PDA

View Full Version : DM Help In Universe Explanations for Inconsistent Player Attendance



Legato Endless
2017-02-24, 02:02 AM
The Real World. The Prime Material from which you draw your poor unsuspecting mortals into a tangled web of events not of this Earth. Myth, intrigue, horror, wonder, death.

Except...when they don't attend and you're left clutching your notes, scowling at the board considering what do when 1/3 of the manpower has evaporated from your finely tuned cavalcade of epic encounters. We've all been there. We sigh, we squint, and we move on. We pull out backup plans, we downsize, we recycle old never before seen material.

The question here is, how do you deal with these implications in the World itself? No, I don't want to just ignore them. It's pretty easy when it's one problem player. You fashion some explanation. They've been cursed with epic narcolepsy. She's the chosen errand girl of a minor god. Teleport. There she goes now. But it's harder when the session's missing 5th member bounces between players. That requires a more complex handwaving.

I'm prepping a new game, and I look at my player pool, and I know I'm going to have two feeble mortals who will miss a chunk of sessions. two solid players with the odd real life issue, and one robot in human form with perfect attendance. I can make the game work with four players. But the missing fifth player will vary. How to make this not seem ridiculous within the game world? This is a DnD-ish game, but non fantasy fluff suggestions are perfectly appreciated. Serious, silly, let me have 'em.

Roxxy
2017-02-24, 04:22 AM
Since my fantasy D&D games are run around government monster hunters, it's pretty easily handled. Just sort of assume that we don't send entire units into the field at once very often, and who's in the field sometimes changes for minor, random reasons. Maybe somebody got a minor injury off-camera. I fluff healing magic as keeping you together enough to keep functioning for a while, but unable to actually permanently heal you [though it can accelerate the process], so if someone isn't absolutely essential, it's better for them to rest back wherever your base is set up. Maybe another bad situation popped up nearby, and base camp needed to pull a person or two out of the players' force to help deal with that, because the players can handle the current mission shorthanded. Those two seem to cover most bases just fine.

Fiery Diamond
2017-02-24, 04:46 AM
I don't.

Or rather, I don't have the CHARACTER be absent just because the PLAYER is, which nullifies the need for an in-universe explanation. The absent player just makes sure that the group has a copy of his/her character sheet, so one of the other players can run their character in combat. Outside of combat, we just minimize the character's interaction and have group consensus on their actions based on our collective perception of what their past actions indicate about their potential behavior.

Darth Ultron
2017-02-24, 05:21 AM
Well, a character can wander off easy enough. They can have all sorts of ''non-playable'' adventures. For example the go hunting and meet a ranger who falls and breaks his leg. Then the character spends two days getting him back to town...missing the adventure.

A teleporting curse works. It could be just zipping them away....but for more of a twist it could switch with someone. It might always switch with ''Zorn'', or it might switch with a random person.

You could do the same thing with possession. Of the player is not there..the possessing spirit comes out.

Or even a polymorph curse, so the character becomes something like a dog or whatever.

Fri
2017-02-24, 05:37 AM
I like to have game where the players are part of organization, and each session is one mission, so if someone can't come it's just the character can't come in the mission. He can attend the next mission.

Berenger
2017-02-24, 05:54 AM
The answer will vary depending upon your type of adventure, power level, resources and the importance of the mission.

But I have a few classics:

1. The ranger is on an extended scouting mission. He will report back in a few days. May be rewarded with useful information, some tasty venison or a few rare healing herbs found along the trail.
2. The cleric had to travel to the nearest temple to attend the St. Fjarik's Day mass. It's very important, he is the patron saint of [a thing important to the next adventure]. May be rewarded by a minor blessing from St. Fjarik when the group finds itself in a tight spot.
3. The wizard had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to aquire a rare tome cheaply. This weekend, it's auctioned from the estate of a deceased colleague. May be rewarded with a new spell or minor magic item.
4. The barbarian is sick with Gizrax' Revenge. It's a mildly inconvenient malady unleashed by an irate orc shaman of mediocre power. It's unpleasant and kind of embarassing, but ultimately harmless. Gizrax used it to punish a group of clerics and paladins that wiped out his tribe, so he made sure it could not be cured by ordinary healing magic. May be rewarded by developing a resistance to Gizrax' Revenge.
5. The bard was lured off to the fairy realm to play at the fairy court. He will reappear in an overgrown stone circle in the nearest forest in a few days, exhausted and a) with an idiotic grin (50% chance) or b) absolutely terrified (50% chance). May be rewarded with with a gemstone or minor magical trinket received as a payment for his service.
6. The fighter guards the camp with the supplies and the horses while the rest of the group explores the Dungeon of the Week. He says it's necessary, goblin raiders have been spotted in the area and will rob you blind without proper deterrence. May be rewarded with some loot and a nice warg fur coat.
7. The thief received an "invitation" from the local mafia don. Since she holds her nice, beautiful, unbroken fingers in high esteem and recognizes that things can break in unfortunate accidents, she did not dare to refuse. May be rewarded by a share of the heist she got recruited for.

Actana
2017-02-24, 05:56 AM
In one game, I've literally used the excuse of "the flow of time is convoluted" for players missing sessions. Characters can, and do, disappear into the mists of the world and reappear as if nothing had happened. Then again, that game was directly inspired by Dark Souls (where that quote is from), and fit the theme. Not an excuse I'd use for any other game.

Professor Chimp
2017-02-24, 07:43 AM
I don't.

Or rather, I don't have the CHARACTER be absent just because the PLAYER is, which nullifies the need for an in-universe explanation. The absent player just makes sure that the group has a copy of his/her character sheet, so one of the other players can run their character in combat. Outside of combat, we just minimize the character's interaction and have group consensus on their actions based on our collective perception of what their past actions indicate about their potential behavior.Pretty much my solution too. Player can't make it? Someone else controls their character in combat or when their particular abilities are needed, but other than that, their involvement is limited. They are counted as being 'there' for meta purposes like xp or divvying up loot, but they miss out on making their mark on the story or world (and, you know, the fun the others had).

Roderick_BR
2017-02-24, 08:11 AM
I guess the easiest way is to have the character have to leave on some personal side-quest, or as people said, have under control of the other players. They can discuss among them how they'll handle it.
My friend is the party's heal-bot, so when he can't play we already know how to play him :smalltongue:

Mystral
2017-02-24, 08:23 AM
In my games, in case a player cannot attend, their character is treated as not being there without further explanation. He can't fight, he can't be hurt, he also can't contribute, unless it is something that is absolutely neccessary to move the plot forward. His inventory is off limits, as well, unless there is an item the entire group needs and owns, like a macguffin or something they got to defeat a boss.

If a player is gone for several weeks, I'd work on a reason for his missing attendance. Doesn't happen often, though.

Mr Blobby
2017-02-24, 09:48 AM
Call me a picky pain, but I *always* come up with an IC reason for a player's absence or quitting. For the former, I usually come up with IC 'RL' issues they go and deal with, solo missions, injured etc. If they quit, I'll come up with a similar reason. This means that they can still talk about the missing/gone PC IC - in way too many games they end up becoming an unperson....

N810
2017-02-24, 12:49 PM
The character has one of these unfortunate defect:

Sleepwalking (wanders off in the night)

Terrible sense of direction (get lost a lot)

Works multiple jobs as a mercenary (multitasking many quest)

Is secretly a werewolf (disappears for days at a time)

Is in a messy divorce with a warlock and keeps getting court summons (teleported) away by her lawyer.

BWR
2017-02-24, 01:55 PM
I don't.

Or rather, I don't have the CHARACTER be absent just because the PLAYER is, which nullifies the need for an in-universe explanation. The absent player just makes sure that the group has a copy of his/her character sheet, so one of the other players can run their character in combat. Outside of combat, we just minimize the character's interaction and have group consensus on their actions based on our collective perception of what their past actions indicate about their potential behavior.

This is how we've done it since forever. I don't think it even occurred to us to have the character be absent until someone outside the group considered this a problem. .

Gizmogidget
2017-02-24, 01:59 PM
If someone is absent our default assumption is that they have returned to a particular area of importance in a sort of neutral zone outside of the campaign

tensai_oni
2017-02-24, 11:16 PM
I don't.

Or rather, I don't have the CHARACTER be absent just because the PLAYER is, which nullifies the need for an in-universe explanation. The absent player just makes sure that the group has a copy of his/her character sheet, so one of the other players can run their character in combat. Outside of combat, we just minimize the character's interaction and have group consensus on their actions based on our collective perception of what their past actions indicate about their potential behavior.

Okay, several people agreed with this way of doing it but I'll be the first to say - I don't think this is a good idea.

Imagine coming back to a game after an absence only to discover that your character lost an important piece of equipment because of a fight where they were an NPC controlled by the rest of the group. Or was cursed. Or killed. This just opens too many possibilities for inter-party drama.

You said to minimize the character's interaction with everyone else outside of combat, I suggest to just pretend they weren't there in combat as well. Sure it may not "make sense", but this is where we just have to suspend our disbelief. Of course the game master has to make the encounter relatively easier too, considering one or more of the players are absent.

KillianHawkeye
2017-02-25, 01:29 AM
I used to have a GM whose policy for absent players was to make their characters "invisible and bulletproof."

ArgentumRegio
2017-02-25, 03:07 AM
As for the encounters, just pare them down by the same fraction as is your party depleted, should such be needed.

For myself I often hold character sheets (so all character sheets are available at every game - none forgotten elsewhere) and have run the PC on the behalf of the player to maintain consistency...

BUT, we have run games, such as the 'swamp campaign' where any missing player was a missing PC who was "out with a mystery fever/diarrhea".

Legato Endless
2017-02-25, 03:08 AM
Many thanks everyone. The variety of suggestions structural and specific has been quite helpful.


Imagine coming back to a game after an absence only to discover that your character lost an important piece of equipment because of a fight where they were an NPC controlled by the rest of the group. Or was cursed. Or killed. This just opens too many possibilities for inter-party drama.

You said to minimize the character's interaction with everyone else outside of combat, I suggest to just pretend they weren't there in combat as well. Sure it may not "make sense", but this is where we just have to suspend our disbelief. Of course the game master has to make the encounter relatively easier too, considering one or more of the players are absent.

This is a reason I'm leery to do it with new players. I had a game where the pariah in a group of 90s Antiheroes Paladin-esque character was absent, but the party decided on something within the game ostensibly with his silent character's consent that he would never have gone along with. He wasn't thrilled when he returned. Another player was extremely reluctant to ever give up her character sheet because in her first game of DnD the party sacrificed her character to be eaten by a dragon as a bribe. Now, with a mature group that usually isn't an issue.

But also quite frankly it's rather more logistical work to accommodate everyone at times. One of the Players in this new game is blind. Another can't read English. I went through the game building their characters with them. Another of my players has difficulty enough keeping tack of his own character. Two would make combat a slog. And quite selfishly, it's easier on me to adjust elements than it is to optimally run a PC on silent. I've got other things to manage. Especially if the party tries splitting up again.

Fiery Diamond
2017-02-25, 03:44 AM
Okay, several people agreed with this way of doing it but I'll be the first to say - I don't think this is a good idea.

Imagine coming back to a game after an absence only to discover that your character lost an important piece of equipment because of a fight where they were an NPC controlled by the rest of the group. Or was cursed. Or killed. This just opens too many possibilities for inter-party drama.

You said to minimize the character's interaction with everyone else outside of combat, I suggest to just pretend they weren't there in combat as well. Sure it may not "make sense", but this is where we just have to suspend our disbelief. Of course the game master has to make the encounter relatively easier too, considering one or more of the players are absent.

Well, what if they have a particular skillset (in combat or out) that the rest of the party relies on to function the way they normally do? It's a little more complicated than "Oh, I'll put fewer monsters in the enemy group." Contrary to what some others are saying, I think adjusting to a reduced party is much, much, much harder than the group running an absent player's character. In my games, I don't usually run particularly lethal ones most of the time, and the actual difficulty and lethality of fights tends to be pretty swingy (not within the same fight, but comparing one fight to another - my games don't have a consistent difficulty level, is what I mean), which is partially a byproduct of the fact that I'm better at adjusting things mid-combat (through things such as using suboptimal enemy tactics if things turn out worse than I intended) than I am at designing balanced encounters. Anyway, the point is that an absent player's character is pretty much never going to end up dead or losing (the entirety of) a nonrenewable resource - barring things like healing potions, which if the player is miffed about I can always contrive a way to replenish - in my games. Basically, in the style of games I run, the only way to end up with a situation like you describe is if my players are really immature - and I reserve the right to just say "no" to anything I feel is really immature and detrimental.

And really, if we're in a situation where the player not being able to be the one running their character would be truly problematic (such as, say, a session where they interact extensively with the Paladin Order that the Paladin PC (the character of the missing player) is part of)... I'd rather cancel the session than deal with "You ran my character wrong!" issues that might arise - and I'd rather cancel than mysteriously have the PC absent.

Prince Zahn
2017-02-25, 04:07 AM
My group's players are always offended when you try to play their character for them in both combat and RP. Our solution is to simply not think deeply into it, even if the narrative take a little hit: you don't ask an absent player questions, you don't depend on them in combat, you don't expect them to roll skill checks for you. And you as a DM most certainly do not target them in combat scenes or make them roll saves our whatever. The two exceptions to this are A) if the missing player is the primary healer, in which case you allow out-of - combat healing; and B) if there's a TPK. and that's a big if as it never happened to us yet. I reckon if everybody else dies except the absent players, you initiate your group's TPK protocol anyway.

Also if more than 1/3rd of our players are absent in a given session, we usually postpone the session.
We don't think too much into it, and we are a happier group for it. :smallsmile:

BWR
2017-02-25, 07:56 AM
Okay, several people agreed with this way of doing it but I'll be the first to say - I don't think this is a good idea.

Imagine coming back to a game after an absence only to discover that your character lost an important piece of equipment because of a fight where they were an NPC controlled by the rest of the group. Or was cursed. Or killed. This just opens too many possibilities for inter-party drama.

You said to minimize the character's interaction with everyone else outside of combat, I suggest to just pretend they weren't there in combat as well. Sure it may not "make sense", but this is where we just have to suspend our disbelief. Of course the game master has to make the encounter relatively easier too, considering one or more of the players are absent.

Sometimes this happens. You roll with the blows. The weirdness of the PC suddenly doing something else somewhere else is far more jarring and disruptive than something bad happening to a PC.

Malimar
2017-02-25, 05:00 PM
I once ran a campaign centered around "flux (http://luduscarcerum.blogspot.com/2012/07/on-flux-storms.html)", which is a contagious condition that makes you disappear randomly and reappear later on in time. If a player is absent for a session, or goes to the bathroom, or whatever, their character fluxes out and returns when their player is present again.

I don't really recommend this method.

Jay R
2017-02-25, 06:55 PM
I once ran a campaign centered around "flux (http://luduscarcerum.blogspot.com/2012/07/on-flux-storms.html)", which is a contagious condition that makes you disappear randomly and reappear later on in time. If a player is absent for a session, or goes to the bathroom, or whatever, their character fluxes out and returns when their player is present again.

I don't really recommend this method.

Why invent a new condition? The common cold works just fine. She's there, but not able to fight or cast spells.

I tell my players that they can designate another player to play the character or not, as they choose.

1. If the character is not played, she will not lose anything. No wounds, no curses, no risk of death, no stolen items. But she will not gain anything the DM gives - specifically, no xps. [Whether she gets a share in the treasure is none of my business, of course. Treasure allocation is up to the party, not the DM.] She will be able to start in the next game, feeling better from her sickness.

2. If the character is played, then the PC cannot have any secrets that are hidden from the designated player, and the PC will share in all good and bad results - up to and including possible death.

TripleD
2017-02-26, 12:08 AM
My explanation is that the characters have suddenly fallen sick. My implementation is a bit more complicated.

A few months back I read a fantastic idea (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?459858-NPC-Companion-System-Idea&highlight=NPC) on these forums about essentially treating NPCs as a kind of equip-able item. I've used a variant of the system for my games ever since.

I hate the way illness works in most tabletop RPGs. It's a bunch of dicerolls that only result in bad things and are rarely if ever engaging. To say nothing of the fact that the entire system is completely negated by a very low level spell.

Instead, I ban the spell "cure disease" and instead say that when a player is missing their character has fallen ill. Working with them ahead of time, I make up a card of 2-3 "instincts" for their character. These instincts are simple cause-and-effect actions that their character will take without really thinking even if they are otherwise occupied with a splitting headache (completely stole this idea from burning wheel).

For example:

When my ally reaches 0hp, I will use my medical kit to try and revive them.
I will use the "help" action for my ally if I am able to on my turn.


or


I will rage upon entering combat if able to
If my ally attacked a opponent, I will use my action to attack the same opponent if I can
Outside of combat, I will offer help with any strength check I can



In this case "ally" is that character they are "equipped" to.

The player still gets to contribute to the adventure, but in a way that doesn't give control of their character to other people.

Kami2awa
2017-02-26, 03:35 AM
In our group, PC absence is either ascribed to cases of Vanishing Flu or continuity errors.

As you can probably see, we don't take the game terribly seriously.

Temotei
2017-02-26, 03:39 AM
Have you ever seen The Gamers? There's a player who's absent for most of the movie, so his character just stands there stoically, usually only halfway in the shot on camera. Shenanigans ensue.

Sometimes that, usually we just pretend the character is particularly quiet that day.

Legato Endless
2017-02-26, 10:53 PM
My explanation is that the characters have suddenly fallen sick. My implementation is a bit more complicated.

A few months back I read a fantastic idea (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?459858-NPC-Companion-System-Idea&highlight=NPC) on these forums about essentially treating NPCs as a kind of equip-able item. I've used a variant of the system for my games ever since.

The player still gets to contribute to the adventure, but in a way that doesn't give control of their character to other people.

That's a really cool idea. The NPC abstraction looks a bit like my simplified home-brew for making classes with multiple pets function without the creatures being too weak to contribute in battle but also not break the action economy over their paws.


Have you ever seen The Gamers? There's a player who's absent for most of the movie, so his character just stands there stoically, usually only halfway in the shot on camera. Shenanigans ensue.

I have. I love the second one especially and I'm eagerly awaiting the fourth.

Vizzerdrix
2017-02-27, 03:10 PM
I made a character once with this in mind. Early enrty fiend of possesion/ardent build in 3.5. It worked great, and on days I couldnt make it the dm just had him posses another players gear for a boost based on notes I left. Of course this ment I was also the guy sent on food and drink runs for the group, but that was reigned in when I returned with tripple onion pizza and moxie. Good times!

Arutema
2017-02-27, 03:33 PM
We've just accepted that the party lizardman sometimes has to spend a day shedding and can't make it on the day's mission.

We've also have one player's ork (yes, a WH40K ork in a Pathfinder game) detained for en extended period by Games Workshop attorneys when his player couldn't make it.

theasl
2017-02-27, 05:29 PM
Once, when a guy playing a rogue had to leave early, we decided that his crossbow jammed and he was trying to fix it, so we left him behind as we explored the rest of the dungeon. The rogue reappeared the next session, having fixed everything and followed our trail of dead bodies and broken doors to find us.

Same game, a bard player rolled a natural 1 on a perform check to mollify some goblins, which insulted them so much that they attacked us. Part of the loot on the goblins was a few bottles of alcohol, which the bard naturally picked up. When the player decided to drop out of the game, we left the bard behind in the dungeon, drinking his sorrows of being the worst bard ever away.

Some other players dropped out too, though I don't remember what we did for those, and some joined in as we were partway through - we decided their characters had arrived late and been sent in as a second group.

When we got out of the dungeon, the NPC who sent us on the quest commented on how the party composition was quite different from when we'd gone in. :smallbiggrin:

Fiery Diamond
2017-02-27, 08:04 PM
I have. I love the second one especially and I'm eagerly awaiting the fourth.

I liked the first two. I only watched a relatively small part of the third before quitting in disgust. Why, exactly, did they feel that they should have the jerkface (or, less PC, substitute a two-syllable word starting with the letter D) be the main character? On top of the fact that the charm of the first two was that they were about Role Playing Games, which a CCG is not, no matter what story it has to it.

Legato Endless
2017-02-28, 01:23 AM
I liked the first two. I only watched a relatively small part of the third before quitting in disgust. Why, exactly, did they feel that they should have the jerkface (or, less PC, substitute a two-syllable word starting with the letter D) be the main character? On top of the fact that the charm of the first two was that they were about Role Playing Games, which a CCG is not, no matter what story it has to it.

The two subplots are honestly worse, despite having more sympathetic characters. One is your typical dare-I-commit-to-a-relationship drama, the other is a bizarre overly extended joke. Also, while this is more a plot device than the actual theme, it's difficult to sympathize with a group of people who are extremely defensive about the developing plot...of a CCG decided by tournament. The Fourth film though looks to once again be about Role playing, so I'm hoping for a return to form.

veti
2017-02-28, 02:51 PM
As it happens, just the other day I was reading an online column about this very topic. Here it is (http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue11/ManDown.html).

I particularly like the idea of making it an important premise of your setting:

Plague

It is the near future, five years since the White Plague swept across the world, causing its victims - "zombies" in popular parlance - to suffer bouts of illness during which they would be only semi-sentient. These periods of illness cannot be predicted, neither in their time of onset nor their duration.

At any point, 20% of the workforce might be unavailable. Planes would fall from the sky as their crews "went zombie". Trains would suddenly come to a halt for no reason, leaving passengers stranded, bewildered and scared.

(To be fair, anyone who travels by train in the UK might say this is a quite normal thing to happen).

Fields went unploughed. Food rotted in warehouses. Civilisation stuttered, staggered, then collapsed. Now only small, shattered tribes remain, struggling to survive. And still they wonder: where did the plague come from? Why did it come? And is there a cure?

The Player Characters are people from just such a tribe, all of them infected with the plague, all subject to periodic bouts of "zombie syndrome". They must journey across this shattered landscape, surmounting its challenges in search of answers, all the while struggling with the fact that at any point, any number of them might themselves be in a "zombie" state.

Or if only one or two PCs are regularly affected, you can make it a more specific curse or disease that only affects them.

Jay R
2017-03-01, 03:43 PM
What kind of evolutionary path would lead to several very different intelligent species?
How do scientific laws like gravity or conservation of momentum "turn off" magically? Where does the momentum go?
Why is there so much lost treasure that wandering the wilderness is the best way to get rich?
Why does a fireball blast have full power 19 feet from the source, but no power 21 feet from it?

The correct answer to an unanswerable question is to not ask. Any answer you invent would only lead to more unanswerable questions, and wouldn't make the game any more fun.

If the rest of the party is trapped somewhere, then their friend (whose player missed the last session) is nearby, and his first action will be to try to rescue them.

Explaining where he was does not make that action any more fun, and everybody knows that the explanation given is untrue. All it does is focus even more attention on the fact that it was caused by the player's absence.

In the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode "Trials and Tribble-ations," they went back in time to the original Star Trek episode "The Trouble with Tribbles." But in between, the producers had upgraded the make-up for Klingons, so they don't look the way the used to. Fans have attempted to explain the difference, with increasingly unconvincing explanations such as genetic engineering or a viral mutation.

But the show writers resisted the temptation to produce an explanation. They just acknowledged the situation and moved on.


Doctor Bashir: Those are Klingons?
Odo: Mister Worf?
Worf: They are Klingons, and it is a long story.
O'Brien: What happened? Some kind genetic engineering?
Doctor Bashir: A viral mutation?
Worf: We do not discuss it with outsiders.

That's my recommendation. Tell the player, "Your character walks into the campsite where the others are." Or possibly, "You come up to the party, and find them badly injured." Describe the situation and move on. Not everything is improved with an explanation.


If you're wondering how he eats and breathes. And other science facts,
Just repeat to yourself "It's just a show, I should really just relax."

-- Mystery Science Theater 3000

JenBurdoo
2017-03-03, 05:55 AM
The way I did it, was that the players were members of an ad-hoc City Guard unit and whoever turned up for the session were those the Captain had chosen to deal with the day's crisis. If someone left early, his character was cut off from the party by a collapsing building or hurled into a wall by the monster-of-the-week and knocked unconscious. If someone came in late, his character arrived on the run, gasping, "The Captain sent reinforcements!" This actually worked pretty well.

Cluedrew
2017-03-04, 10:06 PM
An general purpose and comedic solution: They fell into a plot hole. They climb out when the player returns.

Absol197
2017-03-05, 12:57 AM
While the "They randomly disappear/They're sick and can't make it" explanation can work for some games, the kind of games that my groups run have very in-depth stories, often involve leaving off in the middle of an arc, and (at higher levels) have long-distance travel occurring regularly. With all of these things, this explanation does not work for us.

We use the "The character is still there and acts as best the rest of the group can determine." I can understand the trepidation that might have for some groups, but it works very well for us. Depending on the current situation, this can have one of several manifestations:

1) The current arc is not important to that character's story, and/or does not impact the evolving main plot at all.
In this case, the GM does their best to ensure the arc continues to bend around the character's story, and the character becomes stoic and silent for the session, helping with tasks that they would naturally assist with, and acting in combat. However, because they don't have many interactions, they don't advance as characters, and so only earn base xp for the session;

2) The events of the current arc have powerful impacts to the group story as a whole, to which the character's reactions or opinions could affect how the story progresses.
When this happens, depending on why the player is absent, we might text them and ask what they think. Or, if necessary, the group will make it's best assumption based on their knowledge of the character, and then when the player returns we'll review it with them and make any ret-cons that are necessary.

3) The current arc is the character's primary story arc.
In this case, we'll likely play board games instead, waiting until the player of the current spotlight character is able to make it.

With all that said, it's important to note that our group really enjoys exploring characters and remaining true to them, and our GMs almost always know as much (or more!) about the characters than the players do, because our players are so keen on sharing with the GM, and leaving the GM nasty loose ends to play with :smallwink: . This means that it's very easy for us to say, "Well, most of the group would be okay with this mission, but Sally the Paladin would have strong words to say about it, so she'd try and convince us not to do it. And she's so damn charismatic she'd probably succeed. So sorry, we're out."

For our group and playstyle, it works fantastically well.

BWR
2017-03-05, 01:25 AM
it's difficult to sympathize with a group of people who are extremely defensive about the developing plot...of a CCG decided by tournament..

The third movie really was a two issue film. One was the trials of trying to find time to game when everybody has jobs and other obligations ("Same time next year?") and the other a love-letter to L5R. If you are not rather familiar with the L5R community and culture, you won't understand the movie and it won't be nearly as good. It's kind of like how I liked the first movie more than my girlfriend did simply because what we saw was exactly how we played the game back when I started gaming, while she was older than I when she started and that was with a serious game like Kult.
I, and my girlfriend even more so, enjoyed the third movie greatly and were constantly noticing the little references, parallels and jabs they made to L5R.