Who's at fault?

[fusangite]

if i was the DM I would have had the pally 'discover" the secret passage while walking in the city.

Doesn't this kind of GMing debase perception skills? What's the point of playing a rogue with these skills if the GM just turns around and gives people without the skills the same information?

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Or, how about if the Paladin decided to go off on his own little quest and monopolize the DM's time?

It can happen, altho if I were the DM I would schedule the Pally's side quest off session... had one such deal turn into a full fledged campaign over breakfast

Play an NPC while the other members of the party gain XP and treasure? That's hardly fair.

Ah.. I tend to give XP to the players who played a character in the game....PC or NPC. IMO XP is an award for the player for being involved and entertained{ing}, not some ticket punch the character gets for existing in an encounter.

 

[KenM]

Doesn't this kind of GMing debase perception skills? What's the point of playing a rogue with these skills if the GM just turns around and gives people without the skills the same information?

I did not say the DM NOT have the rogue find it though how the OP said. But you can have the rogue find it, and tell everyone. The pally then discovers it.

 

[Chimera]

The DM has special game, because:
1.He's the moderator of character creation and should have lead the effort for a good dynamic

Which would instantly lead to a huge thread about how the dumb old GM wouldn't let some guy play the character he wanted to play and how unfair that is, leading to more GM bashing because he has no right to do this.

Yeah, we've seen it before, don't laugh.

I think the GM and the Paladin player share the blame. At some point the GM either has to ask the Paladin player what he's doing (attempting to get him active) and/or the Paladin player needs to step up to the plate and say "meanwhile, can I do X".

 

[wayne62682]

The group as a whole for making incompatible characters in the first place. Seriously. I encouter things like this nearly every time in my home group (not this extreme, but then again nobody plays a Paladin because every game we play is "not evil, just not good" because someone wants to play a Chaotic Neutral, "in it for myself" character), and every time I ask for cohesive character creation as a group I get told "Group creation sessions are a waste of time." and (this next one is exaggerated) "I only have fun playing x, so I'm going to play x no matter what anyone else plays."

 

[Gold Roger]

Which would instantly lead to a huge thread about how the dumb old GM wouldn't let some guy play the character he wanted to play and how unfair that is, leading to more GM bashing because he has no right to do this.

Yeah, we've seen it before, don't laugh.

I think the GM and the Paladin player share the blame. At some point the GM either has to ask the Paladin player what he's doing (attempting to get him active) and/or the Paladin player needs to step up to the plate and say "meanwhile, can I do X".

If the DM says "No you can't play a rogue, because Tom plays a paladin", which of course is totally unfair.

But if the DM instead says "Well, you two want to play a sneaky and criminal rogue and a righteous and ultra law abiding Paladin. That just won't work, so lets sit together and work out how we can compromise those two."

I'd say in that case only:

1)An utter jerk that doesn't accept that D&D is a cooperative game

2)Or someone that things like extreme intra party conflict etc. are part of the game

would complain.

In the case of 1) the problem is obvious. In case of 2) it's a case of different playstyles, which would have to be be either compromised as well or the person would be better of with a group more suited to his approach.

 

[fusangite]

I did not say the DM NOT have the rogue find it though how the OP said. But you can have the rogue find it, and tell everyone. The pally then discovers it.

I understood what you said Ken. I don't see how you have addressed my point at all.

My point is this: it debases a perception skill's value when you allow people to discover the identical information without having to make the skill check at the required DC. What value is it for the rogue to have a high Gather Information skill if the DM is going to award the information to everyone anyway, regardless of whether they even have ranks in the skill?

I have a DM like this. He gets us to roll Spot checks very frequently; he also has a tendency to railroad people and this railroading typically requires that the party discover certain things. His railroading also means that people cannot notice things in advance of when he wants them to -- he decides we are going to be ambushed and it doesn't matter if the party makes Spot and Listen checks of 35, the result is the same as if we had rolled 5s. As a result, nobody in this guy's group ever invests a single rank in Spot or Listen because the skills are debased to the point of being completely valueless.

 

[Janx]

Let's think about this:

The DM has an idea for the adventure, sneak into prison to do something. He has a clever means to get the hook to the player, tell the thief who used his contacts or "Gather Information" skill.

At this point, I bet the DM thought the thief player would tell the party, and they'd go into the prison together. That's not wholly unreasonable, though a DM should learn to never trust the party to go the direction you think.

Score:
DM: 1 demerit

So initially the problem is, the thief had other ideas for the secret info.

Score:
DM: 1 demerit for not anticpating other plans
Thief: 1 demerit for not bringing in the whole party

He tells the wizard. The wizard, being of high intelligence, might have meta-gamed the idea that this might be dangerous, we should bring a meat-shield (ala Paladin). That didn't happen.

Score:
DM: 1 demerit for not anticpating other plans
Thief: 1 demerit for not bringing in the whole party (had logical excuser, however)
Wizard: 1 demerit or not bringing in the whole party (which could have easily been in character)

Then the Thief and Wizard go off into the Prison by themselves. Meanwhile, the Paladin mopes because he's bored. at what point in all of this waiting was the Paladin going to mention to the players (before the PCs go into the dungeon) that hey, maybe an extra hand would be useful. Or that maybe he'd go do something else. Silence is acceptance (or percieved as acceptance).

Score:
DM: 1 demerit for not anticpating other plans
Thief: 1 demerit for not bringing in the whole party (had logical excuser, however)
Wizard: 1 demerit or not bringing in the whole party (which could have easily been in character)
Paladin: 1 demerit for not trying ways to get back in the game (reading a book is not trying)

Lastly, if this little prison escapade took 3 hours, it probably was the main content of the DM's adventure (Rather than a side-trek). He should have already had contingency plans to get the entire party to go into the prison. He could have sped things up, because part of the party was sitting out. Anything. Giving face time to the folks who are initiating action is a common practice among DM's. The mistake is to not realize that other folks are not doing anything and don't have the opportunity to do anything when your attention is focused on somebody else.

Score:
DM: 2 demerits for not anticpating other plans, and not interacting with all players
Thief: 1 demerit for not bringing in the whole party (had logical excuser, however)
Wizard: 1 demerit or not bringing in the whole party (which could have easily been in character)
Paladin: 1 demerit for not trying ways to get back in the game (reading a book is not trying)

 

[Janx]

I might ammend my scoring. In my above post, I ding the DM twice, for basically the same mistake. He either should have had multiple hooks, OR he should have realized his time was being monopolized by a party split and shifted to the Paladin and invented something.


The fact is, each person at that table made some mistakes. Not in-game mistakes, but at the table game-flow (or metagame) mistakes. Each had an opportunity to get everybody involved, but they didn't.

For some players, they have to make a choice of making what seems to be an "in character" choice that reduces fun for another player. What I tend to find is that the "in character" choice is often one where the player views only one path for the PC ("I might get imprisoned, I want to protect the secret passage for the future") and fails to see how pursuing that opportunity hurts another player. The Thief player could have also simply chosen to ignore that opportunity, and told the entire party about the secret, so they could go do the mission together. The adventure would have continued, and everybody would have had fun.

My advice is this, if you ever find a point where acting in character would cause less fun for another player, consider a more fun choice, and see if you can justify that new choice as in-character. Odds are good you can. Role-playing in character does not have to come at the sacrifice of fun for others, therefore it should not sacrifice fun for others.

 

[buzz]

I'll tell you what's in it for me when I stay at a session after my character dies:

Let's note that the OP isn't talking about the issue of PC death. The situation he describes involves a player with a living PC given nothing to do for three hours. Handling PC death in D&D is probably fodder for a separate thread entirely.

The following responses may come off snarky, but are not intended as such. I'm sort of playing Devil's Advocate here.

1. Social Companionship

But I don't need D&D to do that. I came to play D&D. Why should I be happy being denied the ability to play D&D? Should I be happy showing up to a pickup game of basketball and sitting on the bench for the whole game just because my friends are there? If we want to hang out, we'll go to a bar.

2. Following the Storyline

But I came to play D&D. If I wanted to read a book or watch a movie, I could do that on my own.

3. Watching Good Players Play

D&D is not a spectator sport. Not for three hours, at least.

4. Taking Turns

Shure, but should a turn last three hours?

fusangite, I'm not denying that the group needs to be accomodating and let everyone get some spotlight time. But the simple fact is that everyone at the table came to play some D&D. The needs of the "story" or "realistic" character actions are, IMO, totally subordinate to the need for everyone at the table to get to have fun. It is totally unreasonable to ask a player to show up and do nothing for an entire session. That they "get to watch expert players in action" and "follow the story" just does not cut it, IMO. That is not a group I want to be in.