Who's at fault?

[librarius_arcana]

roll playing.

Freudian slip much LoL

 

[Falkus]

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.

Exactly what I was getting at, thank you.

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.

DnD is a game, and fun should be had by all participants, otherwise, you're doing it wrong. It's that simple.

 

[kigmatzomat]

As someone who DMs far more than plays, I've had these kinds of problems over the years, though usually it was with 2-3 players going off on a mini-adventure without the other 6-8. (fun campaign but two years of a dozenish players can cause burnout)

The DM has tactics to minimize the problems but it requires some player buy-in. So in the example the thief finds out about the secret passage and begins scheming with the wizard. Where is the paladin? Are they doing this at night, while he sleeps/prays? 3 hours IRL time is at least 3 hours game time. As a paladin in a risky venture, wouldn't you get concerned if your allies disappeared for 3 hours? So I begin pushing the paladin someplace he can become involved.

Let's say the Paladin player decides to "roleplay" stubbornly and stays in his room praying, essentially martyring himself.

Right, switch tactics and have the rogue or wizard start recognizing where their plan may fall apart and require the intervention of a strong guy with a sword and some social standing. Maybe things would be better if the guards were distracted by a paladin requesting to visit the prison to provide the malcontents a vision of spiritual redemption; he probably can't reach the NPC but it would keep attention elsewhere. Or they could just tell the paladin that they have a way in but that it would make some people quite uncomfortable to reveal a secret way into the prison to a paladin for obvious reasons.

If the wizard & rogue insist on being obstinate as well I would speed up the planning IRL to get to the stealthy bits and then ensure the two are captured by the guards, preferrably before they could use the secret entrance. The paladin is arrested on suspicion of conspiring with his companions. As they are all thrown in the prison, they can speak with the NPC but now they have to get out and either escape as a group or hang as a group.

 

[Chimera]

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.

Which of course means that it won't happen, right? Dude, have you seen how many threads we have along these lines and how many people 'agree' with the people who think that they should be allowed to play whatever they want, no matter how much it doesn't fit in with the setting or the other characters at the table?

The whole "Rogue and Paladin don't get along" issue is as old as the Paladin class itself. It's why I declare that allowing a Paladin into the group has to be a group decision. Given the need for rogue-ish skills in D&D, you either have to make allowances for each other, or you have to avoid the issue entirely. Which if you skip having a rogue in the party, can seriously gimp the party's ability to handle certain things.

The best option for having a Rogue in the same party as a Paladin is to make the Rogue an Investigator type character. That way you can justify the skills and the sneaking around, while putting him/her on the same side of the law as a Paladin.

 

[fusangite]

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.

I know what the situation involved. But I felt it was important to raise the thing that much more commonly leave you with no character to play for a significant portion of the evening. The argument that were being made about D&D as a game of "me me me now now now" sound a whole lot more silly when you realize that demanding D&D function like this also turns characters into de facto immortals.

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?

The party getting separated is part of playing D&D. Your character being incapacitated: part of D&D. Your character dying: part of D&D. You have a funny idea about what D&D is if it doesn't include these possibilities.

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.

I'm not a big fan of doing all my socializing outside of domestic space. I and my gaming friends invest quite a bit in making our homes social spaces. We include dinner with our games, a few bottles of wine; we sit on comfortable furniture because we don't see a big distinction between gaming time and social time, even though we stay pretty on-task compared to a lot of groups.

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

It's not a spectator sport. It's sometimes an elimination game, though. (See below.)

Shure, but should a turn last three hours?

No. The GM should alternate between members of a party if it splits up.

But the simple fact is that everyone at the table came to play some D&D.

The world is full of elimination games. Some of us find them fun. The potential for elimination is a feature of a lot of games. Part of what makes a game like Shogun, Diplomacy, Axis & Allies, etc. fun is the risk of elimination. In fact, these games don't work unless people get eliminated along the way. Would you show up at someone's house for one of these games and then complain because you were eliminated? Of course not! D&D is no different; character injury, death, capture, etc. create possibilities for you to be excluded from active play for a significant portion of a session.

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.

Some of us have trouble having fun in games where our choices are taken away from us, our characters' abilities debased and rules suspended just to "include everybody." Lots of people have trouble enjoying RPGs where their choices have no consequences. When I am in a game where my choices have no consequences or where my characters' abilities are debased, I tune out; I stop having fun because I cease to feel like I'm playing a game -- I turn into a spectator, the very thing you are trying to avoid.

If I'm in a combat and my character is killed, I want him to really die. If the GM fudges things so that I live no matter what I do, I'm a spectator all game; if my character dies, I have, at least, been an actor and decision-maker up to the moment the fatal blow is struck.

It is totally unreasonable to ask a player to show up and do nothing for an entire session.

Of course you shouldn't plan on a player being excluded beforehand. But if things shake down in such a way that he is, I don't see why being eliminated early in a session is any more problematic in D&D than it is in Diplomacy.

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.

Fair enough. How fortunate that there are all kinds of groups out there.

 

[buzz]

fusangite, I think you're arguing from an exaggerated counter-example. I'm not suggesting that all the PCs be immortal and that everyone needs to have the spotlight every second. I'm also well aware that there are "elimination" aspects of D&D, and that's cool. But the specific situation we're talking about here is a player with a viable PC being left out of the game for THREE HOURS. I can't think of any sort of enjoyable activity that allows for you to be knocked out in the first few minutes and then sit around for hours on end doing nothing. That's just crazy.

On top of this, the whole issue of elimination in D&D is , like I said, fodder for a whole 'nother thread. Leaving that aside, there are always ways to get around it. Let the player take on the roles of some NPCs. Let him play a one-shot "PC of the week". Let him run all the monsters during combat. Let him DO SOMETHING.

We may just have to agree to disagree, because "that's just what happens sometimes" is not justification enough for me. D&D should not work this way.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

The DM. It is his responsibility to make sure everyone at the table is involved. He doesn't need to find a way for the Paladin to know about the secret passage, all he has to do is have the Paladin do something the Paladin would have fun doing even if it is completely unrelated to what the others are doing.

*BING BING!* A winnah!

The Auld Grump

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

While it is true that it is not always possible to keep every player involved, it would be ludicrous to even suggest this example was really such a case.

Letting things fall apart and making no attempt to correct things for 3 hours does not cut it in my book.

 

[fusangite]

fusangite, I think you're arguing from an exaggerated counter-example.

There's nothing exaggerated or unusual about one's character being incapacitated, dead or captured for most of a session. So I don't see where your exaggeration claim is coming from.

But the specific situation we're talking about here is a player with a viable PC being left out of the game for THREE HOURS.

I agree that this is a suboptimal outcome. But my God man, it's only three hours. Sometimes my players spend 3 hours just trying to decide what to do. If you can't be laid-back enough to tolerate something like this happening every once in a while, you're way too high maintenance for my game -- and for a lot of other people's.

My time is precious just like yours. Precious enough that I set aside ample quantities of it to hang out in a laid-back way with my friends against the backdrop of a shared activity.

I can't think of any sort of enjoyable activity that allows for you to be knocked out in the first few minutes and then sit around for hours on end

As I said before, it's only three hours. You're excited about this like it's a whole week. I have to set aside eight hours to stay at home by myself to get my cable repaired. What's the big deal here?

doing nothing.

But you're not doing nothing. You're giving advice to the other players. You are making deductions about what is happening. You're engaging in friendly table talk. Etc.

That's just crazy.

But you have just acknowledged that this is perfectly okay if your character is killed or incapacitated. Why should the reason for your character being out of the action (ie. poor planning by the GM and poor decisions by other players versus failing to make your save vs. gorgon breath) make that much of a difference between something being acceptable and totally outrageous? The effect is identical. Make up your mind!

On top of this, the whole issue of elimination in D&D is , like I said, fodder for a whole 'nother thread.

No. It's directly germaine here.

You are arguing that it is totally unacceptable and outrageous for a player's character to be sidelined for 80% of the episode. D&D's nature as an elimination game directly pertains to your argument because it is clear, by virtue of the fact that D&D is such a game, that there is nothing outrageous, unacceptable or even abnormal about this outcome.

Leaving that aside, there are always ways to get around it. Let the player take on the roles of some NPCs. Let him play a one-shot "PC of the week". Let him run all the monsters during combat. Let him DO SOMETHING.

Some players like doing that kind of stuff and, for some GMs, this works well with their GMing style. But some players don't especially want to do this stuff. They don't need to be rolling dice ever 15 minutes to feel like they're having fun or playing the game. These players find other things to do when their character is out of the action; a DM should not need to provide babysitting for a player whose character goes down.

We may just have to agree to disagree, because "that's just what happens sometimes" is not justification enough for me. D&D should not work this way.

Then why do the rules make it so easy for this to happen?

 

[ThirdWizard]

But you're not doing nothing. You're giving advice to the other players. You are making deductions about what is happening. You're engaging in friendly table talk. Etc.

You'd better not be! You're dead! Make the occasional joke, but no commenting on the game!

Dead PCs can play NPCs. Then they can make in-character comments again.