Not Getting To Play

[Pex]

One thing worse than being affected by a Save or Suck spell and your d20 not believing in double digit numbers every round at the end of your turn so you can't do anything is being kept out of the combat by some obstacle, not necessarily a wall, so that you can't do anything and don't even have the hope of getting back in making a save at the end of your turn so you do nothing that combat but sit there. Spellcasters can be affected by this too.

As a DM do not do this to a player. I don't care how logical it is for the bad guys to do it. Don't do it. It sucks donkey.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One thing worse than being affected by a Save or Suck spell and your d20 not believing in double digit numbers every round at the end of your turn so you can't do anything is being kept out of the combat by some obstacle, not necessarily a wall, so that you can't do anything and don't even have the hope of getting back in making a save at the end of your turn so you do nothing that combat but sit there. Spellcasters can be affected by this too.

As a DM do not do this to a player. I don't care how logical it is for the bad guys to do it. Don't do it. It sucks donkey.

I agree. After seeing how unfun it was for my players, I now avoid hard control abilities. By that I mean things that deny actions entirely. Giving disadvantage or penalties, not a problem.

Am I playing suboptimal? Sure. But I'm not out to win. If I wanted to do that, I could without difficulty. I'm there to have fun, and part of that is helping everyone else have fun.

[clarkcd]

Am I playing suboptimal? Sure. But I'm not out to win. If I wanted to do that, I could without difficulty. I'm there to have fun, and part of that is helping everyone else have fun.

The reason I never use Sunder as a DM.

[RifleAvenger]

Ultimately, I disagree that control measures need to be removed outright. As a player, I was disappointed by a GM who began removing such things from the enemy repertoire, since it essentially discouraged me from carrying measures that might be used to countermand such obstacles. Because of the expectation of fair play symmetry between both sides of the screen at our table, it also meant an increased push to remove hard control as an option for the players. This drastically changed the nature of encounters involving force or violence (not necessarily combat, chases et al. fit into a similar boat) in a way that I found deeply dissatisfying.

Ultimately, this rule was undone, with the express knowledge that when other PCs got "jailed" and couldn't escape on their own I would carry options to remove the obstacle. They would try to do the same to me, and if I did get "jailed" I was relatively accepting of it given that control is my favored playstyle (so, to me, fair's fair if I didn't prepare an out).

A better rule might be ensure that players, as a team, have a way to remove or avert a given type of obstacle before using it. I don't find trading actions to be unfun; trying to maximize action economy advantage is part of the fun for me. If the [control] can be burrowed under, jumped over, broken through, dispelled, concentration broken, etc. it's just another problem to solve.

As a GM, I find that control-type abilities can add a lot of texture to encounters. Also, I enjoy running the sorts of characters and tactics that would make use of them. So, again, I would never remove them from my games for either the players or myself.

I can more agree with the deeper sentiment of not just saying "I win" as a GM, outside of MAYBE very specific genres (e.g. horror) with the session 0 understanding that PCs may just die helplessly. Control, as with everything, is most interesting when there is possible counterplay to it.

[Khedrac]

Ultimately, I disagree that control measures need to be removed outright.
This. If done properly hard control measures can be fun.

Case in point an adventure I was playing yesterday had a cursed sword that made anyone who could see it and was within 15 or 20' make a will save or lust after the sword wanting to kill it's owner and claim it (not entirely sure what it made the owner do, but there was some suggestion that was bad too).
The first two members of the party to see it were the warmage/cleric and the transmuter - both people with good saves so they should be fine, right? Wrong - they both failed. The proto-theurge killed the enemy and claimed the sword at which point the transmter attacked him. Both of them hammed it up ("my precious") and a great time was had by all of the players (not so the characters).
Thankfully my cleric made his save so a quick protection from evil got the wielder out of the sword's control and a quick resurgence demonstrated that the transmuter was a weak willed idiot (he failed again). Thankfully the proto-theurge was able to drop a protection from evil on the transmuter (we both rolled well for our touch attacks) which calmed things down. As an interim solution the party scout took the bundled up sword (so he could neither see nor feel it) off into the woods to hide from the two idiots while the rest of us finished dealing with all the repercussions from the adventure as it took several hours for the cure effect to wear off. (We were all level 4 so no, we didn't have anything more powerful to use).

What we did have was quite a laugh as things went extremely silly.

[MoiMagnus]

I quite like the following convention:

Either every PC is in the fight, or some PCs are late by one or two rounds (or the fight is likely to be finished in one or two rounds), or the fight is quickly resolved through few skill checks rather than a full combat encounter (even if that mean some degree of railroading of the fight by the DM).

[Ken Murikumo]

This. If done properly hard control measures can be fun.

Snip


While I understand where you are coming from & i did have a similarly fun experience some time ago, the players (and myself at the time) still had options and got to participate in the combat.

Now think of what would have happened if the players got turned to stone or were paralyzed. They'd have to sit on their hands and wait until they make the proper save to continue participating.

Ultimately, that's what the bigger issue that the op is covering. Removing a player from combat; Fully & completely until they make their save/skill check.

Personally, i replace conditions and status effects that remove players fully with some kind of debuff. You're "paralyzed", not paralyzed; you can't move from your square and you have -8 to dex and str. 3rd party pathfinder has a condition called "scared" which is essentially a more severe form of shaken which i use in place of the panicked. This leave the players with limited options, but still options to participate in combat.

I would also like to clarify that dead is still dead. Im not that nice.

[farothel]

At our table the rule is simple: whatever the PCs can do, the enemies can do as well. So if I start using 'save or die' spells, our opponents can do the same. And that is fair to all of us. Of course, that's an advantage of playing in a stable group for almost 20 years now.

[MoiMagnus]

I feel like the subject is significantly deviating.

Pex's post was not directly criticising Save or Suck spells. He was saying that "One thing which is worse the SoS spells is" having a PC unable to participate to the fight at all. The argument being that with a SoS, you still have the possibility of coming back on a successful save, while if your character is not even in the fight, you have nothing to do other than watching.

[Xervous]

I’ve run into a few issues with players recently opting out of fights (that I had provided only one hint at rather than 3) and the pain of everyone agreeing that the narrative wasn’t to be twisted at that point since those who had wandered off did do as a big event in pursuit of character goals.

I’ve since acted to mitigate such events with hirelings being made available as ‘my character is absent’ options. Overall seems to be a win win, players are enjoying seeing their hirelings brought to life and it allows party members to narratively ‘be off doing things’ while everyone still gets in on the action.

[Pex]

I feel like the subject is significantly deviating.

Pex's post was not directly criticising Save or Suck spells. He was saying that "One thing which is worse the SoS spells is" having a PC unable to participate to the fight at all. The argument being that with a SoS, you still have the possibility of coming back on a successful save, while if your character is not even in the fight, you have nothing to do other than watching.

Yes, this. Hold Person is fine. A Fear effect is fine. You get a chance to overcome it at the end of your turn and curse your d20 when it only rolls single digits. Some spell that fully blocks the doorway into the room such that your PC is stuck in the hallway while everyone else plays the combat in the room is not. At the very least give that locked out PC something to do. Throw in an extra appropriate monster that PC has to fight alone. Don't treat the PC like Harry Potter in Chamber of Secrets: "I'll be in my room making no noise pretending I don't exist."

[Rynjin]

Yes, this. Hold Person is fine. A Fear effect is fine. You get a chance to overcome it at the end of your turn and curse your d20 when it only rolls single digits. Some spell that fully blocks the doorway into the room such that your PC is stuck in the hallway while everyone else plays the combat in the room is not. At the very least give that locked out PC something to do. Throw in an extra appropriate monster that PC has to fight alone. Don't treat the PC like Harry Potter in Chamber of Secrets: "I'll be in my room making no noise pretending I don't exist."

Errr...they do have something to do. Remove the blockage. Get around it. Find a different way in.

Smash a wall/the door, teleport/Dimension Door, Passwall, Shape Stone/Wood, walk to somewhere else, etc. You always have something to do.

If your first response to an obstacle as a player is "well I just do nothing then", that's your fault.

[False God]

Have to post my agreement with the OP, effects that remove players from the game are not beneficial mechanics. Especially if those effects can last for long portions of the game.

[KaussH]

So, how do effects that take you out of play compare to killing the charicter?

I ask as often a long term take down means the villain no longer needs to kill the hero right now.
Lacking a take down shouldn't the villain just focus and kill instead?

I know its devils advocate here, but isnt dead worse then held/paralyzed/ ect?
Or do you want the gm to not take pcs out of combat including death?

[Mastikator]

Yes, this. Hold Person is fine. A Fear effect is fine. You get a chance to overcome it at the end of your turn and curse your d20 when it only rolls single digits. Some spell that fully blocks the doorway into the room such that your PC is stuck in the hallway while everyone else plays the combat in the room is not. At the very least give that locked out PC something to do. Throw in an extra appropriate monster that PC has to fight alone. Don't treat the PC like Harry Potter in Chamber of Secrets: "I'll be in my room making no noise pretending I don't exist."

Another, similar thing like this is devising/altering monsters to specifically counter player abilities. Why even let players have abilities? The monsters are only supposed to win in horror games.

[Xervous]

Another, similar thing like this is devising/altering monsters to specifically counter player abilities. Why even let players have abilities? The monsters are only supposed to win in horror games.

Everything being conveniently fire immune is bad form but I don’t see the harm with infrequent counters that don’t strain verisimilitude. A supervillain will work to counter a hero’s powers if given the chance and opportunity. But that may just be it, a monster rather than monsters. An exception to the norm.

[Keltest]

Errr...they do have something to do. Remove the blockage. Get around it. Find a different way in.

Smash a wall/the door, teleport/Dimension Door, Passwall, Shape Stone/Wood, walk to somewhere else, etc. You always have something to do.

If your first response to an obstacle as a player is "well I just do nothing then", that's your fault.

Have to agree with this. If you just sit there pouting because you have to run around the long way to get into combat for a couple rounds or something, thats entirely your own fault. Likewise if you run off alone and dont get to participate because you separated, thats your own fault. If the DM puts up a magical impenetrable sphere around the boss arena that nobody can breach by any means because Plot(tm) then yeah, thats kind of a poor move on the DM's part, but i have never even heard of that actually happening in a game.

[farothel]

Another, similar thing like this is devising/altering monsters to specifically counter player abilities. Why even let players have abilities? The monsters are only supposed to win in horror games.

I don't fully agree. You can do this, but not all the time. It's like in the Star Trek roleplay book, where they say that you can have a session where the player's techno gizmo's don't work, but not all the time. But I do agree that you should be careful when doing that. But having an intelligent adversary research his opponents just like the players do is no problem to me. If a villain for instance knows that the party mages loves to throw fire stuff, it's only logical that he/she/it invests in fire protection. Maybe not fire immunity, but at least fire resistance. In the same way that the players will do if they have such knowledge. And you can also throw hints about your villains if the players do their research. To continue, if the party mage always uses fire spells and they know they're going up against a red dragon, it's up to him to make sure he can also do something else.

As to the separation issue, we've have it multiple times in our group. Either the GM switches back and forth between the two groups (often even physically separating the players) or it's the same encounter and then we keep going one after the other. The first option will mean one group or the other has to wait at times, but okay, it's not that much of a problem (you can think about your next move while the GM is working with the other group) and in the second option we just go through the initiative and if a player does nothing, that's his/her choice.

[gijoemike]

So the big bad guys never take advantage of a split party or perform 1 on 1 combats such as a duel? This would leave half the party just watching the game being played?

The bad guy/gal/xal never throws or bull rushes someone off a ledge? Which would remove them from combat for 2+ rounds unless they fly? How does a basic pit trap work in your games? I have used it with bad guys around the far corner with bows. When the trap is tripped and someone falls in they roll around the corner and start firing. The person in the 30 foot pit is very much alive but it takes rounds of not playing to get into the fight (gnome in armor had a climb speed of 10 and not the best climb check).

Do you/your GM use anything in enchantment? That makes the player an NPC for rounds/days unless another party member as the perfect counter spell/item. A fighter/barb with a low will basically doesn't stand a chance against level 4 and above spells. I totally agree clerics/wizards/sorcs have a much better chance.

Tne npc's do not use solid fog as that is no save and takes rounds to move though? Have you never had a party membered MAZED before? What about an assassin's strike that downs a PC in combat due to damage? That dead PC cannot participate anymore. That is worse than being mazed.

No walls or stone or iron or force but there are magic items, multiple spells, class abilities designed to get through that. Those spells/abilities exist for a reason. The majority of these spells affects and situations are there to delay reinforcements or break up a fighting pair for a few rounds. Yes that player doesn't get to do much for 3 rounds of combat which could be 45 minutes. The player should still be engaged with the game and the outcome.

There are 100's of effects and situations where a PC is just out of combat for 3+ rounds and there is no save or it is a bad skill check to make progress. Many times these add excitement and flare to a standard encounter.

STORY:
A large city plaza, dragon lands and our party has to fight it. There were 2 classic dwarven defenders in the party. They step up with their "We will hold it back" attitude. The dragon uses Telekensis and hurls the first dwarf not into a building, or into the air to become friends with gravity. Instead he hurls the bearded wall of steel down main street over 160 feet. That dwarf now had to take 4 full rounds just to get back to where he was standing. Next round dragon did the same thing to dwarf 2 except down 3rd. 3 rounds later Dwarf 1 makes it back. Round 5 now, dragon uses TK again to put the dwarf down main street again. At his point poor dwarf has rolled 2 d20 and failed 2 will saves (10th combat round). Yes the dwarf had 1 in 20 chance to make the save. The other dwarf had a 33% chance to make the save but his die forgot what double digits were for those 2 rolls. But that is basically a no save situation. For 8 rounds of the combat they just ran in heavy armor down their respective streets.

The part had to fight without the melee heavy hitters/tanks for 8 rounds. Finally in round 11 the dragon was going to fly away, dwarf 1 arrived and charged it. Hit with a confirmed critical, screamed "MISS ME MUCH?" and the dragon died. It was one of the most glorious gaming combats of the players lives. And it was because of those 8 you are not in this fight no-save-to-get-back no-skill-check-to-speed-this-up rounds for 2 different combatants (16 rounds of I do nothing but run).

[Pex]

Errr...they do have something to do. Remove the blockage. Get around it. Find a different way in.

Smash a wall/the door, teleport/Dimension Door, Passwall, Shape Stone/Wood, walk to somewhere else, etc. You always have something to do.

If your first response to an obstacle as a player is "well I just do nothing then", that's your fault.

The point is there is no way in. The player doesn't have access to teleportation or to smash a wall or a means to get rid of the obstacle. Splitting the party is fine. That's not the problem. The problem is when the party is split a player is left with nothing to do. By whatever means he's split off he can't get back into the fight. Where ever he is there isn't anything to do in his vicinity. There are no actions to take. Nothing to explore. Nothing to try. Nothing to attempt. He's cut off from the scene and the game.

[Jason]

It was one of the most glorious gaming combats of the players lives. And it was because of those 8 you are not in this fight no-save-to-get-back no-skill-check-to-speed-this-up rounds for 2 different combatants (16 rounds of I do nothing but run).
I like the story. It was a good use of TK to mix things up. The dwarves in the story had an obvious way to get back into the action and they used it, which seems to be what the original poster was upset about - no way back into the action.

[farothel]

The point is there is no way in. The player doesn't have access to teleportation or to smash a wall or a means to get rid of the obstacle. Splitting the party is fine. That's not the problem. The problem is when the party is split a player is left with nothing to do. By whatever means he's split off he can't get back into the fight. Where ever he is there isn't anything to do in his vicinity. There are no actions to take. Nothing to explore. Nothing to try. Nothing to attempt. He's cut off from the scene and the game.

You should indeed either give the player a possible way in, or something else to do. I agree that if neither of those two options are present, it's not good, unless it's the player who decided to withdraw and then do nothing. At that point it's player choice.

[Rynjin]

The point is there is no way in. The player doesn't have access to teleportation or to smash a wall or a means to get rid of the obstacle. Splitting the party is fine. That's not the problem. The problem is when the party is split a player is left with nothing to do. By whatever means he's split off he can't get back into the fight. Where ever he is there isn't anything to do in his vicinity. There are no actions to take. Nothing to explore. Nothing to try. Nothing to attempt. He's cut off from the scene and the game.

Do you have a specific story in mind or is this some type of hypothetical "gotcha" scenario designed to provoke heated debate?

Regardless, if a specific player is SO unprepared that they have no means to interact with this nondescript "obstacle", they're probably lucky they didn't get to participate in the combat, because death is the ultimate removal from combat.

[Pex]

Do you have a specific story in mind or is this some type of hypothetical "gotcha" scenario designed to provoke heated debate?

Regardless, if a specific player is SO unprepared that they have no means to interact with this nondescript "obstacle", they're probably lucky they didn't get to participate in the combat, because death is the ultimate removal from combat.

It's happened to me a few times in the past few months with different DMs, most recent just before I posted and needed to vent. I know it wasn't on purpose in a Tyrannical DM (TM) sort of way, but it still ticked me off just the same. You don't let a player sit there doing nothing while you take 30 minutes to an hour running a combat. At the very least let him play one of the bad guys in the fight.

[Kesnit]

The point is there is no way in. The player doesn't have access to teleportation or to smash a wall or a means to get rid of the obstacle. Splitting the party is fine. That's not the problem. The problem is when the party is split a player is left with nothing to do. By whatever means he's split off he can't get back into the fight. Where ever he is there isn't anything to do in his vicinity. There are no actions to take. Nothing to explore. Nothing to try. Nothing to attempt. He's cut off from the scene and the game.


Do you have a specific story in mind or is this some type of hypothetical "gotcha" scenario designed to provoke heated debate?

I do. I don't remember exactly what led to the situation, but it ended with all but two members of the party (I was one) falling into a lake with dolphins. The PCs in the lake started fighting the dolphins. Since I didn't fall in the lake, there was no reason for me to go into the lake. I was a melee Crusader, so couldn't attack from range. So I (and the other player whose PC didn't fall in) sat there for about 30 minutes while everyone else fought the dolphins.

I don't know why the other PCs didn't just swim to the side and climb out.

[Keltest]

I do. I don't remember exactly what led to the situation, but it ended with all but two members of the party (I was one) falling into a lake with dolphins. The PCs in the lake started fighting the dolphins. Since I didn't fall in the lake, there was no reason for me to go into the lake. I was a melee Crusader, so couldn't attack from range. So I (and the other player whose PC didn't fall in) sat there for about 30 minutes while everyone else fought the dolphins.

I don't know why the other PCs didn't just swim to the side and climb out.

Um... wanting to fight the dolphins and/or rescue your fellow PCs seems like a pretty good reason to go into the lake to me.

[Mastikator]

Um... wanting to fight the dolphins and/or rescue your fellow PCs seems like a pretty good reason to go into the lake to me.

Why would you want to fight the dolphins? Are they members of the cult of the deep or something, are they in league with aboleths or guarding the trident of destiny? Is your DM forcing you to keep track of food and you're out of rations? Are they just picking a fight with anything for exp?

[Xervous]

Why would you want to fight the dolphins? Are they members of the cult of the deep or something, are they in league with aboleths or guarding the trident of destiny? Is your DM forcing you to keep track of food and you're out of rations? Are they just picking a fight with anything for exp?

They said nasty things about me mum and groped the paladin

But really, why fight random dolphins?

[King of Nowhere]

while it is true that it feels bad to be cut out of a fight, i disagree that it should be avoided. the reason is, as a player i'd hate to feel that the game was rigged in my favor.
ok, the game IS rigged in my favor, in that the dm has set up encounters that i should manage to win. but within that premise, he's not pulling any punches. i'd much rather sit out of a fight than stay in the fight because the dm intentionally misused his npcs. and having the npcs not using good strategies makes them look bad. and it takes away a lot of immersion, at least for me. why this villain, that has been characterized as very clever and resourceful, is not using this clealry good tactc? meh, this villain is actually pretty lame. and a hero is only as cool as his villain...

maybe it's not ideal while you ae fighting, but you'll remember much more fondly a fight where you managed to defeat a villain who disabled half the party. the players will respect the villain, and will be happeir when they win

[kyoryu]

I'm kind of done with hard control in games on both sides. I love soft control though.

And I prefer games where you can remove someone from combat without killing them as a first-class concept in the game.

[Keltest]

They said nasty things about me mum and groped the paladin

But really, why fight random dolphins?

I dunno. But half the party started fighting them, so presumably they had some reason of some kind, even if it was arbitrary violence.

[gijoemike]

I do. I don't remember exactly what led to the situation, but it ended with all but two members of the party (I was one) falling into a lake with dolphins. The PCs in the lake started fighting the dolphins. Since I didn't fall in the lake, there was no reason for me to go into the lake. I was a melee Crusader, so couldn't attack from range. So I (and the other player whose PC didn't fall in) sat there for about 30 minutes while everyone else fought the dolphins.

I don't know why the other PCs didn't just swim to the side and climb out.

Ok, I am finally beginning to under stand the point Pex is making from your story. The encounter exposed and exploited multiple of your character's weaknesses.

There was a way for you to go int the fight but dang why would anyone handicap themselves that badly? The trick here is YOUR character. The rogue or barbarian cannot teleport out of a force cage or solid sphere. But someone in the party should have the power. Mage pops in with a d. Door then next turn frees you both.

It sounds to me like the party didnt act like a functioning party. No one tried to mitigate your weakness. Things like this need to happen for the game to properly function. Wizard casts fly on the fighter, cleric casts protection from evil on the barbarian, tanks need to position themselves between the mage and the enemy.

In that story they could have swam closer to the shore so you could attack in only hip deep water, or swam to a dock so you could yank them out. Instead they stayed in the middle of deep water for a fifht that doesnt sound like it had much "porpoise."

[Rynjin]

I do. I don't remember exactly what led to the situation, but it ended with all but two members of the party (I was one) falling into a lake with dolphins. The PCs in the lake started fighting the dolphins. Since I didn't fall in the lake, there was no reason for me to go into the lake. I was a melee Crusader, so couldn't attack from range. So I (and the other player whose PC didn't fall in) sat there for about 30 minutes while everyone else fought the dolphins.

I don't know why the other PCs didn't just swim to the side and climb out.

So...you DON'T have a story that fits the premise of the OP. You did exactly what I said is generally what happens when people supposedly get "locked out". You chose not to participate.

Unless you tried to do something/ go somewhere else and the GM said "No, you can't", you were not locked out of this situation. You have nearly limitless options at your disposal and you chose: do nothing for 30 IRL minutes. Kind of objectively the worst possible option. That's on you.


In that story they could have swam closer to the shore so you could attack in only hip deep water, or swam to a dock so you could yank them out. Instead they stayed in the middle of deep water for a fight that doesn't sound like it had much "porpoise."

They sure could have. Rather than doing nothing, maybe the person in question could have suggested that to the party, who may just not have thought to do so for whatever reason.

[Kesnit]

Um... wanting to fight the dolphins and/or rescue your fellow PCs seems like a pretty good reason to go into the lake to me.

Per the DM, since we didn't fall in, we had no reason to have to get out of the lake. The encounter was to get out of the lake - not to fight the dolphins.


Why would you want to fight the dolphins? Are they members of the cult of the deep or something, are they in league with aboleths or guarding the trident of destiny? Is your DM forcing you to keep track of food and you're out of rations? Are they just picking a fight with anything for exp?

I have no idea why the 4 PCs decided to try to fight the dolphins. (Yes, 6 person party.)


They said nasty things about me mum and groped the paladin

But really, why fight random dolphins?

That was the way this game was set up. Everything was a random encounter in the world. Every hex we moved, we had to roll for wind direction and speed, terrain, temperature, and what the random encounter would be. Sometimes it was a monster. Sometimes it was a trap. Sometimes it was a helpful NPC, or treasure. Sometimes it was nothing.


I dunno. But half the party started fighting them, so presumably they had some reason of some kind, even if it was arbitrary violence.

More than half - 4 out of 6. Mostly arbitrary violence.


There was a way for you to go int the fight but dang why would anyone handicap themselves that badly? The trick here is YOUR character. The rogue or barbarian cannot teleport out of a force cage or solid sphere. But someone in the party should have the power. Mage pops in with a d. Door then next turn frees you both.

It wasn't so much handicapping our PCs. It was that we had already "beaten" the encounter (by not falling in) and so we could not contribute.

Had any of the PCs come close to the shore, I would have extended my halbred to help them out. None did.


It sounds to me like the party didnt act like a functioning party.

Very true, but that is longer story...


So...you DON'T have a story that fits the premise of the OP. You did exactly what I said is generally what happens when people supposedly get "locked out". You chose not to participate.

No, we were told we could not participate because we had already succeeded in doing what was supposed to be done. We weren't in the lake, so did not have to find a way out.


You have nearly limitless options at your disposal and you chose:

No, actually we didn't. We couldn't leave because the rest of the party was in the lake. We couldn't help because the 4 PCs in the lake had chosen to fight the dolphins rather than just swim to shore. Since we were on the shore - and out of range of the others - we weren't allowed to help.


do nothing for 30 IRL minutes. Kind of objectively the worst possible option. That's on you.

It was the only option we had. Although I will say that was in part on the other players. The DM set up the scenario and had the other PCs just gotten out of the lake, the encounter would have been a lot shorter. But once they decided to enter combat, we were shut out by the DM.


They sure could have. Rather than doing nothing, maybe the person in question could have suggested that to the party, who may just not have thought to do so for whatever reason.

In hindsight, I could have recommended they get out of the water. However, running away from encounters means there is no XP. The other players wanted the XP, which is probably why they started combat in the first place. By the time I got over my shock at what they were doing, combat was going and I was twiddling my thumbs.

[Rynjin]

No, we were told we could not participate because we had already succeeded in doing what was supposed to be done. We weren't in the lake, so did not have to find a way out.

This is, again, not the context of the OP (which is about spells like Wall of Stone, unless I'm mistaken, which can lock down certain entrances and exits). This is just a bad DM arbitrarily deciding which decisions are open to a player.

In this case I'd say the best decision available to you is "don't play with this guy".

[Keltest]

This is, again, not the context of the OP (which is about spells like Wall of Stone, unless I'm mistaken, which can lock down certain entrances and exits). This is just a bad DM arbitrarily deciding which decisions are open to a player.

In this case I'd say the best decision available to you is "don't play with this guy".

Agreed. You could have done something besides stare helplessly at your party members bludgeoning sea mammals to death. If the DM didnt want to let you, thats the DM, not the game.

[Cheesegear]

One thing worse [...] is being kept out of the combat by some obstacle, not necessarily a wall, so that you can't do anything...

Round 1: The monster crits twice and leaves one of the squishier PCs on 0.
Round 2-5: The PC makes Death Saves and does nothing the entire fight. Not only does nothing, but is constantly on the verge of literal death. And if you can't pass a 'Suck or Suck' spell, you can't pass a Death Save, either.

Pretty sure that's the worst that can happen.

[AdAstra]

Round 1: The monster crits twice and leaves one of the squishier PCs on 0.
Round 2-5: The PC makes Death Saves and does nothing the entire fight. Not only does nothing, but is constantly on the verge of literal death. And if you can't pass a 'Suck or Suck' spell, you can't pass a Death Save, either.

Pretty sure that's the worst that can happen.

That's more of a case of bad luck, rather than deliberate DM choice, which I assume is the more irritating thing to Pex because it's an intentional act rather than the dice falling where they may. Plus, healing is usually available, so barring unusual circumstance healing the person before they die should be pretty high on the priority list.

[Pex]

That's more of a case of bad luck, rather than deliberate DM choice, which I assume is the more irritating thing to Pex because it's an intentional act rather than the dice falling where they may. Plus, healing is usually available, so barring unusual circumstance healing the person before they die should be pretty high on the priority list.

Being critted to death's door in round 1 does suck. I would privately question the balance of the scenario. If it's level 1 or 2 I can chalk it up to being level 1 or 2. It's not the same scenario but in the same ballpark. Maybe it is a subtle difference, but the difference means everything to me. I'm more bothered by Hunger of Hadar in a choke point blocking you off unless you want to commit (near) suicide and don't know where to go on the other side even if you're willing to run through it than actually being in the combat suffering Hold Person and your d20 pretends it doesn't have numbers higher than 8. It was more irritating because it wasn't the first time in the campaign I was locked out of the encounter. At least I'm finally able to have conversations with NPCs that last more than a minute while everyone else gets fifteen, but I ramble.

[Willie the Duck]

Mentally I am splitting this into two categories: situational blocks ('no you can't contribute, you aren't there'), and shutdown blocks (wall spells, paralysis, etc.).

Regarding situational blocks, this is really hard to stop from happening. Players have an amazing ability to split the party right before things go down. Certainly systemic setup plays a part as well (only the 'rogue' character will pass stealth checks, so they go off on their own, taking-off-armor-times mean that the party tank is unlikely to be able to go join the dolphin fight until after the fight is resolved, etc.). In general, I think the way to help address this is to:

Make it at least unlikely that this will happen (set up the situation where the rogue that fails their stealth can run away screaming to their friends instead of having to fight on their own, offer quick-release armor regardless of realism, etc.)
Make individual combats reasonable of length (so that non-participation isn't thaaat bad)
As suggested, have the player of the nonparticipating character play a different character for the fight.


Regarding shutdown blocks, in general, game combat systems are composed of either comparing your 'damage ones opponent' (DOO) mechanics against the other guy's DOO mechanics, or else various attempts to keep the other guy from getting to apply their DOO in the first place. If you eliminate all the trips, disarms, entangles, walls, and so forth, it tends to just make the combats focus on attriting HP as fast as possible (and the only variety being how defense vs. offense your focus is, single-target vs area-effect, or consistent vs. nova output). That doesn't sound very fun, so I think the focus instead should be that the shutdown should be contestable. No one-save and then you are shut down (paralysis effects are fine, you should just get repeated chances to break free). No shutdowns you can only defeat with abilities you are very likely not to have (D&D's Force Cage is my pet peeve -- overpowering a force field is a common fictional trope, yet for some reason it was decided that force effects don't bother having hit points or similar). If one side has a busta, then the other side should have a busta-busta.

[King of Nowhere]

also, it is often brough up how it is frustrating to often fail, but it is rarely mentioned how frustrating it can be to succeed too often.
I don't know if you guys also feel it, but to me it gets boring after a while. i had a character built to be resilient, with huge AC, saving throws and other defensive stuff. and no enemy could touch me. and the first time it was all like "cool, i am invincible!". but it got stale after a while; i lost interest. after a couple sessions, i was elated when i finally found a boss strong enough to hurt me.
having your abilities always neutralized, being unable to act, it's bad if it happens often. but if it never happens, if you always succeed, if you always do your cool stuff and nothing stops it, then it can get equally bad.

[gijoemike]

Per the DM, since we didn't fall in, we had no reason to have to get out of the lake. The encounter was to get out of the lake - not to fight the dolphins.

No, we were told we could not participate because we had already succeeded in doing what was supposed to be done. We weren't in the lake, so did not have to find a way out.


In hindsight, I could have recommended they get out of the water. However, running away from encounters means there is no XP. The other players wanted the XP, which is probably why they started combat in the first place. By the time I got over my shock at what they were doing, combat was going and I was twiddling my thumbs.


OK, this has nothing to do with in game situations. The GM was being a **** by saying you cannot do anything. This is bad GMing at its finest. You absolutely could have been part of this encounter. Thrown ropes, extended halbards( as you suggested), ranged attacks, shouting out to your party, warning them of fins in the water moving to flank. You and the the other PC could totally have walked from the shore.

But the party in the water was also to blame. They chose to waste their time, your time, the gm's time. That fight was pointless as the goal is to get out of the water. I would have given no XP for the fight itself and treated the whole thing as a trap.

running away from encounters means there is no XP. That is 100% bull. As a party you observed, scouted, and successfully bypassed/temporarily neutralized a threat. You have gained knowledge of the terrain and wildlife ( experience is literally knowledge). You found a pit trap, one doesn't have to fall in to get the XP for the pit trap. Knowing it is there and bypassing it is the whole point.

Being attacked by X and getting to a location where X cannot possibly get to you is a win. Going through X to get to location Y is a win as well if X cannot/or doesnt' know to follow you into Y. It may not be as much XP as permanently neutralizing them but think of MacGyver, Solid Snake, cat burglars, Vow of Peace takers. Getting in and getting out are WINS, big shiny in character common sense wins.


Also, because you beat the trap did you get full xp just like the pcs who failed and fell into the fight? Did you suffer no fight so no xp idiocy? This was really a well disguised. trap not a fight.

[gijoemike]

Being critted to death's door in round 1 does suck. I would privately question the balance of the scenario. If it's level 1 or 2 I can chalk it up to being level 1 or 2. It's not the same scenario but in the same ballpark. Maybe it is a subtle difference, but the difference means everything to me. I'm more bothered by Hunger of Hadar in a choke point blocking you off unless you want to commit (near) suicide and don't know where to go on the other side even if you're willing to run through it than actually being in the combat suffering Hold Person and your d20 pretends it doesn't have numbers higher than 8. It was more irritating because it wasn't the first time in the campaign I was locked out of the encounter. At least I'm finally able to have conversations with NPCs that last more than a minute while everyone else gets fifteen, but I ramble.

Ok, you are being effectively locked out of the combat by the GM. Oh, man, that is some serious suck right there. And this has happened multiple times to you? I would consider leaving a game if that happens again. That is not something that can get fixed. I don't know all the details but seriously, dang.

[Xervous]

3.5 party shalt not have any fun but mine Vow of Peace?

[Darth Credence]

Yeah, that example of the DM saying that you can't do anything because you didn't fall in the lake is pretty bad. Like, walk away from the table bad.

As a DM (I don't get to be a player much), I try very hard to make sure that this never happens. This can be hard, because I have a party that splits up every. single. time. I'm dead serious there - we are six months into a campaign where we meet weekly, and the only time that we have made it through a full session without them splitting up is one where everyone controlled a temporary character on a side mission to deal with something important to the campaign but not applicable to the party. The regular party almost never seems to sleep in the same place if they can avoid it - I have to have different inns prepared so they can all go to the place they like. So there are a lot of opportunities for people to not play, but I try to deal with it.

One time, they were in different locations while a zombie horde attacked the town. I had multiple combats going simultaneously as they worked their way back to each other, until I could finally merge the combats into one. Another time, one of the players stayed in town to do some stuff while the rest went to an island to do some hunting. When things got hairy, the party on the island sent the wizard's familiar to the town to find the bard and give her a note that they were doing some exploring and she could come join. She replied that she would stay there, because she had an appointment in the morning that she didn't want to miss. That was a challenge to keep her with something to do, but I would update her whenever the group was not in combat and was considering their move. The biggest, though, was when the party got in an argument and the bard left town in a huff. After ensuring that this was all fun for everyone and there were no IRL hard feelings, we spent four sessions with her doing a murder mystery as she traveled alone to the big city while the rest had some classic dungeon adventures. Before it was over, one other character decided he had to leave adventuring to go join the revolution in his home country, and made a new character that joined the bard on the murder mystery. They are now all back together, but boy that was a pain to deal with.

I think I lost the thread there a bit to complain about my campaign. And really, I shouldn't complain because I really have great players who make it a lot of fun. But there are certainly times that there is nothing I can do about some people sitting around a bit. If you split up the party - especially in a way that lasts multiple sessions - sometimes you end up sitting.

[Faily]

I think sometimes it depends a lot on how the group likes to play things.

A Hold Person incapacitates the wizard for several rounds in the fight, giving the player nothing to do. However, a more teamwork focused group would probably then spend actions and resources to undo it, so the character can rejoin the action. As was mentioned early on in this thread, some players like the challenge of preparing for the unexpected, bringing various remedies to different status effects. I am someone who likes to do that too (you can very often on my character sheet find ways to fix things like paralysis or blindness). Playing a Pathfinder Paladin, I also enjoy the pay-off of having picked my Mercies carefully, so that when Sickened/Diseased/Cursed/Paralysis/Poison/Blinded first appears, I kind of get that giddy feeling of "yes! I was prepared for this!".

To me, playing roleplaying games is a group-effort, and challenges are for the group to overcome together.

Even something like "I'm a melee fighter and enemy is somewhere I can't reach them for melee range", well... always carry a crossbow, or a sling, or a bow? Sure, I've been in situations too where I realise "damn I have no ranged attacks at all!" because I derp'ed and forgot to pick it up or got lazy and thought I wouldn't need it, and then one fight later where I felt useless, I pick up a ranged weapon.

I don't in my years of playing that I've been in many combats where there was *absolutely nothing* I could do or the group could do to aid me if I was under a status effect, with the exception of my character having died. In those instances, I've either been busying myself with rolling up a new character, or advising some of the other players in the fight that need a little bit more guidance with the game.

[icefractal]

Some of the suggestions I've seen seem to not be taking an important fact into account - in most systems, combat operates on a much faster time-scale than most other actions. In D&D for example, it's rare for a fight to last ten rounds (one minute). So any plan like "go make a raft" or "search around and find another way past the wall" or "take out a pick and break it down" had better be done extremely fast or it just amounts to a fancier way of doing nothing.

This happened in Shadowrun once without even a barrier! The group was slightly split - only about a block apart, a distance that would take maybe 30-40 seconds to sprint. Combat breaks out for half the party and the other half ... gets to sit there doing nothing for an hour of real-time, because the entire fight only lasted like 10 seconds IC (wired reflexes, so both sides were moving at high speed). Yes, we were technically acting - we were running toward the fight - and the GM even let us start doing so unrealistically fast (instantly after comms were cut, rather than waiting a bit to notice), and it still didn't help.

So maybe the answer is "crunchy combat and action-preventing effects shouldn't be combined", except that it's usually crunchy combat systems that have more ways to represent such effects, and more incentive to provide mechanically-distinct alternatives to damage.

[Willie the Duck]

Some of the suggestions I've seen seem to not be taking an important fact into account - in most systems, combat operates on a much faster time-scale than most other actions. In D&D for example, it's rare for a fight to last ten rounds (one minute). So any plan like "go make a raft" or "search around and find another way past the wall" or "take out a pick and break it down" had better be done extremely fast or it just amounts to a fancier way of doing nothing.

It should be noted that D&D is all over the place on time scales, with 10 second combat rounds (in BX), 1 minute rounds (AD&D), or 6 second rounds (3e and later).

[Spiderswims]

An RPG is complex in lots of ways, so every so often a player might be "left out" of game play. But it's not the end of the world. You just roll with it.....literally.

But putting all sorts of requirements on the GM is not helping anyone. It's bad enough if you expect the GM to alter the game based on your whims, but gets even worse when the GM is doing it for all the players.

In a good game, characters should be taken out of the action all the time: but it also should be fair, so it happens to everyone.

[Xervous]

An RPG is complex in lots of ways, so every so often a player might be "left out" of game play. But it's not the end of the world. You just roll with it.....literally.

But putting all sorts of requirements on the GM is not helping anyone. It's bad enough if you expect the GM to alter the game based on your whims, but gets even worse when the GM is doing it for all the players.

In a good game, characters should be taken out of the action all the time: but it also should be fair, so it happens to everyone.

Should players be allowed to build a character such that it has a reduced or increased chance of being taken out?

[Duff]

I’ve since acted to mitigate such events with hirelings being made available as ‘my character is absent’ options. Overall seems to be a win win, players are enjoying seeing their hirelings brought to life and it allows party members to narratively ‘be off doing things’ while everyone still gets in on the action.

Having "my character is absent" options is always a good idea, for cases of character death as well as those situations where a PC isn't available for the fight.

But I'll also say I accept my character not getting to be part of a fight goes with the game. If my character has the skills/stats to survive being pushed from a great height but not the ability to get back up to the fight, I don't think that means the GM shouldn't have fights around such falls, nor should they hold off on pushing me off if the enemy can do so.
And if my comrades can't nudge the odd foe down for me to play with, that's not on the GM either. Having the cliff makes for an interesting variation on the fight which I see no need to give up (though the rest of the group should be willing to catch me up on important developments if I break out my iPad while the rest of the fight happens up there).

But also, there's no wrong way to play and not everyone is a patient as I am

But also, If I'm playing a low level fighter who hasn't had a chance to pick up a magic bow, I'm going to get grumpy when we hit the 2nd adventure focused around monsters needing magic to hit them as they fly around hitting us all.

[Xervous]

But also, If I'm playing a low level fighter who hasn't had a chance to pick up a magic bow, I'm going to get grumpy when we hit the 2nd adventure focused around monsters needing magic to hit them as they fly around hitting us all.

If you had the chance to pick up such a bow but neglected to grab that magic bow having seen there were creatures that necessitated such, what would you say then?

[Waterdeep Merch]

I completely agree, with the addendum that it's occasionally acceptable for a player to incidentally not be able to do something due to choices they made, so long as they 1.) Got to make the decision that led to it themselves, and 2.) It wasn't some esoteric "gotcha" where they legitimately couldn't have reasonably deduced this scenario.

The example above about not taking ranged weaponry (provided you could have gotten what you needed easily) is one situation I'd call fair. A related and common one is a scenario where a different player decides to scout ahead and gets into trouble away from the party. As a DM it's a good idea to not let a scenario like that take up too much time at the table, but at the same time you can't really allow decisions like that to not have that possible danger. Figuring out the right balance is among the toughest things for me to do, since it's one of the best counters to the scouts I use as NPC's/enemies and we all like the interplay when we're the ones doing it. I try to keep to a five minute rule, where I check back in with the party if an entire five minutes have elapsed without anyone else getting to do anything.

[Spiderswims]

Should players be allowed to build a character such that it has a reduced or increased chance of being taken out?

Yes. I don't think the GM or other players should tell a player what to do, and that includes character creation. I only give advise if asked.


I completely agree, with the addendum that it's occasionally acceptable for a player to incidentally not be able to do something due to choices they made, so long as they 1.) Got to make the decision that led to it themselves, and 2.) It wasn't some esoteric "gotcha" where they legitimately couldn't have reasonably deduced this scenario.

I never liked that it must be the players fault somehow and the player must know about the thing ahead of time and then choose to let it happen. It is all just too much.

The rules are full of weapons, items, magic, spells, and effects that can take a creature out of a fight. And it can happen at any time during the game. And just about never will a player know say, all the weapons, items, equipment and magic that a group of orcs have to use.

[MrStabby]

I think if you want to not have obstacles to your players doing stuff, then you need to play a game designed with this removed.

I mainly come at this from the perspective of D&D 5th edition where such an approach is almost untenable.

So many class abilities give mobility like running up walls, give save benefits, grant immunity to certain conditions, let you dispell effects and otherwise protect against this kind of setup.

If you approach the game with the attitude that a whole slew of things cant happen to players you make a lot of characters more remarkable abilities totally worthless. If you are not going to let these abilities be useful, you should play instead a game where they are not an option.

[Duff]

If you had the chance to pick up such a bow but neglected to grab that magic bow having seen there were creatures that necessitated such, what would you say then?

I would never be so foolish! :smallbiggrin:
But, if I did, I'd break out the ipad and not whinge.

[Pex]

You can blame the player when he on purpose does not get the bow when available. You cannot blame him when the bad guy casts an area control spell or activates a trap that cuts off the PC from the battle, and there's absolutely nothing the PC can do about it. No getting around it. No attacking through it. Nothing to interact with in the area the PC is in. Unable to remove the obstacle. If it's a concentration spell the bad guy moves to an area where the rest of the party can't attack him to break concentration until they deal with the mooks first and/or bad guy has War Caster making it difficult to break concentration.

[Rynjin]

You can blame the player when he on purpose does not get the bow when available. You cannot blame him when the bad guy casts an area control spell or activates a trap that cuts off the PC from the battle, and there's absolutely nothing the PC can do about it. No getting around it. No attacking through it. Nothing to interact with in the area the PC is in. Unable to remove the obstacle. If it's a concentration spell the bad guy moves to an area where the rest of the party can't attack him to break concentration until they deal with the mooks first and/or bad guy has War Caster making it difficult to break concentration.

I'm not sure exactly what you want, man. I see this sentiment a lot from players recently, mostly in the 5e subforum, that nothing bad should ever happen to them apparently.

Have you tried playing an RPG that just doesn't have combat mechanics?

[Jay R]

It is the DM's job to set up obstacles. It is the players' job to overcome the obstacles.

Sometimes, in some encounters, a player will fail to overcome the obstacles, and the other players will deal with that encounter. This is normal. A player should get several chances to affect the encounter. This does not mean that a player will always have a chance to affect every encounter.

In my "Rules for DMs, I have included the following:

22. In every session, each PC should have at least one crucial moment when they are the essential character.

a. Identify the loudest player and the pushiest player. You will never need to set up their moments; they will do so.
b. Identify the quietest player and the least active player. You will need to set up their moments every session, and make it impossible for the first two to take these moments over.
...
24. When a PC gets a great new ability, there needs to be an encounter in the next session for which that ability is devastatingly effective. Otherwise it doesn’t exist. There should also be an encounter in the next session in which it is useless. Otherwise, the rest of that character doesn’t exist.

Rule 22 means that occasionally, I will set up an encounter specifically for the quiet players who are being overshadowed by the loud players. Yes, this means that I have deliberately kept the loud players out of that encounter. Spend a few minutes watching your friends have fun.

Rule 24 means that sometimes I will set up a barrier that prevents the use of your favorite ability. Accept it, and figure out something else you can do.

If your character occasionally fails to take part in the encounter, then the DM is providing real challenges. If you never gets to take part in the action, then there's a problem. Don't confuse the two.

And look for ways to get past the obstacle.

[KaussH]

You can blame the player when he on purpose does not get the bow when available. You cannot blame him when the bad guy casts an area control spell or activates a trap that cuts off the PC from the battle, and there's absolutely nothing the PC can do about it. No getting around it. No attacking through it. Nothing to interact with in the area the PC is in. Unable to remove the obstacle. If it's a concentration spell the bad guy moves to an area where the rest of the party can't attack him to break concentration until they deal with the mooks first and/or bad guy has War Caster making it difficult to break concentration.

Does this happen every combat? Every boss fight? Just once a few weeks ago?

If its rare and fits, then its a good gm call. Moreso if it is not targeted ( aka the pc or pcs locked out were random) .

[Jay R]

You can blame the player when he on purpose does not get the bow when available. You cannot blame him when the bad guy casts an area control spell or activates a trap that cuts off the PC from the battle, and there's absolutely nothing the PC can do about it. No getting around it. No attacking through it. Nothing to interact with in the area the PC is in. Unable to remove the obstacle. If it's a concentration spell the bad guy moves to an area where the rest of the party can't attack him to break concentration until they deal with the mooks first and/or bad guy has War Caster making it difficult to break concentration.

If this happens occasionally, then it's good DMing -- providing challenges and obstacles for the party to overcome. There are several good reasons to cut a specific player off from a single battle. Keep learning how to overcome obstacles, and recognize that sometimes your friend is the hero of the day.

If it happens in every battle for a specific reason (you don't have a ranged attack and you're fighting in areas where all combat is at range, you're in a ruin attacking undead and you only have illusions and charms, etc.), then your character design is not correct for that game. Either get the right kind of attacks, or abandon that character and build one that fits that game. Play the game you're in, not some other game.

But if it's happening all the time, for no clear reason, then it looks like you're not playing D&D at all. Walk away from the game and find something fun.

[Faily]

The example above about not taking ranged weaponry (provided you could have gotten what you needed easily) is one situation I'd call fair. A related and common one is a scenario where a different player decides to scout ahead and gets into trouble away from the party. As a DM it's a good idea to not let a scenario like that take up too much time at the table, but at the same time you can't really allow decisions like that to not have that possible danger. Figuring out the right balance is among the toughest things for me to do, since it's one of the best counters to the scouts I use as NPC's/enemies and we all like the interplay when we're the ones doing it. I try to keep to a five minute rule, where I check back in with the party if an entire five minutes have elapsed without anyone else getting to do anything.

Maybe it's just the groups I've had the good fortune to play with, but I've never gotten the impression that people are bored or disinterested simply because they're not a part of the current scene (even if it goes beyond 5 minutes).

When someone has gone ahead to scout, if there is actual danger, the rest of the players are often on the edge of their seats and paying close attention to what's happening, sometimes giving suggestions or ideas to the player (because sometimes the player can't think of everything that their character would).

In our long-running PF campaign where we've had solo-adventures for 4 PCs related to their quest for godhood, even if only 1 PC was actually doing anything in the adventure, the other 3 players showed up to the sessions to spectate and to be supportive OOC. We also designated one player to be the "aid" of the active player, because it's good to have someone to bounce ideas off of, or to remind the active player of things that their character would know ("we've fought trolls before, so you know you need fire or acid to permanently kill one").

Roleplaying-games are a group activity, and I think there are plenty of ways to engage players even if they don't have a role to play in every scene, or even every session.

[Duff]

"porpoise."
I see what you did there

Also, I'm curious:
For those folk who hate not getting to fight, how do you cope if a session is mostly social if you aren't playing the face?
If the GM presents a challenge of stealth, would you not consider sending the rogue in solo?

[Waterdeep Merch]

Maybe it's just the groups I've had the good fortune to play with, but I've never gotten the impression that people are bored or disinterested simply because they're not a part of the current scene (even if it goes beyond 5 minutes).

When someone has gone ahead to scout, if there is actual danger, the rest of the players are often on the edge of their seats and paying close attention to what's happening, sometimes giving suggestions or ideas to the player (because sometimes the player can't think of everything that their character would).

In our long-running PF campaign where we've had solo-adventures for 4 PCs related to their quest for godhood, even if only 1 PC was actually doing anything in the adventure, the other 3 players showed up to the sessions to spectate and to be supportive OOC. We also designated one player to be the "aid" of the active player, because it's good to have someone to bounce ideas off of, or to remind the active player of things that their character would know ("we've fought trolls before, so you know you need fire or acid to permanently kill one").

Roleplaying-games are a group activity, and I think there are plenty of ways to engage players even if they don't have a role to play in every scene, or even every session.
To be clear, I don't just end solo events after five minutes. I mean I check in and make sure no one at the table's getting antsy from being uninvolved, roughly every five minutes. If my players are getting bored watching one person play without them, I'll try to either hurry things up or cut back to everyone else for a bit, depending. If everyone's fully engrossed in what that one player is doing, there's no need to switch gears.

[Pex]

I see what you did there

Also, I'm curious:
For those folk who hate not getting to fight, how do you cope if a session is mostly social if you aren't playing the face?
If the GM presents a challenge of stealth, would you not consider sending the rogue in solo?

You let everyone participate. Not having the highest CH does not make you forbidden to talk.

If it's a party stealth mission let everyone participate. Do not have one player, like me in this same campaign, sit there doing nothing for two hours while everyone else gets to play just because I can't turn invisible or am wearing armor or whatever excuse. Even if whatever the mission it is crucial you be invisible and/or quiet and a PC who can do neither really can't go or else it will autofail the mission, you still engage that player with something that may or may not have any relation to the mission.

[Keltest]

You let everyone participate. Not having the highest CH does not make you forbidden to talk.

If it's a party stealth mission let everyone participate. Do not have one player, like me in this same campaign, sit there doing nothing for two hours while everyone else gets to play just because I can't turn invisible or am wearing armor or whatever excuse. Even if whatever the mission it is crucial you be invisible and/or quiet and a PC who can do neither really can't go or else it will autofail the mission, you still engage that player with something that may or may not have any relation to the mission.

Speaking as a DM, i have a finite amount of attention that i can spread around. Running two totally independent events simultaneously with any level of quality is simply not feasible. If youre going on a stealth mission or something where your armor means you struggle to be effective, the solution is IMO for you to bite the bullet and buy a mithril breastplate or some light armor or something before hand and play anyway. If thats not feasible for whatever reason, make a different plan. I dont think players have a lot of room to complain if they make a plan that specifically excludes themselves. The DM is not and cannot be the only one responsible for fun at the table.

[Pex]

Speaking as a DM, i have a finite amount of attention that i can spread around. Running two totally independent events simultaneously with any level of quality is simply not feasible. If youre going on a stealth mission or something where your armor means you struggle to be effective, the solution is IMO for you to bite the bullet and buy a mithril breastplate or some light armor or something before hand and play anyway. If thats not feasible for whatever reason, make a different plan. I dont think players have a lot of room to complain if they make a plan that specifically excludes themselves. The DM is not and cannot be the only one responsible for fun at the table.

The DM runs the table. It is his responsibility by default. Players can only interact with what the DM brings them. If the DM doesn't do anything with a player what is the player supposed to do? Doing it simultaneously is not literal. You spend 5 or 10 minutes with the PCs doing the stealth mission. End on a cliffhanger or natural stopping point then engage the player who couldn't go on the mission with something for 5 or 10 minutes then switch back and repeat.

[KaussH]

You let everyone participate. Not having the highest CH does not make you forbidden to talk.

If it's a party stealth mission let everyone participate. Do not have one player, like me in this same campaign, sit there doing nothing for two hours while everyone else gets to play just because I can't turn invisible or am wearing armor or whatever excuse. Even if whatever the mission it is crucial you be invisible and/or quiet and a PC who can do neither really can't go or else it will autofail the mission, you still engage that player with something that may or may not have any relation to the mission.

If the pcs approach an issue in a way that excludes some pcs for part of it (stealth where some pcs sound like bags of cans) then the pcs are the ones doing the excluding. Unless the gm has said " this is the one and only way" the choice of stealth or dialogue or ect was the players.

Also, while everyone deserves spotlight time, it isnt always going to be at the same time. Sometimes bringing the whole party to do x is super awkward in game. Like the classic " yes, the whole party goes into the small room to question the frightened widow"

Lastly " auto fail the mission" ?? Thats more a video game worry, the game doesnt end if someone hears the party. It just gets very complex very fast...

[KaussH]

The DM runs the table. It is his responsibility by default. Players can only interact with what the DM brings them. If the DM doesn't do anything with a player what is the player supposed to do? Doing it simultaneously is not literal. You spend 5 or 10 minutes with the PCs doing the stealth mission. End on a cliffhanger or natural stopping point then engage the player who couldn't go on the mission with something for 5 or 10 minutes then switch back and repeat.

Um... no. You cant say the gm runs it all, and say the pcs came up with the plan. The gm is not supposed to step in and go " well your plan looks good but i cant let you do it, jim the Paladin isnt stealthy and your not allowed to leave him behind."


Now they can go " well this plan will divide the party so i will have to bounce back and forth" but that can be a lot of work.

[Kesnit]

the solution is IMO for you to bite the bullet and buy a mithril breastplate or some light armor or something before hand and play anyway.

It always frustrates me when someone says "just buy new armor or a ranged weapon." That may work at lower levels, but when you are a melee type with 12 DEX and have spent a lot of money on your armor and weapon, it makes no sense to expect them to spend the same amount on something they will only use rarely.

+2 Full Plate (DEX 12): +11 AC
+1 Mithral Breastplate (12 DEX): +7 AC.

You are losing 4AC, plus whatever additional features were added.

Attacks (BAB not included)
+2 Weapon (with 20 STR): +7 (one-hand) / +9 (two-hand)
+1 Bow (with 12 DEX): +2 (also possibly losing more AC if they would normally use a shield)

Again, this isn't even considering any other features that may have been added to the weapon, or any feats (WF) or class abilities (Weapon Aptitude*, maneuvers).


This can be mitigated if the DM drops an "appropriate"** ranged weapon. But this would have to be done just before the necessary encounter, or the party would have to have some warning of what is coming. Otherwise the party will give the spiffy bow to the Rogue, or sell it because it "isn't useful" to anyone.



*I know Weapon Aptitude allows the Warblade to change the weapon of focus. However, it can only be done once a day, so if the Warblade changes to bow before the first encounter, they are stuck with the bow until the next morning - regardless of what the later encounters involve.

** I put appropriate in quotes because even dropping a ranged weapon with the same bonuses and features as the melee weapon normally used, the PC using it is still going to be at a disadvantage due to the 25-35% drop in actually being able to hit anything.

[KaussH]

Attacks (BAB not included)
+2 Weapon (with 20 STR): +7 (one-hand) / +9 (two-hand)
+1 Bow (with 12 DEX): +2 (also possibly losing more AC if they would normally use a shield)


So i get its hard to change armor. But your saying if the bow isnt 100% as good as your melee attack, its better to just have the gm not require range?
Carrying a basic, normal, ranged weapon is easy. If it lets you join the encounter isnt that the point. Or do you refuse to use it unless your at your best?

[Kesnit]

So i get its hard to change armor. But your saying if the bow isnt 100% as good as your melee attack, its better to just have the gm not require range?

We're not talking about a small reduction. As I said, it's a 25-35% reduction in the ability to hit. On a class that is already weaker. And that is assuming attack bonus only considers STR and weapon bonus. Adding in bonuses from feats and class features just makes it worse.


Carrying a basic, normal, ranged weapon is easy.

Using a non-magical bow reduces the chance to hit another 5% - on top of the 25-35%.


If it lets you join the encounter isnt that the point.

Not at all. Who really wants to spend their turn just rolling and not actually accomplishing anything? Are you really in the encounter if you cannot contribute in any way?


Or do you refuse to use it unless your at your best?

Here are some numbers...

Let's say a melee combatant would hit a given monster on 10-20. AB is based only on STR and weapon bonus (the +2 I used above and make it a greatsword). On a hit, 2d6+7. (Not even taking into account any extra damage, like Frost.) 50% chance to hit on the first attack. 25% on the second.

Using your purely mundane bow, the PC hits only on 19-20. If they hit but do not crit, 1d8. There is no second attack.

How often does someone roll a natural 19 or 20? With fair dice - 10% of the time. In reality, the player is going to spend the entire combat saying "Rolled an 18. I miss. Rolled a 5. I miss. Rolled an 11. I miss."

[icefractal]

It always frustrates me when someone says "just buy new armor or a ranged weapon." That may work at lower levels, but when you are a melee type with 12 DEX and have spent a lot of money on your armor and weapon, it makes no sense to expect them to spend the same amount on something they will only use rarely.
If a caster hyper-specialized in Scorching Ray, should there never be any fire-resistant foes? Being a one-trick pony to the point you're screwed when that trick doesn't work is a form of weaker character. Fine if you intentionally want that weakness, but otherwise build to avoid it.

For example, as a Strength-based type you could take the Brutal Throw feat and the Gloves of Endless Javelins. Maybe something to boost range as well. And/or, get a means of flight.

Now yes, some classes do have a harder time adding versatility, and that's a problem with those classes. And if a PC was falling behind as a result, it'd be fine to throw some free stuff their way - the same as if they were underpowered for other reasons. But if a PC is kicking ass most of the time and dumped versatility to focus on more ass-kicking, I'd say that having that lack of versatility occasionally bite them in the ass is the reasonable trade-off they made.

Same thing applies to subtlety, incidentally. If you take a bunch of stuff that makes you huge, spiky, and glowing, you're going to be very recognizable, and no, you can't refluff it as "a slightly buff guy". If you have a huge stack of buffs, that's going to show up to divination unless you find a way to conceal it. You want subtlety? Build for subtlety, it's a trade-off.

[Rynjin]

Let's say a melee combatant would hit a given monster on 10-20. AB is based only on STR and weapon bonus (the +2 I used above and make it a greatsword). On a hit, 2d6+7. (Not even taking into account any extra damage, like Frost.) 50% chance to hit on the first attack. 25% on the second.

Using your purely mundane bow, the PC hits only on 19-20. If they hit but do not crit, 1d8. There is no second attack.

How often does someone roll a natural 19 or 20? With fair dice - 10% of the time. In reality, the player is going to spend the entire combat saying "Rolled an 18. I miss. Rolled a 5. I miss. Rolled an 11. I miss."

Here are some other numbers: if you don't make any attack rolls at all, you have a 0% chance of success and deal 0 damage.

Your numbers don't even make any sense in the first place, since they don't include BaB to hit or Str to damage for using a composite bow, and fir some reason omit the second ranged attack you would still get, the same as using a greatsword. You're exaggerating the problem and hoping nobody notices.

[KaussH]

Here are some other numbers: if you don't make any attack rolls at all, you have a 0% chance of success and deal 0 damage.

Your numbers don't even make any sense in the first place, since they don't include BaB to hit or Str to damage for using a composite bow, and fir some reason omit the second ranged attack you would still get, the same as using a greatsword. You're exaggerating the problem and hoping nobody notices.

I see this in a lot of former 3rd ed players and 5th ed. The idea that if you cant do something really well, just dont try.
It is related to the " if i don't know the dc, i dont know if i am good at it. "

[icefractal]

I see this in a lot of former 3rd ed players and 5th ed. The idea that if you cant do something really well, just dont try.
It is related to the " if i don't know the dc, i dont know if i am good at it. "
:smallconfused: I'm mostly a 3.x player.
What's with all this "kids these days" talk I've been seeing around here lately, anyway? :smalltongue:

[Quertus]

Let's see if I can disassemble this enough to give my opinion on this topic.

It is indeed bad if the player doesn't get to play the game.

But playing the game isn't simply rolling dice - playing the game is making meaningful decisions. So rolling every turn to see if you come un-____ed is not playing the game. Thus, I actually hate any "roll at the end of your turn to become un-____ed" mechanics, as they give uninformed people the false sense that the player of the ____e PC is playing the game.

Being ____ed is a part of most games, where ____ can be stunned, grappled/pinned, paralyzed, turned to stone, afraid, held down by suppression fire, KO'd, imprisoned, or even dead.

Forcing foes to hold the idiot ball to not ____ the PCs is... well, it's several kinds of bad. Whether that's verisimilitude, or reworking modules, or whatever, it's problematic.

That said, ____ing the PCs is, in many games, really not the optimal move for the opposition - not nearly as much as they tend to use it, IME. So a little bit of not ____ing the PC may actually make the opposition more effective / ____ing the PCs is often a "soft" option compared to more effective ones.

Anyway, the players are not the PCs. It's bad if the players aren't getting to play the game. But the PCs can be any form of ____ed, up to and including dead, and the players still be playing the game if they aren't limited to just playing the PCs. Simply allowing a player to puppet an NPC (friend or foe) while their PC is disabled can keep the player in the game.

Or allow each player to play multiple PCs, so if one PC is disabled, the player is still in the game.

That is my preferred solution.

As a side note, allowing for good means to take people down without easy counters (which includes "reroll every round" counters) allows for solutions to combat that don't involve "we murdered them all to death" (because, most systems, "death" doesn't allow you to reroll your save every round to overcome it.).

-----

Curiously, I often take a bit of the opposite tack on the social counterpart to this, simply because most groups I've gamed with, most players have "bluff bluff bluff bluff the stupid ogre" levels of ability to "help" in a social situation. The group would be most advantaged if they did not participate.

Also, many of my historic fellow players are pure wargamers, and intentionally also took mechanically antisocial characters on purpose, so that they wouldn't have to participate in the "talky bits".

But, in the general case, yes, everyone who isn't actively sabotaging the team (intentionally or otherwise) should get to talk if they want, not just the Face. (Obviously, if you're playing 4e, and anyone other than the Face opens their mouth, you declare that they are the impostor, and shove them out an airlock).

[Ashiel]

Errr...they do have something to do. Remove the blockage. Get around it. Find a different way in.

Smash a wall/the door, teleport/Dimension Door, Passwall, Shape Stone/Wood, walk to somewhere else, etc. You always have something to do.

If your first response to an obstacle as a player is "well I just do nothing then", that's your fault.

I agree with Rynjin. There is very little in the game that is outright a no-option obstacle, particularly if you're dealing with obstacles appropriate for your level range.

EDIT:

You let everyone participate. Not having the highest CH does not make you forbidden to talk.

If it's a party stealth mission let everyone participate. Do not have one player, like me in this same campaign, sit there doing nothing for two hours while everyone else gets to play just because I can't turn invisible or am wearing armor or whatever excuse. Even if whatever the mission it is crucial you be invisible and/or quiet and a PC who can do neither really can't go or else it will autofail the mission, you still engage that player with something that may or may not have any relation to the mission.

Not intending to be wholly dismissive, but these sound like issues for the player. You can take armor off or wear a lighter armor for a mission. Enhancements like shadowed are very cheap. An elixir of hiding is +10 to Stealth for an hour for less than the cost of a 3rd level potion. Ranks in Stealth can quickly outpace the penalties for most armors, especially combined with penalties for distance (if you're not literally sneaking behind somebody, it's rare that they will get their full Perception results). Anything that grants you concealment is enough to attempt to Stealth, so you don't need outright invisibility, and even if you do it's a pretty cheap potion.

Kinda the same thing with social interactions. Even with a horrible Charisma you can very comfortably get decent social skills (particularly since the DCs for things like Diplomacy aren't very hard unless you're trying to ask for unreasonable things). I had a psion with a 7 Cha that ended up being our party's face just because she deigned to invest some of her skill points into social skills and the rank modifiers outpace the Charisma modifiers pretty fast. Even then, you can't make a result worse with an aid-another so anyone can chime in and try to help even if their aid fails, which is plenty excuse to let everyone be a chatter-box regardless of their stats.

Now, in fairness, if the GM is not running things correctly then these truths will be less applicable. For example, if the GM doesn't apply distance modifiers, then it will be much harder to sneak around places than it should be; if the GM doesn't allow you to get magic items and tools then it will be harder than it should be; if the GM just ignores everyone except the person with the highest modifiers, then it will be less fun than it should be; but these are not things that should be happening.

There are plenty of cases where during an adventure you have to deal with things that are not to your liking. That's just how adventuring works. Sometimes you'll run into monsters that are immune to your spells, or foes with ACs that are super high so you have to attack them in unconventional ways, or you'll be teleported around or separated by walls or have your animal companions turned against you, or god only knows what else. Whatever your obstacle is, sometimes it is a balor, some times it's a locked door that needs several rounds to pick while your party is fighting for their lives on the other side.

[Jay R]

Not at all. Who really wants to spend their turn just rolling and not actually accomplishing anything? Are you really in the encounter if you cannot contribute in any way?

I do, sometimes. I mean, obviously, there is no single encounter that I want that to happen, but I believe that sometimes my character should be blocked, and saved by others, and sometimes the other character should be blocked, and I get to save them. That's what a team is.

I don't have to be a major player in each encounter. I do want to be a major player over the course of the session.

It's no different from being a quarterback in American football, and sitting down when the other team has the ball. Or portraying a character in a play, who is sometimes offstage.

I reject the idea that I should always be center stage. My 2e Thief was the only one acting when sneaking into the enemy's camp, but he then did far less damage during the fight -- sometimes none. My 3.5e illusionist was much less effective against the undead (who don't see illusions). But his illusions have devastated other opponents. I don't get annoyed when my friends get the chance to be the hero; they don't get annoyed when I get the chance.

My abilities outshine the others sometimes, and they outshine mine at other times. If I can always attack with my best weapon, then the GM is not showing enough imagination, and I'm not getting the full measure of challenge and suspense I should get. There should be some encounters when I have to be clever or do something unusual.

I don't believe that the best character is one who can meet every challenge. I believe that the best party is one that always has somebody who can meet the challenge.

Superman carries the mountain away when Batman can't do it. Batman carries the kryptonite away when Superman can't do it.


It always frustrates me when someone says "just buy new armor or a ranged weapon." That may work at lower levels, but when you are a melee type with 12 DEX and have spent a lot of money on your armor and weapon, it makes no sense to expect them to spend the same amount on something they will only use rarely.

First of all, if they would only use it rarely, then it's not a big deal - the situation only comes up rarely. Wait for your chance in the next melee, or come up with a clever idea to upset things for the enemy. I once had a first level wizard, who had already used up all his spells, get behind a goblin on hands and knees, just so the fighter could push him over. [And in an SCA battle, when I lost my sword arm, I charged the enemies with shield and no weapon, just to distract them and let my allies hit them.]

Secondly, I will never have a martial character who doesn't have both a ranged weapon and a melee weapon. My archer has a much cheaper backup sword, and my melee fighter always has a bow or throwing knives or something.

Besides being proper game tactics and proper narrative, it's also proper simulation. Roman legionaries carried javelins. Longbowmen carried swords. Riflemen have bayonets today.


Anyway, the players are not the PCs. It's bad if the [I]players aren't getting to play the game. But the PCs can be any form of ____ed, up to and including dead, and the players still be playing the game if they aren't limited to just playing the PCs. Simply allowing a player to puppet an NPC (friend or foe) while their PC is disabled can keep the player in the game.

You're in luck. Most games have exactly this mechanic. In D&D 3.5e, for instance, there are familiars, animal companions, cohorts, hirelings, summoned creatures, and more. Any player who wants to play more than one creature can design such a build. My current player has a familiar, and just hired a bodyguard. He also often summons creatures. The one before that had an animal companion and a cohort.


It's not the GM's job to create an easy way for my PC to shine. It's the GM's job to create obstacles and problems for my PC. It's my job to overcome them.

[Kardwill]

Being critted to death's door in round 1 does suck. I would privately question the balance of the scenario.
Depends of the game. In Runequest 3, for example, your epic Runelord getting one-shot by a peasant at the first round of combat was just a matter of that peasant making a 01 on his "pitchfork attack" roll. Double damage, max damage, can only be dodged with a critical defense roll, AND completely ignores armor. Even with a dagger, you just took 10 damage, which is enough to send any human-sized PC bleeding out to the ground.
And let's not talk about the times when you roll a 100 on your own attack, and lop-off your own leg.

Fun times. Yeah, I don't GM Runequest (or any game with "hard critical/hard fumbles") anymore. :tongue:

[Quertus]

It's not the GM's job to create an easy way for my PC to shine. It's the GM's job to create obstacles and problems for my PC. It's my job to overcome them.

Hmmm...

First, let's play Spot the Differences: "PC to shine" vs "Player to be engaged".

Second, I don't exactly disagree - your statement is a completely valid way to play. Possibly even my way to play.

But, afaict, it isn't your way to play:



23. When a PC gets a great new ability, there needs to be an encounter in the next session for which that ability is devastatingly effective. Otherwise it doesn’t exist. There should also be an encounter in the next session in which it is useless. Otherwise, the rest of that character doesn’t exist.

So I find it curious that you would take this particular stance on this particular issue.

Now, back to that "spot the differences", you'll note that I was talking about the player. It may or may not be the GM's job to facilitate the PC shining (that's a game style thing, I'll accept that neither side is exclusively right), I will contend that it is the GM's job - and everyone at the table's job, for that matter - to help ensure that everyone is having a good time. Being engaged seems like it's kinda related to enjoyment, IMO.

Also, while his PC is ____ed, and he's playing someone else, the player almost certainly isn't using his shiny new ability. So... incidental win?

[Jay R]

Hmmm...

First, let's play Spot the Differences: "PC to shine" vs "Player to be engaged".

Second, I don't exactly disagree - your statement is a completely valid way to play. Possibly even my way to play.

But, afaict, it isn't your way to play:

So I find it curious that you would take this particular stance on this particular issue.

By taking one statement out of context, and treating a rule about a specific situation as if it’s universal, you have managed to infer a contradiction that I never intended to imply. Let me see if I can communicate better.

The context of the current discussion is “being kept out of the combat by some obstacle, not necessarily a wall, so that you can't do anything and don't even have the hope of getting back in making a save at the end of your turn so you do nothing that combat but sit there.”

The OP claimed that the DM should never do this. My argument has consistently been that it’s all right that it happen occasionally – this lets other players play the hero. My statement that “It's not the GM's job to create an easy way for my PC to shine” was intended to be taken in this context. Sometimes there should be occasions in which my PC should not have an easy chance to shine. I apologize for not being clear.

So my post as a whole is entirely consistent with my rule “23. When a PC gets a great new ability, there needs to be an encounter in the next session for which that ability is devastatingly effective. Otherwise it doesn’t exist. There should also be an encounter in the next session in which it is useless. Otherwise, the rest of that character doesn’t exist.”

Note also that that rule only covers one session – the one immediately after getting that great new ability. It also specifically includes making a PC less effective as a specific GM goal.


Now, back to that "spot the differences", you'll note that I was talking about the [I]player.

I responded to this specifically in that post, and you chose not to quote that response, in order to make it look like I didn't notice it. Any player who wants additional creatures to run may arrange to have them. I gave specific examples. Here is that response again:


You're in luck. Most games have exactly this mechanic. In D&D 3.5e, for instance, there are familiars, animal companions, cohorts, hirelings, summoned creatures, and more. Any player who wants to play more than one creature can design such a build. My current player has a familiar, and just hired a bodyguard. He also often summons creatures. The one before that had an animal companion and a cohort.

I have no disagreement with you about the use of other characters. Our major disagreement isn't about what the solution to the problem should be, but about whether the situation described is a problem in the first place.


It may or may not be the GM's job to facilitate the PC shining (that's a game style thing, I'll accept that neither side is exclusively right), I will contend that it is the GM's job - and everyone at the table's job, for that matter - to help ensure that everyone is having a good time. Being engaged seems like it's kinda related to enjoyment, IMO.

I agree that not all games play the same, and that the goal is for everyone to have a good time.

I disagree with two unstated assumptions that seem necessary to reach your conclusion:
1. that a player is not engaged (and/or not having a good time) when suffering the effects of certain kinds of attack and therefore temporarily stymied, and
2. that the player must have an action for every six seconds of an encounter in order to be engaged or to have a good time.

I believe that when the rogue sneaks into the enemy camp, the other players are still engaged; they just aren't active. I think the players can be engaged when the paladin is trying to convince the king to supply our expedition. I believe that the melee fighter is having fun when the archers have opened up the ambush. And I have been very much engaged when my PC is Held or unconscious, while waiting to see if I will be rescued. I have fun with the entire game, not just my charactpiece of it.

I also enjoy a fencing tournament even when I'm not the person fencing. I playing baseball when I'm not at bat. I even enjoy watching an action movie when I cannot control *any* of the characters.

There are American football players who get upset when other players get the ball on a given play. There are basketball players who are ballhogs. The football or basketball game is much more fun for everyone, including that player, if the player will relax a little and enjoy their teammates' play too.


Also, while his PC is ____ed, and he's playing someone else, the player almost certainly isn't using his shiny new ability. So... incidental win?

If the encounters are really suspenseful, each PC will occasionally be out of commission. And yes, the player can run her familiar, animal companion, hireling, cohort, or what have you. I just don't consider that a fix for the "problem", because I don't believe being occasionally stymied is a problem. I think it represents a challenging game.

Now, if a GM's players have to act every round to feel engaged, then maybe that GM has to refrain from NPC actions that can stop them, like Hold Person, Domination, possession, poison, or similar attacks. I haven't had to deal with that issue, either as a player or a GM.

The paladin Lorelei saved my unconscious PC Ornrandir from drowning.
Primus and Lorelei saved Ornrandir from a Grey Pudding.
My PC Darkstar was rescued (I forget by whom) when his leg had been cut off. [He now has a mithril one.]
Finnegan and Mycroft saved my PC Gwystyl from a giant spider when he was paralyzed by poison.
Guntherford saved my PC Gwydion from death by blood loss.
Captain Danger saved my PC Ultra when he was captured and neutralized by the supervillain.
The other superheroes defeated the villain while my PC Hyperion was made desolid, and couldn't act.
The party saved my PC Gustav after he was dominated by a vampire.
Professor Power saved my PC Shadowmonk from being mind controlled.

Every one of these incidents (and many more) represent times when my PC was unable to act for several rounds, and in every one of them, I was engaged and excited. But also, in every case, I was able to act through my PC in other encounters in the same session.

Sometimes I had others who could act; sometimes I didn't. [Ornrandir has a pseudodragon familiar; Gustav had a cohort giant owl and an animal companion hawk; Hyperion had a sidekick.]

I have no problem with your proposed "solution" of having multiple characters available to solve this "problem". Play the way you want to, and enjoy it. But my main point is that it doesn't have to be a problem. The permanent solution is a shift of attitude toward enjoying more of the game than one's own character's actions.

[Pex]

By taking one statement out of context, and treating a rule about a specific situation as if it’s universal, you have managed to infer a contradiction that I never intended to imply. Let me see if I can communicate better.

The context of the current discussion is “being kept out of the combat by some obstacle, not necessarily a wall, so that you can't do anything and don't even have the hope of getting back in making a save at the end of your turn so you do nothing that combat but sit there.” [It really is. Go back to the first post and check.]

The OP claimed that the DM should never do this. My argument has consistently been that it’s all right that it happen occasionally – this lets other players play the hero. My statement that “It's not the GM's job to create an easy way for my PC to shine” was intended to be taken in this context. Sometimes there should be occasions in which my PC should not have an easy chance to shine. I apologize for not being clear.

So my post as a whole is entirely consistent with my rule “23. When a PC gets a great new ability, there needs to be an encounter in the next session for which that ability is devastatingly effective. Otherwise it doesn’t exist. There should also be an encounter in the next session in which it is useless. Otherwise, the rest of that character doesn’t exist.”

Note also that that rule only covers one session – the one immediately after getting that great new ability. It also specifically includes making a PC less effective as a specific GM goal.



Another PC getting to shine doesn't mean my character is not allowed to do anything. I did not ask for nor claim I should always be the center of attention. All I want is to be able to play. As a spellcaster if all I do is cast cantrips and/or first level spells against mooks for one particular battle while the warrior takes on the BBEG brute I'm fine with it. As a warrior if I'm taking care of the mooks while the spellcaster has a magic battle against the BBEG magician I'm fine with it. I get my turn to shine in another battle. However, I maintain I nor any player should be shut out of a combat completely, not being able to do anything because my character is blocked from doing so by whatever means with absolutely nothing in my power to do anything about it. Taking several rounds to move around the obstacle is still doing nothing while everyone else gets to play. The combat is almost over if it isn't already by the time the PC gets back.

If a PC is separated from the party, either through combat circumstances or the PC is not there for whatever reason, the DM should still engage the player. It's fine to spend 10 real world minutes dealing with the combat then pause to spend 10 minutes dealing with the separated PC then pause to get back to the combat, repeat. You don't have the player sit there doing nothing for a real world hour or more however long the combat takes. Letting the player play one of the bad guys in the combat is a solution if the easiest way to handle it.

[HumanFighter]

I remember one time a few years ago I was playing Pathfinder with a group of friends. Dwarf fighter for me, I remember I took the Great Fortitude feat, not because I thought it was a great feat or anything, but because it matched my character. Anyways, we were in a fight with some enemy Necromancers and I kid you not, get GHOUL TOUCHED by a spectral hand in the first round of combat. I fail the save of course. Paralyzed and stinky for the whole fight. Did the GM give me a chance to make a save each round like with hold person? Nooo. I don't think he was supposed to let me do that anyways. He was at least trying to play by the rules, but oh boy did that suck. I hate that GM anyways. He was always gunning for me in every campaign no matter what. I never know why.

However, control effects can also be kind of hilarious at times. I remember another time I was playing a rogue and our party was up against a tenth level wizard. By himself. He owned us all. First off he summoned a dire tiger, and then he cast Hold Person on me. My will save was crap of course so I failed to save every round in that fight. Eventually the Dire Tiger coup de grace and ate me. I guess I found that entire encounter kind of funny because it was a totally unexpected outcome. Like, there were four of us versus one little old man in a cave with a few a spells and we all got absolutely wrecked.

[Pex]

Not intending to be wholly dismissive, but these sound like issues for the player. You can take armor off or wear a lighter armor for a mission. Enhancements like shadowed are very cheap. An elixir of hiding is +10 to Stealth for an hour for less than the cost of a 3rd level potion. Ranks in Stealth can quickly outpace the penalties for most armors, especially combined with penalties for distance (if you're not literally sneaking behind somebody, it's rare that they will get their full Perception results). Anything that grants you concealment is enough to attempt to Stealth, so you don't need outright invisibility, and even if you do it's a pretty cheap potion.


We were playing 5E. Such things don't exist in the general store, and it's not a simple matter of just put ranks into Stealth. 5E works differently. It's not the game's fault. During that mission I was supposed to have been the distraction as part of the party plan, to talk to the person whose room was being burglarized by the party. The DM chose not to have that conversation nor have anything else happen to concern my character. I was ignored while the infiltration encounter happened. You should not do that as a DM.

I have left the group two weeks after first posting. The last straw was between game sessions I told the DM there was something I wanted to do when the current adventure arc was finished. Adventure arc finished. What I wanted to do did not happen, but some random chaos another player caused on the spur of the moment put a halt to the campaign story to take another real world hour to resolve. I left the Zoom meeting. Of course there are two sides to the story. The DM has his opinions of the matter, but I took it as affirmation I should leave when he didn't try to keep me. I'm in other groups having a wonderful time. For whatever reasons I was no longer a fit for this one.

[Keltest]

We were playing 5E. Such things don't exist in the general store, and it's not a simple matter of just put ranks into Stealth. 5E works differently. It's not the game's fault. During that mission I was supposed to have been the distraction as part of the party plan, to talk to the person whose room was being burglarized by the party. The DM chose not to have that conversation nor have anything else happen to concern my character. I was ignored while the infiltration encounter happened. You should not do that as a DM.

I have left the group two weeks after first posting. The last straw was between game sessions I told the DM there was something I wanted to do when the current adventure arc was finished. Adventure arc finished. What I wanted to do did not happen, but some random chaos another player caused on the spur of the moment put a halt to the campaign story to take another real world hour to resolve. I left the Zoom meeting. Of course there are two sides to the story. The DM has his opinions of the matter, but I took it as affirmation I should leave when he didn't try to keep me. I'm in other groups having a wonderful time. For whatever reasons I was no longer a fit for this one.

Im sorry, but im not entirely clear on what you expected to happen during that encounter. Were you wanting to have 20 minutes of talking about nothing with this NPC for every 20 minutes the theft took? Do you realize that you would be essentially holding the entire rest of the game hostage so that you could be doing something that would, at best, turn out exactly the same? It would be one thing if you were fishing for actual information or something during this time, but if youre just having a conversation with them about your favorite style of decorative silver spoon, im with your DM on this one. If you want something interesting to do, plan to do something interesting next time, dont try and guilt your DM into making an empty conversation into an encounter just for you.

[Kesnit]

Here are some other numbers: if you don't make any attack rolls at all, you have a 0% chance of success and deal 0 damage.

And your point is..?


Your numbers don't even make any sense in the first place, since they don't include BaB to hit

BAB is the same for either a melee or ranged attack, so does not change the calculations.


or Str to damage for using a composite bow,

Granted, I did not think of a compound bow. However, the attack is still DEX based, which is going to be a lot lower and so is less likely to hit. Meaning STR to damage is less likely to be a factor than that same person using a melee weapon and STR to hit. And it still requires the PC to spend extra on a weapon that is seldom going to be used. (Plus, compound bows are more expensive than standard bows, which just adds to the cost of having to keep two weapons.)


and fir some reason omit the second ranged attack you would still get,

At an even worse AB.


You're exaggerating the problem and hoping nobody notices.

No, I'm pointing out the real problem. You are making up problems with my numbers and then pretending the problem does not actually exist.


I see this in a lot of former 3rd ed players and 5th ed. The idea that if you cant do something really well, just dont try.
It is related to the " if i don't know the dc, i dont know if i am good at it. "

There is a huge difference between "I'm crappy at this, but I will try" and "there is literally nothing I can do here that would in any way benefit the party." Some people brought up "you can still RP with a CHA of 7," which is true, but not the point. The RP does not automatically fail if there is no need to roll for results. In combat, if you have to roll a nat 20 to move (or already failed your save with no chance of the effect being broken), or you are just told you aren't in the encounter (for an hour real time), then there is no way around it for the player. And even if the answer is "well, with a Nat 20 you can hit (or break the effect)," is that really a solution? Everyone else is making their turns, and your turn is "nope, I didn't get my 5% chance this time." Is that really being involved?



I do, sometimes. I mean, obviously, there is no single encounter that I want that to happen, but I believe that sometimes my character should be blocked, and saved by others, and sometimes the other character should be blocked, and I get to save them. That's what a team is.

I don't have to be a major player in each encounter. I do want to be a major player over the course of the session.

Again, there is a difference between "not being a major player" and "being effectively (or literally) left out of an encounter." If your only option is "hope I roll a Nat 20," what effect are you really having?


There should be some encounters when I have to be clever or do something unusual.

You are getting to act, which means those encounters are not the topic.


First of all, if they would only use it rarely, then it's not a big deal - the situation only comes up rarely.

Previous posters said PCs built for melee should just buy ranged weapons and lighter armor, then put all their enchantments on the new weapon and armor, in order to contribute to an encounter where melee weapons and/or heavy armor are not appropriate. I was pointing out that that requires the PC to spend twice their funds in order to have gear that will almost never be used and makes them a weaker character. I have yet to see anyone say a Wizard should buy heavy armor and a greatsword for those times when the party encounters enemies with really high SR. (Yes, I know the Wizard has other options in that situation. And that is the point...)


Wait for your chance in the next melee, or come up with a clever idea to upset things for the enemy.

One of the examples was sneaking into a location, which was the reason for light armor. That isn't a single combat encounter; it's likely a scenario which will take significant RL time. (It also doesn't take into account that Sneak isn't in-class for most fighter-type, and that a heavy armor wearer probably only has a DEX of 12.)


I once had a first level wizard, who had already used up all his spells, get behind a goblin on hands and knees, just so the fighter could push him over.

Sounds like you got lucky that you didn't die, as you would have drawn an AoO (maybe 2 or 3) from the Goblin and would have been denied your DEX to AC.


And in an SCA battle, when I lost my sword arm, I charged the enemies with shield and no weapon, just to distract them and let my allies hit them.

Which is, again, not the situation that is the topic of this thread. You had an option; the issue are situations where the player/PC is just told "NO!"


Secondly, I will never have a martial character who doesn't have both a ranged weapon and a melee weapon. My archer has a much cheaper backup sword, and my melee fighter always has a bow or throwing knives or something.

I specifically pointed out that that works at lower levels, but the cost of keeping that up at higher levels is considerable. It also severely weaken the PC when your AB goes from +6 (STR 20 and a +1 weapon) to +2 (DEX 12 and an +1 weapon).


Roman legionaries carried javelins.

Which were used once and then they switched to their swords.


Riflemen have bayonets today.

Which are pretty much never used except in an emergency.



You're in luck. Most games have exactly this mechanic. In D&D 3.5e, for instance, there are familiars,

Which are universally weak unless you put a lot of feats into them. I once played a Hexblade with a Hellhound familiar. Had to spend a lot of gold to buy a custom item that raised it's AB to a level it could hit anything, give it AC that meant it wasn't hit by everything, and increased the damage it did. And I still got stuck when the DM dropped a monster with an Aura of Cold so large that it took multiple rounds to just walk around it and so powerful my Hellhound would die in a few rounds if we went into the aura.


animal companions,

Which require the right class feature.


cohorts,

Requires a feat


hirelings,

Requires the DM to make them available.


summoned creatures,

Requires a caster with the spell on their list or points in UMD.


It's not the GM's job to create an easy way for my PC to shine. It's the GM's job to create obstacles and problems for my PC. It's [I]my job to overcome them.

It also requires the DM to let you do it. Your PC with the bodyguard? That was a gift from the DM. Your DM let you do that.


The OP claimed that the DM should never do this. My argument has consistently been that it’s all right that it happen occasionally – this lets other players play the hero. My statement that “It's not the GM's job to create an easy way for my PC to shine” was intended to be taken in this context. Sometimes there should be occasions in which my PC should not have an easy chance to shine. I apologize for not being clear.

But there is still the difference between "not shining" and "doing nothing." There is nothing wrong with one PC taking on the BBEG while the other deal with the minions. The issue, as you pointed out, is when the PCs are taking on the BBEG and minions, and one PC is left sitting on the sidelines with nothing they can do.

If this is a quick (less than 5 minutes real time), this isn't a big deal. But when the encounter goes on for an hour or more (i.e. sneaking into the Evil Wizard's castle), it becomes either a comedy (with the fighter-type with low DEX and no points in Sneak trying to follow the party and failing their rolls) or leaves a player out.


So my post as a whole is entirely consistent with my rule “23. When a PC gets a great new ability, there needs to be an encounter in the next session for which that ability is devastatingly effective. Otherwise it doesn’t exist. There should also be an encounter in the next session in which it is useless. Otherwise, the rest of that character doesn’t exist.”

Not a bad rule, so long as the PC has something to fall back on in the encounter where the new shiny is useless.


Our major disagreement isn't about what the solution to the problem should be, but about whether the situation described is a problem in the first place.

I think the point of contention is not so much "is it a problem," but "how much of a problem?" It is a problem because the OP felt left out and I and other posters have brought up situations where it was a problem for us. The question becomes "where does it go from a PC was left out temporarily to the PC was flat-out left out?" And this comes back to the DM. I can tell you that when it has happened to me, it was because the DM set up the situation and then told me my PC was not allowed to act. (Either because I made a save and didn't fall in the trap, or didn't make a save and would spend the next 4 hours in-game confused and wandering aimlessly.)

I think that's a case-by-case basis call and am not saying there is a certain real-time cut-off that goes from "OK" to "not OK."


I believe that when the rogue sneaks into the enemy camp, the other players are still engaged; they just aren't active. I think the players can be engaged when the paladin is trying to convince the king to supply our expedition. I believe that the melee fighter is having fun when the archers have opened up the ambush. And I have been very much engaged when my PC is Held or unconscious, while waiting to see if I will be rescued. I have fun with the entire game, not just my charactpiece of it.

I agree, but all of the examples you gave are ones that are short-term in real time. The problem comes up when the encounters are longer, leaving the player not-engaged for more than a few minutes.


I also enjoy a fencing tournament even when I'm not the person fencing. I playing baseball when I'm not at bat.

The difference is you are engaged in some way in those events.

I was on the track team in high school. I was a shot putter and threw discus. Since field events started before running, I would usually be done long before my teammates. But even when I was done, I was cheering them on, keeping stats, making sure everyone knew where they were supposed to be.

In contrast, what is there for a player whose PC is completely cut out? Some DMs won't let non-engaged PCs even talk to the other PCs (especially if the PC isn't there, or is Held, or Confused). Some players get annoyed if other players try to give them ideas. Often, the non-engaged player doesn't even know what the other PCs can do. It comes down to the only thing they can do is sit for long periods.


I even enjoy watching an action movie when I cannot control *any* of the characters.

You don't go to an action movie expecting to be able to control the events. Players do go to games expecting to be involved.


The paladin Lorelei saved my unconscious PC Ornrandir from drowning.

According to other posters, you should have been wearing light or no armor to avoid drowing. (/wry tone)


Primus and Lorelei saved Ornrandir from a Grey Pudding.
My PC Darkstar was rescued (I forget by whom) when his leg had been cut off. [He now has a mithril one.]
Finnegan and Mycroft saved my PC Gwystyl from a giant spider when he was paralyzed by poison.
Guntherford saved my PC Gwydion from death by blood loss.

I suspect those encounters took 10 minutes (real time) or less.


Every one of these incidents (and many more) represent times when my PC was unable to act for several rounds,

The key phrase is "several rounds." You were not sitting at the table for an hour, waiting for the rest of the party to save you.

[Rynjin]

And your point is..?

That choosing to do nothing because your other option is less effective is foolhardy.




BAB is the same for either a melee or ranged attack, so does not change the calculations.

It changes the calculations significantly, and saying otherwise belies a deep misunderstanding of the system math.

Assume attacks against AC 20, for a 6th level character, using your previous stat bonuses.

+2 sword, +5 Str, total +8 to-hit. You hit on a 12, or have a 45% chance of hitting.

+1 bow, 12 Dex, total +3 to-hit. You hit on a 17, or a 20% chance of hitting.

A 20% chance to hit looks pretty grim.

However, adding in BaB, you get an extra 25% chance; that's a 45% chance of hitting, a bit lower than 50/50 (and the same number you seemed to think was acceptable for the sword, earlier). While not ideal, it's not nearly as bleak of a scenario as you painted. Omitting the BaB serves no purpose other than to make the situation look worse than it actually is.


Granted, I did not think of a compound bow. However, the attack is still DEX based, which is going to be a lot lower and so is less likely to hit. Meaning STR to damage is less likely to be a factor than that same person using a melee weapon and STR to hit. And it still requires the PC to spend extra on a weapon that is seldom going to be used. (Plus, compound bows are more expensive than standard bows, which just adds to the cost of having to keep two weapons.)

At most playable levels, the cost of tweaking the composite bonus of your bow is negligible; you can get a bow of "infinite strength" (Adaptable) in Pathfinder for only 1000 gp.



At an even worse AB.

It's still better than nothing, particularly given that bow crits are quite good. You have a 20% chance to hit, and a 5% chance to threaten. Not great, but again, better than sitting there crying about it.




No, I'm pointing out the real problem. You are making up problems with my numbers and then pretending the problem does not actually exist.

If you believe this, then you have I think run into the issue of assuming that maximal effectiveness is the only metric that matters. Sometimes "good enough" is, in fact, good enough. A 45%/15% attack pattern is not that bad against any level appropriate foe. It is, again, not ideal, but not the end of the world in a game that is balanced around the assumption that you usually hit on around a 60% at best, and 50% on average (highly optimized characters do BETTER, for sure, but that's not how encounters are balanced).

This also isn't taking into account any buffs, of course, which shift the math more in favor of taking the less optimal path when needed. If you have a 75% chance to hit normally when buffed to the gills, dropping to "only" a 50% chance against that one flying guy isn't that bad at all.

Particularly when not being able to hit the flying guy in melee is, after a certain point, a lack of planning on your part. Invest in an item or class feature that gives flight.

[RifleAvenger]

I'm sorry, but I'm not entirely clear on what you expected to happen during that encounter. How about a complication that the PC needs to handle, or else the target leaves and discovers the burglary in-progress?


Were you wanting to have 20 minutes of talking about nothing with this NPC for every 20 minutes the theft took? Do you realize that you would be essentially holding the entire rest of the game hostage so that you could be doing something that would, at best, turn out exactly the same? Probably not 1:1, but would it be so bad to pan the "camera" to them every so often, as a token recognition of "you're here, this is integral to the plan, and your time matters too?"


It would be one thing if you were fishing for actual information or something during this time, but if you're just having a conversation with them about your favorite style of decorative silver spoon, I'm with your DM on this one. If you want something interesting to do, plan to do something interesting next time, don't try and guilt your DM into making an empty conversation into an encounter just for you. They have to hold the attention of the target, and their success or failure is interesting to the scenario going on elsewhere.

Telling someone to sit in the corner, because they chose (or worse, as it seems, were forced into) the entirely reasonable role of decoy and the GM doesn't care to put in the extra work to keep that role interesting, is a failure of the GM.

[Keltest]

How about a complication that the PC needs to handle, or else the target leaves and discovers the burglary in-progress?

Probably not 1:1, but would it be so bad to pan the "camera" to them every so often, as a token recognition of "you're here, this is integral to the plan, and your time matters too?"

They have to hold the attention of the target, and their success or failure is interesting to the scenario going on elsewhere.

Telling someone to sit in the corner, because they chose (or worse, as it seems, were forced into) the entirely reasonable role of decoy and the GM doesn't care to put in the extra work to keep that role interesting, is a failure of the GM.

Not at all. If a player chooses a path that leads to their non-participation, thats on the player. Ive got one player who likes to try and pull some lone wolf crap pretty frequently, and i am constantly forced to remind him that while he is allowed to wander off to brood in the woods (yes, i am being literal) if something happens while he does that, he wont get to participate.

The DM cannot be the only person responsible for managing the engagement of the group. its a two way street. If you arent going to make good faith attempts to participate in the action, why should i try to drag you into it anyway?

[RifleAvenger]

Not at all. If a player chooses a path that leads to their non-participation, thats on the player. Ive got one player who likes to try and pull some lone wolf crap pretty frequently, and i am constantly forced to remind him that while he is allowed to wander off to brood in the woods (yes, i am being literal) if something happens while he does that, he wont get to participate.

The DM cannot be the only person responsible for managing the engagement of the group. its a two way street. If you arent going to make good faith attempts to participate in the action, why should i try to drag you into it anyway?

There's a difference between: "I go to brood in the woods," "I get drunk," or the time I had the brilliant idea in a Werewolf game to position my character, on no essence, half a mile from the action because "I can totally rely solely on puppeteering the party's car and nothing can go wrong";

and

"Ok, I'm not a good sneak, so I'll distract the mark while you guys break in."

The former are either direct efforts to disengage or just really poorly thought-out.

The latter is an entirely reasonable plan, giving a PC a way to contribute to group-success without being in a theater of action they're ill-suited for. That's a good-faith effort, and the GM should put in the effort to reward that. Because, in-universe, if that PC wasn't handling the distraction? The heist would be uncovered and either fail or result in them being hunted by the authorities.

Unless, of course, the GM is assuming the party has to tackle a challenge a certain way, only prepares for that assumption, and ergo thinks they shouldn't have to be ready to run any alternatives. It doesn't matter whether one or more PCs go to distract the mark or not, because all that matters is the instance of the heist itself. Choo-choo.

[Keltest]

There's a difference between: "I go to brood in the woods," "I get drunk," or the time I had the brilliant idea in a Werewolf game to position my character, on no essence, half a mile from the action because "I can totally rely solely on puppeteering the party's car and nothing can go wrong";

and

"Ok, I'm not a good sneak, so I'll distract the mark while you guys break in."

The former are either direct efforts to disengage or just really poorly thought-out.

The latter is an entirely reasonable plan, giving a PC a way to contribute to group-success without being in a theater of action they're ill-suited for. The GM should put in the effort to reward that. Because, in-universe, if that PC wasn't handling the distraction? The heist would be uncovered and either fail or result in them being hunted by the authorities.

Unless, of course, the GM is assuming the party has to tackle a challenge a certain way, only prepares for that assumption, and ergo thinks they shouldn't have to be ready to run any alternatives. It doesn't matter whether one or more PCs go to distract the mark or not, because all that matters is the instance of the heist itself. Choo-choo.

They chose to do the distraction in the most non-engaging way possible. That isnt on the DM. They could have attempted to engineer something more interesting to do, but didnt. They just... talked. The reward was that it worked. Like, i dont understand why you think that should have had more focus put on it than it needed. In what way is that not just a waste of everybody's time, including the distracting player's?

[RifleAvenger]

They chose to do the distraction in the most non-engaging way possible. That isnt on the DM. They could have attempted to engineer something more interesting to do, but didnt. They just... talked. The reward was that it worked. Like, i dont understand why you think that should have had more focus put on it than it needed. In what way is that not just a waste of everybody's time, including the distracting player's?If the distraction is a waste of time because it lasts more than a single skill check, why did the heist need to last two hours? Can't everyone do one skill check and be done with it?

Why are you presuming that talking is a less engaging and interesting encounter than something more physical? Social is a pillar of the game, no?


In what way is that not just a waste of everybody's time, including the distracting player's? If the distracting player is expected to fill a role in a plan where they roll a single skill check, and then twiddle their thumbs for two hours as Pex said, why are they even at the table? That's the real waste of time, not 1-3 minutes here or there to check in on how things are going for the decoy.

It's not hard to just give people a little time or a way to get back into the action.

In that Werewolf game, the GM had a good samaritan find my body waking up after my psychic link to the car was severed. A good samaritan full of juicy essence, if I would just yield to the predator within. It's to save the pack from my own cowardice, isn't it? (I also could have destroyed my fetish to get a smaller amount back)

In a more recent D&D 5e game, we had a major villain captured, but the party then was drawn away to a disaster not far from the road. Since we didn't trust the merchant we were travelling with to guard the villain, I drew the role of sitting out the combat to watch the prisoner. The GM made sure to flash the scene to me twice, briefly, to watch for and foil escape attempts.

I wouldn't have minded if the GM left me to destroy the fetish or be out of the game in the Werewolf example; I was in that position because I tried to be overly clever. I still appreciate that they did give me a more expeditious way to keep participating, at a steep cost.

I would very much have minded if I was given no attention for an hour in the second scenario, because the alternatives would have been: the villain escaping, the villain probably kidnapping or killing the merchant, or bringing a dangerous and hostile individual into a combat situation we didn't have involve her in.

[icefractal]

Your second example brings up an interesting conflict between screen-time and effectiveness though. You mention:
because the alternatives would have been: the villain escaping, the villain probably kidnapping or killing the merchant, or bringing a dangerous and hostile individual into a combat situation we didn't have involve her inWhich is from the perspective that success is important, not just any course of action that proves exciting. Not that that's a weird POV, it's one I'm often in when thinking IC myself.

But - which way of running it gives you the better chance of success?
1) Simply by being there vigilantly, they're not going to be able to break out (how many GMs would run it if there weren't a fight happening simultaneously).
2) Make like a single Perception check for the above (also common).
3) Have to foil a series of breakout attempts separately.

The third is the most interesting for the player doing the guarding, but it also has the highest risk for the villain to escape. So, I think if you asked a number of players you'd get a spread of different answers how they'd rather it was handled. Putting more focus on the separated player than their task would usually merit isn't wrong, but it isn't the only right way either.

Related, the conflict in SF games between "exciting minigame for the ship's engineer to play in combat" and "If I'm a competent engineer, the ship shouldn't be at risk of breaking down every fight!"

[Keltest]

If the distraction is a waste of time because it lasts more than a single skill check, why did the heist need to last two hours? Can't everyone do one skill check and be done with it?

Why are you presuming that talking is a less engaging and interesting encounter than something more physical? Social is a pillar of the game, no? Im not presuming that talking in general is less engaging and interesting, im asserting that this specific subset of talking is not. It is specifically empty conversation about nothing. There was no intent to find information, no intent to build friendship with the NPC for the future, just... talking for the sake of talking. Roleplaying small talk is not, as a rule, very interesting. Besides which, if you stop in every 10 minutes real time and force him to make a performance check or something, youve pretty much guaranteed a failure unless he's a bard that specializes in that sort of thing or the DC is so low as to be meaningless. If any roll below a 10 is failure, then a guy with a low or no bonus has an increasing chance of failure the more rolls he makes.

As for the heist, maybe they could have trimmed it down some. I dont know, i wasnt in that game. But if its something they want most of the party there for, then presumably its more complicated than "sneak in, palm the thing, walk out."


If the distracting player is expected to fill a role in a plan where they roll a single skill check, and then twiddle their thumbs for two hours as Pex said, why are they even at the table? That's the real waste of time, not 1-3 minutes here or there to check in on how things are going for the decoy.

It's not hard to just give people a little time or a way to get back into the action.

In that Werewolf game, the GM had a good samaritan find my body waking up after my psychic link to the car was severed. A good samaritan full of juicy essence, if I would just yield to the predator within. It's to save the pack from my own cowardice, isn't it? (I also could have destroyed my fetish to get a smaller amount back)

In a more recent D&D 5e game, we had a major villain captured, but the party then was drawn away to a disaster not far from the road. Since we didn't trust the merchant we were travelling with to guard the villain, I drew the role of sitting out the combat to watch the prisoner. The GM made sure to flash the scene to me twice, briefly, to watch for and foil escape attempts.

I wouldn't have minded if the GM left me to destroy the fetish or be out of the game in the Werewolf example; I was in that position because I tried to be overly clever. I still appreciate that they did give me a more expeditious way to keep participating, at a steep cost.

I would very much have minded if I was given no attention for an hour in the second scenario, because the alternatives would have been: the villain escaping, the villain probably kidnapping or killing the merchant, or bringing a dangerous and hostile individual into a combat situation we didn't have involve her in.

The player had a way into the action: He could have been with the party and they could have set up some other distraction. They didnt do that. They chose to have the player do something boring for 2 hours when they didnt have to.

[Pex]

Im sorry, but im not entirely clear on what you expected to happen during that encounter. Were you wanting to have 20 minutes of talking about nothing with this NPC for every 20 minutes the theft took? Do you realize that you would be essentially holding the entire rest of the game hostage so that you could be doing something that would, at best, turn out exactly the same? It would be one thing if you were fishing for actual information or something during this time, but if youre just having a conversation with them about your favorite style of decorative silver spoon, im with your DM on this one. If you want something interesting to do, plan to do something interesting next time, dont try and guilt your DM into making an empty conversation into an encounter just for you.

Dialogue about the metaplot, some politics that was happening. Maybe the NPC is trying to end the conversation to go back to his room, and I need to do something non-threatening to stop him. Maybe we have the conversation, taking only a few real world minutes, but then something else happens that has nothing to do with the burglary or the NPC that occupies my time. Most definitely it's something spontaneous the DM thought up on the spot. He did that with other players, or rather some random weird thing happens which turns out later was not random but in fact was campaign plot related. There were a few subplot paths the party chose not to pursue at that particular time. Perhaps one of them could have chosen to pursue me. Something, Anything. Not leave me alone to do absolutely nothing for more than a real world hour.

[Keltest]

Dialogue about the metaplot, some politics that was happening. Maybe the NPC is trying to end the conversation to go back to his room, and I need to do something non-threatening to stop him. Maybe we have the conversation, taking only a few real world minutes, but then something else happens that has nothing to do with the burglary or the NPC that occupies my time. Most definitely it's something spontaneous the DM thought up on the spot. He did that with other players, or rather some random weird thing happens which turns out later was not random but in fact was campaign plot related. There were a few subplot paths the party chose not to pursue at that particular time. Perhaps one of them could have chosen to pursue me. Something, Anything. Not leave me alone to do absolutely nothing for more than a real world hour.

So you want the DM to do considerably more work and drag out the encounter even longer, making the entire rest of the party wait for just you to do your thing, because you didnt want to go along with them on the stealth segment?

Again, i fail to see how this is anything other than a "player chose to take the boring path" issue here. You had plenty of opportunity to engineer something more exciting. You didnt. Why is that on the DM? Theyre a player too, demanding that they do a ton more work simply because you chose not to participate with the rest of the party is absolutely not fair to them.

[Quertus]

So you want the DM to do considerably more work and drag out the encounter even longer, making the entire rest of the party wait for just you to do your thing, because you didnt want to go along with them on the stealth segment?

Again, i fail to see how this is anything other than a "player chose to take the boring path" issue here. You had plenty of opportunity to engineer something more exciting. You didnt. Why is that on the DM? Theyre a player too, demanding that they do a ton more work simply because you chose not to participate with the rest of the party is absolutely not fair to them.

"Because it's what my character world would do".

If the GM is just going to play your world honest... eh, I've got no problems with that, actually. I think that it would behoove a GM in that situation to metagame, and point out to the player, "you're gonna just sit there doing nothing for an hour / while they pull off the heist - you're OK with that, right? That's why you chose this course of action (because you've got homework you need to get done / SO you need to call / whatever), right?"

However, if the GM is willing to change the world to make the game more fun, then this is obviously an opportunity to do so. As the GM had (seemingly) done so in the past, the player was expecting the same fair treatment that others had received.

Also: The player didn't "choose to take the boring path", they chose to take the path with the greatest chance of success. That path happened to be boring. It's like saying someone choosing to play a Fighter in 3e is choosing to not participate. It may be true, but it's not (usually) why they chose to play a Fighter.

That said, I can certainly see how splitting the party can make the game drag longer - I usually hate scouts (and the handling thereof) for just that reason. Give me mindless "kick in the door" over hours of thumb-twiddling solo scouting.

[Pex]

So you want the DM to do considerably more work and drag out the encounter even longer, making the entire rest of the party wait for just you to do your thing, because you didnt want to go along with them on the stealth segment?

Again, i fail to see how this is anything other than a "player chose to take the boring path" issue here. You had plenty of opportunity to engineer something more exciting. You didnt. Why is that on the DM? Theyre a player too, demanding that they do a ton more work simply because you chose not to participate with the rest of the party is absolutely not fair to them.

If it makes you feel better this is the opinion of the DM in question in his not trying to keep me. I quit his game. We won't reach consensus. I constrast with another DM where something similar was happening. He'd spend a real world hour with other players, individually among several games, during downtime interacting with NPCs. When it was my turn it would be 5 minutes. I said something, and since then the DM made an effort to be more engaging. I do my part by takng more initiative, creating an encounter or two the DM needs to react. He no longer spends an hour with another player, cutting it to 10 minutes or so then switches to someone else. I get my turn of 10 minutes. We both changed how we were playing the game. Everyone gets their spotlight time.

[Rynjin]

That's definitely the way to do things when people split the party, and it's a hard lesson to learn. You go until you reach a nice, natural stopping point and then swap to someone else.

This is also where playing online comes in handy; I can have people post things they're doing in chat if it doesn't require my direct, immediate attention and come around to them as needed. I imagine it's a bit harder in an in-person game.

[Keltest]

That's definitely the way to do things when people split the party, and it's a hard lesson to learn. You go until you reach a nice, natural stopping point and then swap to someone else.

This is also where playing online comes in handy; I can have people post things they're doing in chat if it doesn't require my direct, immediate attention and come around to them as needed. I imagine it's a bit harder in an in-person game.

Indeed. "Never split the party" has become a golden rule at my table because its just completely infeasible for me to keep with with more than MAYBE two groups acting simultaneously. Especially if one is doing a combat and one is not. My players all understand (even the lone wolf guy) that there are 5-6 other players at the table who are also needing my attention, and if they go off away from the group that they have to wait their turn even if that means a bunch of OOC idleness.

[Pex]

Indeed. "Never split the party" has become a golden rule at my table because its just completely infeasible for me to keep with with more than MAYBE two groups acting simultaneously. Especially if one is doing a combat and one is not. My players all understand (even the lone wolf guy) that there are 5-6 other players at the table who are also needing my attention, and if they go off away from the group that they have to wait their turn even if that means a bunch of OOC idleness.

The lone wolf is the player who purposely does his own thing, to play the game by himself and despite the other players. I have no tolerance for such players. That is not what I was doing. My character could not be accomodated in the scenario. The party needed to climb up a castle wall unseen and go through a window. The druid wildshaped into a spider. The bard made himself and the wizard invisible at his highest 3rd level spell slot and used his slippers of spider climbing. The wizard casts Levitate on himself. We had no other resources to get me up the wall unseen, so the party agreed I go find the noble whose office they were burglarizing to be the distraction to ensure he doesn't go into his office while they're there. I was perfectly fine with the DM running their encounter for 10-15 minutes, let them do their thing and have whatever awesomeness and/or shenanigans that results, pause at a dramatic time if possible, then spend 10-15 minutes with me trying to keep the noble away from his office with all the hilarity that could happen considering my 8 Charisma and no proficiency in social skills should any rolls be relevant, pause at a dramatic time if possible and go back to the others. Repeat. The DM chose not to run my distraction scene and 15 minutes became more than an hour.

[denthor]

I moved to another state. Had friend bring his laptop played by zoom. Then California shut down the state again. So no more game.

[Keltest]

The lone wolf is the player who purposely does his own thing, to play the game by himself and despite the other players. I have no tolerance for such players. That is not what I was doing. My character could not be accomodated in the scenario. The party needed to climb up a castle wall unseen and go through a window. The druid wildshaped into a spider. The bard made himself and the wizard invisible at his highest 3rd level spell slot and used his slippers of spider climbing. The wizard casts Levitate on himself. We had no other resources to get me up the wall unseen, so the party agreed I go find the noble whose office they were burglarizing to be the distraction to ensure he doesn't go into his office while they're there. I was perfectly fine with the DM running their encounter for 10-15 minutes, let them do their thing and have whatever awesomeness and/or shenanigans that results, pause at a dramatic time if possible, then spend 10-15 minutes with me trying to keep the noble away from his office with all the hilarity that could happen considering my 8 Charisma and no proficiency in social skills should any rolls be relevant, pause at a dramatic time if possible and go back to the others. Repeat. The DM chose not to run my distraction scene and 15 minutes became more than an hour.

Without seeing the character sheets, i cant say for certain, but i can already imagine plenty of ways for you to have gone in with the rest of the party. Just off hand, you could have been the one levitating and just carried the wizard. Maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time, but the fact remains that you split from the party to go do a less exciting thing, and are complaining that it was less exciting.

[Pex]

Without seeing the character sheets, i cant say for certain, but i can already imagine plenty of ways for you to have gone in with the rest of the party. Just off hand, you could have been the one levitating and just carried the wizard. Maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time, but the fact remains that you split from the party to go do a less exciting thing, and are complaining that it was less exciting.

Even carrying the wizard I still would not have been invisibie or otherwise be unseen. Maybe or maybe not there was something we didn't think of to solve the problem, but the point is we didn't have such a solution at the time and we all agreed I go be the distraction. I'm not complaining it was less exciting. I'm complaining that it didn't happen at all.

[icefractal]

I was perfectly fine with the DM running their encounter for 10-15 minutes, let them do their thing and have whatever awesomeness and/or shenanigans that results, pause at a dramatic time if possible, then spend 10-15 minutes with me trying to keep the noble away from his office with all the hilarity that could happen considering my 8 Charisma and no proficiency in social skills should any rolls be relevant, pause at a dramatic time if possible and go back to the others. Repeat.
Gotta be honest - this sounds a bit spotlight-hogging. There are three players inside, so if splitting screen-time evenly is the concern, shouldn't it be more like 10 minutes with you for every half-hour with the rest of the party? I'm not saying no time is right either, but demanding as much time solo as the rest of the group gets put together?

[Keltest]

Even carrying the wizard I still would not have been invisibie or otherwise be unseen. Maybe or maybe not there was something we didn't think of to solve the problem, but the point is we didn't have such a solution at the time and we all agreed I go be the distraction. I'm not complaining it was less exciting. I'm complaining that it didn't happen at all.

And now were back to you wanting to spend 15-20 minutes on empty conversation. I just dont get why you think this is a remotely good use of your DM's attention, or anybody's time. Sometimes you throw in a vague request for them to have done "something" but you dont seem to be particularly sure of what that would actually entail.

[Quertus]

And now were back to you wanting to spend 15-20 minutes on empty conversation. I just dont get why you think this is a remotely good use of your DM's attention, or anybody's time. Sometimes you throw in a vague request for them to have done "something" but you dont seem to be particularly sure of what that would actually entail.

Y'know, I gave a reasonable answer several posts back: because the GM already had demonstrated being in the habit of doing just that, turning "filler" content into plot-relevant details.

Was it wrong of him to expect more of the same?

Granted, this isn't necessarily the OP's reasons - we'll need to wait for an official weigh-in on that one.

[Pex]

Gotta be honest - this sounds a bit spotlight-hogging. There are three players inside, so if splitting screen-time evenly is the concern, shouldn't it be more like 10 minutes with you for every half-hour with the rest of the party? I'm not saying no time is right either, but demanding as much time solo as the rest of the group gets put together?


And now were back to you wanting to spend 15-20 minutes on empty conversation. I just dont get why you think this is a remotely good use of your DM's attention, or anybody's time.

At the moment I left the Zoom meeting, the druid pulled a hyena out of a bag of tricks just because the player wanted to. There was no emergency. We just finished the adventure arc and traveling along with the Prince and army back to the Capital City to report to the King on our adventure. Mind I was already denied something I wanted to do where we were before we left for the city. I wanted to have the Prince visit my character's sister and her husband because we were small town folk and it would be a nice treat for her to meet the Prince. The DM knew this because I messaged him about this the week before. Anyway, the DM spent 20 minutes roleplaying the hyena talking to the druid about how cool it is to be a hyena. The hyena then went off hunting as the DM spent the next 5 minutes decribing how it hunted some farmer's cattle. The DM spent the next 5 minutes talking as the hyena describing the kill and cattle to the druid. It then went off again and killed a soldier's dog, so finally the druid and bard went after the hyena to kill it since it refused to listen to the druid to stop hunting. Thirty minutes of this nonsense that had nothing to do with anything. Stuff like this happens all the time with this DM with the other players. I am being selfish for wanting to have a conversation with an NPC? No, not buying it. For whatever reason this DM refused to engage with me.


Sometimes you throw in a vague request for them to have done "something" but you dont seem to be particularly sure of what that would actually entail.


Dialogue about the metaplot, some politics that was happening. Maybe the NPC is trying to end the conversation to go back to his room, and I need to do something non-threatening to stop him. Maybe we have the conversation, taking only a few real world minutes, but then something else happens that has nothing to do with the burglary or the NPC that occupies my time. Most definitely it's something spontaneous the DM thought up on the spot. He did that with other players, or rather some random weird thing happens which turns out later was not random but in fact was campaign plot related. There were a few subplot paths the party chose not to pursue at that particular time. Perhaps one of them could have chosen to pursue me. Something, Anything. Not leave me alone to do absolutely nothing for more than a real world hour.

In addition, we stopped a Demon Cult that took root not only in the noble's lands but also his house with his senile mother inside. Mentioning that would at least get his initial attention and something to discuss. In other words, campaign plot relevant. We didn't know at the time if the noble was in on it, a victim himself, or like his mother oblivious to the situation, hence the burglary.


Y'know, I gave a reasonable answer several posts back: because the GM already had demonstrated being in the habit of doing just that, turning "filler" content into plot-relevant details.

Was it wrong of him to expect more of the same?

Granted, this isn't necessarily the OP's reasons - we'll need to wait for an official weigh-in on that one.

One incident in question involved the druid wildshaped into a mouse to eavesdrop on the noble whose office the party burgled. Instead of hearing the conversation a half-hour was spent about a cat that saw him and chased him around the castle into a suit of armor to be eventually rescued by the bard. Sometime later in his normal self he saw the cat again. However, he was then Dominated and made to attack a friendly NPC. We have no proof it was the "cat", but it was suspected because it was quite particular chasing the druid as a mouse earlier. It wasn't a normal cat. The druid and wizard made it a point to look for that cat, but it was never seen again increasing the suspicion. Maybe it was just a normal cat, but it shows the DM is quite willing and able to throw in random events we don't expect. Me having a conversation with the noble the party is to burgle is hardly an unfair imposition.

[Quertus]

:smalleek:

There's so much bad, so many red flags there in that last post (that weren't really included in previous posts) that if you were a new member, I'd suspect you were trolling / pulling our legs.

That GM was clearly running the game for someone, and that someone wasn't you.