Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 3027739" data-attributes="member: 7240">It seems like everybody has over-reacted. First of all, I don't see why the wizard's player did not make the list. He could have told the paladin after receiving the information from the rogue.Sometimes people's sessions are boring because their PC gets sidelined by injury, death or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. People in a longterm campaign should not be concerned about their character being marginalized for one evening. That stated, the GM could have winged something for the paladin to do to keep him busy. Alternatively, if the paladin's player had continued looking for a way in, it is possible that he could have found it, without the GM having to generate a tangential plot or event at all. The GM's ability to involve the paladin in the session was conditioned to a large degree by how hard the paladin kept looking -- either for the way in or for his fellow party members. The rogue's player could have been creative and made the paladin vow never to use the information except in certain ways if were told to him. And there are things the wizard's player could have done. But ultimately, a player spending some time on the sidelines is just not a big enough deal to justify that much fault being assigned to anybody.EDIT: Having now read Lockridge's final post on the matter, I feel a little more strongly opinionated about the whole thing. No offense but I don't think your group's solution to the question of playing style is one I would want to present as universally good. It's just a style decision that worked for your group.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fusangite, post: 3027739, member: 7240"] It seems like everybody has over-reacted. First of all, I don't see why the wizard's player did not make the list. He could have told the paladin after receiving the information from the rogue. Sometimes people's sessions are boring because their PC gets sidelined by injury, death or being in the wrong place at the wrong time. People in a longterm campaign should not be concerned about their character being marginalized for one evening. That stated, the GM could have winged something for the paladin to do to keep him busy. Alternatively, if the paladin's player had continued looking for a way in, it is possible that he could have found it, without the GM having to generate a tangential plot or event at all. The GM's ability to involve the paladin in the session was conditioned to a large degree by how hard the paladin kept looking -- either for the way in or for his fellow party members. The rogue's player could have been creative and made the paladin vow never to use the information except in certain ways if were told to him. And there are things the wizard's player could have done. But ultimately, a player spending some time on the sidelines is just not a big enough deal to justify that much fault being assigned to anybody. EDIT: Having now read Lockridge's final post on the matter, I feel a little more strongly opinionated about the whole thing. No offense but I don't think your group's solution to the question of playing style is one I would want to present as universally good. It's just a style decision that worked for your group. [/QUOTE]

Verification