PDA

View Full Version : How to handle absent players



bedablachem
2013-01-03, 12:31 PM
I run a group of four players, and due to work and studies sometimes not all of them can come to a session.
We've decided to only play if 3 or more players come (1 player missing at the most).
Modifying the challenges on the fly is a hassle, but I'm more worried on the more book-keeping side of the party: how to make sure everyone still gets a fair share of xp and loot, preserving the balance in the party so players who miss a session won't fall behind, yet still have a solution that doesn't feel artificial to the players.
Yeah, I'm asking for a lot :P

Any advice?

Andrewmoreton
2013-01-03, 12:39 PM
Give absent characters the same XP as those present. That way everyone gets the same XP and the characters stay level. I have never done anything else

hymer
2013-01-03, 12:40 PM
There are several standard options.

Give XP to the PCs that are present. This works best if there isn't too much disparity in the turnup. Players get even less incentive to turn up if their character is hopelessly behind in power.

Give group XP. Everyone always has the same amount of XP. This can get complicated with XP losses.

Don't give XP at all. Just onform players what level their character are. Can get complicated or impossible depending on the system.

Have absent players' PCs run by another player. This only works if people are willing to do the extra bit, if you can all trust each other not to abuse the privilege, and if there aren't too many secrets about a given PC.

navar100
2013-01-03, 01:08 PM
Presuming non-chronic absenteeism, don't sweat it. Everyone is contributing when they're at the game. Real life circumstances will interfere. When it happens to the DM there's no game at all that day, so it is highly unfair to "punish" a player when he Honestly True can't make a game session. He has equally contributed beforehand and will do so when he returns. He gets equal share of treasure and full share of XP if it's a continuation of an adventure arc. If it's a stand alone just for that day adventure, no XP is fine if it's not a significantly high amount. Otherwise give partial so he doesn't fall too far behind. If he doesn't level with the rest of the party, he should level at the end of the next adventure arc.

The character can be NPC'd, either by the DM or another player. In combat, if no at the table PC gets killed, then the PC as NPC cannot be killed either. Death's Door ok, not dead. Depending on circumstances you can also have the PC not be adventuring with the party for some in game reason, and when the player returns his character catches up with the party. His off camera time can account for the partial XP. If you can, talk with the player before or after the missed session to go over what the character is doing while off camera.

Eldonauran
2013-01-03, 01:52 PM
I require a certain level of commitment from my players for them to participate in my games. If you can't make it, let me know at least a day in advanced. If something comes up that day and you can't make it or are running late, well, you've got my number. Call or text me so that I can make ready.

I award XP only to those characters that participate in the game session (note that I did not say players). Missing players have their characters run by the DM as NPCs. I usually run a group of between 3-5 players (sometimes more but finding commited players in a larger group then 5 is hard).

Should only one/two player(s) make it (its happened), I run a solo/duo mission for them and they get a boost in XP and WBL that the others are going to miss out on. I am able to scale encounters very well and have no problem with a level or two gap amoungst the characters. My players generally tend to like my campaigns and don't really notice the level gap either. Besides, we're all mature adults and don't get hung up on that stuff anyway.

I'm a strict DM. That is how I roll.

valadil
2013-01-03, 02:06 PM
This takes a little more bookkeeping but it worked out well for me.

No XP if you miss a session. The session after that you get 50% of what you missed. And the session after that, you get the other 50%. But if you miss either of those, the opportunity to pick up the missing XP is lost.

This imposes a short punishment when it causes a player to miss leveling. It imposes a permanent punishment when players are chronicly absent.

TheWombatOfDoom
2013-01-03, 02:08 PM
I generally find a way for their character to not participate, or get separated from the group and then have them do a one on one at some point to make up what they lost.

I also like to be strict in things, because my campaigns usually are long winded and I've had the experience of them petering out, so I look for committed players. I don't like running other people's characters for them, so if they can't show up, I need to know so I can accomodate them. If its at a crucial point in story, I generally opt to cancel rather than run without and have the missing person miss out on the session. Real life happens, but it can't be a habit!

Shred-Bot
2013-01-03, 02:20 PM
Re: modifying the challenges, you could always bust out Biff the Understudy (like from BG1!) to fill in the missing player's role rather than recalibrating each encounter. This might be more fun than DMPC-ing an actual PC (assuming you are in a light enough game to accommodate this silliness). Just make sure Biff doesn't outshine what the missing player would have been capable of.

And for the XP/treasure thing, talk it out with your players (the ones who attend and the ones who don't). As long as everyone can accept a solution as reasonable it doesn't matter what direction you take. (Personally I'd feel cheated if my character leveled while I missed a session, I want to earn those XPs dammit!)

bedablachem
2013-01-03, 03:20 PM
Thanks for the excellent suggestions! :D

This gives me good ideas for the XP problem, though I'm still not sure how to handle loot. If all characters get their xp, they need to get appropriate loot or they'll be weak or poor for their level. How do you suggest to handle that?

valadil
2013-01-03, 04:37 PM
This gives me good ideas for the XP problem, though I'm still not sure how to handle loot. If all characters get their xp, they need to get appropriate loot or they'll be weak or poor for their level. How do you suggest to handle that?

Loot division is up to the players. Let them roleplay it out. Are they greedy scum or are they team players?

Jay R
2013-01-03, 04:38 PM
The short answer is this: it depends.

First of all, it depends on the style of play. Is it possible for characters to die, lose things, get permanent injuries, suffer curses, etc.?

If so, then you can't give equal points to characters who aren't at risk, or you've made attending the game worse than skipping it.
Attend: take risks to get points.
Don't attend: no risks for the same points.

A few years ago, I ran an original D&D game, and told people that they had a choice. If they weren't there, then they could pick one of the following:
1. Their character could be safe from all risks, and would not get experience points or treasure.
2. Their characters could be played by another character, subject to all party risks, and would have a full share in all rewards except individual player XP bonuses.
Giving them the choice seems better than making it for them.

It depends on how fast the party levels up. Skipping a game and not getting rewards is not that big a deal, unless the party levels up every game or two. People who miss more often are a level or two down from the rest, but that makes a reasonable party. If somebody is still 1st level when the rest of the party is sixth level, that's an unbalanced party, but your problem isn't that; it's that one player is almost never there.

It depends on their relation to the plot. If the player who is the current focus doesn't show up, that can be a real problem. "Hi. We're your grandson's friends, here to show he deserves to become your heir by slaying the dragon."

(Of course, if your characters are never involved directly in the plot, this won't be a problem.)

So as I said at the start: it depends.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-03, 05:34 PM
Thanks for the excellent suggestions! :D

This gives me good ideas for the XP problem, though I'm still not sure how to handle loot. If all characters get their xp, they need to get appropriate loot or they'll be weak or poor for their level. How do you suggest to handle that?

My last D&D group would set aside the absent characters' shares of loot, with no prompting from me as GM one way or another. In general, if it's just a session here and there it's not a big deal-- just pencil in a nicer drop for them next time.

TheThan
2013-01-03, 06:20 PM
Have you tried changing how often you meet?

Some people just live hectic enough lives that they can’t reliably play every week. Try changing it to two weeks. I’ve known Dms that run marathon sessions once a month, because that’s the only time he and his players have to actually meet and play.

I know you lose out on a lot of that constant gaming time, but sometimes not everyone has that ideal situation where they can commit to a weekly game. Honestly I’d rather have all my players there every time I play, than have one person absent every session.

Slipperychicken
2013-01-03, 07:18 PM
This gives me good ideas for the XP problem, though I'm still not sure how to handle loot. If all characters get their xp, they need to get appropriate loot or they'll be weak or poor for their level. How do you suggest to handle that?

If they're splitting that sessions' loot with the missing PC anyway, let the players figure that out as normal.

If they're not splitting, you can assume the character has through some other means acquired the average treasure value that session (total that sessions' treasure value, divide that by the number of PCs present. If you present it in currency and not items, divide the result by 2 to account for sell price).

bedablachem
2013-01-03, 08:31 PM
Loot division is up to the players. Let them roleplay it out. Are they greedy scum or are they team players?
Team players, at least generally speaking :P


The short answer is this: it depends.

First of all, it depends on the style of play. Is it possible for characters to die, lose things, get permanent injuries, suffer curses, etc.?
I won't let them die easily due to a freak die roll, but definitely if they're incredibly stupid.



2. Their characters could be played by another character, subject to all party risks, and would have a full share in all rewards except individual player XP bonuses.
Giving them the choice seems better than making it for them.
I tried nudging them towards it, but they're not keen on letting other players play their characters :/



My last D&D group would set aside the absent characters' shares of loot, with no prompting from me as GM one way or another. In general, if it's just a session here and there it's not a big deal-- just pencil in a nicer drop for them next time.
But the problem is, if the amount of active characters are fewer, fight-based encounters have fewer enemies. Fewer enemies hold less loot. Spreading a 3 character loot to 4 character means they're getting less...


Have you tried changing how often you meet?

Some people just live hectic enough lives that they can’t reliably play every week. Try changing it to two weeks. I’ve known Dms that run marathon sessions once a month, because that’s the only time he and his players have to actually meet and play.

I know you lose out on a lot of that constant gaming time, but sometimes not everyone has that ideal situation where they can commit to a weekly game. Honestly I’d rather have all my players there every time I play, than have one person absent every session.
We're playing once every two weeks, and even that's not always simple.


If they're not splitting, you can assume the character has through some other means acquired the average treasure value that session (total that sessions' treasure value, divide that by the number of PCs present. If you present it in currency and not items, divide the result by 2 to account for sell price).
And here we come to my big problem:
The 3 active chars in a session can split the loot 4 ways and still get a fair share if:
1. I load each adversary with more items. Useful items make the encounters harder, while letting each adversary carry a sack with hundreds of gold coins really screws with the suspension of disbelief in the game.
2. I tell the player that was missing: "hey dude, your char gained 200 GP and a magic ring while you were away". That doesn't sound like fun - we play this game to earn our loot through blood (not real) and sweat (real, depends on the AC :P).

The players aren't at fault if RL makes it so they can't arrive, so I don't want to penalize them by letting their chars lag behind with loot. At the same time, I don't want the result to feel artificial or contrived...
Am I being too demanding? Or is there a super awesome way to solve this that I haven't figured out yet? :)

Slipperychicken
2013-01-03, 08:51 PM
The players aren't at fault if RL makes it so they can't arrive, so I don't want to penalize them by letting their chars lag behind with loot. At the same time, I don't want the result to feel artificial or contrived...
Am I being too demanding? Or is there a super awesome way to solve this that I haven't figured out yet? :)

Sounds like you might consider running "solo" missions/sessions to make it up. But if the loot disparity isn't big enough to make a power difference (less than 8-10k should be fine most levels, remember casters don't need gold as much), you can choose not to worry, and just tough it out. WBL is just a guideline after all.

If no one has time for a solo mission, you could also consider having the mission happen "offscreen", with a summary of events agreed upon by DM and player (i.e. While sneaking her way out of the Goblins makeshift prison, Blackleaf the Master Thief manages to kill X guards and their captain, and raids the facility's equipment lockers, emerging with armor and cash, which she sells for X).

nedz
2013-01-03, 09:05 PM
There are many ways of doing this, as have been described.

There is no right answer, but there are wrong answers.

A wrong answer would be one which caused a player to become annoyed, or worse still walk.

The way to avoid this is to talk to your players and find out what their views are. You probably need to get them to buy into whatever decision you finally agree on.

oxybe
2013-01-03, 09:16 PM
Or is there a super awesome way to solve this that I haven't figured out yet? :)

yup: ask your players.

sit them down before/after as session they're all present or start sending emails to the group asking them how they want to handle things. start a discussion among the people it affects, rather then pool a random selection of folks.

for missing player XP, in my group we just handwave it... "dave" was with us all along and present when things were being done.

would that work for your group? i really can't tell. i don't know your group.

so ask them how they'd like to handle things... if it's a group issue, talk to the group.

Grod_The_Giant
2013-01-03, 10:43 PM
yup: ask your players.

sit them down before/after as session they're all present or start sending emails to the group asking them how they want to handle things. start a discussion among the people it affects, rather then pool a random selection of folks.

for missing player XP, in my group we just handwave it... "dave" was with us all along and present when things were being done.

would that work for your group? i really can't tell. i don't know your group.

so ask them how they'd like to handle things... if it's a group issue, talk to the group.
Listen to this man, for he speaks great wisdom.

Windy
2013-01-03, 10:46 PM
In my group I just lay down the law at the outset: Absent players will have their characters "auto'd" by the DM competently, but not really efficiently. This lets them receive combat experience and mission experience, but no roleplay/investigation/personal story arc experience. Loot is always divided by the players, not by DM. If more than 25% of the game group is absent, then the game session is cancelled and we pick up at the next scheduled date. I suppose I could modify that number, but it seems to be about right for keeping the story consistent.

bedablachem
2013-01-05, 12:29 PM
Thank you all for the great suggestions :)

Alejandro
2013-01-05, 01:25 PM
I have seen all of the following, as far as loot goes:

- distribute it equally, even to the players who were not present
- distribute it equally, among the players who were present. Players who were not present can still get XP, but they aren't entitled to loot.
- Give loot to who can use it best, even if they weren't there. IE, the machine gun +5 of bad guy slaying should go to the Rambo PC, not the wizard.
- Some of all loot goes into a shared fund, which all PCs tap for expenses like removing curses, raise dead, or paying the bill if they get sued for property destruction.
- Players sometimes 'steal' from one another. In the Star Wars game I GM, the players captured ten thousand credits in cash and jewelry from a pirate group, but all the players except two forgot they had it. One of the players who remembered spent it all on a nice hangar and machine shop, and the other didn't care, since she is independently wealthy.

Longstrider
2013-01-06, 03:28 PM
In D&D, XP is already taken care of. Someone of lower level gains XP more rapidly under the rules, so unless their absence is chronic it will equal out.

The person with the best head for math and a consistent presence at games is the loot man. He keeps a gigantic list and they split treasure whenever it's convenient.

The challenge rating rules are also such that at most levels, 3 players can still defeat a challenge designed for 4 players (A CR 7 monster is still a good challenge for a ECL 6 party, and a party is defined as four players by default, so if you normally have 4 ECL 7 players and one goes missing, your party ECL drops a bit but that's no big deal.)

In other words, do nothing differently and you'll survive.

Hopeless
2013-01-06, 03:51 PM
I'd halve the experience especially if their character had to get involved.

In games I've played in if I missed a session I wouldn't get any experience.


Loot division is up to the players. Let them roleplay it out. Are they greedy scum or are they team players?

Sometimes thats the only time the other players get decent loot!

Do you include rules to prevent them passing equipment to other players?

On two occasions I've had equipment moved on a character I was playing, the first I returned after missing a session to find they had swapped my cleric's favoured weapon a +1 sure striking bastard sword for a polymorphed intelligent enchanted longsword even though he only wielded bastard swords because they're a favoured weapon!

The other time they gave the cloak of elvenkind my halfling sorceress had to the rogue... the dm wouldn't let me find a way for my character to leave the party after that!

Jay R
2013-01-07, 10:44 AM
Treasure is stuff that you pick up off the ground. What the players decide to do with it is what the characters do with it.

Experience points are not items that you pick up off the ground; they are an abstract concept used to simulate learning through life experiences.

If the fighter didn't face the trolls, then he did not get any experience from facing the trolls.

Blacky the Blackball
2013-01-08, 09:28 AM
I don't understand why anyone would penalise the characters of players who miss sessions by reducing XP or whatever.

Assuming that the players actually want to play, being unable to attend a session is its own penalty - the player who can't make it is missing out on the fun. Why add extra penalties on top of that?

So in my group we have the following (completely unwritten) guidelines:

1) If 1 person (of 6) is missing, we still play. If 2 or more are missing (or if the GM is missing, obviously) we don't play.

2) The missing player's character is played by whoever volunteers - with everyone (including the GM) interjecting if they think the character would or wouldn't do a specific thing.

3) The missing player's character gets full experience for the session.

4) Treasure is normally handled on a purely IC basis with the characters agreeing who gets what. Again, in the case of a character whose player is missing the other players and GM will make sure that the character's views are represented and they don't simply stay silent and get taken advantage of.

5) If a character whose player is missing dies during a session so be it. However, unless we're playing Call of Cthulhu this only happens very rarely as there's a tacit understanding that playerless characters are cautious and take few risks (unless it's well established that the character would in fact take the risks).

Jay R
2013-01-08, 12:30 PM
I don't understand why anyone would penalise the characters of players who miss sessions by reducing XP or whatever.

"Penalise" is an interesting word choice here. Are you "penalising" the entire group if they all don't play and all don't get experience?

In general, as you sit down to play a game, your character has exactly as many experience points and treasure as she had at the end of the last game.

But in one special case, you want to change that, because it's a penalty to sit down with the same experience points and treasure you had at your last session.

If your character has all the experience points, treasure, and everything else that she had at the end of the last session you played, you haven't been "penalised".


Assuming that the players actually want to play, being unable to attend a session is its own penalty - the player who can't make it is missing out on the fun. Why add extra penalties on top of that?

Ah, I see. You think that experience points and treasure are things that the players have a right to automatically, totally separate from the play of the game. I think that they are earned in play.

It is not a penalty to not get what you didn't earn.


So in my group we have the following (completely unwritten) guidelines:

1) If 1 person (of 6) is missing, we still play. If 2 or more are missing (or if the GM is missing, obviously) we don't play.

I don't understand why anyone would penalise the characters of players who DON'T miss sessions. These players got the penalty you approved of (not getting to play) plus the penalty you don't approve of (not getting treasure and XP).

In essence you're saying it's all right to penalise somebody because two others didn't show up, but not to penalise him because he himself didn't show up.


3) The missing player's character gets full experience for the session.
...
5) If a character whose player is missing dies during a session so be it. However, unless we're playing Call of Cthulhu this only happens very rarely as there's a tacit understanding that playerless characters are cautious and take few risks (unless it's well established that the character would in fact take the risks).

Players who show: full experience, full risks.
Player who doesn't show: full experience, lesser risks.

OK, if you want to play that way. I won't.

My current DM's general rule is that if it is possible for the character to miss the adventure, then she misses the adventure.

If it's impossible for her to miss the adventure (we are already down in the tomb, or some such) then the PC is played safely, and gets half the experience. Why half? The player didn't earn any points by solving problems or having ideas, but the PC's spells were in play. Some of the risks were incurred; some of them were not.

When I was DM, I told people that you could guarantee that nothing bad would happen to your PC, and you would get no points, or you could let somebody play your character fully, incurring all risks any other PC incurred, and get full points.

But we would never penalise the players who showed up by giving them more risks and the same rewards as those who didn't show.

Blacky the Blackball
2013-01-08, 04:39 PM
"Penalise" is an interesting word choice here. Are you "penalising" the entire group if they all don't play and all don't get experience?

In general, as you sit down to play a game, your character has exactly as many experience points and treasure as she had at the end of the last game.

But in one special case, you want to change that, because it's a penalty to sit down with the same experience points and treasure you had at your last session.

If your character has all the experience points, treasure, and everything else that she had at the end of the last session you played, you haven't been "penalised".

You're conflating "the last game" and "the last session you played". They aren't the same thing, and thus I'm not making any special cases.

Just because the player wasn't there for the last game doesn't mean the character wasn't. Why would the character suddenly be less experienced than the rest of the party when they've all experienced the same things? Why would the character not get a share of treasure that they helped find just because they're being temporarily played by a different player while their usual player is unavoidably absent?


Ah, I see. You think that experience points and treasure are things that the players have a right to automatically, totally separate from the play of the game. I think that they are earned in play.

It is not a penalty to not get what you didn't earn.

I never said anything about the players having an automatic right to anything. That's a strawman of your own devising.

Experience points and treasure are things that characters get during play based on what they do and are nothing to do with who is playing the character at the time.


I don't understand why anyone would penalise the characters of players who DON'T miss sessions. These players got the penalty you approved of (not getting to play) plus the penalty you don't approve of (not getting treasure and XP).

In essence you're saying it's all right to penalise somebody because two others didn't show up, but not to penalise him because he himself didn't show up.

If we agree (as a group) not to play, no-one is getting penalised by anyone. Instead we've simply decided that doing something else would be more fun than playing while missing two or more players.


Players who show: full experience, full risks.
Player who doesn't show: full experience, lesser risks.

OK, if you want to play that way. I won't.

Correction...

Characters being controlled by their normal player: low risk behaviour or high risk behaviour at their player's choice.

Characters temporarily being controlled by someone else: assumed to choose low risk behaviour unless their normal player has previously made it clear that the character prefers to take reckless actions.

All characters get full experience for what they do, and all characters face the same risks (assuming they're being equally cautious).


When I was DM, I told people that you could guarantee that nothing bad would happen to your PC, and you would get no points, or you could let somebody play your character fully, incurring all risks any other PC incurred, and get full points.

That second one is exactly what we do - except with the caveat that the character who is being played by someone else won't take excessive risks above and beyond those taken by the party as a whole (e.g. charging heedless into the enemy without back-up, or walking down corridors known to be trapped) unless such behaviour is normal and expected for that character.


But we would never penalise the players who showed up by giving them more risks and the same rewards as those who didn't show.

Neither do we. That's you putting words in my mouth again. I've said that characters whose normal players are absent are usually assumed to behave in a cautious manner rather than a reckless manner, not that there is some kind of GM fiat to make sure they're exposed to less risk than other characters who are behaving in the same way.