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

[Blue]

I can't envision even wanting to play with anyone who's answer isn't A. If you're going to play a game that involves things like the combat and therefore the possibility of death, but you can't have it happen you YOU, that's not cool. If the party wants to split, or say one/few members have a lengthy conversation apart from the rest of the group and you can't handle it, I don't want you derailing the rest of our fun.

That said, a DM who separates out a PC for an extended period without talking to the player or providing ways to get him back in can also be a jerk. If you're captured and the DM expects you to do nothing for most of the session that's not fun. But that doesn't mean immunity to being captured.

If your character dies, and other players decided they want to finish out the dungeon first (several session) before going to get your character raised, you and the DM shoudl work out something. That's no fun at all.

tl;dr: everyone should be on the lookout for each other's fun, both for extended lengths of sitting out but also not whining if some consequences come your way.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I can't envision even wanting to play with anyone who's answer isn't A. If you're going to play a game that involves things like the combat and therefore the possibility of death, but you can't have it happen you YOU, that's not cool. If the party wants to split, or say one/few members have a lengthy conversation apart from the rest of the group and you can't handle it, I don't want you derailing the rest of our fun.

That said, a DM who separates out a PC for an extended period without talking to the player or providing ways to get him back in can also be a jerk. If you're captured and the DM expects you to do nothing for most of the session that's not fun. But that doesn't mean immunity to being captured.

If your character dies, and other players decided they want to finish out the dungeon first (several session) before going to get your character raised, you and the DM shoudl work out something. That's no fun at all.

tl;dr: everyone should be on the lookout for each other's fun, both for extended lengths of sitting out but also not whining if some consequences come your way.

I agree with everything you wrote, and yet I had to vote C. Can you envision an ambiguous poll?

 

[Shadowdweller00]

I can't really vote for any of these. I'm all about appropriate and harsh consequences and that sometimes involves sidelining characters - but I also think it's the DM's duty to speed things along so that the players don't stay out of play too terribly long. One of my primary goals as DM is to ensure that even losing or having terrible things happen remains fun. Whether this involves allowing a player to roleplay having some horrible affliction, taking control of NPCs / monsters, rolling up a new (even temporary char), or even having some sort of metaphysical "afterlife" encounter...it all works.

In extreme cases I might just tell the player that I'm not likely to be able to work them back in sometime soon...and if they decide to do something else, so be it. But I generally consider that a DMing failure.

 

[Shasarak]

I can't envision even wanting to play with anyone who's answer isn't A. If you're going to play a game that involves things like the combat and therefore the possibility of death, but you can't have it happen you YOU, that's not cool. If the party wants to split, or say one/few members have a lengthy conversation apart from the rest of the group and you can't handle it, I don't want you derailing the rest of our fun.

That is why it is important to make a strong enough character that it wont be you that dies - let the other suckers be the ones sitting off in the corner. Power gaming for the win!

 

[Seramus]

I can't envision even wanting to play with anyone who's answer isn't A. If you're going to play a game that involves things like the combat and therefore the possibility of death, but you can't have it happen you YOU, that's not cool. If the party wants to split, or say one/few members have a lengthy conversation apart from the rest of the group and you can't handle it, I don't want you derailing the rest of our fun.

I think this is the perfect example of the Poll tricking people. This poster thinks the Poll is about players who cannot handle the possibility of death (nothing against you, Blue! You're awesome). When it's actually about Sidelining Players for extended periods of time. The root of the problem is that the OP phrases the question as if not Sidelining Players for an extended period of time represents "No Consequences".

 

[Fanaelialae]

I agree with everything you wrote, and yet I had to vote C. Can you envision an ambiguous poll?

I agree with [MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION] as well, but I chose D since none of the options really reflect my views well. I don't think the poll is phrased very well.

As I said in the other thread, saying that you must sideline players for extended periods of time in order for consequences to exist in your game is drawing a false dichotomy. Furthermore, there is a distinction between sidelining a character and sidelining a player, as you can do the former without doing the latter (many examples of which have already been provided in this thread).

That isn't to say that the spotlight is constantly on every player all the time and therefore all scenes must involve every player (I can't imagine how that would be feasible, nor have I seen anyone in either thread suggest it). I've used plenty of SoS effects as a DM, just never thoughtlessly. When I use them, it is only after consideration of what kind of an effect they may have on the campaign (obviously, I'm referring to serious effects like petrification, not a one round stun). I wouldn't throw an imprisonment trap in a random hallway just because it "seemed like fun" (who would that be fun for?). And if a player does get sidelined, then I'll put them back in play as soon as possible, or let them know that they can roll up a new character if it's liable to be indefinite. Some players are fine with being sidelined, others less so, but the one thing they all tend to have in common is that they have more fun actually playing the game than merely observing it.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Poll question-
Is sidelining players a viable option in your 5e game?

Answer-
A. Yes.
B. Yes, if the DM has prepared something.
C. No.
D. Your polls cannot capture the vagaries of human existence!

(B) is still self-contradictory. Change it to "Is sidelining player characters a viable option in your 5e game?" and my answer will change to A.

On consideration though I think I need to go back and change my C vote to D.

 

[Mercule]

Poll question-
Is sidelining players a viable option in your 5e game?

Answer-
A. Yes.
B. Yes, if the DM has prepared something.
C. No.
D. Your polls cannot capture the vagaries of human existence!

E. Abstract thought exercises hurt me.

 

[Lanefan]

(B) is still self-contradictory. Change it to "Is sidelining player characters a viable option in your 5e game?" and my answer will change to A.

I think the assumption A being made in the poll's wording is that sidelining a character directly equates to sidelining that character's player...which in many cases is what probably happens, given a further assumption B that the player's role at the table is to do nothing more (nor less) than play that character.

There are many ways to defeat assumption B - the player can run monsters, or a party NPC (they're really useful for this!), or have been running two characters all along, or go on a beer-and-snacks run - but without involving any such to break the player-character link then the two assumptions above do in fact make this poll make sense.

Lan-"I may well hold the sideline futility record: I once waited 5 sessions for a party to find my character; and when they did they accidentally killed him"-efan