DISCUSSION: How long is it reasonable to hold the spotlight?

MNblockhead

A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
Generally, in my main campaigns, I don't run into this problem. First, I've been playing with my current group since the release of 5e. The group works well together any personality or play-style conflicts have long worked themselves out. Second, we are all of the age and experience where our playstyle is a bit more old school. It is less improv acting and more group exploration and tactical combat. Especially so with our current campaign using Rappan Athuk, a megadungeon with an old-school vibe.

For us, "spotlight" is more about whether certain characters are designed in a way that they have as much interesting things to do during the game. Not in the sense of others being their audience but more in the sense that play starts to feel samey to them. For example, in my first campaign, one player was playing a fighter with sharpshooter feat and being a ranged fighter with a bow was so tactically superior that it was about all he really did.

In my current campaign, the rogue seems to have less interesting things to do in combat but when he does get that one good hit in it can be an amazing amount of damage. Also, in dungeon of traps and locks, and a dire necessity for stealth, he has plenty of interesting ways to contribute.

In short, I find if you have a good group of people with shared expectations, spotlight-issues are more of a mechanical challenge.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Recently I had a unique opportunity in my campaign to have separated players experience the actions and dialogue of each other, despite being in different locations. One player used a ritual to contact his deity, which allowed his soul to temporarily visit the realm of his deity, where he met with the spirit of a grandfather of one of the other players. Together with this grandfather, he was given the option to spy on his friends and see things that perhaps they were unaware of. This allowed him to listen in on other players and comment on what they were saying, without them hearing him. This lead to a very funny scene where two players were talking to each other, and this third player was talking to the ghost about what they were saying. The two players, who were of course aware what was happening out of character, threw in some funny comments that related to the third player, but could have been something their characters randomly said. So there was this very amusing meta dialogue going on.

Meanwhile, in the same session, another player was placed in a similar situation. He came upon special stones in the fey wild, that showed him visions of characters whose fate were connected to him. This also allowed him to see his fellow players, without them being aware that he was looking in on them. He was also able to look in on some of his enemies, and see where they were and what they were doing. These were a unique couple of scenes that allowed us to bridge the divide between players being in different locations.
 





atanakar

Hero
Only had this problem only once. A player decided he couldn't be bothered with the quest and went on a solo wilderness side trek by himself. It ended badly with his character dying alone after a wolf attack. If you want a solo campaign you should say so. Having all the other players wait while you do your solo thing is rude.
 
Last edited:

Only had this problem only once. A player decided he couldn't be bothered with the quest and went on a solo wilderness side trek by himself. It ended badly with his character dying alone after a wolf attack. If you want a solo campaign you should say so. Having all the other players wait will you do your solo thing is rude.

Way back in high school, when I more frequently grappled with this sort of thing (single PCs running off to do things that the rest of the group wasn't invested in), I would ask the player to make a single die roll that represented their level of success or failure. The roll would be based on pertinent skills modified by my sense of the task's difficulty. Then I had their character exit the main story for an appropriate amount of time. When they got back, they could narrate the results of their expedition as they saw fit. This put the work on the shoulders of the player who wanted their character to wander off instead requiring the rest of the group to watch them roll endless hunting checks or whatever. Of course, if they rolled badly enough, they would not come back at all—whether this meant that they died or needed to be rescued depended on the nature of the task and whether the rest of the group was loyal enough to care.
 

R_J_K75

Legend
Only had this problem only once. A player decided he couldn't be bothered with the quest and went on a solo wilderness side trek by himself. It ended badly with his character dying alone after a wolf attack. If you want a solo campaign you should say so. Having all the other players wait while you do your solo thing is rude.

I've played in games once or twice where there was a good reason for a player going off on their own. Everyone at the table was OK with it. If I had to deal with the jackass in your example here's how Id deal with it as a DM. Most likely I'd probably just boot them from the game then and there. If I didnt I'd be just as rude back.

DM: Party what are you doing?
Party: Adventuring to the Dungeon of Death as we planned.
DM: OK great! Lets proceed.

2 hours later
DM: Han Solo what are you doing?
Han Solo: Going to explore Peckerwood Forest alone.
DM: OK great, I'll get back to you.

Rinse and repeat until the player gets the hint or leaves.
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top