Not Getting To Play

[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. "

I'm mostly a 3.x player.
What's with all this "kids these days" talk I've been seeing around here lately, anyway?

[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. [In fact, my lower level warriors always have a backup bludgeoning weapon, just for skeletons, even if it's just a quarterstaff.]

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 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.

[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.” [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.

Now, back to that "spot the differences", you'll note that I was talking about the 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. [In fact, my lower level warriors always have a backup bludgeoning weapon, just for skeletons, even if it's just a quarterstaff.]

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 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?