate. If you're that type of group, then I'd address that issue and come up with a way to come to agreements more easily. (I use the improvisational technique of "Yes, and..." myself.)

 

[Rune]

My questions are pretty simple:
· As a DM, what would you do in this situation to ensure that everyone is included? (I DM a couple of games and I want to avoid doing this myself)

First, I would strongly encourage the players not to split the party--for their sake, as well as for mine. Failing that, however, I would get a rough synopsis of what the lone PC is going to do and handle it almost completely off-screen, keeping the focus of the adventure on the party. To included everyone, the player with the missing PC would get an NPC to play, if possible. Also, I would make very sure that the player has a good idea whether or not their plan is likely to succeed before they commit to it.

· Given the risk of being excluded, should plans that involve taking players off screen for more than a minute or two be prohibited? If plans that take a player off screen for an extended period are allowed, how much effort should the DM take in fast forwarding through that time?

Not prohibited, but strongly discouraged. Time management of which would be as described in my previous answer.

· As a player, how would you respond if your DM did this? Is confronting the DM appropriate? Although we did have a Session Zero where people expressed an interest in playing a more strategic game, most players quickly decided that it is impossible to have fun without hitting things.

First, understand that by electing to split the party, you are making a deliberate choice to make the DM's job harder. It is entirely unfair to do that and then complain about the consequences.

· Is my indignation justified? At this point I am seriously considering quitting the game. I can understand and accept a plan failing if it has a fatal flaw or if the dice don't allow it. If there is a missing piece of information that causes it to fail that is fine too. But when a player makes a decent plan (was it a decent plan?) based on invested time researching, their class features specific to the situation, and knowledge of game world politics, is it reasonable to expect it to at the least take place at some time during the session instead of being shunted to the side?

Your frustration is valid, but your indignation is misplaced. Assuming you want to be a good player (and I'll explain why that will help YOU out momentarily), when confronted with the possibility of splitting from the party, it is your responsibility to:

1. find out how good a plan you have before you commit to it (so the DM has enough information to be able to weave things together),

2. send NPCs (like your awakened mount) instead of PCs on side-missions, when possible (to keep the party at full strength and make it much easier for the DM to keep everyone in the spotlight), and

3. accept or propose alternate methods of keeping focus on the party, including allowing side-mission stuff to happen off-screen and taking on the role of an NPC in substitution of an absent PC (so the DM doesn't have to divide time, attention, and focus from the players or adventure).

Now, to talk philosophy a little bit: no matter how good a player you are, and no matter how good a DM you have, both of you can improve. Further, the two are inextricably linked; improvement of one side improves the other. Therefore, if you want your DM to improve, do what you can to make DMing for you easier.

My DM reads follows these boards, and I have already told him that I will be posting this. It is possible that he will end up posting his version of events later on. What I have written is my own perspective on the session and is undoubtedly tainted by my own bias and perception.

I hope so! I would very much like to see a second perspective on the game.

 

[Jaelommiss]

There's lots of good advice here (including that I shoulder a generous share of the blame). One thing in particular I would like to address is statements about my need to be 'The Hero' and not sharing the plan. It might just be our group, but generally when we come up with a plan we don't share the details with everyone else beyond what is absolutely necessary. We find that it makes it more interesting to learn of the plan as it unfolds because we tend not to expect it. Myself and the gnome wizard in the group are particularly bad for this.

One time while raiding a drow tunnel system to rescue captives, we entered a cavern filled with no less than 30 of them all aiming crossbows at us. The gnome sitting on my shoulder whispered to me to pretend that we were there to deliver a message. I obliged, not sure where he was going with it. To support my lie he pulled a scroll from his pack. Although we (the party) knew that he had found a bag of scrolls earlier in the adventure, we didn't know what spells were on them. Finding out it was a Scroll of Fireball when the drow were instantly cooked was far more satisfying than it would have been had I known what his end goal was.

Another time he decided to use a Scroll of Alter Self to infiltrate a warren of Tucker's kobolds. Other than saying that he'd back back soon we didn't have a clue what he was doing. In this instance we had to rescue him after he fell into a pit trap covered by illusion magic and lost concentration on his spell.

Plans like this happen frequently enough that we almost always agree to each others' plans without needing to hear them through. As a result, we all take turns being the hero and saving the day when the others get stuck.

 

[Umbran]

There's lots of good advice here (including that I shoulder a generous share of the blame). One thing in particular I would like to address is statements about my need to be 'The Hero' and not sharing the plan. It might just be our group, but generally when we come up with a plan we don't share the details with everyone else beyond what is absolutely necessary. We find that it makes it more interesting to learn of the plan as it unfolds because we tend not to expect it. Myself and the gnome wizard in the group are particularly bad for this.

If you are the tactical genius, you should know that knowledge is power - not giving your own forces knowledge is denying them power! No general fails to tell his captains about the disposition of reinforcements!

By not telling them what you were doing, you cut off their ability to play *with* you, and forced them to play orthogonal to you. When the plan was about to fall apart (due to the time delays), nobody could help adjust. If the party knew that they were about to get a boatload of reinforcements if they could slow down the orcs, they might have done something other than "go to the town and dig in".

For example - a group of well-equipped adventurers could likely harry the orcs, and make them think there's a much larger force nearby, making the orcs spend time searching for that force rather than advancing on the town, where they could be trapped between the wall and this unknown force. You could probably delay the orcs by a full day with that kind of maneuver. Then, you make it clear they were only being harried by a small group, so they get cocky, and advance on the town. *Then* you actually do trap them between the wall and your reinforcements.

Ultimately, this is a bit of good metagaming - you are playing *with* other people. Play *with* them, not separate from them.

 

[Rune]

There's lots of good advice here (including that I shoulder a generous share of the blame). One thing in particular I would like to address is statements about my need to be 'The Hero' and not sharing the plan. It might just be our group, but generally when we come up with a plan we don't share the details with everyone else beyond what is absolutely necessary. We find that it makes it more interesting to learn of the plan as it unfolds because we tend not to expect it. Myself and the gnome wizard in the group are particularly bad for this.

But you do recognize how this can cause logistical problems, yes? Both in-game and out-of-game.