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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Maxperson]

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.

If the DM has done his duty and found a way for you to participate and you take your ball and go home anyway, then it's all on you. You are the rude one.

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?

I wouldn't engage in that False Dichotomy and would have instead said something like.

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. Hang tight for a little bit and I will find a way for you to still participate tonight. At no point would I have been talking about getting him in during the next session unless the current one was almost done. If it was almost done and he left early, he's rude.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I disagree. To me it would show that the game plot is the only thing the player is invested in, and isn't at all invested in the group of players.

 

[Maxperson]

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

That's why if I was DM and they were going to find you in the third room, they would have found you in the third room no matter which way they turned.

 

[Caliban]

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.

Yes, that's kind of the point. They are indicating that they have something better to do than SITTING AROUND NOT PLAYING THE GAME.

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.

And sidelining a player for an extended period of time is disrespectful to the player. This goes both ways, the DM is not the leader of a cult.

 

[Caliban]

Hussar,

I think this goes down to a divide in personalities, playstyles, and, perhaps, expectations as to what a D&D game is (or should be).

For me, the platonic ideal of a D&D game is that of friends who get together on a periodic basis to enjoy each other's company, and, as they get together, to play D&D. It is a continuing campaign, so theoretically, each player (and the DM) is invested in what happens, regardless of whether or not they happen to be involved at that particular moment.

And platonic ideals don't exist in the real world. No game lives up to that ideal, no two gaming groups are alike. They are not all "Friendship is Magic" cartoons.

Spending time with friends is one reason to play D&D (and it's a good one), but it's by no means the only reason or the only valid reason.

A lot of people turn to gaming because they have poor social skills. They need a structured environment to socialize with other people. If that structure is disrupted, they don't always know how to deal with the situation, and sometimes that's stressful and they leave to do something else.

Others play for a more personal reason - they want something where they know the rules, where they know how the world works, and they know how to succeed. The game isn't so much about "winning" as about feeling successful at something (and that may be having their character able to do certain things, not necessarily "winning at D&D"). Being sidelined hits them right where it hurts, because it means they failed. They may not want to hang around and have their nose rubbed in it.

Others just want to play, and their friends aren't really into D&D, or their schedule doesn't permit a regular game with their friends. Playing AL or playing online lets people play when they have time. But, you are generally playing with strangers or acquaintances, not friends. They may become friends eventually, but the game is the main reason they are together, not hanging out with semi-random strangers.

People play D&D for a lot of reasons. That's one of the great things about it. Being judgmental about how or why other people choose to play the game (or choose to leave a game) is just sad.

It may not be something that you would do, but that's all it is - not something you would do.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Seramus]

For me, the platonic ideal of a D&D game is that of friends who get together on a periodic basis to enjoy each other's company, and, as they get together, to play D&D. It is a continuing campaign, so theoretically, each player (and the DM) is invested in what happens, regardless of whether or not they happen to be involved at that particular moment.

I disagree. To me it would show that the game plot is the only thing the player is invested in, and isn't at all invested in the group of players.

I think we need to respect the feelings of even those people we don't understand. So in the 'battle' between two people who are in danger of having their feelings hurt (the DM because his player is leaving / the player who just isn't the watcher type) whose feelings take priority?

 

[iserith]

I think we need to respect the feelings of even those people we don't understand. So in the 'battle' between two people who are in danger of having their feelings hurt (the DM because his player is leaving / the player who just isn't the watcher type) whose feelings take priority?

Mine.

 

[Caliban]

I almost feel like you didn't engage with my entire post so that you could make your own point.

I would prefer if you would do that with other people in the future. That would be my platonic ideal.

Let me know when you actually feel that way, instead of just "almost feel that way". Until then, this makes no sense, because you are referring to something you just said didn't happen (it almost happened).

(I will say, for someone who claims to be "genuinely curious as to how most tables run today", you don't seem to be at all interested when someone actually tells you about it.)