Who's at fault?

[buzz]

The reason I posted, I have to admit with guilt, was to stir the pot. Although I've lurked for a while, I've only just joined recently. Over the years I've presented other gamers with this situation and I've received many different replies. Basically I thought it would help me get to know my fellow Enworlders.

Excellent! Welcome to the boards, Lockridge.

 

[Merkuri]

I don't think any one person is at fault here. It was kind of a group-screwup. But IMO a good DM should have stopped the game when he realized that the paladin was being left out. If it were me, I would have called a time out and asked the players, "What do you want to do about this?" then I would have presented them with some options like:

• The DM could whip something up for the paladin to do and split his time between the main group and the paladin (perhaps even trying to get the two groups back together... the paladin could end up going to the prison or whatever for another reason and being startled by the other party members beating him there).
  
• The group could agree to do some creative maneuvering or re-writing of the plot to get the paladin involved (perhaps he walked by just at the right moment and overheard what they were doing). Note that I wouldn't do this without the support of the group, otherwise it could be seen as railroading.
  
• The paladin's player could put his character aside for the session and play an NPC or assist the DM in some way.
  
• Or the player could simply agree to sit the session out and catch up on his reading. You never know, he might have preferred it.

So while I don't think it's the DM's fault, per say, I think the DM missed his chance to resolve the issue and find some way to work the paladin's player into the game.

 

[librarius_arcana]

I have a situation for you.

A party consists of a thief-type rogue, a paladin and a wizard.
The adventure callls for the party to find a way into the city prison located beneath the city to find a certain NPC.

An NPC thief tells the PC thief about a secret passage to the prison.
The PC thief then tells only the PC wizard about the secret passage. His rational is that telling the paladin would likely result in the paladin having the passage closed after the adventure by telling the authorities. The thief believes that he may need that secret passage in case he is ever imprisoned.

All of this role play makes sense however the player who played the PC paladin was left out of the adventure for 3 hours of game time. The player certainly did not have any fun that night and spent the time reading other books and generally being frustrated.

The PC thief believed that he was role playing well.

The PC paladin stated that this was only a game and that the thief should have made an exception in favor of allowing the whole group to enjoy the game.

The DM believed that he should stay neutral and not "make up" another way for the PC paladin to know about the passage.

Who's at fault for the paladin player's boring evening? The thief for not recognizing that this is only a game? The DM for not metagaming another way to include the paladin? The paladin himself for not accepting that life doesn't always work out?

That makes sense within character, and thats what should have happened,
but they could have talked (both in character and out) about a way to get the paladin involved, could have been interesting to see how the paladin would have to cope with the moral issue,

ie

Thief:
Okay paladin, I want to tell you something, but I want you to promise me first that you will not share this secret with anybody, no one, not a soul, not even your grandmar who breds those weird purple chickens things, you promise?

paladin:
(suspecting something wrong) Hu?, I don't know?......I'm not sure I want to know

Thief:
Aright let me put this another way, I'm trusting you (which he is) not to tell, And this "secret" is going to help someone in need (the npc, and maybe himself one day)
and I'd really like your help with helping this person, but you can't be involed without promising you won't tell a soul first,

paladin:
..........hu.......(how bad can it be?, and means helping some one in need)......Okay......what is it?

Thief:
Promise first...promise you won't tell anybody else the secret I'm about to tell you,

paladin:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I promise, I promise not to tell anybody else blah blah blah, happy now? but if this is something bad, it's your ass thief!

Thief:
(gulp..okay cross that bridge when we get to it)..well the secret is.......



See how hard is that?, and fun for all

 

[gizmo33]

IMO it's nobody's fault.

It's the nature of the game IMO that PCs occasionally fall into bottomless pits or the equivalent. It's not always possible to keep the player involved. The only thing the DM could have done better IMO was keep his head up and try to think of other ways around this - even if it was to get the player to play an NPC, split time, or whatever.

 

[tzor]

I'd blame the DM, and the players equally. The DM needs to be blamed for not giving the paladin something do to for those three hours of game time, and the players for wanting to split up the party.

As a DM my reaction would be "Oh sure split up the party. You go and advance the plot line. I'll just throw experience at the Paladin." Yes I've done split sessions before, not as fun but better than sidelining a player for three hours.

General rule of thumb, if you have to sneak around the party paladin, there is a good change you are dangerously close to breaking party unity. The best way to approach an idiot who is honest is to be honest with the idiot. You might discover he's not the idiot you thought he was.

 

[MonkeyDragon]

Everybody is at fault. And since all the reasons have been pointed out most eloquently above, I share with you one of the rules of the Monkeydragon's Table:

"Thou shalt remember that good gaming must come before good roleplaying. Thou shalt not allow thy fun to come at the expense of any other's fun."

 

[Wolv0rine]

Eh, how hard would it have been for either the DM or the Paladin to take the initiative to have the Paladin try to find another way into the prison? He's a paladin for heaven's sake, maybe he could buddy up with some guards and talk his way in. Maybe he could follow the Thief & Wizard and discover the passage with some good Spot checks? Lord knows if the DM and/or the Pal didn't want to do a side-task he (the character) could have gotten himself involved somehow on his own.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I think it's pretty clear that this is Teflon Billy's fault.

 

[Sanackranib]

No one is at fault. the simple fact is that sometimes for whatever reason a player or character will be left out of the loop in the intrest of roll playing. it may not be fun for the guy sitting out but there it is.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Now for my real post:

Being a DM, I think this is the players fault. I can't remember who said it earlier, but basically two of the players had a chance to let the third join in the fun and chose not to.

Of course as the full-time DM for my own group, I usually tend to blame these types of things on the players.