PDA

View Full Version : when a player skips a session



King of Nowhere
2019-11-06, 06:54 PM
I'm opening this as I'm curious about a thrend I noticed in other topics, most recently

"you're welcome to come and play but we -will- play whether you can show up or not. Your character will simply wink in and out of existence in response to your presence and absence."
This is not the first time I see such a statement. The DM handbook itself suggests something similar, with the missing player's character "doing nothing", and I see a lot of posts hinting the same policy.

I'm opening a thread because it is very, very strange to me. Having a character vanish from the story for a while without explanation breaks immersion pretty bad. and what if we were relying on his specific spells or skills to face a certain challenge?

At my tables it's always been that when someone is missing, the character get used by someone else - possibly a committee, especially as it's common at my table to discuss strategy as in "I do X, you do Y and then the cleric does Z". I can see some potential issues if the character get killed, but if you can't trust the rest of the table that far, it's a pretty big trust issue; I believe most tables aren't so bad.
Now, of course the character won't pursue any personal agenda or do anything particular in the downtime that would actually require consent from the player, but as far as using his combat abilities or skill checks, he's always there.

So, I'm just asking how many people here pursue the policy of "character winks out of existence", and how many have the policy of "character get used by someone else", and if there are special reasons for the choice.

Faily
2019-11-06, 07:40 PM
I've rarely done the "wink out of existence"-thing, at least in D&D/PF, and the PC without a player is usually put on auto-pilot/run by another player. The substitute player don't actually roleplay the PC, but might interject on things that they know the character care about (like a Good character protesting some mean stuff, that kind of stuff).

In some games, we find a logical reason to explain why a PC is not present (which works well in games like Ars Magica where they could be doing something else).

But most of the time, the PC is still present. As a GM, I usually don't like to play without a full group though, as I prefer for everyone to have the experience together and not miss out on being able to do things.

Rynjin
2019-11-06, 08:04 PM
I tend to have said PCs wander off.

Nobody likes having to miss a session and then hear their character died due to the decisions of another player controlling them. Just breeds bad blood.

Sir Chuckles
2019-11-06, 08:07 PM
I usually say that they either went off on a side adventure, resulting in them slaughtering things so far below their ECL they get no experience, or they did odd jobs if in a situation where a full adventure is not needed.

If it's a major boss battle, I'll usually have them plink with their favorite simple ranged attack at max distance.

Seto
2019-11-06, 08:20 PM
My group does the "wink out of existence" thing. It takes off the cognitive load of running several characters at once, avoids having a character do things without their player's input, and of course avoids the unfortunate issue of characters dying with their player absent. Plus, that character becomes a rp resource to take care of out-of-focus stuff. "You need to send a messenger to the mage while you investigate? Sure, X's character will do it." One time, after a grueling boss fight, one party member was absent, one was dead, all others were in negatives and unconscious. The boss was dead, but his Quasit familiar remained in hiding. I was like: "Well, the Quasit cackles with glee at the idea of killing you off one after the other while you're unconscious... but as it gets ready for a coup de grâce, the Inquisitor busts down the door and exclaims 'Begone, Demon!'". That was a cool use for an absent character. So basically, the character is implicitly there (or off on a mission somewhere), but we all act as if they don't exist, and we don't play them mechanically.
One exception to this is if a player leaves the session early, like in the middle of a fight. Then sometimes we take over their character and play in through to the end.

Our gaming group has different time constraints and its members tend to travel a lot. Players being absent is so frequent that we're used to ignoring it and playing normally. If it's a session where a specific PC is necessary (like, the climax of their personal sidequest, or a significant plot event involving them), we wait for the player to be there to do it. Otherwise, we just play as long as we have a minimum of 3 players ; the whole party is 5 or 6 people, but actually having everyone around the table happens like once every 15 sessions.

NichG
2019-11-06, 08:22 PM
Definitely of the 'disappear' style. My games focus on making decisions more than on overcoming challenges, so a player by obtaining certain abilities or resources can also obtain final say over how those things are permitted to be used. Because what maintains meaning is that the player have responsibility for any consequences of their past and present decisions. If they acquire a weapon that has a 5% chance of killing any bystanders wherever it's fired but cuts through any opposition, that's their decision to take custody over and not the group's.

If there's an 'all hands on deck' moment, I'll delay until everyone can be there by running (non-chronological) side adventures for those who do show up. But those are relatively rare (maybe 1 in 6 sessions).

Lvl45DM!
2019-11-06, 08:34 PM
I DM and play in a few different groups so my answer is "It depends."
With one group we handed characters over to other players, until I(through no fault of my own) got a friends character killed. The barbarian charged, rolled a 1, got hit with AoO's and then critted by the ettin. Too low level to raise dead. The player didn't blame me, but he did feel it was thoroughly unsatisfying that he didnt get to witness or be involved in his characters death. After that we had them be 'called away' by our mercenary company. We didn't really do much in the way of dungeons so it worked out ok.

Another group we started off with the vanish and that was fine, since we were in a trippy extradimensional castle.

In a group I DM, we hand the characters over to another player, who plays them exceptionally well, he's really a master at playing multiple characters.

False God
2019-11-06, 08:38 PM
I once made an entire campaign for an open table to justify this: everyone in the lands were afflicted by a "vanishing" curse, where they could, at completely random moments (ie: random for NPCs, but "random" as in when players dont show) vanish into thin air. "Thin air" in this case being a side-dimension so the missing party member can tag along but not participate.

My players had to audacity to show up regularly!

I always get players consent on what their character does when they are out, does someone specific run them? Does the DM run them? Do they wander off and catch up with the party later? Do they "poof out"?

I don't care what their answer is, I just don't want to have to guess.

Typically they "poof out" as in: they're off doing something else.

Composer99
2019-11-06, 09:12 PM
I have a bunch of new players who don't want to fill in for people. Characters vanish when their players are absent. Well and good.

Suffice to say I don't feel much concern about immersion in this campaign.

Zhorn
2019-11-06, 09:20 PM
When a player is away, I aim to have their character have a reason to be sidelined at the next most convenient location. Until then one of the other players will run them in combat, favouring keeping that PC out of the immediate fray (because having your character die when you're away sucks worse than regular PC death). If the party is needing to move on from a town or what not while the player is away, either they can elect another player to run their character as a proxy, or some reason is concocted for them to be travelling at the speed of plot behind the party "I'll catch up once I've finished teaching this orphan to read", etc.

Thinker
2019-11-06, 09:26 PM
Any characters without their player are winked out of existence. It's a game not a story.

Lemmy
2019-11-06, 10:16 PM
Unless it weakens the party toouch for that session's challenges, I'm all for winking character out of existence.

It makes things easier for the GM and avoids having a character make big decisions or suffer serious harm that their player would resent. It's super frustrating to not be able to show up for a game and then find out next session that your character died the weekend you couldn't play because you had to work late.

HappyDaze
2019-11-07, 01:29 AM
I don't have character's disappear when the player is absent. I consider that silly and damaging to suspension of disbelief. It's the player's responsibility to designate someone to control their character in their absence. Sometimes we find reasonable in-game reasons to have such a character hang back from the action, but most often they are there doing what the rest of the group does. If they die, they die, whether the player that usually runs them is present or not. A player that can't handle that should probably find a way to make it to the game or they can look for another game.

BWR
2019-11-07, 03:32 AM
Any characters without their player are winked out of existence. It's a game not a story.

I have to disagree. A board game or card game is just a game. RPGs I play are stories with game elements. There is an investment in setting and characters, and continuity and coherence are important. If we can find a good in universe reason for an absentee player's character to not be around, fine, but no PC is going to be wandering around doing their own thing in the middle of Max's Dastardly Murder Dungeon while the rest of the PCs are barely scraping by. And to go all game-y, loss of action economy and the abilities of the absent PC can make encounters harder to overcome. Yes, the APCs don't do alot of interacting beyond the bare minimum, but it breaks the game worse in every way to have them be entirely absent.

Sure, on a few occasions APCs have been killed, and that sucks, but we try to avoid it by not doing stupid **** with other people's characters.

Porcupinata
2019-11-07, 04:34 AM
When someone can't make it to the game, another player takes over their character for the session - with occasional "Bob would probably..." or "I don't think Bob would do that" suggestions from the others at the table.

It's become something of a tradition that when the player returns for the next session everyone jokes about how much more competent than normal the character was during the session in which the player couldn't make it.

It's very rare that a character will die when the player is absent - there's a subconscious bias on the DM's part not to target them too heavily - but when it has happened we've always got them raised before the end of the session so the missing player doesn't have to come back to a dead character.

Zhorn
2019-11-07, 05:24 AM
It's become something of a tradition that when the player returns for the next session everyone jokes about how much more competent than normal the character was during the session in which the player couldn't make it.
Our version was the paladin being dice cursed (real bad, couldn't make an attack roll with a dice value over 9).
Druid player takes over a few times they needed to leave early. Becomes the most effective combatant for the rest of those sessions. Player returns, paladin proceeds to miss on ever single attack roll.

Knaight
2019-11-07, 07:15 AM
It depends. I tend to like having multiple games where you have a primary game and then fallbacks for certain combinations of missing players (which might just be one shots), but I have intentionally built games which are more resistant to players missing sessions than others. Part of it is timing when you end sessions so that conditions can shift, but it also helps to have something else going on that characters can plausibly get pulled to. For instance, I'm running a superhero game right now - and while it's been temporarily put on hiatus because I broke my own timing rule in a way that created a key player situation before that player got busy for a while it was able to weather missing players pretty well with the simple conceit that these heroes also have civilian identities that need attending to, and might not be able to drop things immediately to go do hero stuff - especially if the civilian identities tend to take them away from the limited space their superhero activities happen in.

There's also mission structured games, where you keep a pace of one mission a session, where if a PC is missing it's because they're off on a different mission with another team (or recovering from an injury or something). This really emphasizes the breakpoints though, and doesn't necessarily fit with a lot of campaign structures.

Alhallor
2019-11-07, 07:18 AM
We may be a bit extrem but most of the time we skip the session.

We are more the storytelling individuals so a lot of things are "it doesn't make any sense if X is not here" "What would X do in that situation? We don't know he's not here." And other players playing the character is also out of the question.

Sometimes a character was sick or did something different but that was definitely the exception.

But I actually like the "blinks out of existence" rule if it would happen to everyone and that would be a totally normal event.

Talking to the baker? He winks out of existence for a day.

Fighting against 10 orcs? Now there are 5.

Seriously in the next Fantasy game I ask my group to incorporate that and make it a normal occurence, see if my group would accept that. (Though that would make being any kind of ruler kinda hard…)

16bearswutIdo
2019-11-07, 08:28 AM
My players generally like their character to be there, so I "play" them as the DM. However, they are 100% in the background and don't weigh in, speak, or do anything unless specifically addressed by the party. Any rolls I make for them are in the open, and usually their opinions on anything they're asked about are to the effect of "I'll go with the group consensus, no strong opinion" or the ever-popular "I'm not feeling like myself today."

If its a big, important session, we usually just don't play sans people.

King of Nowhere
2019-11-07, 09:29 AM
It's very rare that a character will die when the player is absent - there's a subconscious bias on the DM's part not to target them too heavily -

+1 on that. i won't even call it subconscious, it's a bit expected that a dm won't try to kill an absent character - though of course he won't pull punches in the middle of the fray either.
although we did risk a bit one time when a character rolled poorly string of saving throws and was almost killed by aoe alone


but when it has happened we've always got them raised before the end of the session so the missing player doesn't have to come back to a dead character.
this brings us back to the next related question: to all those who prefers the "disappears" option because of the risk of killing a character, would that change if resurrection was comfortably available?

Lemmy
2019-11-07, 10:26 AM
This brings us back to the next related question: to all those who prefers the "disappears" option because of the risk of killing a character, would that change if resurrection was comfortably available?
Perhaps, but not necessarily.

While death is obviously the most dramatic example, it's far from being the only permanent consequence that can be very frustrating to learn happened to your char while you were at work or in a family dinner you couldn't skip.

Losing important gear, agreeing (or diagreeing) with certain important decisions, taking certain courses of action, becoming allies (or enemies) with certain NPCs, etc...

All of that can be frustrating... I've missed sessions and then returned to find out my character had attacked and become enemies with an NPCs that I was allies and enjoyed interacting with. That really annoyed me.

Besides... It's difficult to make sure ressurection is that widely available... In many games and settings it's extremely rare or doesn't even exist at all.

As a GM, I keep the char around as long as the other players are willing to control him, at very least in combat and sincerely invested in keeping him alive, rather than using him as a disposable trapfinder/doorkicker. As a player, that's the very least I expect if my char is sticking around.

Mastikator
2019-11-07, 11:05 AM
Story time (short version):

Once upon a time I was in this group, I missed one of the sessions and the DM decided that instead of making my character go away he'd play him (since we had made him together and I played him in a way that makes his personality obvious), there was an altercation with a hostile NPC and the DM decided that "what my character would do" is engaging head on. This eventually lead to my character losing his horse. This in a game where resources are hard to come by and losing a friggin horse is devastating.

The next session when I tried to get on my horse they had to explain to me that I somehow had lost my horse. Let me tell you: it felt personal, somehow for the first time the DM just decides to play my character without my consent and LOSES MY HORSE?

When I put it like that I think they all realized just how uncool what they did was and undid the damages (my horse found me and my wounds were healed). Had they not done that I would have lost all faith in the DM and the group.

I'm still a bit miffed about it, it's been years.

Moral of the story: DO NOT ROLEPLAY OTHER PEOPLE'S CHARACTER WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE. This is why this rule exists.

Seto
2019-11-07, 11:21 AM
this brings us back to the next related question: to all those who prefers the "disappears" option because of the risk of killing a character, would that change if resurrection was comfortably available?

Not really. The risk of killing a character is only the biggest reason why I prefer to just have them disappear; it's not the only one. As a DM, I just don't want to have to run additional PCs, running the session and the whole world is enough already. As a player, I feel pretty possessive of my characters; they're my avatar, so if I'm not gonna be there to play them, they might as well not exist.
Exceptions can be made when other characters feel the need for it: for example, one time I was absent on vacation I got a phone call to the effect of "look, we're getting slaughtered in a fight, we could really use backup, can we play your character, knowing that he'll be risking death?". I reluctantly said yes because I didn't want to penalize the group. More routinely, if the healer is away and she's the only one capable of removing ability damage, the DM will just say "she'll heal you one time a day".

Reading this thread made me realize something, though. The debate seems to be between "RPG as storytelling" and "RPG as game". If it's storytelling, it's much harder to deal with absences, both because the player needs to be there to play their own character meaningfully, and because "winking out of existence" breaks immersion. On the gamist side, it's much more flexible.
I like both, but my group (the one in which I play as a player) is more gamist, so we don't really have trouble with players skipping sessions. Which is good, because, as noted above, it happens most of the time. As a DM, I do notice that I'm more bothered about missing players when the session is plot-heavy or requires lots of character-defining decisions.

I would conclude: know your group. If it's a group with a lot of turnover, it's easier to have a gamist game where people can easily come and go, and winking out of existence doesn't pose a problem except for specific mechanic abilities. If it's a regular group with a limited number of players and they show up everytime, then it becomes possible to meaningfully emphasize long-running stories and character development. If you want to try a storytelling game with players coming and going... you're gonna have to devise your own solution to the problem (such as "sudden existence failure" becoming a plot point, as suggested above).

A related question: how do you handle the dividing and sharing of loot when players skip sessions?
In my group, we tend to wait until the end of the current adventure or arc, and after the final boss, we divide the whole dungeon's treasure equally between each character who's showed up at least once during the adventure. It's more stable that way, as opposed to dividing it every session between different party members.

Thinker
2019-11-07, 01:16 PM
I have to disagree. A board game or card game is just a game. RPGs I play are stories with game elements. There is an investment in setting and characters, and continuity and coherence are important. If we can find a good in universe reason for an absentee player's character to not be around, fine, but no PC is going to be wandering around doing their own thing in the middle of Max's Dastardly Murder Dungeon while the rest of the PCs are barely scraping by. And to go all game-y, loss of action economy and the abilities of the absent PC can make encounters harder to overcome. Yes, the APCs don't do alot of interacting beyond the bare minimum, but it breaks the game worse in every way to have them be entirely absent.

Sure, on a few occasions APCs have been killed, and that sucks, but we try to avoid it by not doing stupid **** with other people's characters.

An RPG is not a story. An RPG is a wonderful mix of gameplay, imagination, and narrative elements. RPG's have multiple people actively participating in the events of the game, pushing their own agendas and points of view. RPG's have rules and structure. They have victory conditions. You can tell a story about an RPG adventure or even a single session, but an RPG by itself is not a story. Stories adhere to story-structure. They have a storyteller and an audience. They're a recounting of events, even fictional events. The recounting part is important.

You can be invested in the setting, characters, and continuity. That is fantastic. That is not a trait of an RPG, but a trait of the experience you are sharing with your group. I can and have played in RPG's with no investment in any of the characters, setting, or continuity. It was fun to see whether we could overcome challenges, but character death was frequent. The setting was largely irrelevant - generic fantasy world. Even continuity was not very important outside of the maps of the dungeons. We played that one weekly for almost a year.

If you want to find a reason for the PC to disappear from the party in the middle of Max's Dastardly Murder Dungeon, by all means feel free to do so. There's nothing wrong with that, but that doesn't fit my group's expectation and we get by just fine. It does make the challenges more difficult, but not all challenges require combat. As a matter of fact, most challenges are not combat based and the action economy isn't very important. And, if it is a major combat session, encounters can often be toned down on the fly. Instead of fighting six goblins, maybe you only fight five.

Kelb_Panthera
2019-11-07, 02:58 PM
Seeing as it was my statement that kicked this off, I suppose I should comment.

It's an option of last resort for allowing someone who you know is going to have spotty attendance to play in spite of that issue. Yeah, it's terrible for immersion unless you make up some "plausible" explanation but if you're doing this then its because you've already decided that it's an acceptable loss for being able to include that player.

Personally, I'm more likely to give you the boot before I get to the point of realistically considering this option but if I was making allowances for something like a player falling ill, becoming pregnant, or going through some trauma like a nasty divorce or the recent loss of a loved one, I'd do it in a heartbeat, immersion be damned.

In the case of the thread that line was quoted from, I was simply presenting the option on the thought that a lot of people are a bit less hard-ass than I am on this sort of thing. If 5 of us can handle the scheduling regurlarly and the 6th guy can't be bothered, I'm not gonna fret over telling him he can't play but others may feel differently so I mentioned it as an option for compromise, even if it's one I likely wouldn't choose myself.

Delta
2019-11-07, 03:46 PM
In general, I tend to go with something similar, but within reason.

If you're not here, your character in general won't do anything. We'll assume he's there in some way, but if at all possible it won't be relevant. If there's a fight, he either stepped away right before or he's assumed to be fighting his own NPC somewhere just off picture for just as long as everyone else fights, and so on.

There can be exceptions, though, in certain situations ignoring the character completely would just break suspension of disbelief too much. If there are some really basic services your character regularly provides to the party, I won't deny them that. If the wizard's player is away, for example, I'll still allow the party to say "Hey, we found this thing, can <wizard> cast identify on this?" if there's absolutely no good reason why the character wouldn't do that and there's absolutely no challenge involved or anything like that.

In extreme examples, if there's a very relevant plot point where a certain ability would be essential, I've allowed players when possible to message or even call the player and ask if it's okay to use their character in a specific manner which has led to some very amusing situations over the years.

In general, I feel like the best guideline is the one you should always follow as a GM: Ask yourself "Is this fun?" In general, watching the GM roll combat for an absentee character against an NPC isn't fun. But having to carry a magic item halfway through the continent to get it identified even though you have a wizard who could do that with no problem whatsoever isn't fun either.

King of Nowhere
2019-11-07, 03:47 PM
Moral of the story: DO NOT ROLEPLAY OTHER PEOPLE'S CHARACTER WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE. This is why this rule exists.

well, of course you need the player's consent for that. but in my groups there never was the slightest doubt about it. then again, both my groups were pretty big on trust, with many players being long-time friends or relatives. it's easier to trust each other to use one's character then.




Reading this thread made me realize something, though. The debate seems to be between "RPG as storytelling" and "RPG as game". If it's storytelling, it's much harder to deal with absences, both because the player needs to be there to play their own character meaningfully, and because "winking out of existence" breaks immersion. On the gamist side, it's much more flexible.
I like both, but my group (the one in which I play as a player) is more gamist, so we don't really have trouble with players skipping sessions. Which is good, because, as noted above, it happens most of the time. As a DM, I do notice that I'm more bothered about missing players when the session is plot-heavy or requires lots of character-defining decisions.


On the other hand, from the gamist perspective, doesn't lose one guy make the game much harder without the unique skills their character was bringing? I mean, assume that the diplomancer is out, and then nobody can handle a diplomacy check. or maybe the wizard is gone, and everyone was relying on him to fly. or perhaps without the fighter to mop up the end of the fights the casters are forced to spend many more spells to finish disabled enemies. a well-established adventuring party works as a team like a well-oiled machine, if you take a member out you reduce their effectiveness a lot.

It made me realize another tangential fact, though, that I also took mostly for granted when it's not: in my group we always discuss tactics. The fight starts, and we never go "I charge, you're next" unless the fight looks easy. instead we discuss. "when it's my turn i tumble past the minions and go disable that wizard, the fighter goes against the big guy, you mop the minions with some area spells. Mattia, you should wait to act after jacopo, so you won't get caught in the fireball. Or perhaps jacopo smokes the enemy wizard with a disintegrate, I tank the big guy and you mop up the minions with cleave?"
We always decide together how to fight, and that means that we're already allowing the rest of the party a lot of control over our actions. if we decide that I should go block a side door from where more minions are coming, I go there even if I would have preferred to engage the enemy wizard, and that goes for the others too.
With that premise, allowing the others to control your character in combat while you're gone is really a short step.

On the down side, if we don't reach a consensus it may take a while to sort things out...

False God
2019-11-07, 04:42 PM
this brings us back to the next related question: to all those who prefers the "disappears" option because of the risk of killing a character, would that change if resurrection was comfortably available?

Couple notes:
First and foremost, I think this would make things worse rather than better, because it would incline "other people" to be careless with a character who isn't theirs because if they die then it's no skin off their back. Resurrection being available just makes them more justified.

Secondly: I'm not a really big fan of readily available resurrection, when DMing I will typically remove all but the top stuff, or add elements to it to make it more difficult. I also try not to kill any of my players to begin with, as IMO deaths should happen at meaningful moments rather than by random chance of the dice.

Thirdly: I often run secret information on my characters, both secret from players and secret from characters. If Billy just "takes over" my character, suddenly all that info isnt secret anymore and that can really undermine my role-play experience.

Quertus
2019-11-07, 04:55 PM
It's mostly all been said, but I'll give my 2¢ anyway.

I've played in lots of groups, and done it all 3 ways (player absent -> [PC absent, PC present, no game]). I've seen all 3 be done well, and all 3 be done poorly.

I agree that the distinction between "playing piece" / mechanics focus and "character" / narrative/decisions focus is one of the largest contributors to determining which method is optimal, followed closely (or probably preceded by) the presence or absence of narrative elements germaine to the particular PC.

Personally, I am not a fan of PCs just winking out of existence, nor am I a fan of others running my PC's when I am absent (even mechanically, my PC's are often… daunting). But, sometimes, those are the correct answer.

Jay R
2019-11-07, 11:00 PM
I have occasionally made the assumption of a continuing illness.

You aren't there? Your character is ill. He or she has enough strength to travel with the party, but cannot fight, cast magic, or otherwise affect the game.

-------

In one game I gave the players a choice. They could choose to let another player play their character, and they would get all experience points, and take on all risks, that the party faced.

Or they could choose to say that their character would not be hurt when they weren't there. But they would also not share in experience points, either.

You can share in all the rewards and the risks. Or you can protect your PC from the risks -- and not gain the rewards. But you cannot share in the rewards without the risks.

[I did not mention treasure. It's up to the party how to divide that, not the DM.]

HappyDaze
2019-11-08, 12:05 AM
Story time (short version):

Once upon a time I was in this group, I missed one of the sessions and the DM decided that instead of making my character go away he'd play him (since we had made him together and I played him in a way that makes his personality obvious), there was an altercation with a hostile NPC and the DM decided that "what my character would do" is engaging head on. This eventually lead to my character losing his horse. This in a game where resources are hard to come by and losing a friggin horse is devastating.

The next session when I tried to get on my horse they had to explain to me that I somehow had lost my horse. Let me tell you: it felt personal, somehow for the first time the DM just decides to play my character without my consent and LOSES MY HORSE?

When I put it like that I think they all realized just how uncool what they did was and undid the damages (my horse found me and my wounds were healed). Had they not done that I would have lost all faith in the DM and the group.

I'm still a bit miffed about it, it's been years.

Moral of the story: DO NOT ROLEPLAY OTHER PEOPLE'S CHARACTER WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE. This is why this rule exists.

This is exactly why we let people know up front that the characters they make will by necessity have to be controlled by someone when they are not there, and that they should not play with us if they cannot handle it. Your story shows me that there are those that cannot handle it and hold onto it for years. So yeah, consent is required, but for us it is implied if you choose to participate at all.

mucat
2019-11-08, 12:40 AM
If the story is at a point where it would make sense for Steve-the-Unplayed to be off doing something else -- helping an ally, investigating a lead, meeting a contact, rsearching a question, or just not within shouting distance when the plot hook hits -- then that'll be what they're doing. But if they were in the middle of a scene where they can't simply vanish without scrambling the story logic, then they'll spend the session "over there".

The party is fighting orcs? Steve is over there, fighting some other orcs that were trying to flank you. Maybe he took along a convenient NPC or two. Their fight will finish when yours does, and if you win, so will they.

The party is negotiating a treaty with the Dwarf King? Steve is over there, haggling with the chief geologist about mineral rights. His agreement will be as triumphant or as disastrous as yours.

The party is cutting deals in a smoky waterfront tavern? Steve is over there, playing cards or chatting up a barmaid or something. When you're ready to leave, so is he.

Next session, Steve's player might (with the GM's agreement) fill in some interesting details about what was going on over there.

Zhorn
2019-11-08, 04:23 AM
@mucat,
I've run it that way also, the PC is playing bodyguard to the NPC(s) the group is travelling with, or is standing watch with the wagon outside the dungeon. Sidelined outside shouting distance, but inside sprinting distance if the player shows up while the group is still in the dungeon.
In that event, I start off by giving that player's perspective on a group of enemies or something approaching the dungeon entrance, so the player has an immediate reason to reach the party asap, giving a small narration of the scenes they pass throw hinting at what they've missed that the party faced while they were away (not saying what happened, just describing the aftermath of what they see in the rooms as they catch up to the party), giving them an in-character context without needing to go over the scenes OOC.

Awkward moment for the Cleric finding a splatter mark on one room, then catch up to the party missing someone else:
Cleric: "Where's the Warlock?"
Ranger: *holds up a bag full of meat giblets*
Rogue: "I forgot to check for traps"

Porcupinata
2019-11-08, 05:03 AM
A related question: how do you handle the dividing and sharing of loot when players skip sessions?

Same as when they're there.

Any treasure the party finds goes into the general pile known as "party treasure". Magic items also go into that pile - and are owned by the party rather than the individual - but if they're useful to a particular party member then that party member will carry them around and use them. They still belong to the party though, rather than the person who happens to be carrying/using them.

Obviously there will be times when an item is useful to more than one party member and a decision has to be made about which party member should carry/use it. In those cases I've never known the party not to come to an amicable agreement about who should use what.

When the party gets back to a major town or city and has some downtime, any items that no-one wanted to use (or no-one could use) get sold - with the money going into party treasure, of course - and party treasure is then split up so everyone gets an equal share. Generally we'll round those shares down to a nice round number and the remainder will stay in party treasure as a petty cash fund to pay for lodging and supplies and other party expenditure. Occasionally we'll agree to buy a magic item that the party would find useful (if there's one available) out of party treasure before we split it.

After splitting, people can do what they want with their own shares, including buying their own personal magic items that don't count as part of party treasure (although they still kind-of count when deciding who would be the most suitable person to carry a party item - trying to argue that you should use that nice Sword +2 that the party has just found when you already have a Sword +1 that you bought yourself and the rogue doesn't have a magical weapon isn't going to get you very far; although in such a circumstance it wouldn't be unusual for the party member to indefinitely loan the rogue their Sword +1 if doing so means they get to upgrade to a Sword +2 owned by the party).

A player being missing for a session doesn't interfere with any of the above, with the exception that if a player misses the session where party treasure is shared out then they'll be able to retroactively spend their share at the start of the next session.

Zhorn
2019-11-08, 06:44 AM
A related question: how do you handle the dividing and sharing of loot when players skip sessions?
Short answer: you don't.
I don't mean that in a mean way or anything. I just assume considering the nature of this thread this is also a DM directed question. As DM, you don't divide anything. Loot is found, the party decides what to do with it.

If the group has an equal share policy, I can respect that. I think it is admirable, and I would also consent to it despite being a never-miss-a-session type.
But if the DM is stepping in to choose how the group is supposed to divide up the loot they find... Nope, not their characters, not their choice.

Seto
2019-11-08, 08:13 AM
Short answer: you don't.
I don't mean that in a mean way or anything. I just assume considering the nature of this thread this is also a DM directed question. As DM, you don't divide anything. Loot is found, the party decides what to do with it.

If the group has an equal share policy, I can respect that. I think it is admirable, and I would also consent to it despite being a never-miss-a-session type.
But if the DM is stepping in to choose how the group is supposed to divide up the loot they find... Nope, not their characters, not their choice.
Yeah, true, I agree with that. My question was directed towards both players and GMs. My given solution was the one we use as players in our group. Although I do think the GM has *some* responsibility, not in directly deciding what loot goes to which character, but in making sure every character has an opportunity to have appropriate loot, and doesn't fall too far behind WBL. Even those whose players don't show up every session.

King of Nowhere
2019-11-08, 09:50 AM
A related question: how do you handle the dividing and sharing of loot when players skip sessions?
In my group, we tend to wait until the end of the current adventure or arc, and after the final boss, we divide the whole dungeon's treasure equally between each character who's showed up at least once during the adventure. It's more stable that way, as opposed to dividing it every session between different party members.

Well, of course since we keep using the character, we always share equally.
But it's actually a matter of fairness first.
We are all adults, we are committed to the game, but we are all busy. We don't skip d&d to go partying, we skip d&d because we hhave university exams, or overtime job, or for illness.
It would just feel needlessly punitive to exclude them from sharing.
Someone got a rough day at job, and we top that by telling him that his character will fall back in money and xp? No, thanks. Many people mentioned the chance of loss to the character, and not sharing in the loot is a loss

Kraynic
2019-11-08, 11:58 AM
Well, of course since we keep using the character, we always share equally.
But it's actually a matter of fairness first.
We are all adults, we are committed to the game, but we are all busy. We don't skip d&d to go partying, we skip d&d because we hhave university exams, or overtime job, or for illness.
It would just feel needlessly punitive to exclude them from sharing.
Someone got a rough day at job, and we top that by telling him that his character will fall back in money and xp? No, thanks. Many people mentioned the chance of loss to the character, and not sharing in the loot is a loss

I find this attitude really strange. Failing to reward someone with loot and xp for not playing the game is penalizing them? If someone misses so many sessions that their character would fall so far behind as to be at a real disadvantage compared to the other players/characters, then maybe that particular game isn't for them. Maybe the DM could consider putting together a few "side character npcs" that could be dropped in when that person is available to play instead of them actually having a character that is specifically their own.

As far as dividing the coin/items the group gains, all the groups I have played with as a player or GM would set aside items for the missing player's character if that is the best use for them as far as group survival goes.

False God
2019-11-08, 04:04 PM
This is exactly why we let people know up front that the characters they make will by necessity have to be controlled by someone when they are not there, and that they should not play with us if they cannot handle it. Your story shows me that there are those that cannot handle it and hold onto it for years. So yeah, consent is required, but for us it is implied if you choose to participate at all.

Wait, is consent asked for or is it implied via agreement to play?


Well, of course since we keep using the character, we always share equally.
But it's actually a matter of fairness first.
We are all adults, we are committed to the game, but we are all busy. We don't skip d&d to go partying, we skip d&d because we hhave university exams, or overtime job, or for illness.
It would just feel needlessly punitive to exclude them from sharing.
Someone got a rough day at job, and we top that by telling him that his character will fall back in money and xp? No, thanks. Many people mentioned the chance of loss to the character, and not sharing in the loot is a loss

I'm with Mastikator, "topping off" my bad day at work, my week of being sick, my family emergency with "You didn't get any loot or XP." is a far cry from "You're dead!". I mean I always thought it was just assumed that if you missed a session, you'd miss out on the loot, XP, etc. you otherwise would have gotten. Sure, if a player says "Yeah gimme that XP and loot." and lets you play their character, that falls under the same banner as "Yeah, I'm willing to risk my character dying when I'm not there."

But two things being a loss does not make them equal. Loot and XP can be made up, and lower-level characters naturally gain more XP. But characters can't just be "made up" with retconning the game, or a resurrection, which is still a loot (items for spell) and XP (lost level) loss.

HappyDaze
2019-11-08, 04:24 PM
Wait, is consent asked for or is it implied via agreement to play?


It's effectively the same thing: We explain how we are playing/running it, and if you then agree to play, you have implied that you consent to the rules the table uses. It's like the implied consent to take a breathalyzer if suspected of drunk driving that comes with driving a vehicle.

False God
2019-11-08, 04:44 PM
It's effectively the same thing: We explain how we are playing/running it, and if you then agree to play, you have implied that you consent to the rules the table uses. It's like the implied consent to take a breathalyzer if suspected of drunk driving that comes with driving a vehicle.

Uh, what? No, no it isn't. Also, you can refuse to take a breathalyzer test. Driving a car is not consent to undergo a breathalyzer test if you get pulled over and the officer suspects drunkenness.

Why is this complicated? Why are this many words needed?

Either you explain to players that their characters will get used when they're absent, or you don't.
If you do, and they agree, you've got express consent.
If you don't, and they play, then you may not have consent at all!

HappyDaze
2019-11-08, 05:07 PM
Uh, what? No, no it isn't. Also, you can refuse to take a breathalyzer test. Driving a car is not consent to undergo a breathalyzer test if you get pulled over and the officer suspects drunkenness.

Why is this complicated? Why are this many words needed?

Either you explain to players that their characters will get used when they're absent, or you don't.
If you do, and they agree, you've got express consent.
If you don't, and they play, then you may not have consent at all!

I already said I explain it. So it's "Since I do explain it, whether they expressly agree or not, they imply consent if they choose to play."

Kelb_Panthera
2019-11-08, 08:43 PM
Uh, what? No, no it isn't. Also, you can refuse to take a breathalyzer test. Driving a car is not consent to undergo a breathalyzer test if you get pulled over and the officer suspects drunkenness.

Depends on where you live. I read all the forms when I got my license. One of the things on it was a clause that indicated that signing the paperwork essentially gives the state police the right to strip your car to the frame on the side of the road, administer a field sobriety test, and a couple other things that may or may not survive a serious challenge if they're pressed through the court system.

I can refuse the breathilizer but if I do, I've got to get out of the car and walk a straight line, stand on one foot, and do the alphabet backwards with the implication being that failure of one of these tasks means a free ride to the local precinct office. If I refuse both then I just get to skip to that free ride.

At least that's my understanding of things but I'm no lawyer.

Hellpyre
2019-11-08, 09:24 PM
I can refuse the breathilizer but if I do, I've got to get out of the car and walk a straight line, stand on one foot, and do the alphabet backwards with the implication being that failure of one of these tasks means a free ride to the local precinct office. If I refuse both then I just get to skip to that free ride.

At least that's my understanding of things but I'm no lawyer.

Doing a field sobriety test is really up to the arresting officer in a number of states with implied consent laws. You usually agree to either take a chemical test or blood draw when requested by an officer, or else automatically have your license suspended (and then usually get to "enjoy" the test anyway if they call a magistrate for a warrant).

Aotrs Commander
2019-11-08, 09:58 PM
We play for abotu two hours for our weekly session. This very frequently leaves us in the posiiton of being mid-combat and thus making popping out impractical on both a consistency level and a practical one; especially since we almost exclusively run modules or adventure paths now, because any time for writing our own goes on to the four day quests we run over the course of the year.

So with day quests, the parties are set up such that, session to session, we can have different characters and players in and it doesn't matter, as they are for the majorty either self-contained or have natural break-points where folk can be swapped out for one reason or another between sessions.



The weekly games? The characters get played by the other players when they aren't there. No-one is an asshat about it (but to be fair, most of you have been playing together for on the order of ranging from twenty to thirty plus years, so...) and PC mortality is pretty low, generally, especially sinc ethe players have a tendancy to work together in a cohesive and competance fashion. When I'm DMing, I EMPHATICALLY wouldn't allow characters to pop out, since I will have pre-prepared and balanced the combats in particular for the whole the entire module/stretch of AP (down even to the pre-rolled initatives) months in advance, and we have BIG parties.

(We even have the practise that the DM had the character sheets and if you want to keep your own copy, you can, but you have to make sure the DM has one when you're away. It surprised me when I first came to the forums years and years ago that people did it differently.)

Besides, for me and the other sometimes-DMs, running two or more character mechanically is a trivial affair most of the time compared to running the monsters, so...

King of Nowhere
2019-11-09, 09:23 AM
Either you explain to players that their characters will get used when they're absent, or you don't.
If you do, and they agree, you've got express consent.
If you don't, and they play, then you may not have consent at all!

problem with player consent is that there are so many social conventions, and most of us we take for granted on a level that we don't even think about it. So we always miss asking something, because we don't even realize that it should be asked.
in my groups we never really asked anyone to use the character. it was always so implicitly assumed. even when twice we got a new guy; although the information leaks anyway because we talk about it, and nobody complained.
perhaps if i went to play in someone else group and had to skip a session, they would implicitly assume my character would skip a session, and i would only find out when they talk on how the fight was much harder without one character

farothel
2019-11-09, 10:55 AM
We often have multiple games going on at the same time. Some where all the players have to be present (so we don't play that when one player can't make it) and some others that we play when not all players are there. For instance at the moment I'm DMing Star Trek, where the PCs are part of the crew of a large station. So if one PC can't make it to the session, they are on another mission, or ill, or whatever I can think of at the moment. They of course don't get the XP as the others, but in the long run it Always seems to middle out, as different players can't make it to the session the differences in XP stay reasonable. And since every player is in a different department, each has their specialisation, so it isn't a big problem.

King of Nowhere
2019-11-09, 11:41 AM
If someone misses so many sessions that their character would fall so far behind as to be at a real disadvantage compared to the other players/characters, then maybe that particular game isn't for them. Maybe the DM could consider putting together a few "side character npcs" that could be dropped in when that person is available to play instead of them actually having a character that is specifically their own.


one of us has chosen a very busy career where he has to be available on short notice. He misses about one session every four. that's way too much for him not having a character but using an npc that could drop off conveniently; he still plays roughly 3 times every 4 sessions, an npc hanging with the party so long is no longer an npc. But if he got no xp 25% of the times, he would definitely fall behind noticeably.
What you suggest would work well if someone could play once every 3 or 4 sessions.

also from the storytelling side, we've been playing for a couple years, we've become pretty close in the meanwhile (both ooc and ic), and we've agreed that no one should change character again, because it was becoming harder and harder to accept that this tight-knit group of fire-forged friends would take new member with filmsy excuses. and we have some pretty strong assassin cult after us, led by a sort of black dragon demigod. It would be very dangerous for us to wander around alone for too long, which would make it difficult to also justify the "was doing something else"

Mastikator
2019-11-09, 12:52 PM
problem with player consent is that there are so many social conventions, and most of us we take for granted on a level that we don't even think about it. So we always miss asking something, because we don't even realize that it should be asked.
in my groups we never really asked anyone to use the character. it was always so implicitly assumed. even when twice we got a new guy; although the information leaks anyway because we talk about it, and nobody complained.
perhaps if i went to play in someone else group and had to skip a session, they would implicitly assume my character would skip a session, and i would only find out when they talk on how the fight was much harder without one character

When it comes to life and death (of a PC) then express consent is required. In my case I had not expressed any consent (in fact up until that point we had been playing with the wink out of existence rule so this was extra uncool) and nowhere was it implied that this was a thing that could or would happen.

Edit-


and we've agreed that no one should change character again, because it was becoming harder and harder to accept that this tight-knit group of fire-forged friends would take new member with filmsy excuses. and we have some pretty strong assassin cult after us, led by a sort of black dragon demigod. It would be very dangerous for us to wander around alone for too long, which would make it difficult to also justify the "was doing something else"
Then what happens if someone dies? Are you just out of the group or do you make an exception to allow someone in again?
What if someone absent dies because of the decisions of another player? Either this is the most cruel and unforgiving group of all time or you make big exceptions in case of PC death. (or you're playing a game where PC death means almost nothing and revival is trivial and painless)

King of Nowhere
2019-11-09, 10:36 PM
Then what happens if someone dies? Are you just out of the group or do you make an exception to allow someone in again?
What if someone absent dies because of the decisions of another player? Either this is the most cruel and unforgiving group of all time or you make big exceptions in case of PC death. (or you're playing a game where PC death means almost nothing and revival is trivial and painless)

we are at level 16. getting resurrection is not a real problem.
it's not trivial nor painless, because the 30k gp for true resurrection are still a big heap of money, and losing a level otherwise is annoying. it's just not the end of the world.
the dm also said that to raise a character after the first time, it becomes progressively more difficult, so we can't just die and get raised as many times as we wanted.
but we are safe in the short term, as most current characters never died. I'm the exception, I was raised twice; I' think I'll be allowed to come back in some way though, maybe as a ghost or maybe the wizard will turn me into a sentient golem. The thing is, my character grew a personality better than i could hope for, and i got very attached to it in those two years, and losing it forever would be a big blow.
but even if i knew for sure i could not come back again, i wouldn't spare the character. he's very reckless, he suffers from a deep insecurity that he compensates by seeking danger to prove himself that he can do it. and he's built to survive that kind of behavior - most of the times. so running through a corridor full of traps (we have no dedicated rogue, face-checking a likely ambush, jumping first into the fray, trying to draw fire from the bigger enemies, staying back to cover the escape, being a guinea pig for the strange curse, he jumps at the chance to do that kind of stuff, with a cheerful attitude of "yay, surviving this will make me stronger!" or "let's see if I'm good enough to handle this". In fact, I'd say my character would be much safer when the other players are using it.
If I have to pay a price, so be it. if the price happens when someone else is rolling for me, so be it.
Anyway, I would rather risk that my character died without me directing it than I would have him sit out of a fight involving the rest of the party.

as for what to actually do if a character died when the player is absent, we'd figure it out if it happens. we are mature adults and good friends, if we can't deal with it somehow then we don't deserve those titles.

LordCdrMilitant
2019-11-10, 04:32 PM
I'm opening this as I'm curious about a thrend I noticed in other topics, most recently

This is not the first time I see such a statement. The DM handbook itself suggests something similar, with the missing player's character "doing nothing", and I see a lot of posts hinting the same policy.

I'm opening a thread because it is very, very strange to me. Having a character vanish from the story for a while without explanation breaks immersion pretty bad. and what if we were relying on his specific spells or skills to face a certain challenge?

At my tables it's always been that when someone is missing, the character get used by someone else - possibly a committee, especially as it's common at my table to discuss strategy as in "I do X, you do Y and then the cleric does Z". I can see some potential issues if the character get killed, but if you can't trust the rest of the table that far, it's a pretty big trust issue; I believe most tables aren't so bad.
Now, of course the character won't pursue any personal agenda or do anything particular in the downtime that would actually require consent from the player, but as far as using his combat abilities or skill checks, he's always there.

So, I'm just asking how many people here pursue the policy of "character winks out of existence", and how many have the policy of "character get used by someone else", and if there are special reasons for the choice.

I use the "character isn't here right now" approach. It's not a wargame, your character is your persona and not the party's tactical asset. Use the resources of the remaining characters to solve the problem.

There are times where somebody else takes command of another character, but that's usually when someone has to duck out or something mid-combat. They'll issue a set of directives and nominate an executor before they step out, and that person carries out the instructions until they get back. If the encounter ends and they're not back, the character is removed from play until they return and takes no further part in social or combat scenarios.

MoiMagnus
2019-11-11, 09:46 AM
A related question: how do you handle the dividing and sharing of loot when players skip sessions?

It heavily depends on how the loot is handled in the first place.

If you're using "personalised loot", where everyone is essentially getting loot out of a wish list (or a similar concept) at some milestones, then the missing person just get his loot doing whatever his character was doing while the player was not here.

Otherwise, he might not have anything.

For example, in our last campaign, we had both a common treasure (for everything looted when acting as a group) spend though "group optimisation discussions" where we would use this resources to make sure everyone in the group was able to fight at the maximal of their capacity (including absent players when they come back), and personal treasure (for everything your character negotiated for oneself, stolen to NPCs, ... and every "between session" actions) where absent players don't get anything, unless they communicated with the DM to say what their character where doing while the remaining of the group was adventuring.