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

[Maxperson]

((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?

The game is a social one where the group agrees to appear and play for X period of time. Leaving early as [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] mentioned is like a player in a game taking his ball and going home. It's rude. However, it's is also rude for the DM who is there to run a game for all of the players for X time to force a player to sit out for a majority or all of the session(or longer in some cases). Both people are being rude, but the one who I think is most to blame is the DM.

The DM instigated the exchange by refusing to find another way for the player to get back into the game. As I mentioned in my first response in this thread, I think sitting out for 30-60 minutes is fine. It's not always feasible or easy to get someone back into the game in that time period, and often it's that long due to the combat that is currently happening. Any longer than that, and the DM should get the player participating somehow, even if it's just rolling dice to help the DM out, or maybe playing a monster or NPC that doesn't need to be run by the DM. The DM in question should not have put the player in a position where the player had to suffer at the game or be rude by leaving.

 

[Hussar]

But, even then, what if I don't want to play the DM's NPC's? After all, I'm there to play my character, not really to play "Orc 23". Sure, it's an option, but, again, if the player isn't really interested in it, is he or she somehow obligated to take it?

And no, it's not "take your ball and go home". It's just "go home". No one else is prevented from playing. The game continues whether you are physically present or not, and, since you cannot participate, the game is utterly unchanged whether you are there or not. Take your ball and go home refers to someone actually stopping the game from being played. That's not the case in this situation.

Now, just to be clear, I'm specifically stating that the player is being polite about it. Let's take the following f'rinstance. The player's character has been sidelined for whatever reason. There are two hours remaining in the session. The player waits until there is a break in the action, maybe a food or bathroom break or whatever and talks to the DM.

Player: Hey, Jim, um, is there any way that my character is going to get back into the action?
DM: ((Thinks about it, looks through his notes)) Oh, gee. No, I don't think so. You're going to need X to get back in and there's no realistic way to get X. Don't worry, your character will be coming back, just, not soon.
Player: Hey, cool. No problem. Umm, hey, would it be okay if I called it a night then? Do you mind?

Now, at that point we have two possible reactions that have been put forward:

1. DM: Uhh. Well, sure. Yeah, we'll get you into the game first thing next session.

or

2. DM: Seriously? I worked for hours on tonight's session and you're leaving early? WTF man?

Now, which of those two DM's do you want to be?

 

[JonnyP71]

The DM in question should not have put the player in a position where the player had to suffer at the game or be rude by leaving.

Correct - and we now have all the details to be able to say that. At the original time of the comments being discussed we did not know that the DM was so belligerent and fussy.

 

[JonnyP71]

Now, at that point we have two possible reactions that have been put forward:

1. DM: Uhh. Well, sure. Yeah, we'll get you into the game first thing next session.

or

2. DM: Seriously? I worked for hours on tonight's session and you're leaving early? WTF man?

Now, which of those two DM's do you want to be?

The options are far from mutually exclusive. I'm both. I would try to get the player back in in some form as soon as possible, but yes, I would consider it to be rude of the player to leave because it would show to me that they were not invested in the overall game plot.

 

[Hussar]

The options are far from mutually exclusive. I'm both. I would try to get the player back in in some form as soon as possible, but yes, I would consider it to be rude of the player to leave because it would show to me that they were not invested in the overall game plot.

So, if the player isn't interested in playing your NPC's, he's not invested in your overall game plot?

It's not like the player is going to the moon. The player can still get brought up to speed before the next session. Hey, Bob, we did X, Y and Z after you left. It's not terribly difficult.

Remember, the player isn't dissing the game. He's not telling you that he hates the game or it sucks or anything like that. We're in a situation where the player cannot directly interact with the game and politely excuses himself to go off and do something else.

Is there something wrong with, "I want to play my character. If I can't play my character, I'm going to do something else until such time as I can play my character again"? ((Note, character death might be an issue, but, at that point, if the PC is dead, and there's no legitimate way to bring in a new character, why is the player sticking around?))

I really don't understand why any DM would take this personally. It's not about you. It's not about your game. It has nothing to do with you. I'm here to play D&D. The way I do that is by directly interacting with the game world through my character. If I can't do that, then I'm not really playing D&D. Since I won't be playing D&D for the rest of the night, I'm going to politely bow out and see you next session.

Why is this a problem?

 

[cmad1977]

Why is this a problem?

Because while players are monkeys who throw crap all over the place many DMs are so enamored with their ideas that they have a hyper-inflated opinion of their own story telling abilities.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lanefan]

The DM instigated the exchange by refusing to find another way for the player to get back into the game. As I mentioned in my first response in this thread, I think sitting out for 30-60 minutes is fine. It's not always feasible or easy to get someone back into the game in that time period, and often it's that long due to the combat that is currently happening. Any longer than that, and the DM should get the player participating somehow, even if it's just rolling dice to help the DM out, or maybe playing a monster or NPC that doesn't need to be run by the DM. The DM in question should not have put the player in a position where the player had to suffer at the game or be rude by leaving.

And this, folks, is why it's always useful to toss an adventuring NPC (or two) into the party and keep it there - be it as a cohort, a hench, a full party member, whatever - just to give that fallback option of there being something to play when someone's main character is down for the count.

Lan-"ideally, the NPC is someone the party recruited to fill a gap in their makeup anyway"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

Player: Hey, Jim, um, is there any way that my character is going to get back into the action?

The worst of these situations, and I know this from repeated experience from both sides, are the ones where the DM legitimately has no way to give a solid answer to this question. Usually it's because the timing of character's return or rescue or whatever is solely in the hands of the rest of the party somehow; and while they might get you back in in 5 minutes, for all I-as-DM know it just as easily might be next session or even beyond that.

Same is true when trying to bring in a new character, say to replace a dead one - the DM might see a perfect place in the module she's running where meeting a new character would make sense, but the party still has to get there, and there's no way of knowing what route (or how long) they're going to take. (this is how I set my waiting-in-futility record mentioned upthread: the DM had placed my character in a specific place in the adventure, whose overall map was roughly a big loop. If the party had turned right on entry they'd have found me in about the third room; but they went left...meaning they went all the way around the loop over several sessions and then found me with about three rooms left to go...sigh...)

Lanefan

 

[Shasarak]

Or the DM could just put you in the very next room that the Party goes to....

Party goes left and there you are.
Party goes right and there you are.
Party goes back, hey where did you come from?

You could even just have your character come straight to them.

 

[JonnyP71]

I really don't understand why any DM would take this personally. It's not about you. It's not about your game. It has nothing to do with you. I'm here to play D&D. The way I do that is by directly interacting with the game world through my character. If I can't do that, then I'm not really playing D&D. Since I won't be playing D&D for the rest of the night, I'm going to politely bow out and see you next session.

It's not about taking it personally - I'd think just as badly of the offending player if I was not the DM. Gaming is a social activity, by getting up and leaving the player is indicating that they have something better to do.

Is this a cultural thing? Does it depend on how often you get to see the people in question, and whether they are people you would normally hang out with outside of gaming, or just people you meet up with to play games? I often met up with a group of friends when I was a teenager to play boardgames, frequently Diplomacy... nobody ever left until the game was completed and a winner had been decided - the game might last 6+ hours and it was common for players to be eliminated in the first couple of hours. We'd also play one shots of Paranoia (carnage!), or big Car Wars battles (more carnage!) - again everyone would stay to the end.

For me it's a general issue of respect, and the message that would be sent to the other people around the table. But yes, it is especially disrespectful to the DM.