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

[Iry]

I appreciate that you wish to handle it differently; I don't appreciate, as much, that you seem to view the way my table enjoys playing as being akin to being hit with a baseball bat. Just like I wouldn't cast aspersions on your style of play.

Well, I have no idea how you do things at your own personal table, and have just been assuming hypotheticals without concluding anything about you or your table personally. =P But I do think that sidelining players for extended periods of time is a negative thing that should not be encouraged except when you know for a fact that they do not mind. But there's always the worry that any given player might only be consenting because they are afraid they won't get to play D&D (sadly, I know lots of players like that.)

 

[iserith]

Jesus man! Throw me a bone!

At least I didn't go see a movie with my girlfriend.

That would have been rude.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I have issues with that.

First, while I'm not about punishing players for "making mistakes" or overly penalizing people, if the response to death is a new character of the exact same level and gear just spawns it sure trivializes death.
"My character died? Cool! Now I can try that new warlock/paladin build without the awkwardness of low levels."
Doubly so if the replacement character is a carbon copy.

Second, it's silly in a dungeon. Why is there suddenly a person in the dungeon that hadn't been opened in centuries?
And it's always weird when the player characters meet a random person and suddenly trust them with their lives. They're super suspicious of everyone they meet ever, but rando the fighter in the dungeon is cool.

Yeah, I want to bring that player back in as soon as possible… but it needs to make some sense.

Third, what about resurrection?
If the players are going to cast raise dead that player is at the mercy of the players having the gold and stopping for a rest. The rest of the table should be required to stop adventuring and having fun to go back to town, put the story on brakes, to bring on PC back.

That's excluding situations where the character isn't dead, but isn't contributing. Like the result of being feebleminded or petrified or polymorphed into a newt.

I never said anything about no level/gear loss (that's up to your table). We were discussing players not being able to play. Even running a level 1 character in a 20th level party is more play than sitting on the sidelines (If only slightly).

You find a way. Maybe this character followed them into the dungeon. Maybe he's been trapped in a magical stasis trap since the last time the dungeon wad open. Maybe he shows up as the result of a magical mishap. Maybe his deity sends him there. The possibilities are limited only by your imagination.

As for trusting the character, that's the one concession that we all make at my table. It might not always make sense, but it is more fun than the characters murdering the new guy because they think he's a doppelganger or something. Sometimes fun has to Trump verisimilitude; this is a game after all (if your table, including the new guy, finds murdering the new guy to be fun then by all means...).

As for resurrection or petrification, it all depends on the duration. I'm all for leaving it up to the player. I say let them bring in a new character or play a henchman as soon as they want (within reason, of course; I'm not suggesting that the instant a character dies his player needs to be able to being in a backup, but I do think it ought to be permitted within a reasonable timeframe - not having to wait several sessions just because the PCs don't want to go back to town for a raise dead spell). If the original gets brought back to life, the player can either choose between them or (if the table is okay with multiple characters) run both.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Iry]

But part of the reason I put this poll up is that, again, I was curious to see what other people thought. It's difficult to get a pulse on the community; what is "common sense," at one table is anathema at another table. For those people strenuously arguing different positions, it might be helpful to reflect on the fact that other tables do play differently. That doesn't mean they play "better," but simply that your own position (whatever it might be) is not the product of a universal truth, but of a preference.

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.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Iry]

In other words, reasonable people can converse about whether or not various rules enhance their style of play- but asserting that a particular rule is good, or bad, for the hobby starts to get into dangerous territory.

EDIT- to be clear, there is a fine line between saying something can be bad for the hobby, and trying to map one's personal preferences so that those preference are good for the hobby.

But that's the way we do it. When you sit down to design a game, or work on a new edition of a game, or have a team of writers underneath you doing the same, you look at as much evidence as you can, compare that against the experiences of yourself and as many players as you can collect data from, and then you make a decision.

It's not always the right decision. Sometimes you stumble and end up with something different but equal, or something worse. But ultimately it always involves you deciding that A is, in your opinion, better than B.

Better is subjective. Better in terms of sales? In terms of retaining players? In ease of use for new players? For the most number of players while acknowledging that not all players are the same? All of these are factors to be considered.

But ultimately, forming an opinion and making a decision that A is better than B.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Iry]

But when you begin to state that specific rule changes are for the "hobby as whole," you usually are arguing personal preferences, not the health of the game.

I am a game designer. I am always placed in the position of making choices between two or more subjective options. That's part of the creative process, especially if your work builds upon the literal or spiritual foundations of existing games.

That doesn't mean those choices are perfect for everyone, but you do the best you can based on all the evidence and data you scrounge up to make something that is good and entertaining for the greatest number of people (while keeping in mind things like player retention, budget, etc)

Unless you have budget or project limitations (which do happen), you almost always go into these things trying to make a better product than the one before yours.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Well, given the majority of comments, as well as the poll results, I would argue that calling the majority of respondents at enworld elitist is, at best, poor form. But I would also acknowledge that any poll of enworld will be skewed because enworld is not typical for D&D in general. Regardless, it's my opinion, as I stated previously, that calling fellow gamers "elitist," is neither a productive way to advance a conversation or likely to convert those people to your way of thinking.

Well then, it's a good thing I wasn't calling the majority of respondents elitist. Just the ones who have made rude and condescending remarks about other play styles. If I wasn't clear about that, I do apologize to anyone I may have inadvertently offended.