Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lockridge" data-source="post: 3027462" data-attributes="member: 43850">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 &quot;make up&quot; another way for the PC paladin to know about the passage.Who's at fault for the paladin player's boring evening?&nbsp; The thief for not recognizing that this is only a game?&nbsp; The DM for not metagaming another way to include the paladin?&nbsp; The paladin himself for not accepting that life doesn't always work out?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lockridge, post: 3027462, member: 43850"] 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? [/QUOTE]

Verification