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

[GMforPowergamers]

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

so if I make a new character, and you say "Hey you can't make it make sense to bring it in until next week" and I calm and cool say "AOK, I'll see you next week, good luck guys" whats the issue...

I'll take your word for it. This is my third post in it and I only read the first page.

ok, it is dozens of pages over two posts...lots of calling me rude, and saying a 25ish year old who ran games for almost 10 years being 'unexperienced'

"Back in the day" you also had to start at 1st level. Or ended up playing a hireling and literally be another party member's servant.

yup the exact scenario was late 90's 2e game my 7th level wizard was imprissioned, I had 2 ways out, I got my 20% MR roll and failed, and a save, I failed... at witch point we were about a half hour into the saterday night game. The DM was clear on what it would take...his NPC, and we coudlnt' go back to town just then. I could draw a new 1st level character, but as per his rules he would have to watch me roll stats, and OK all weapon and non weapon profs, so I could wait till after game to do so. So I went to the movies with my girlfriend, called (game was still going) and he said there was still 0 way for me to come in...so over the week between games I went and talked thourogh my 1/1 Dwarven Fighter/Cleric.

I showed up the next week, and after about 30mins my new PC was captured naked chained to a wall...so after a fight they freed me, gave me a club and I joined the party... I helped finished this quest as the dwarf, we went to the NPC and he gave us a quest, when we finished it my Dwarf was either 5/6 or 6/5 something like that...but my wizard was WAY more awesome and so I went back to him even though other characters were about 11th level at the time...

Having to wait a few hours to join with a brand new character isn't much of a chore.

if that option was an option...it was not. We played into late at night, but at no point would I ever be able to join the game until AFTER this session...

So dying has to be an equivalent penalty to being stunlocked?

nobody is talking about dieing...we are talking about 2 examples 1 I just explained up post, and 1 where in a high level plane hopping campaign some PCs were banished with no way to get back, and even the DM said he had no way to get them back...

So you should be able to replace characters after every fight?

no, but if you tell a player that he can't play again from this point until the next session then leaving is an option as long as the player isn't rude about it...

Why not just remove death from the game or have characters respawn like World of Warcraft? Or DragonAge: Inquisition where so long as you don't wipe, everyone just staggers to their feet at the end of the fight in unison.

I don't know anyone who is suggesting this.

Yes.
But you *can* be removed from play in Monopoly. Which can take a couple hours to play. With bad luck, you could be out of play in 30 minutes watching everyone else circling the board for 90 more minutes.

I was talking shoots and latters... but ok. If we have a game night planed, and you know I gave up a date night with my GF to be here, and 30 minutes in something happens that stops me from playing for the rest of the night (hours) and I say "All right, I will show up next game night and love to play with you guys, but I have other things to do if I'm not playing"

And Risk for that matter, which can run up to 8 hours.
To say nothing of a game like Twilight Imperium...

I have no idea what twilight Imperium is, but I have never had a risk game last more then 2 hours...and often as players are peeled off of risk they play something else...at least at our game nights. it's not often people are told "Sit there and play nothing"

Assuming you have a five person table (including the DM) and everyone is talking the exact same amount during RP sessions (which is a stretch given the DM generally talks twice or three times as much) you verbally contribute 20% of the spoken words at the table.

even that I doubt it a good number, but we can go with that...when you aren't talking you are reacting, taking in info for your character to use later, and still playing.

However when you have no character you can play you are doing none of that.

And, assuming they're running more than one creature and non-hordes, the DM will likely be making twice as many rolls in combat as any other player. So you're in the spotlight of combat roughly 15% of the time.
Add a fifth player and those numbers drop.

but again, even if I play a character who only react every little while, my character is still there, watching and learning...

The difference between being dead and unable to participate and being alive and participating is still a minority of the game.

yes but that minority is literally THE GAME...

And you could still conceivably offer suggestions in play. Acting as the 18 Intelligence wizard's subconscious. "If Bob the fighter were here I know just what he'd say…"

the example given that started this I have said many times the DM didn't allow any fancy work arounds, and we didn't have pocket electronics...so yes if you have something to do that will allow you to play in some way, it lessens the problem of not being able to play

Finding just one survivor in the middle of an Alberta winter in a building without power in an area under the control of maniacs that hunt and kill people on sight was a stretch.

witch is why I said another survivior arrives... he tells you how he was one of 18 survivors who have slowly been picked off...now he/she is alone and just got here...

Two just pushes things to incredulity. Especially when the first said they were alone.

so again "Wow I just got here, lucky for me you guys are here too"

Had I made an issue of it, sure there's suddenly be a second survivor. But he and I bought thought it'd be a one session thing. The rest of the party though is taking their sweet time...

yup it took about a month in my example to be freed

Yes.
Because I'm still spending time with friends. I made a task for myself of managing the sound. I drew my webcomic. I listened and laughed with the jokes. Because my friends are funny and watching the chaos unfold at the table is always entertaining.
(And when the party got separated, the GM tasked me with running them through their little adventure.)

so again, "Hey we can work around the problem there for there is no problem"

Hey, I spend one free evening a week watching stranger play RPGs on Critical Role. Which is people I don't know personally with a story I can never impact.

I don't...I don't fault you or think your idea of fun is wrong, but it isn't fun for me... on the other hand funny lets players playing video games (especially onse I suck at) is fun to me.

Why would I have a problem spending a similar length of time watching my friends play in a story I can impact in the future?

Nobody has a problem with you finding it fun, but you can't expect EVEYRONE to find it fun.

I have never seen a table entirely focused on the game at all times and not occasionally drifting into side conversation in my twenty-five years of gaming.

me either... however I have seen 30-45 minutes straight of none of it...even entire sessions. SO yes I could sit there wait for Larry to go to the bathroom and joke around, then when he comes back go back to sit quitly. I could if the party splits up talk to the part he isn't running...but since hindsight is 20/20 I can tell you it didn't happened The party didn't split.

*ahem*
Your DM is penalizing you for being social during a social game for 3hrs and 15 mins...and you see nothing wrong with it???

second or third post I said that I stopped playing the game and that there were a lot of warning signs (and heck yeat this is one) about the DM being bad.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Depending on the edition, rolling up a new character and getting it introduced into the game could easily take less time than it would take to play out eight rounds of combat. If you only play for four hours, once per month, then eight rounds of combat could easily be a month worth of play. All of these things are comparable, which is what makes discussion so difficult.

except this was all explain last thread when I started. everyone had some kind of "couldn't you just" question and as far as I know I answerd them all and was still called names AND accused of badwrongfun.. it was 2e, I had to wait for end of game to make a new character it was several game sessions and levels before I was able to regain the PC in question (almost enough for my new 1st level PC to over take said character)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm so hardcore that not only did I sit until the very end of the campaign for the best opportunity to rejoin, but I did it while sitting in another room so I wouldn't be able to "metagame" with the knowledge I might have gained as an observer.

funny thing, I did the same thing, my other room was a movie theater with my then girlfriend...

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

So the general fault lines in the debate, as I have observed them, fall into two categories-

1. (a) The "consequences r lyfe!" crowd v. (b) the "playerz just wanna have fun" crowd. In essence, (a) believes that the game is more fun with the possibility of failure, and (b) believes the game is more fun when you are, um, playing it.

2. (a) The "suck it up buttercup" crowd v. (b) the "here we are now, entertain us," crowd. Again, the fault line between these two approaches is that (a) thinks that it would be good, but not necessary, for the DM to have options for the player being sidelined, while (b) believes that the DM is required to have options available if there is any player sidelined.

How long did it take the participants of the debate to realise that in neither of these categories are the fault lines between directly opposing positions?

 

[Fanaelialae]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Just to be clear, this is your response to the following-

"It's certainly fair to say that you wouldn't enjoy playing the same way that others play; D&D embraces a variety of playstyles! But using pejorative terms to describe the playing of other people is unnecessarily dismissive, and is unlikely to sway people to agree with you."

Just to be clear, here is an example of what I am referring to (from the other thread, and I am leaving out the user's name because I am not looking to single anyone out, but given that you participated in that same thread I believe it should look familiar):

Oh my. The issue at hand here isn't about fair or unfair. The issue is that it seems that a great many players these days cannot find fun in the organic consequences that arise from playing a GAME. A large part contributing to the issue is that the attention span of a three year old has apparently become normal. ME ME ME NOW NOW NOW. The root cause of these problems being adult babies who are utterly selfish with regards to their own fun. Grab all you can for yourself and screw everyone else and quit and go home if the group doesn't enable this behavior.

GROW UP!

I have gamed with actual children who were raised properly that handle games with more maturity than many so called adults.

Am I being unfair in paraphrasing that as "Wah wah wah, grow up"? Because that is how it reads to me. He or she literally says "GROW UP!" (but admittedly not wah wah wah). If I am somehow misconstruing the intent of the above, then my bad. Personally, I don't see how comparing people who don't like being sidelined to three year olds could be construed as not elitist, but maybe I'm misunderstanding something? And this is far from the only post in that tone.

 

[Seramus]

How long did it take the participants of the debate to realize that in neither of these categories are the fault lines between directly opposing positions?

I think Hemlock first noticed the Poll was messed up on Post 8.

 

[Fanaelialae]

You might find this helpful.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_...logy_unpology_and_other_names_for_hollow.html

(I try to keep this sort of thing in mind prior to using "I'm sorry," or "I apologize." YMMV.)

I don't appreciate the insinuation. It was not hollow. I was genuinely apologizing to anyone who may have misconstrued where my statement was directed (only towards those who have made rude/condescending remarks). Due to your response, I wasn't sure if I made that clear (the original post where I mentioned elitism was written while I was on a break, so it was a bit rushed) therefore I felt I ought to clarify and make amends towards anyone that I may have accidentally offended by way of an apology.

 

[Jester David]

so if I make a new character, and you say "Hey you can't make it make sense to bring it in until next week" and I calm and cool say "AOK, I'll see you next week, good luck guys" whats the issue...

Because "I'll see you next week, good luck guys" means "Hey guys, I don't want to hang out with you unless you can make special accommodations for me."
It's kinda antisocial to just leave. That you'd rather do nothing - you'd literally rather do anything else - than hanging around with your "friends" and watch them play...

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

After reviewing this thread and the poll, would you acknowledge that there are people (if not "most," then at least "many," or "some") that might disagree with you?

Going by the categories outlined in the OP, that the poll appears to correlate to, most people appear to have voted that they think that it is good for a player to be given options to prevent them from being sidelined.
That is not too far what Robus appears to be saying: you both appear to be be just arguing about the degree.