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

[Maxperson]

How would I know since that's not what I did? I can only speak for what I actually did and experienced.

I will say that we don't all learn the same way so my previous example certainly would not apply to everyone.

I'm fairly confident that the second PC would have been every bit the same had you included him in the session. I can't think of a reason why you guys wouldn't have come up with that PC just because he played a bit.

 

[GameOgre]

I have no issues side lining a player character. Now the actual player? Naw!

His character might be gone or whatever but im not gonna just play without the player...if nothing else here dude now you are a two headed troll hungry for pc meat! Lead these other trolls in the attack!

I even once let a player in 4E play the huge Epic Solo Boss Dragon at the end. He TPKed the party and they all got to start over!

 

[Maxperson]

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.

B doesn't involve death not happening to YOU.

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.

This is a Strawman. Nobody is saying make a new character or find another way to play just because someone has a long talk with an NPC, and a party that splits is still going to involve both sides during the session, so it still isn't A.

It seems like you don't understand what B is.

 

[Jester David]

Is it fun to hit a snake in Snaked & Ladders?
Is it to get sent to jail repeatedly in Monopoly?
Is it fun to get set backwards to the candy cane in Candyland?
Is it fun to lose out resources because of the robber in Catan?

You don't win every game. In fact, unless you only play 1-on-1 you're statistically unlikely to win as often as you lose.
But games are still fun. Because it's not about winning.

I'd D&D stops being fun because you died or are stunlocked or made a bad decision, then you need to stop, look around the table and your friends, and remember why you're playing in the first place. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with hanging with good friends and having a laugh.

If you never get sidelined, your're taking the possibility of death or failure off the table. Then why are you playing the game? That's like playing Snakes & Ladders where you climb up snakes.

 

[Blue]

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.

This is a Strawman. Nobody is saying make a new character or find another way to play just because someone has a long talk with an NPC, and a party that splits is still going to involve both sides during the session, so it still isn't A.

It seems like you don't understand what B is.

*yawn*

Definition from the OP:

For purposes of this thread, and this poll, sidelining a player means that that the player's character is no longer available to play for a significant period of time.

I would consider the party split for 45 minutes and the characters not there as "sidelined" just as much as any other reason the character is sidelined for 45 minutes. That's a quarter of a session for us on a good day, almost a third of the session on a normal day. So yes, "A", you can be sidelined without the DM preparing something to keep you occupied. EXACTLY as I said in my post.

"B" is about sidelining the character without sidelining the player. I can quote it if you need that as well. Because yes, I can't envision playing with a player who can't be sidelined for a bit, including by things like the PCs splitting the party. Doesn't mean if I'm the DM I won't try to involve the player if their character is sidelined, but that doesn't change that yes, both characters and players can get sidelined and if you can't handle that I don't want to play with you.

You are also introducing the concept of creating a new character. It seems you are taking the case of sidelined and trying to narrow it to characters being dead or maybe gone for an indefinite number of sessions, which is specifically NOT the definition used by the OP. You're familiar with the concept of straw men so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that not why you brought it up, but if that's not it the other other reason why you'd bring it up is you don't comprehend the poll options. Amusingly ironic when you accused me of not understanding.

 

[Maxperson]

*yawn*

Well, that explains a lot about you.

I would consider the party split for 45 minutes and the characters not there as "sidelined" just as much as any other reason the character is sidelined for 45 minutes. That's a quarter of a session for us on a good day, almost a third of the session on a normal day. So yes, "A", you can be sidelined without the DM preparing something to keep you occupied. EXACTLY as I said in my post.

He started this thread out of the other one. The sidelining in question was for several hours, not less than one. 45 minutes is not a significant amount of time for any D&D game that I've played.

"B" is about sidelining the character without sidelining the player. I can quote it if you need that as well. Because yes, I can't envision playing with a player who can't be sidelined for a bit, including by things like the PCs splitting the party. Doesn't mean if I'm the DM I won't try to involve the player if their character is sidelined, but that doesn't change that yes, both characters and players can get sidelined and if you can't handle that I don't want to play with you.

B is about having options for the player. Nothing in the OP indicated that the option had to be enacted immediately.

You are also introducing the concept of creating a new character. It seems you are taking the case of sidelined and trying to narrow it to characters being dead or maybe gone for an indefinite number of sessions, which is specifically NOT the definition used by the OP. You're familiar with the concept of straw men so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that not why you brought it up, but if that's not it the other other reason why you'd bring it up is you don't comprehend the poll options. Amusingly ironic when you accused me of not understanding.

No. I'm narrowing nothing. Death is a possibility which you brought up. I responded with a solution to it. You don't have to punish players for there to be consequences to PC actions. Forcing a player to sit out for an entire session is nothing short of punishing him.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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

I'm pleased at the return of your trademark .sig.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Is it fun to hit a snake in Snaked & Ladders?
Is it to get sent to jail repeatedly in Monopoly?
Is it fun to get set backwards to the candy cane in Candyland?
Is it fun to lose out resources because of the robber in Catan?

You don't win every game. In fact, unless you only play 1-on-1 you're statistically unlikely to win as often as you lose.
But games are still fun. Because it's not about winning.

I'd D&D stops being fun because you died or are stunlocked or made a bad decision, then you need to stop, look around the table and your friends, and remember why you're playing in the first place. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with hanging with good friends and having a laugh.

If you never get sidelined, your're taking the possibility of death or failure off the table. Then why are you playing the game? That's like playing Snakes & Ladders where you climb up snakes.

That isn't what this discussion is really about. Hitting a snake is like taking some damage. You fall back, but you aren't automatically removed from the game. No one has suggested that you should stop injuring characters or remove the risk of character death.

The examples that started this debate were instances where the character was removed from play for the majority of a session and the player wasn't allowed to do anything else (like run an NPC or roll a new character; in one case the player wasn't even allowed to make any commentary that might be construed as metagaming, I believe on penalty of the entire party losing half their earned xp). Moreover, it was not a steady loss like hitting hotels in Monopoly over and over until you "die". These were SoS effects; the equivalent would be if go to jail meant you instantly lose in Monopoly.

I don't disagree with you, but it isn't truly pertinent to this topic if you understand the root of the discourse (because no one has been arguing against character death). This has been about sidelining a player for hours due to one bad roll. IMO, there's no reason for that, since even if the PC is out of play for an indefinite period, it's easy enough for the player to roll a new character in relatively short order.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I voted for the first one: Yes. Bad things can happen to players, and the game goes on.

IMNSHO, if a player can't sit there and just enjoy what's going on at the table...or, to put it another way...if the player absolutely must be able to have his/her PC do something "all the time or there's no point in showing up"...well, such a player can just not come back to my game.

I've played (mostly DM, but I'm talking about one of the rare occasions I get to play as a Player) in games where I've been "sidelined" for most of the session. Didn't bother me one lick. I don't have to be "doing something" to be enjoying the session.

For me, I enjoy seeing what happens. Is it better if I get to have input as a PC? Sure! But if I get "sidelined" for most of a battle, then an extra 45 minutes as the other players struggle to survive...that's cool too. I enjoy watching movies and hearing people tell stories. Sitting at a game table waiting for my PC to be resurrected/rescued/whatever is part of the story.

I really don't get the "me me me! me! Me! MEEEE!!!!!" mindset of a lot of people nowadays. It's like, if they aren't the center of attention, or if people don't directly include them or acknowledge whatever they just did...then they feel "left out", "shunned", "picked on", "ignored" or any other number of things that all boil down to a sense of self-importance. As if their input must be recognized at all times by their peers or people around them. ...it's.... ...odd. I don't get it. Probably because I'm an old fart and grew up without the internet, cell phones, facebook, "participation awards", and where I played team-sports where we kept score and wanted to win...but still had fun even if we got our asses handed to us.

Must be a young/old thing. *shrug*

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[jasper]

Look if the player can't stand to be sideline for under an hour, he is the problem.
If DM and other players can't stand it when Jasper leaves after an hour knowing he not going to play for the rest of the session, they are the problem.