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

[Demetrios1453]

What I find mind boggling here is why anyone would stay. If you're not having a good time and I'm DMing, why are you staying? Is it some sort of sense of obligation to the DM? For me, if you're not having fun at my table, I'd much, much rather you went and did something more fun. You owe me absolutely nothing. I am offering a game. If you aren't enjoying it, please, by all means, go do something more fun. If for some reason I've removed a character from play for an extended period of time, I'd probably tell the player flat out and offer to let the player go.

It's baffling to me that anyone would ever have any problems with a player who wasn't having a good time, politely excusing themselves and going off to do something else.

I think a lot of the bemusement here is due to the fact that, since so many of us really, really like this game (obviously, as we're taking time to post in a forum about it), many are baffled that someone would rather do something else. To many, just sitting around and watching others play while sidelined is still a better experience than doing something else. Obviously, that is not the case for everyone, so there's a bit of a disconnect between the two sides...



Sent from my VS987 using EN World mobile app

 

[Caliban]

And yes, it may be selfish of me too - but if I do spend several evenings preparing, then yes, I expect at least a little bit of common courtesy in return.

Yes, it is absolutely selfish of you.

Now that we've agreed that everyone involved is a horrible person, can we move on to something that actually matters?

 

[Caliban]

I think a lot of the bemusement here is due to the fact that, since so many of us really, really like this game (obviously, as we're taking time to post in a forum about it), many are baffled that someone would rather do something else. To many, just sitting around and watching others play while sidelined is still a better experience than doing something else. Obviously, that is not the case for everyone, so there's a bit of a disconnect between the two sides...

There's a whole lot of: "this is what I would do in that situation, you didn't do what I would do, therefore you did something wrong. Also, you are a bad person for doing things I wouldn't do."

What works for you and your group won't work for everyone. And just because it works for your group doesn't mean it's the only valid way of doing things.

I wish people would realize that and stop being such judgemental pricks about it.

 

[CydKnight]

ROFL You can't invent arguments for me that never happen, attribute them to me, and then call it a Strawman. You are only allowed to use arguments I actually made, and none of them misrepresented your position. Holy freaking cow. You commit a Strawman to accuse me of a Strawman. How about you understand what you read.

I did not speculate in any way in order to misrepresent your position. Your position had nothing to do with the act of character creation. Neither you nor your player would have had your brain twisted into knots, preventing you from coming up with that idea had you allowed your player to participate.

If you were paying attention, by the way, you would have noted that you are not the only one in this thread with your idea that number 1 is the way to go. I didn't respond to them like this, because they didn't use a ridiculous example to support them. I have nothing against you using option 1. If it works for you, fantastic. However, I wouldn't do that to one of my players. It's rude of me as a host to invite someone over to play a game and then make them sit for 4-5 hours not playing the game.

My only issue with your post was trying to link two things with no bearing on one another. That and your inability to recognize a Strawman.

Interesting that you get to dictate the terms of this conversation. It's even more interesting to me the way you interpret a few things. It's why I didn't originally want to play with what I perceived to be a manipulative line of questioning from you to begin with. Disagreement doesn't mean I am not paying attention or stupid or don't understand what I read or whatever else your apparently misguided (by misguided I mean you really don't know what I know or don't know anymore than I know the same of you) mind keeps inventing. It simply means I don't agree with the presumptions made nor the conclusions derived from those presumptions.

You don't think I know what a Strawman is? Cool. Your belief in that may be true but that is not true for me.

I never said number 1 is the way to go and didn't even vote that way. You seemed to be trying to manipulate a response from me that would help you argue your point better for several posts now. That apparently being that you believe it is wrong to have anything happen in game that prevents a player from continuing until the end of the session. Not sure why you couldn't have just said that in the 1st response and let it be. You responded to my original response not the other way around. I answered your question(s) each time but you simply didn't like the answers so you seemed to keep trying a different approach to reach the same goal. This was quite confusing to me since I never took a side.

I merely offered one point-of-view from an actual occurrence that turned out positive in this particular instance. It was positive because the player got to create a new character that he is more happy playing and he wouldn't have done that had PC death not occurred. At least that is what he stated afterwards.

It was further a learning experience, as I apparently did a horrible job of trying to portray in my original post, because it wasn't even a situation where I was expecting a player death at that particular point in the middle of the game. It was a learning experience for me just as much as the player.

Am I wrong that you seemed to believe I was simply trying to teach the player a lesson and punish him? The player was no more prepared to continue in that instance than I was for him to continue. He wanted to sit out the rest of the session because he didn't want to continue without his own player-character and he didn't have one ready to jump in, at least not one that he wanted to play in that campaign.

Character creation had nothing to do with the reason that PC sat out half a session so perhaps we both have some re-reading to do since we are in agreement on that. It was his own stupidity for trying to attack a Wizard two levels higher than him along with 10 of his henchmen all by himself. It was also my own stupidity for not creating contingencies for unexpected character deaths which cause the player to have to sit out some or all of a session. We both learned and moved on. Now, maybe you can too?

 

[Shasarak]

One thing I've learned over the years: if a character's out of action seemingly for the long haul and its player takes the opportunity to leave early, it's almost ironclad guaranteed that a way for that character to return will rear its head within minutes of the player's departure...

Lan-"at least we have cell phones these days, so the player can be advised of the situation right away"-efan

Yeah, it is funny isnt it how the DM can suddenly "find a way" to fix something when they find out that it is actually a problem.

Shasa-"Come back Baby, I can change"-rak

 

[CleverNickName]

Bad things happen, and the game goes on. Most DMs will have options on hand for players who aren't able to play their characters for a period of time, but I don't think that should be a hard requirement.

Just the other day, a party member got petrified early in the gaming session. While the rest of the party looked for a cure, the player got to play the role of the monsters and any NPCs they met along the way. It was fun.

Also, hi guys! What did I miss while I was gone?

 

[Hussar]

Funnily enough, this actually came up in my last session. Irony.

It was entirely unintentional. I had written up a dungeon crawl with narrow (5 foot) corridors and hadn't realized that there were more than a couple of choke points. We have a fairly big group - 5 PC's and 1 NPC and as they progressed through the adventure they got caught up in the choke points.

One of the players tends to play a "stay at the back" character and, true to form, his character was bringing up the rear. Which meant that for about 2 hours of a 3 hour session, he couldn't do anything. The party was piled up at the choke points and the player simply couldn't do anything.

I actually felt pretty bad about it. I knew he wasn't exactly having a great time, and, for me, the prime bar for what I consider a successful session is that everyone has a good time.

Note, to be completely fair, he never complained, never made it an issue and never said anything about it at all. This is entirely on my end. I'm sure he would have liked to have done more than watch the game for a couple of hours and I'm pretty sure he was pretty bored, but, he didn't complain.

Thing is, I could have fixed that in 2 seconds. Hindsight being 20/20 and I didn't think of it at the time, but, all I had to do was change the scale of the map from 1=5 feet to 1=10 feet. Double the width of the corridors so now you can stand side by side and poof, the problem would have went away.

So, yeah, his bad time was 100% my fault. And it was a fail on me as a DM. Live and learn.

My advice though, to any DM who thinks that sidelining a player for extended periods of time is perfectly fine, it's not. It really isn't. It's a DMing fail. You had a player at your table that didn't have fun. Anytime you have a player at your table who isn't having a good time, that's a fail, AFAIC.

 

[Hussar]

And your aggressive approach towards all who disagree with your views is the only warning sign I'd need...

Speaking of irony.

You led off with telling GM4Powergamers that he was being rude then doubled down by claiming that he should have been kicked out of the group.

Just because he didn't want to sit around for several hours and watch the game.

But, I'm the one being aggressive here? My point, all the way along, is that it's not your place, or mine, to judge why that player is politely excusing himself from the game. The fact that you feel you have to guilt trip your players (I spent all this time preparing the session, even if you cannot play it, you should still stay...) into staying pretty much says it all.

Note, I have no problems with sidelining for a short period of time. That happens and it's unavoidable and probably a good thing. You miss a turn? Ok, no worries. Your character happens to be absent during this conversation? Ok, fair enough, not a problem.

We are specifically talking about being sidelined for HOURS. Not minutes, HOURS.

And then DM's being so butthurt that the player chooses to do something else rather than bask in their brilliance for hours.

 

[Hussar]

I think that you and [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] have two out of three right. When getting together for a game of D&D the social conventions are that you will be playing in the game and staying for the entire session(unless prior provisions have been made). The DM was rude to sideline the player for the whole session. The player was rude for leaving early. Both violated the social conventions. AND you have a bad DM.

That's how I see it anyway.

((Bold mine))

See, this is where I disagree, obviously.

There's a lot of judgement going on, but, to me, it seems pretty one sided. If someone wants to stay, no one is saying that's a bad thing. You want to stay? Cool. Please be respectful of the other players who are actively participating and don't interrupt the game, but, otherwise, groovy.

What I don't understand is why the same isn't applied the other way. If the player truly isn't going to be able to participate for extended periods of time, why is it an issue if the player politely (and note, I've been very specific about that point - the player isn't flipping tables, there's no hard feelings, no recriminations) excuses him or herself for the session, what's the problem?

How is that non-participating player, who honestly doesn't want to be there, adding to the game session? Instead of having some giant black hole fun sink sitting at the table being bored out of his or her skull, wouldn't the polite thing be to graciously accept that that player isn't interested in not participating and wish that player a good day?

How is it rude to excuse yourself politely from something that you are not enjoying and are incapable of participating in?

 

[Shasarak]

How is it rude to excuse yourself politely from something that you are not enjoying and are incapable of participating in?

I guess if you are the type of person happy to sit doing nothing watching other people playing then you would find it rude that someone else is not happy doing the same. You know the old "I have had characters killed off for the last 60 years while I was walking uphill in the snow and it did not do me any harm" type of attitude.

It is also counter to the archetypal passive-aggressive tactic of waiting until after the game when the DM has gone and then complaining bitterly to the rest of your friends.