Understandably Absent Player, Inexplicably Absent PC?

[Fiery Diamond]

I just can't get over how common it seems on these forums to do the following thing.

Gaming Group is made of up (let's say) 4 Players, whom we'll call Player 1-4, and they each play a PC which we'll call PC 1-4. And there's a DM, of course. One game day, Player 3 can't make it to the session. Maybe this way last minute, maybe there was some warning. No biggie, Group says. They begin play. Last session ended with them all together partway through a dungeon. So, PCs 1, 2, and 4 continue on their way through the dungeon.

Oh, and for a bonus, all fights that take place? No XP and loot for PC 3, because Player 3 wasn't there.

This makes no sense to me. Especially in a dungeon setting, but even in other settings where the disappearance of a PC is possible but not reasonable (as in, the party has zero reason to split up). Why on earth do you take PC 3 out of the equation?

When I DM, sometimes a player can't make it. We have never had the PC mysteriously (or even logically) disappear. Instead, if the absence is known about beforehand, we get the character sheet from the player. If the absence is unexpected, we approximate the character's stats. AND THEN one of us "auto-pilots" the PC of the missing player (fighting, token words to reflect what we know the PC would say if we know the PC well enough in RP situations).

Logically, then, the PC does get a share of the XP and loot, just not any RP XP or anything of that nature.

It just seems such an alien idea to me to have the PC vanish and not help or get anything, especially when there really isn't any real reason or opportunity in game for this to happen (at least not one that isn't very contrived).

Now, if you're trying to "punish" a player for skipping sessions without warning, then I guess it makes sense, but other than that...it doesn't to me.


Do you do this? If you do, why?

[AslanCross]

I typically just ask one of the more astute players to handle the orphaned PC. In my group, absentees understand that someone will sub for them; they can either ask someone to sub for them or let me assign someone. It's part of the agreement we have, so none of us really sees it as punishment.

[Fiery Diamond]

I typically just ask one of the more astute players to handle the orphaned PC. In my group, absentees understand that someone will sub for them; they can either ask someone to sub for them or let me assign someone. It's part of the agreement we have, so none of us really sees it as punishment.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Someone else subbing is what my groups DO do. Definitely not a punishment, don't know why anyone would think it would be.

Having the PC just vanish and therefore neither assist in battle nor get loot/XP from the session is what I was saying I don't get. That was what I was saying only made any kind of sense to me if it was used as a punishment.

[Psyren]

I don't understand. Did that happen to you in another group, or is this just a general rant? Most groups I've seen do something along the lines of Aslan's suggestion.

[kyoryu]

There's typically 3 ways to handle this:

1) PC goes "offstage" somehow. How much sense this makes is dependent on the situation. They're not in danger, but don't contribute and don't get loot/xp.

2) PC gets run by somebody else, be it the DM or another PC. Loot/xp share is dependent - often this situation has an implicit or explicit understanding of "your character won't die while you're gone", which argues for a reduced share. In general, I'd argue that you should get a reduced share if you don't show up.

3) If you've got multiple characters, play a group that can accomodate all of the players that are present. This works better in more sandbox-y worlds/more traditional campaigns than it does in more narrative-based campaigns.

[Synapse]

We either have him being eaten by the great will of the macrocosm (http://images.absoluteanime.com/excel_saga/will.jpg) and dropped in when the player next shows, or the dm plays him, reducing the character to tag-along so he contributes to fights and whatever diplomatic cons they would usually provide.

Really, there's no need to overthink it, it just gets in the way of the game.

[Safety Sword]

PC disappears in a puff of pink smoke.

Other PCs scratch their heads, make a cursory search and continue on. Usually (next session) the missing PC turns up in a chest, cupboard, tavern. They are allowed to make up any reason for their absence they choose.

To me, it doesn't make sense to run a character of a player that is absent.

Everyone already has enough to do looking after their own character.

[Fiery Diamond]

I don't understand. Did that happen to you in another group, or is this just a general rant? Most groups I've seen do something along the lines of Aslan's suggestion.

Nothing happened to my group. It's a general "Whuh? Why on earth do people do this?" reaction to the fact that I see stuff like THIS:


PC disappears in a puff of pink smoke.

Other PCs scratch their heads, make a cursory search and continue on. Usually (next session) the missing PC turns up in a chest, cupboard, tavern. They are allowed to make up any reason for their absence they choose.

To me, it doesn't make sense to run a character of a player that is absent.

Everyone already has enough to do looking after their own character.

all the time on these boards.

[Enix18]

Occasionally I'll have the absent PC just disappear for the duration of the session if none of us really feel up to running two characters, but I would never dream of cutting out their share of the XP/loot. That just doesn't make much sense to me, so I suppose I have to echo Fiery Diamond's perplexity.

[molten_dragon]

When starting a campaign, I generally offer my players two choices for when they are absent.

1. Their character won't be there when they're not there. They'll get no xp/treasure for that session, but there's no chance of their character dying when someone else is 'at the helm' so to speak.

2. They get cardboarded (what my groups have always called it). They can designate another PC to play their character, or whoever feels like doing it can do it. They get a full share of xp and treasure, but whatever happens to their character happens. There's no going back and saying 'but I wouldn't have done that'.

I've only had one player who chose the first option, and it was because he was a bit of a control freak. It didn't come up that often, because he was usually at the sessions, but when it did, I believe I simply described him going away by crawling up his own *******.

[Safety Sword]

Occasionally I'll have the absent PC just disappear for the duration of the session if none of us really feel up to running two characters, but I would never dream of cutting out their share of the XP/loot. That just doesn't make much sense to me, so I suppose I have to echo Fiery Diamond's perplexity.

Why should a character that is not there get loot or XP?

Sure the party might give them some of the loot, but it's theirs to give away.

As for XP... they didn't experience the adventure. Why would you give them XP?

[BeholderSlayer]

We, too, just have somebody else play the character. If they die, they die.

[Fuzzie Fuzz]

Oh, thank goodness. I was starting to think my group were the only ones who did it that way. It seems logical that the character would just sort of tag along silently, and participate only in the most token of ways. (Tagging along, participating in fights, and maybe using a skill if it's necessary.) It seems slightly immersion-breaking, but no more than having a character randomly drop off the face of the world would. Especially since I like to keep all the characters at the same level, so not awarding XP just unbalances things unduly.

[Katana_Geldar]

For my group it depends on how integral they are, we've had players running two characters when the cleric or the tank was missing.

However, in the Star Wars games the characters have a ship. And if they don't turn up, that's where they are.

[Psyren]

You could also stuff them in your Portable Hole with a Bottle of Air I suppose.

[Galileo]

My group used to have folks popping in and out of existence all the time, but in our recent game, we've started actually coming up with ways to deal with it ingame. For example, the cleric's player couldn't make it, so we ran her as an NPC for a bit, then sent her to protect the prisoners on their way back to town, since we knew there to be ogres nearby. Of course, it turned out that the prisoners were actually assassins sent to murder us all, so that might not've been the best course of action...

[Psyren]

You could also stuff them in your Portable Hole with a Bottle of Air I suppose.

Other PCs: "He won't wake up."
Party Leader: "Toss him in there, we can't wait around."

[Tvtyrant]

I have them stay back/magical puff of smoke and then do a solo mission to make up the XP/Loot. The XP and Loot aren't the fun parts of the game, they are to keep you capable of playing it. Its the game thats fun, taking away their play hours because they couldn't make it smacks of unfairness to me more then letting them earn it at a separate time.

[Psyren]

Do you hold a separate session with that player just for the solo mission? What if he lives some distance away? And if it's not a separate session, what are the other players doing during that time?

[WarKitty]

Why should a character that is not there get loot or XP?

Sure the party might give them some of the loot, but it's theirs to give away.

As for XP... they didn't experience the adventure. Why would you give them XP?

Because it's no fun if you end up behind the rest of the party because you had an emergency one night?

[Mystic Muse]

Because it's no fun if you end up behind the rest of the party because you had an emergency one night?

Or couldn't get a ride

Or nobody woke you up (That happened to me.)

Or a multitude of good reasons you can't make it to the game.

[Synapse]

You could also stuff them in your Portable Hole with a Bottle of Air I suppose.

Other PCs: "He won't wake up."
Party Leader: "Toss him in there, we can't wait around."

Alternatively, the game schedule coincided with the adventurer's weekly shrink appointment.

You can't crawl dungeons murdering monsters and remain sane without help, you know.

[Tvtyrant]

Do you hold a separate session with that player just for the solo mission? What if he lives some distance away? And if it's not a separate session, what are the other players doing during that time?

Yes, and I wouldn't DM with people who live far away, too many problems (unless they are old friends/party members, but they likely wouldn't make weekly meetings ever).

I hold a 1 on 1 at a separate time, generally that is more character as opposed to plot driven. It keeps everything balanced experience wise and allows them to have fun without the group (hard to enjoy deep plots 1 v 1). I had a Sorc who missed a whole dungeon crawl (he never even entered), so instead of doing it in the dungeon with the others he got to fight a RatMaster (like a were-rat, but it can summon a rat swarm and its aura slowly turns rats giant) who was invading the local tavern.

[Susano-wo]

my group doesn't have a unified standard, but we will usually either:
A: NPC the character, with teh player's approval,
B: find somewhere the character can to be (helps that we are ususally pretty sandboxy),
C: not play. we might still get togehter, but its becomes a boardgame night, etc.
In one, much less immersive campaign, the characters were 'in the back' duyring that fight.

ANd yeah, its lame to make someone miss XP just because the player couldn't make it. Its not as if the character *would* have done nothing, its just that the player couldn't make it....but we are pttry big on immersion :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

Yes, and I wouldn't DM with people who live far away, too many problems (unless they are old friends/party members, but they likely wouldn't make weekly meetings ever).

You'd be surprised how far some people will travel to keep up with their gaming group, but YMMV I guess. (no pun intended :smalltongue:)

[kyoryu]

Because it's no fun if you end up behind the rest of the party because you had an emergency one night?

Presumably in a longer campaign, everyone will miss a session here and there, and things even out.

Plus, increasing experience requirements mean that people will mostly even out in level over time. It's unlikely to get that far out of level with the group unless you're only making 30% of the games.

Arguably, it's another holdover from old school games that doesn't really work in a more modern, narrative structured game.

[Safety Sword]

Because it's no fun if you end up behind the rest of the party because you had an emergency one night?

Emergencies happen. Welcome to life.

You won't end up that far behind if it's one night. Not so much that it will make much difference. And you tend to catch up in the next session.

It only becomes an issue if you miss a couple in a row. And then, well, it's usually deserved because you're not doing your bit and putting in the time.

[WarKitty]

Emergencies happen. Welcome to life.

You won't end up that far behind if it's one night. Not so much that it will make much difference. And you tend to catch up in the next session.

It only becomes an issue if you miss a couple in a row. And then, well, it's usually deserved because you're not doing your bit and putting in the time.

That really depends on how much xp your group gets for a night. My group usually runs about half a level per session. Plus I know emergencies happen, I just don't see why my fun should be further penalized for them.

[Tvtyrant]

That really depends on how much xp your group gets for a night. My group usually runs about half a level per session.

Yeah mine too (or a level, once even two). We play 12 hour-18 hour game sessions.

[Safety Sword]

Or couldn't get a ride

Or nobody woke you up (That happened to me.)

Or a multitude of good reasons you can't make it to the game.

There is something to be said for self-sufficiency.

If one of my friends told me "Sorry, no one woke me up so I couldn't make it", the response would be. "Were you in a coma?"

I would understand good reasons. These just aren't good reasons. Then again, my players are actually my friends, so we all tend to know what's going on with each other.

[SensFan]

Why should a character that is not there get loot or XP?

Sure the party might give them some of the loot, but it's theirs to give away.

As for XP... they didn't experience the adventure. Why would you give them XP?
So if the player doesn't show, it means the character doesn't show? Oh boy, I'd hate to be a Wizard in your campaigns; I'm not even capable of producing cantrips. My Wizard sure would be useless to the party!

[Safety Sword]

That really depends on how much xp your group gets for a night. My group usually runs about half a level per session. Plus I know emergencies happen, I just don't see why my fun should be further penalized for them.

Yet, you expect to be rewarded for not being able to attend. Curious that it should work only in that direction.

If your fun depends entirely on being the same level as everyone else, I think that, just maybe, you're doing it wrong.

[kyoryu]

That really depends on how much xp your group gets for a night. My group usually runs about half a level per session. Plus I know emergencies happen, I just don't see why my fun should be further penalized for them.

Well, if your fun is dependent upon having exactly as much xp and loot as the rest of your party, that's certainly the case.

I don't view things that way, so my answer will be different than yours.

[Safety Sword]

So if the player doesn't show, it means the character doesn't show? Oh boy, I'd hate to be a Wizard in your campaigns; I'm not even capable of producing cantrips. My Wizard sure would be useless to the party!

I just don't see a reason to progress a character that's not involved in the story for that session.

You aren't your character. But you do give the character your own "uniqueness". I'm not going to play yours as you would. Also, like I said, if I already have a character, I'm not going to be particularly interested in running mine and yours, but that just seems to be how we do it. Clearly you're free to do whatever works for your group. We do.

[WarKitty]

Yet, you expect to be rewarded for not being able to attend. Curious that it should work only in that direction.

If your fun depends entirely on being the same level as everyone else, I think that, just maybe, you're doing it wrong.

Why wouldn't it? If I'm not on the same level as everyone else, then I'm not contributing to the party as much as everyone else, which isn't as much fun for anyone because I start feeling like dead weight instead of a useful member.

Edit: No one is talking about a player that chooses not to attend or isn't careful enough to make sure they can attend. But as far as I'm concerned, if a group penalizes me for having emergencies, then they've shown me that they're more concerned about their rules than about everyone having fun.

[Mystic Muse]

There is something to be said for self-sufficiency.

If one of my friends told me "Sorry, no one woke me up so I couldn't make it", the response would be. "Were you in a coma?"


I have to wake up pretty early on Saturdays in order to get there in time. However, unless somebody wakes me up or I have an alarm clock (Which I only got a little while ago) I don't wake up in time.

When my dad failed to get me up I woke up at 12:30. My game starts at around 10:30 ends at 2:00 and it usually takes me an hour to get prepared plus 10 minutes to get to the store. At that point, I don't think you can blame me for not showing up.

[SensFan]

I just don't see a reason to progress a character that's not involved in the story for that session.

You aren't your character. But you do give the character your own "uniqueness". I'm not going to play yours as you would. Also, like I said, if I already have a character, I'm not going to be particularly interested in running mine and yours, but that just seems to be how we do it. Clearly you're free to do whatever works for your group. We do.
I prefer versimilitude. If a SessionA ends with us in DungeonOfDoom and everyone was there, but Joe doesn't show up for SessionB (in which we never leave DungeonOfDoom), why should BarbarianBob just vanish? Especially since, in our party, depending on who was missing, odds are there's no way in hell we'd fight anyone until they got back. Our DM doesn't routinely give us fights we could easily win without everyone chipping in.

[Safety Sword]

Why wouldn't it? If I'm not on the same level as everyone else, then I'm not contributing to the party as much as everyone else, which isn't as much fun for anyone because I start feeling like dead weight instead of a useful member.

Simply untrue.

Five of my six players aren't Wizards. It could be argued that they all contribute slightly less by common wisdom. If you can't contribute to your party because you're a level (usually at most 1/2 a level behind) then that's pretty sad for you.

Do you have no one in your party that is a crafter? They'll be behind on XP too. Still pretty sure they are valued by the party and contribute well.

[kyoryu]

Why wouldn't it? If I'm not on the same level as everyone else, then I'm not contributing to the party as much as everyone else, which isn't as much fun for anyone because I start feeling like dead weight instead of a useful member.

Because D&D isn't a game where a single level is a matter of vastly different power levels (well... okay, some spell levels can be...). Can a 7Wiz contribute more than a 6Wiz? Sure, but the 6Wiz is still contributing, and doing things that other classes just can't.

Because the game isn't about being the shiny star, but working as a team? And some team members will be more useful in some scenarios, and less in others?

But mostly, because the game isn't about "winning," but about having a good time and sharing some fun experiences?

[AstralFire]

Yet, you expect to be rewarded for not being able to attend. Curious that it should work only in that direction.

If your fun depends entirely on being the same level as everyone else, I think that, just maybe, you're doing it wrong.

I think that this comment is pretty uncalled for. If I wanted to flip around, I could easily ask - "why do you have to bribe your players to play?"

Obvious answer is, you don't. So let's drop the "you're doing it wrong," shall we?

Fact is, XP is seen by many people as not a reward, but just another part of the cooperative narrative. As a player, I don't complain if I don't get XP for missing, but as a DM, I will always treat players who are not here the same as those who are as far as receiving standard treasure and experience. The act of play itself is the reward, and keeping everyone on the same XP plateau is there to represent the growth of the party itself.

Whether you give XP or not, however, I have difficulty understanding implementing a contrived explanation like 'vanish in pink smoke' unless you're running a comedy campaign.

[WarKitty]

I prefer versimilitude. If a SessionA ends with us in DungeonOfDoom and everyone was there, but Joe doesn't show up for SessionB (in which we never leave DungeonOfDoom), why should BarbarianBob just vanish? Especially since, in our party, depending on who was missing, odds are there's no way in hell we'd fight anyone until they got back. Our DM doesn't routinely give us fights we could easily win without everyone chipping in.

That's the other issue we've had. A lot of time we need Joe Cleric in order to stand a chance at finishing the fight. Or if we're in the middle of the dungeon, there is nowhere where Joe Cleric could have disappeared to. It breaks immersion much less if Joe tags along.

[Safety Sword]

I have to wake up pretty early on Saturdays in order to get there in time. However, unless somebody wakes me up or I have an alarm clock (Which I only got a little while ago) I don't wake up in time.

When my dad failed to get me up I woke up at 12:30. My game starts at around 10:30 ends at 2:00 and it usually takes me an hour to get prepared plus 10 minutes to get to the store. At that point, I don't think you can blame me for not showing up.

You have an alarm clock now. Seems like the solution is found! The world can resume turning.

[Lev]

Players not there, they don't gain XP.

Players lower level? They gain levels faster.

[WarKitty]

Simply untrue.

Five of my six players aren't Wizards. It could be argued that they all contribute slightly less by common wisdom. If you can't contribute to your party because you're a level (usually at most 1/2 a level behind) then that's pretty sad for you.

Do you have no one in your party that is a crafter? They'll be behind on XP too. Still pretty sure they are valued by the party and contribute well.


Because D&D isn't a game where a single level is a matter of vastly different power levels (well... okay, some spell levels can be...). Can a 7Wiz contribute more than a 6Wiz? Sure, but the 6Wiz is still contributing, and doing things that other classes just can't.

Because the game isn't about being the shiny star, but working as a team? And some team members will be more useful in some scenarios, and less in others?

But mostly, because the game isn't about "winning," but about having a good time and sharing some fun experiences?

We play pathfinder, so no crafting XP. Much better that way.

In all honesty: Usually I'm already pretty pissed that I had to miss a session. Not getting any XP is just rubbing it in. Because XP is such a big part of the group narrative, not giving me any is essentially further penalizing me for something I already couldn't help.


I think that this comment is pretty uncalled for.

Fact is, XP is seen by many people as not a reward, but just another part of the cooperative narrative. As a player, I don't complain if I don't get XP for missing, but as a DM, I will always treat players who are not here the same as those who are as far as receiving standard treasure and experience. The act of play itself is the reward, and keeping everyone on the same XP plateau is there to represent the growth of the party itself.

Whether you give XP or not, however, I have difficulty understanding implementing a contrived explanation like 'vanish in pink smoke' unless you're running a comedy campaign.

This is closer to what I was trying to say. Experience is in our games generally something the party earns by cooperation. It is extremely rare for any individual PC to get more than 50 person XP per session. For the most part, you're handing out XP to the group, not to individual players.

[Safety Sword]

I think that this comment is pretty uncalled for. If I wanted to flip around, I could easily ask - "why do you have to bribe your players to play?"

Obvious answer is, you don't. So let's drop the "you're doing it wrong," shall we?

Fact is, XP is seen by many people as not a reward, but just another part of the cooperative narrative. As a player, I don't complain if I don't get XP for missing, but as a DM, I will always treat players who are not here the same as those who are as far as receiving standard treasure and experience. The act of play itself is the reward, and keeping everyone on the same XP plateau is there to represent the growth of the party itself.

Whether you give XP or not, however, I have difficulty understanding implementing a contrived explanation like 'vanish in pink smoke' unless you're running a comedy campaign.

People around my table don't expect to get XP if they don't make it (for whatever reason). It's pretty simple to understand.

The "pink smoke" if just a way to explain away a missing person. It's a nod to say - Yes, I know it's unrealistic for character X to be missing because player Y can't make it for the session - let's move past it and get on with it.

The reward for us is actually having an excuse to get together and play. To get away from normal life and enjoy spending time doing something we can all enjoy.

[WarKitty]

People around my table don't expect to get XP if they don't make it (for whatever reason). It's pretty simple to understand.

The "pink smoke" if just a way to explain away a missing person. It's a nod to say - Yes, I know it's unrealistic for character X to be missing because player Y can't make it for the session - let's move past it and get on with it.

The reward for us is actually having an excuse to get together and play. To get away from normal life and enjoy spending time doing something we can all enjoy.

Well...in my own campaigns I solve this by "You don't get XP for battles and such. You get XP (or usually just a level) for completing story events." Which obviously means everyone gets the same XP, because everyone has contributed to the story event.

In games I play in...like I said, I don't like not getting XP. It may not be the main reward, but it's a nice one. So is loot. I've already missed the main reward for that night, why make me miss out on the minor ones too?

[AstralFire]

People around my table don't expect to get XP if they don't make it (for whatever reason). It's pretty simple to understand.

The "pink smoke" if just a way to explain away a missing person. It's a nod to say - Yes, I know it's unrealistic for character X to be missing because player Y can't make it for the session - let's move past it and get on with it.

The reward for us is actually having an excuse to get together and play. To get away from normal life and enjoy spending time doing something we can all enjoy.

Yes, of course. Here is what I am saying:

You are seeing WarKitty as 'doing it wrong' because the reward of playing together is not enough for her, she wants to get something she didn't earn.

But WarKitty sees it as the deprivation of getting to play together is sucky enough for something out of her control.

If one wanted to be unfair to you, one could redefine your game as 'doing it wrong' because the reward of getting to play is clearly not enough, you need to have an edge over whoever did not come. This is not the case; few people are so pitiful. I'm asking that you not apply a worst-case interpretation to someone who sees character progression in a different light than yourself.

[Mystic Muse]

You have an alarm clock now. Seems like the solution is found! The world can resume turning.

Except that's not the only time I've missed a session or will miss a session. One of my relatives could die, there could be a wedding or a birthday I have to go to, or I could become sick.

There are plenty of reasons I could miss a session that are simply beyond my control. Not getting any xp for a session because I had no way to be there feels like bad DMing to me.

[AstralFire]

@Kyuubi, it's not bad DMing, it's a different focus in DMing. There's a difference.

[Tvtyrant]

Really, could you guys tune down your hostility a little? If you don't agree, fine, but seriously there is no reason for it.

[Mystic Muse]

@Kyuubi, it's not bad DMing, it's a different focus in DMing. There's a difference.

Should have clarified. It feels like bad DMing to me. I'll edit that.

[KillianHawkeye]

Everybody needs to realize that there are different ways of playing this game. And what makes total sense to one group is complete nonsense to another, but that's okay because you're seperate groups. I don't see why everyone is trying to convince each other that one way is right and the other is wrong, when it's clearly a subjective matter of style preference. There's no point in arguing or ranting or whining about it. Just play your games!

:smallannoyed::smallsigh:

[Tvtyrant]

Maybe part of the problem is that the OP's original language was exactly like that as well. There are no few wrong answers here people, just different approached (wrong answers would be doing killing off their character for not being there).

[Lev]

Should have clarified. It feels like bad DMing to me. I'll edit that.
Bad DMing is making your players unhappy or dysfunctional, as long as everything flows well and makes your players have fun, you are being a good DM.

Fair
Unfair
Punishing
Rewarding
Balance
Respect


All of these are important, none of these mean anything as long as they don't cause problems, you could take 1 and maintain it, or take 1 and break it, you can be a DM that loves rewarding or a DM who loves punishing, it does not matter.

Running a campaign is as simple as looking after children while their parents are away, as long as they are happy and they do their chores with a smile on their face, then who the hell cares?

[Safety Sword]

Everybody needs to realize that there are different ways of playing this game. And what makes total sense to one group is complete nonsense to another, but that's okay because you're seperate groups. I don't see why everyone is trying to convince each other that one way is right and the other is wrong, when it's clearly a subjective matter of style preference. There's no point in arguing or ranting or whining about it. Just play your games!

:smallannoyed::smallsigh:

I'm in no way trying to justify how I do it. It works for our group. It's pretty clear that everyone should do whatever it is that works for them.

And honestly, this thread just outlines that there are many ways and reasons to play this game. All valid. I take nothing said in this thread personally and I would hope others choose to do the same. WarKitty has outlined the reasons for their stance. I accept it, I even understand it. I just don't agree. That's allowed, right?

And still, the world turns! Isn't discussion wonderful?!

[AstralFire]

Fair enough. "Doing it wrong," is a red flag in which I try to figure out why someone's saying what they're saying. :smallsmile:

[Tvtyrant]

I'm in no way trying to justify how I do it. It works for our group. It's pretty clear that everyone should do whatever it is that works for them.

And honestly, this thread just outlines that there are many ways and reasons to play this game. All valid. I take nothing said in this thread personally and I would hope others choose to do the same. WarKitty has outlined the reasons for their stance. I accept it, I even understand it. I just don't agree.

Good comment!

[KillianHawkeye]

I take nothing said in this thread personally and I would hope others choose to do the same. WarKitty has outlined the reasons for their stance. I accept it, I even understand it. I just don't agree. That's allowed, right?

Ah, you're enlightened. How nice for you. That doesn't change the fact that the discussion was getting unnecessarily heated.

And you're fully free to disagree with someone else about a subjective opinion. That was more or less the point of my post. That doesn't change the fact that there's no point in arguing about who is right and who is wrong.

[Safety Sword]

Fair enough. "Doing it wrong," is a red flag in which I try to figure out why someone's saying what they're saying. :smallsmile:

Fairly called. Semantics though. It would feel wrong to me to do it that way, is perhaps a better turn of phrase.

Sincere apologies for any offense caused. I tend to be (perhaps overly) direct. :smallsmile:

[Safety Sword]

Ah, you're enlightened. How nice for you. That doesn't change the fact that the discussion was getting unnecessarily heated.

It is rather nice. Even though that sounds like a slightly backhanded compliment :smalltongue:

If you think this was heated, you should wait until i get started on something I think is important :smallfurious:

[Mystic Muse]

There's no point in arguing or ranting or whining about it. Just play your games!

This is the RPG forum. In my experience 95% of the threads have an argument in them.

[KillianHawkeye]

If you think this was heated, you should wait until i get started on something I think is important :smallfurious:


This is the RPG forum. In my experience 95% of the threads have an argument in them.

So I try to get people to calm down and now everybody is arguing against me? The hell? I didn't even post my opinion about the topic at hand!

You guys all need to take some Prozac or something.... :smallmad::smallsigh:

[Safety Sword]

This is the RPG forum. In my experience 95% of the threads have an argument in them.

And the other 5% are really upset they didn't get one too!

[Safety Sword]

So I try to get people to calm down and now everybody is arguing against me? The hell? I didn't even post my opinion about the topic at hand!

You guys all need to take some Prozac or something.... :smallmad::smallsigh:

I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I'm pointing out that this is a minor blip on the heated-argument-o-meter (what will the gnomes come up with next?)

[KillianHawkeye]

I think you need to re-read what I wrote. I'm pointing out that this is a minor blip on the heated-argument-o-meter (what will the gnomes come up with next?)

Perhaps I misread your "furious" smiley?

[Tvtyrant]

lol malev-o-meter to the rescue.

Anyways, I personally believe that I am right and my system is the most fair, just somewhat less practical. I personally find the "have someone else play your character" against the point of the game, which is to play a role (or roll, whatever the case may be :P). The just not getting it irks me because it requires me to balance the party with a weaker character, and because I feel like its a punishment, which I don't like.

So I do personal sessions because the player can keep up and enjoy themselves.

[Safety Sword]

Perhaps I misread your "furious" smiley?

I wasn't being furious with you. I was being furious with the thought of being heated about something important.

Now that I've tried to explain it all seems unworthy of explanation.

I'll fall back on the old "I'm just misunderstood" :smallredface:

[AslanCross]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Someone else subbing is what my groups DO do. Definitely not a punishment, don't know why anyone would think it would be.

Having the PC just vanish and therefore neither assist in battle nor get loot/XP from the session is what I was saying I don't get. That was what I was saying only made any kind of sense to me if it was used as a punishment.

Ah, I see. Well, I think sometimes the players have their hands full or aren't experienced enough to handle multiple characters at a time, or that no sub is available. They end up having no choice but to make the character do nothing. (See: The Gamers)

I did hear someone react to me suggesting substitution by saying "It's not their fault that they're absent, something pressing came up, so you shouldn't force their character to be played by someone (and possibly die)." That's what I was saying by "punishing them because of something IRL."

[WarKitty]

Ah, I see. Well, I think sometimes the players have their hands full or aren't experienced enough to handle multiple characters at a time, or that no sub is available. They end up having no choice but to make the character do nothing. (See: The Gamers)

I did hear someone react to me suggesting substitution by saying "It's not their fault that they're absent, something pressing came up, so you shouldn't force their character to be played by someone (and possibly die)." That's what I was saying by "punishing them because of something IRL."

Hmmm...see we have a clause that the absent PC will generally use only basic abilities and may not be killed during the encounter. We actually built this rule because one day our skillmonkey was absent. We come upon a locked door; she's the only one with disable device. No rogue=no open door. No open door=no more D&D for the night.

Essentially, your character is demoted to support for the night. Melee fighter? Stand back and protect the casters. Skillmonkey? Use skills in low-risk settings. Caster? Buffs and healing only.

[Safety Sword]

Hmmm...see we have a clause that the absent PC will generally use only basic abilities and may not be killed during the encounter. We actually built this rule because one day our skillmonkey was absent. We come upon a locked door; she's the only one with disable device. No rogue=no open door. No open door=no more D&D for the night.

Essentially, your character is demoted to support for the night. Melee fighter? Stand back and protect the casters. Skillmonkey? Use skills in low-risk settings. Caster? Buffs and healing only.

I still don't see the advantage of having the character there at all. You've just turned the character into a wand. A wand that can't die.

Surely your DM can refit any encounter that relies on a single character being present so that it doesn't stop the entire game.

[Mystic Muse]

I still don't see the advantage of having the character there at all. You've just turned the character into a wand. A wand that can't die.

Surely your DM can refit any encounter that relies on a single character being present so that it doesn't stop the entire game.

Except this way the player isn't needlessly punished for something that isn't out of their control and still helps the group.

[kyoryu]

Except this way the player isn't needlessly punished for something that isn't out of their control and still helps the group.

Your point presumes that the player is entitled to xp/loot. Not everyone in this thread would agree with that.

[Mystic Muse]

Your point presumes that the player is entitled to xp/loot. Not everyone in this thread would agree with that.

No, but if you are working off that assumption, as warkitty is, it works.

[kyoryu]

No, but if you are working off that assumption, as warkitty is, it works.

Yes, in which case I'd argue that you should just ditch XP as a whole and grant levels at appropriate points.

[WarKitty]

I still don't see the advantage of having the character there at all. You've just turned the character into a wand. A wand that can't die.

Surely your DM can refit any encounter that relies on a single character being present so that it doesn't stop the entire game.

This presumes the PC's hadn't already seen the encounter.

[Safety Sword]

This presumes the PC's hadn't already seen the encounter.

Does it? Er... how?

[WarKitty]

Does it? Er... how?

For the encounter in question, as I recall we had seen the locked and possibly trapped door at the end of the last session and decided that was a good stopping point before we dealt with it. Now, I'm an improv DM, but even I have no clue how I'd improvise that to not need the rogue.

[Drascin]

Personally, I vanish people when they aren't there because I'm already the GM, I have a lot of stuff to do and I have dozens of NPCs to care for - I can't also be playing a PC, not with any degree of competence. This has been demonstrated - when I did, I kept forgetting about the character in question, such that he'd act maybe once every couple turns. So they just get demoted to the "Zone of Nonimportance", where the character is kind of a ghost that can look upon stuff but not act :smalltongue:.


For the encounter in question, as I recall we had seen the locked and possibly trapped door at the end of the last session and decided that was a good stopping point before we dealt with it. Now, I'm an improv DM, but even I have no clue how I'd improvise that to not need the rogue.

Well, depends on area. In a dungeon, I'd probably have, say, had two monsters start fighting on the other side of the door, and an ogre gets bodily tossed through the door with a thundering crash! Now you're in a three way battle! Roll Initiative! :smallbiggrin:

I dunno, just the first thing that came to mind when I heard that. If I had a few more minutes to think I might come up with something better :smalltongue:.

[SensFan]

Surely your DM can refit any encounter that relies on a single character being present so that it doesn't stop the entire game.
Our DM doesn't do that. Whatever is in the area we chose to go to is there whether we're first or twentieth level. Hell, my Wizard almost got killed because he tried to take on a band of 100 orcs own his own at level 6. It worked really well, until a figure emerged from the mass and started dropping 7th-level spells...

[Esser-Z]

The PC is eating cookies, and therefore unavailable.

Alternatively, in a more serious game, one can either include a sideplot of some kind or just have the other players or DM manage the character (in combat), having them be quiet during socials.

[bokodasu]

I'm not sure how "the PC is feeling ill, and is going to be completely quiet and only contribute in a token manner" is vastly different from "the pc has fallen magically unconscious and has been dragged to a safe place to recover", story-wise.

In our group, if you're not there, your character isn't there, but your character is *somewhere*, so it gets half xp and loot, which keeps people more or less up to speed. (And there are lots of ways to get bonus xp; bring snacks the next two weeks and you're ahead.)

Yes, it does cause the occasional difficulty, like last week when we had no healers and my character died. (It's ok, she got better.) But I guess I play the game to play the game with other people, and I don't care so much about the pieces on the board, so to speak. Part of the challenge is to figure out how to make do with what you've got on hand. (No rogue? No problem!)

In a smaller, more RP-oriented group... no, I think I'd still feel the same, but for different reasons, because if it was all about how you RP your character, then someone else doing it would be weird.

[Kumori]

In my group, absent players have always been known to be absent beforehand (as in the player doesn't just not show up), so generally a solution could be agreed upon based on the situation.
If the party is in a situation where a character could simply vanish for a time with a valid reason, that would be the default solution. My GM and the missing player would have a one on one session later so that, although the character would gain no XP and loot for the session he/she missed, the character would advance in both XP and loot to match the rest of the party.
If the party is not in such a situation, and only if the player agrees, the character would be NPCed for the session. If that doesn't work, the session would be delayed to a later time. This is an IRL group, so it's all friends, which means this disruption to game is forgiven. This is a game after all: as with PbP, life comes first.

[Aotrs Commander]

You are definately not alone, Fiery Diamond; I find it hard to wrap my head around that sort of playstyle too. (Not that that sentiment means anything aside from me not getting it.)

Our session are short, weekly and fairly combat heavy, and we run modules. Not only that as a DM (and a player) I am an absolute BASTARD about versimilitude and in-game logic. Really, I mean, like draconic-level pendantry about getting everything in the game world right. Even Rule-of-Cool must have some measure of coherent in-game explanation (even if it's a bit bovine-excrementy.) "A Wizard Did It" is not in my DMing vocabularly. (Though "the effect was caused by a large fluctuation in the high level of background magical radiation being channelled through a localised, coherent mana surge which diffused out into the material plane through the Ethreal Plane causing thaumathergical disruption waves that caused [effect]" is entirely likely...)

So, when a player can't make it, someone else runs the character. Most of us are extremely proficient in running mulitple characters as once in any case; after all, it's still less work than DMing. (The DM also keeps the character sheets. If the player wants their own copy, they get to make themselves one.) Having characters pop in and out would totally and utterly destroy my personal sense of versimilitude and render me incapable of playing with any degree of seriousness (and I'd be thinking hard about playing at all.) We've always done that, and until I first joined the internets, I never could even have considered that there would be another way to do things.

Moreover, on a practical level, having a character vanish mid-combat (because we can't always - and indeed often can't match the combats to the middle of the session) would be disasterous in our games, since the combats are all geared up for a full complete of characters (usually six). Heck, even outside of comabt it could be massively detrimental if one of the situationally-critical character went missing. (No rogue, no traps; no healer = really big trouble.) Re-writing and rebalancing the adventure on the fly every week to accomodate a changing PC line-up (especially mid-combat) is simply not something I'd ever be prepared to even try, let alone do with any sense of proficiency; and on top of that I'd loathe doing it because it would become a chore and no longer be fun. (I am not, by any stretch of the imgaination, an off-the-cuff DM, and I don't run sandbox games in any case for basically those reasons.)

In any case, I stopped handing out individual XP to the PCs years ago. It only makes more work for me in the long run, it means everyone doesn't level up at the same time, and doesn't gain me anything. So XP is awarded to the group as a whole (things worthy of special mention, that I might once used have given bonus XP for now get other types of rewards) or not at all (for our day games, as opposed to the weekly ones, the DM just levels us up after an adventure).

[Earthwalker]

I can see flaws and merits in all the solutions presented so far.

Making a character just disappear can ruin versimilitude, and leads to discussions on weather he should get xp or not. It can make people feel punished on top of having to miss a game session.

Having a tag long is ok but can cause problems if he is killed. If I missed a session and it turns out another player ran my character, halfway in he decided my character believed that wearing a pink tutu and balancing a bowl of custard on your head made you invisable, armed with knowledge my character trys to sneak into Aztechnologys cyber research compond and is promptly gunned down, I would be more then a little upset. For one thing its rhubarb crumble you balance on your head to be invisable.

One solution I try to go for, is always leave a session in a place that characters can come and go. If I plan to run a 6 hour dungeon crawl then it gets run in one session for 6 hours. (I don't usualy half finishes half way thru dungeons) of course this certainly isn't a solution for most people.

[SamsDisciple]

An alternative idea to deal with the missing player is what my group has done, we write journals on a fb page to help with character development and if a character is missing then the journal would reflect what they did in the mean time. It could be as ridiculous as puffing into pink smoke to meet Sam the God of all that is Androgynous and through such enlightenment gain exp, or realistic like if you were in the middle of battle an appropriate number of enemies bullrush him down the hallway and he takes them on solo while trying to reunite with the party but takes the wrong turns every time until he finds the group next session. This way the player can still have some rp time coming up with this story, gain exp, and possibly loot while dealing with the rl emergency, the party can still move forward with the session. This approach does require a fair bit of "shooting from the belt" dming but the best dm's I have had were good at this when they needed to be.

[Aotrs Commander]

Having a tag long is ok but can cause problems if he is killed. If I missed a session and it turns out another player ran my character, halfway in he decided my character believed that wearing a pink tutu and balancing a bowl of custard on your head made you invisable, armed with knowledge my character trys to sneak into Aztechnologys cyber research compond and is promptly gunned down, I would be more then a little upset. For one thing its rhubarb crumble you balance on your head to be invisable.

Generally, one doesn't do stupid things with one's friend's character while they're not there, and one does try to keep them alive. (Try being the operative word.) The sort of behavior you describe would, in our groups, result in the DM giving the player a very patronising, don't-be-freakin'-stupid look and saying "no. No, he really doesn't." and the rest of the players hitting the offender with a wet haddock or the 4E PHB (not because we play 4E, but because it's larger than the 3.5 one and is usually the largest heavy book easily to hand...)


On occasion, though, sometimes characters do die when the player isn't there. Them's the breaks, unfortunately. It has happened to me under other DMs. Though to be fair, in those games we were playing AD&D with a high bodycount. We started all those games with more than one character (so the party was about a dozen to start with) and by the time we ended, most of us were down to one, and at least once myself, I was on to my third... As one might guess, you had rather less attachement to those characters than to the others. (Indeed, they remain some of the only characters whose names escape me nowadays.)

Me personally, I try not to kill PCs off at all (permenatly kill, that is), and I have always preferred the PCs to invest more into their characters, rather than the revolving door campaign. (As having to introduce replacement characters into the campaign is something I find a bit too jarring to want to do often, if at all.)

[big teej]

personally, for my group (which is still learning the game, so I'm being lenient on things like XP penalties)

if someone has a legitimate excuse that they can't make it. (for example, a player of mine is trying to get into harvard, and is in like 20 different clubs, and sometimes that conflicts with dnd)

the character is sucked into a plothole and gets full share of XP and treasure (treasure at the discretion of the party)

if someone has a semi legiitmate excuse (I missed the early bus back to campus from the renisance fair)

the character is sucked into a plot hole and (since we're still 'learning') gets full XP and treasure (again at the discretion of the party)
however, next semester, I plan to be up front about the whole 'non legit = no XP/treasure'

I do not plan to penalize my players for taking time out of their day to game with me just because someone else couldn't make it
which brings us too

absences with a poor or no excuse
such as telling me (the DM ) "yea, i'll be there" all week, and then texting me about an hour before hand saying "can't make it" without an explanation
....several times
or just not telling me at all that you won't be present

when this occurs = character is sucked into a plothole (or killed off if the player doesn't plan to come back*) and is no longer counted for division of XP and/or loot. period.


so long story short, I like to use plotholes for legitimate absences and leave XP treasure distribution to the party (may bring up XP penalty next semester)

and non legitimate abences incur a loss of XP (and FUN!)

*in my head at least.


/ramble

[Earthwalker]

Generally, one doesn't do stupid things with one's friend's character while they're not there, and one does try to keep them alive. (Try being the operative word.) The sort of behavior you describe would, in our groups, result in the DM giving the player a very patronising, don't-be-freakin'-stupid look and saying "no. No, he really doesn't." and the rest of the players hitting the offender with a wet haddock or the 4E PHB (not because we play 4E, but because it's larger than the 3.5 one and is usually the largest heavy book easily to hand...)

[snip]



Yeah my example was a bit off but it was suppose to be funny. Situations can arise where someone else controlling your character gets you all deaded, and when told you hear what happened and say, why didn't you just use my ability X and save me from that ? Dieing when not in control of your character can seem worse, or at least for me.

Its just one of the flaws of the tag along approach.

I would use what ever was presented to me, from the list of solutions to be honest.

I think I would prefer a not there get no xp / loot option as a player, rather then have my character die when I had no control.

[Kylarra]

Neh, we just have someone else run their character. They get full shares, albeit last pick, of loot and such.

[Fiery Diamond]

Well, this has certainly been enlightening. It has further strengthened my convictions that A) there are people on these boards who think in ways that seem completely counter-intuitive to me, B) there are some people on here with whom I would not play because of their approach to gaming being so different from mine, and C) that there are other people who agree with me.

The only potential problem I see with the approach my groups have always used is the "character dies while you're gone." This isn't much of an issue in my games because I run low-lethality games: I like my players to get invested in the characters.

And like some others have said, gaining XP for the session is part of the character, not reward for the player. Same with loot. The reward for the player is being able to play. However, in my group with 4 players, I never ran a session if anyone was missing. I only did it in my group with 6 players, and then only if just 1 person was missing.

[El Dorado]

Our group puts absent characters in The Sleeping Bag. It stretches verisimilitude but prevents the possibility of losing your character while you're absent. Absent character doesn't get XP. Been doing it for years without a problem.

[Aotrs Commander]

Yeah my example was a bit off but it was suppose to be funny. Situations can arise where someone else controlling your character gets you all deaded, and when told you hear what happened and say, why didn't you just use my ability X and save me from that ? Dieing when not in control of your character can seem worse, or at least for me.

It's happened to me about three times, I think (the fact I don't remember any more really shows how little attached to the characters I was). Of those, only one instance in which I thought was a bit off; my character apparently went for a swim in an underground lake and shockingly got eaten by something; I forget what the purpose of him swimming was, but it's not something I normally have done myself. That said, it was only a short adventure that one, and we had really a high mortality rate. (I wasn't very invested in the character, though, as shown by the fact I don't remember the character's name, only that he was possibly Evil aligned and had a sword he'd named Huuurgh or something, because that was the sound people made when he stabbed them with it.)

But that's one in twenty years of (weekly) gaming, so not an event that crops up enough that I care to worry about. And, like, I say, I generally ensure that few PCs(permenantly) dies in my games anyway, regardless of whether the player happens to be their or not. (I kill players, on the other hand, all the time.)

[obliged_salmon]

In a 3.5 game I used to play, we had a monk whose player was frequently absent. The wizard would polymorph him into fun things, like sharks and dire giraffes. We'd ride him around and use him to "experiment" with potential traps and such.

Yeah, I've played in groups that have used both of these methods concurrently, mostly depending on if we could find the character sheets. Of course, it's all just the kind of Yankee ingenuity that DnD promotes.

I now try to play other systems, like Burning Wheel, where you don't give a crap about xp, and characters have their own personal motivations written right there on the sheet, that they can pursue apart from the group when the player is absent.

[SensFan]

Neh, we just have someone else run their character. They get full shares, albeit last pick, of loot and such.
I've never understood the concept of "last pick" of loot. I've been in about half a dozen parties, and I've never been a part of any system where anyone 'picks' anything. The parties I've been a part of just agree on how to split the loot, and if there's an item in contention, you either negociate for it, or sell it and split the earnings.

[EasilyAmused]

Our group had a problem with "unexplained" absences. And the DM was very understanding for the most part. Someone made the mistake of calling the absences an epidemic. And thus, the DM discovered that without the players, characters become... sick.

DM invented a disease called "absence."

Starts with a tickling in the throat that quickly develops into borderline laryngitis (explains why the character's voice sounds different).

The characters normally decide that the diseased character should follow behind in case this disease is contagious.

Normally the next "symptom" is a high fever that alters the way the character acts slightly.

From there it's totally dependent on how crucial the character is to the survival of the group. Not so much= passes out. Very important=struggles on while hacking and coughing (sometimes puking on enemies...etc.) The players taking over the plagued character have often gotten small RP bonuses for this, which makes carrying the extra character less of a burden.

The Players are all well acquainted with "absence" and that it will cut their XP by half for the session and that they will get no loot. And they are okay with it.

However, the roleplaying of when the fever breaks has been awesome almost every time. Normally giving another RP bonus.

I thought our DM deserved some points.

[Kylarra]

I've never understood the concept of "last pick" of loot. I've been in about half a dozen parties, and I've never been a part of any system where anyone 'picks' anything. The parties I've been a part of just agree on how to split the loot, and if there's an item in contention, you either negociate for it, or sell it and split the earnings.So do I need to explain how it works or are you just saying that you can play fine without it? Cause if it's the former, it's pretty simple, and if it's the latter, then yeah I'm aware. :smallsmile:

[AstralFire]

Our group had a problem with "unexplained" absences. And the DM was very understanding for the most part. Someone made the mistake of calling the absences an epidemic. And thus, the DM discovered that without the players, characters become... sick.

DM invented a disease called "absence."

Starts with a tickling in the throat that quickly develops into borderline laryngitis (explains why the character's voice sounds different).

The characters normally decide that the diseased character should follow behind in case this disease is contagious.

Normally the next "symptom" is a high fever that alters the way the character acts slightly.

From there it's totally dependent on how crucial the character is to the survival of the group. Not so much= passes out. Very important=struggles on while hacking and coughing (sometimes puking on enemies...etc.) The players taking over the plagued character have often gotten small RP bonuses for this, which makes carrying the extra character less of a burden.

The Players are all well acquainted with "absence" and that it will cut their XP by half for the session and that they will get no loot. And they are okay with it.

However, the roleplaying of when the fever breaks has been awesome almost every time. Normally giving another RP bonus.

I thought our DM deserved some points.

That is a pretty cute way to handle it.

[SensFan]

So do I need to explain how it works or are you just saying that you can play fine without it? Cause if it's the former, it's pretty simple, and if it's the latter, then yeah I'm aware. :smallsmile:
I really don't understand how it works. Is it really just like in the comic, where someone gets a Bag of Holding and someone else gets a Bag of Tricks?

[Kylarra]

I really don't understand how it works. Is it really just like in the comic, where someone gets a Bag of Holding and someone else gets a Bag of Tricks?It could be, for appropriate values of bag of tricks and bags of holding. For the 4e game I'm in, it mostly comes down to who gets to pick of which of the special abilities they want on their item, since my druid has picked up the transfer enchantment ritual.

In 3.X, we would usually tally up total value of the take, and then you would bid portions of your share for an item from the loot when it came your time to go around. People that aren't there generally don't get to bid on miscellaneous wondrous items, unless it would be over-the-top in character to, like Nuclear Dan going for a fire item, so they wind up with miscellaneous +X items generally or whatnot, or yes, potentially a bag of tricks. :smalltongue:

[kyoryu]

Our group had a problem with "unexplained" absences. And the DM was very understanding for the most part. Someone made the mistake of calling the absences an epidemic. And thus, the DM discovered that without the players, characters become... sick.

DM invented a disease called "absence."

I like it. I really, really like it.

[icefractal]

Personally, I'd rather have my character absent than played by someone else. There are three reasons:
1) I enjoy playing mechanically complicated characters. Someone trying to run them with no experience would probably slow things down for everyone.
2) While our games are not super-lethal, they do have some danger. If my character is going to die, I want it to be because I was legitimately outmatched, not because somebody forget to cast 'Fly'.
3) Sometimes, we run into moral/practical quandaries, leading to some debate about which course of action to take. I don't want to come back and find out my character agreed to something stupid.

Now in some campaigns, some or all of these may not apply. But in the campaigns I'm actually playing in, they do, and it's simpler and more preferable for absent characters to basically vanish.

[Safety Sword]

Personally, I'd rather have my character absent than played by someone else. There are three reasons:
1) I enjoy playing mechanically complicated characters. Someone trying to run them with no experience would probably slow things down for everyone.
2) While our games are not super-lethal, they do have some danger. If my character is going to die, I want it to be because I was legitimately outmatched, not because somebody forget to cast 'Fly'.
3) Sometimes, we run into moral/practical quandaries, leading to some debate about which course of action to take. I don't want to come back and find out my character agreed to something stupid.

Now in some campaigns, some or all of these may not apply. But in the campaigns I'm actually playing in, they do, and it's simpler and more preferable for absent characters to basically vanish.

That's pretty close to why we started the "pink smoke" in the first place.

[Cogidubnus]

Alternatively, the game schedule coincided with the adventurer's weekly shrink appointment.

You can't crawl dungeons murdering monsters and remain sane without help, you know.

This is The Playground. Most of us gave up a long time ago. Generally, if you have over c. 250 posts you're too far gone to be saved, and at the very least have a poor grasp on reality.

[ryuteki]

ANd yeah, its lame to make someone miss XP just because the player couldn't make it. Its not as if the character *would* have done nothing, its just that the player couldn't make it....but we are pttry big on immersion :smallbiggrin:

It's more lame to the rest of the players to have to deadhead his {Scrubbed} character... AGAIN... because his wife decided she HAD to go get her hair done and he HAD to watch the kids that night, or because I HAD to go see the opening of that new film, or because she HAD to go to see that band all THREE nights they were in town...

We're all in our 30s and 40s, gaming is a decision and a commitment for us. We have plenty of other things we could be doing, but this is fun, interactive, and a great way to spend some time with friends.

Therefore, we PUNISH players for letting us down. We do so by withholding his XP, deadheading the character (occasionally literally), and having that character buy all the drinks for that session. "Hey, where did my spare sword go, and where did you pick up that shiny new armor?" ;)

[michaelspar]

Oh, thank goodness. I was starting to think my group were the only ones who did it that way. It seems logical that the character would just sort of tag along silently, and participate only in the most token of ways.

------------
A Coy Look Classic Art Reproduction (http://betteraccentsandgifts.info/A_Coy_Look_Classic_Art_Reproduction.aspx)

[WarKitty]

It's more lame to the rest of the players to have to deadhead his {Scrubbed the original, scrub the quote} character... AGAIN... because his wife decided she HAD to go get her hair done and he HAD to watch the kids that night, or because I HAD to go see the opening of that new film, or because she HAD to go to see that band all THREE nights they were in town...

We're all in our 30s and 40s, gaming is a decision and a commitment for us. We have plenty of other things we could be doing, but this is fun, interactive, and a great way to spend some time with friends.

Therefore, we PUNISH players for letting us down. We do so by withholding his XP, deadheading the character (occasionally literally), and having that character buy all the drinks for that session. "Hey, where did my spare sword go, and where did you pick up that shiny new armor?" ;)

See this is the assumption I hate. We've never had a player just not show up. But, say, I have one night where the professor has decided we have to attend this movie showing, and it's scheduled over the game night (true story). Or what happened to a friend, where her boss messed up and scheduled her over our gametime and no one would switch shifts with her.

It's also a very different world the younger your players are. Not just in terms of maturity, either. Generally, the younger you are the less control you can expect to have over your own schedule. If I need to go home for the weekend for a doctor's visit and my parents decide that they're going to pick me up friday afternoon, I don't have a choice in the matter.

I just hate that people assume players had a choice in not showing up or could have avoided it by planning better. Generally when we have players not show up, it's because they'd rather have been there but had to deal with something.

[Rasman]

I'm actively not reading any of the other posts so I don't attain bias.

Our group has a WONDERFUL alternative to this, because our game is "sandbox/living world" so when we're doing something, someone else (probably an important NPC) is doing their own thing, rather than just waiting for us to show up on their doorstep again. When a player misses a session our DM gives them a "private session" to let them do their own thing and makes it something that gives them equivalent XP to what we earned, partly because that makes book keeping MUCH easier. But because something comes up and you can't make it to a session doesn't mean you have to be left out.

[Jayabalard]

There is something to be said for self-sufficiency.

If one of my friends told me "Sorry, no one woke me up so I couldn't make it", the response would be. "Were you in a coma?"

I would understand good reasons. These just aren't good reasons. Then again, my players are actually my friends, so we all tend to know what's going on with each other.To be fair, there's nothing in Kyuubi's phraseology there that says that those first 2 reasons are good reasons; if anything, it implies the opposite, since they're listed seperately they wouldn't fall into the category of "a multitude of good reasons you can't make it to the game."



Whether you give XP or not, however, I have difficulty understanding implementing a contrived explanation like 'vanish in pink smoke' unless you're running a comedy campaign.MEh, a wizard did it.


I have to wake up pretty early on Saturdays in order to get there in time. However, unless somebody wakes me up or I have an alarm clock (Which I only got a little while ago) I don't wake up in time.

When my dad failed to get me up I woke up at 12:30. My game starts at around 10:30 ends at 2:00 and it usually takes me an hour to get prepared plus 10 minutes to get to the store. At that point, I don't think you can blame me for not showing up.Game starts at 10:30, you take an hour to get ready, and 10 minutes to get to the place for gaming. So, you'd need to be up by 9:20... personally, I can't really agree that qualifies as "pretty early" or even "moderately early"

And if you really can't go from awake to ready to leave the house in ~5 minutes... well, I'm kind of shocked. When I was young enough to still be living at home I could do that, including a shower and a shave (the other S usually had to wait if I was in that big of a hurry).

[Mystic Muse]

Game starts at 10:30, you take an hour to get ready, and 10 minutes to get to the place for gaming. So, you'd need to be up by 9:20... personally, I can't really agree that qualifies as "pretty early" or even "moderately early"


For some reason, my body considers it early on a Saturday. If nobody interrupts my sleep, I get up at 12 or so on the weekends so, at least for the way it normally is for me on weekends, that's early.

EDIT: I'm not going to try explaining this any further. I don't think I can explain it very well.

[Fiery Diamond]

Personally, I'd rather have my character absent than played by someone else. There are three reasons:
1) I enjoy playing mechanically complicated characters. Someone trying to run them with no experience would probably slow things down for everyone.
2) While our games are not super-lethal, they do have some danger. If my character is going to die, I want it to be because I was legitimately outmatched, not because somebody forget to cast 'Fly'.
3) Sometimes, we run into moral/practical quandaries, leading to some debate about which course of action to take. I don't want to come back and find out my character agreed to something stupid.

Now in some campaigns, some or all of these may not apply. But in the campaigns I'm actually playing in, they do, and it's simpler and more preferable for absent characters to basically vanish.

This is the first post supporting the opposing viewpoint that actually makes complete sense to me. I can understand why, if those do apply in campaigns you play in, you would rather have character absence. (Still don't know why it's fair to the player to not have an opportunity to get XP, however - the suggestions of individual sessions or writing stuff up to get XP mentioned earlier would make sense for handling this issue.)

And as you said, in some campaigns those don't apply. Examples of how we would handle those issues in a game of mine:

For #1, if the character is a wizard, say, we'll just pick some basic support and/or blasty spells (depending on our perceptions of what the character would probably prepare) or, better yet, not actually prepare spells but just cherry-pick from your spell-book as needed, which is a lot easier. If we don't have your spell book, we'll just stick to basic spells we assume you would have. If in doubt, just use something that seems appropriate and not worry about whether you have it or not. Of course, we also play in a game where the players are not allowed to have characters more mechanically complicated than the DM can understand. (I happen to be fairly intelligent and I restrict non-core material to "run it by me first." That takes care of that.)

For #2, my games are low-lethality, but even if they weren't, as a DM I would play enemies such that they would target others first and/or leave you alone once you were knocked out instead of finishing you off, and I would fudge rolls to keep your character alive (even in cases which I would not fudge if you had been present). For things like people forgetting to cast utility spells like Fly (though tbh I can't think of a situation where one would be dumb enough to forget to cast fly AND have fly be crucial to survival), I as DM would retroactively have the character have cast it if it was truly crucial.

For #3...er...yeah, I can't say I have a good answer to that one, which is the main reason I thought your post was sensible. If the other players don't know how your character would respond in a moral/practical problem, I'm not sure how I'd handle that. If they DO know, it's a bit less of an issue.

[grimbold]

my DM has a bunch of players (like 8-9) who cycle in and out. Some just are relaxing during certain adventures or guarding something. Eventually everybody misses a session or two so it balances itself out

[Skavengoblin]

What I really don't get is how not getting xp or gold is a punishment. If 'winning by having more gold' is the fun of the game, your probably in munchkin land anyways, so most talk about fairness has been thrown out the window.
I know I personally prefer to EARN my experience. Its much more meaningful if you are actually there to help figure out how to kill the dragon. I would feel it more of a punishment to get xp (and thus progress) without me being there, as it would give me less opportunity for improving on my own.
Is it bad to have different level pcs? I challenge some of you to play a character a level or two behind the party. It, in my opinion, would be much more fun then being a level or two ahead of the party, as you would be forced to be creative and resourceful in order to full pull your weight in the party.

I can see both sides though. On one hand, the 'pink smoke' idea is great so that the players who show up can still play. On the other hand, playing their character allows the story to make more sense. I personally think playing someone else's character, even if their just used as a support character by hiding in the bg, is taking away more fun from them then withholding xp is. I especially like the idea of having a solo mission with them later. I might use that if it ever comes up.

[WarKitty]

What I really don't get is how not getting xp or gold is a punishment. If 'winning by having more gold' is the fun of the game, your probably in munchkin land anyways, so most talk about fairness has been thrown out the window.
I know I personally prefer to EARN my experience. Its much more meaningful if you are actually there to help figure out how to kill the dragon. I would feel it more of a punishment to get xp (and thus progress) without me being there, as it would give me less opportunity for improving on my own.
Is it bad to have different level pcs? I challenge some of you to play a character a level or two behind the party. It, in my opinion, would be much more fun then being a level or two ahead of the party, as you would be forced to be creative and resourceful in order to full pull your weight in the party.

I can see both sides though. On one hand, the 'pink smoke' idea is great so that the players who show up can still play. On the other hand, playing their character allows the story to make more sense. I personally think playing someone else's character, even if their just used as a support character by hiding in the bg, is taking away more fun from them then withholding xp is. I especially like the idea of having a solo mission with them later. I might use that if it ever comes up.

See not everyone views gold and XP the same way. Personally, part of why I don't like missing XP is then I'm leveling up my character at a different time than everyone else. I really love the sessions where we're all as a group trying out our new level-up toys and I hate not being part of it. But gold and XP for our group are a shared reward, not an individual thing, and I feel like it breaks teamwork for everyone to be getting different amounts.

[Mystic Muse]

I really love the sessions where we're all as a group trying out our new level-up toys and I hate not being part of it.

This is why I don't like XP being taken away because I couldn't be there. Same thing with gold. I like being able to try out new toys along with the rest of the group. If I can't, I feel left out.

Also, if I were penalized with no XP this next session, it would be a big deal. Considering the difficulty level, it sounds like my group is going to get a significant amount of xp and we're close to Paragon level.

[Skavengoblin]

See not everyone views gold and XP the same way. Personally, part of why I don't like missing XP is then I'm leveling up my character at a different time than everyone else. I really love the sessions where we're all as a group trying out our new level-up toys and I hate not being part of it. But gold and XP for our group are a shared reward, not an individual thing, and I feel like it breaks teamwork for everyone to be getting different amounts.

I can see your point. My group is small and close enough that if someone can't make it, we simply don't play. we either find something else to do or everyone just drives back home... 2 minutes away.

I can see how it could break teamwork. Some groups don't really have teamwork anyways though. And then my group would have teamwork regardless of anything else, just because we try and keep it relaxed. (What with me having a dire lion track them out of the savannah just because of how easily they killed my regular lion. They still killed it. Now a joke about lions hiding in barells. Guess what they're going to find in a Huge-Sized barrel sitting just in front of the next town they go to).

[the humanity]

it's fair if it's a scheduled game, it'll rarely be a problem if you just leave saturdays free or whatnot. you aren't there. you didn't cooperate with anybody. you didn't kill the monster. experience is often something you actually experienced.

if sessions are more spontaneous, it can be an issue for me though.:smallmad:

you scheduled a game while I was an hour away away, and told me about it 5 minutes before it started. how swell.