Button Pusher, Lever Puller, Potion Taster (When players are absent)
- Thread starter Hjorimir
- Start date
MNblockhead
A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
Warning: I talk about locations and groups in Curse of Strahd that could be considered minor spoilers.
As a DM, I really try to avoid the situation of an absent player's character being run by other party members.
When I started my homebrew campaign when 5e first came out, we were meeting once per month, for 8 hours. I tried to make each session stand alone. It didn't always work out that way, but I managed to avoid the issue for the most part.
I'm now running Curse of Strahd. It is actually easier now. We still meet once per month for 8 hours. Given the nature of the campaign, it is quite easy and fits the theme of the campaign to have a party member have to take refuge with an ally or some safe spot to recuperate or get themselves back together. Barovia is very small, so it is easy for the party to get back together and the Keepers of the Feather make it easy to get messages to each other.
I am, however, a bit worried about later on in the campaign. If a session ends with the party in the middle of the Amber Temple or Castle Ravenloft. I would be tempted to have the character be taken and make the next session a rescue mission. But that could feel forced. I could have the character suffer long-term madness, specifically: "The character loses the ability to speak." It fits in with the theme of CoS and I would have it end when the player returns. I would also try to have the character leave for a save spot to recover as soon as it is possible for that character to do so.
On the other hand, if the party is in the middle of such a climatic location as Castle Ravenloft, I would be inclined to skip a session until I can get everyone together.
As a DM, I really try to avoid the situation of an absent player's character being run by other party members.
When I started my homebrew campaign when 5e first came out, we were meeting once per month, for 8 hours. I tried to make each session stand alone. It didn't always work out that way, but I managed to avoid the issue for the most part.
I'm now running Curse of Strahd. It is actually easier now. We still meet once per month for 8 hours. Given the nature of the campaign, it is quite easy and fits the theme of the campaign to have a party member have to take refuge with an ally or some safe spot to recuperate or get themselves back together. Barovia is very small, so it is easy for the party to get back together and the Keepers of the Feather make it easy to get messages to each other.
I am, however, a bit worried about later on in the campaign. If a session ends with the party in the middle of the Amber Temple or Castle Ravenloft. I would be tempted to have the character be taken and make the next session a rescue mission. But that could feel forced. I could have the character suffer long-term madness, specifically: "The character loses the ability to speak." It fits in with the theme of CoS and I would have it end when the player returns. I would also try to have the character leave for a save spot to recover as soon as it is possible for that character to do so.
On the other hand, if the party is in the middle of such a climatic location as Castle Ravenloft, I would be inclined to skip a session until I can get everyone together.
Last edited:
It's a game, so we only ever play with the PC's that have available players at the table - same as if, say, only 4 of your 5 poker buddies turned up, you'd only deal 5 hands (not 6), right?
Generally, we hand-wave the PC absence, and their return, as quickly and painlessly as possible - usually that's the DM's call, sometimes player(s) might help try and find ways to explain it "in game"; they found something else that needs their attention, or whatever.
But really, no-one cares much how it happens, it's just accepted by me and my buddies (me as DM, and another guy who DM's a game I play in), from many years of experience, that it's way better to just leave that PC out of the session, than try and include them.
There's nothing much to be gained by trying to keep that PC involved, the story will survive and the remaining players will just have to make do. In fact often being one short, leads to better role-play due to less pressure for spotlight time, and/or better combat choices due to people needing to pay attention more and make the best of what they have. Some of my most memorable sessions have been when there are only 3 of our 4 or 5 listed players available at the table. Occasionally, as DM, I've included a simple NPC for each player to run as part of an important scene where there's only 3 PC's, but usually we just run with 3 PC's and it works out fine enough - the players love it.
On the flip-side, there is much to be lost by trying to include the missing PC - in order to try and "preserve the story", you end up making all sorts of ridiculous things happen - you get a special DM-PC who could easily be overly favoured and/or played terribly, or if a player runs them you risk them playing that PC badly and getting them killed and/or other PC's because the player is overloaded, or you just end up compromising the story in other ways, all for what, "continuity"? It's a game, not a TV series, movie, book etc.
I never dock XP for missing a session, everyone is always at the same XP level in my games because no-one misses a session on purpose, just like no-one dies on purpose and no-one in my games gets punished for deciding to swap out a character; my DM runs this differently, but as the person who's usually got the most XP and is often a level above the others, I personally disagree with his logic, I would actually rather that all of us were at the same XP level as my PC.
Generally, we hand-wave the PC absence, and their return, as quickly and painlessly as possible - usually that's the DM's call, sometimes player(s) might help try and find ways to explain it "in game"; they found something else that needs their attention, or whatever.
But really, no-one cares much how it happens, it's just accepted by me and my buddies (me as DM, and another guy who DM's a game I play in), from many years of experience, that it's way better to just leave that PC out of the session, than try and include them.
There's nothing much to be gained by trying to keep that PC involved, the story will survive and the remaining players will just have to make do. In fact often being one short, leads to better role-play due to less pressure for spotlight time, and/or better combat choices due to people needing to pay attention more and make the best of what they have. Some of my most memorable sessions have been when there are only 3 of our 4 or 5 listed players available at the table. Occasionally, as DM, I've included a simple NPC for each player to run as part of an important scene where there's only 3 PC's, but usually we just run with 3 PC's and it works out fine enough - the players love it.
On the flip-side, there is much to be lost by trying to include the missing PC - in order to try and "preserve the story", you end up making all sorts of ridiculous things happen - you get a special DM-PC who could easily be overly favoured and/or played terribly, or if a player runs them you risk them playing that PC badly and getting them killed and/or other PC's because the player is overloaded, or you just end up compromising the story in other ways, all for what, "continuity"? It's a game, not a TV series, movie, book etc.
I never dock XP for missing a session, everyone is always at the same XP level in my games because no-one misses a session on purpose, just like no-one dies on purpose and no-one in my games gets punished for deciding to swap out a character; my DM runs this differently, but as the person who's usually got the most XP and is often a level above the others, I personally disagree with his logic, I would actually rather that all of us were at the same XP level as my PC.
Last edited:
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Pretty much what we do also, incuding the same joke.
The character is still considered an active member of the party and is expected to do things it would normally do when its player is present.
And if the absent player leaves any instructions with the DM those are followed when and where practical.
S
Sunseeker
Guest
My normal table policy is that if you're not here, you can't help and you can't be harmed, you're essentially not here. *
One time I developed a whole campaign premise to solve just this: The world was afflicted by a "phasing curse" where people would randomly phase out of existence into a slightly off-set plane. It shared all the physical characteristics of the normal plane, but none of it's natural life. So a "shifted" character could follow along, but neither help nor harm anyone on the regular plane. That's not to say they were safe but I have a standing policy that I don't kill players who aren't present (except in severe circumstances).
*UNLESS: You've given prior permission for someone else to run your character (not the DM, I won't do it). In that case, you're just as vulnerable as everyone else.
One time I developed a whole campaign premise to solve just this: The world was afflicted by a "phasing curse" where people would randomly phase out of existence into a slightly off-set plane. It shared all the physical characteristics of the normal plane, but none of it's natural life. So a "shifted" character could follow along, but neither help nor harm anyone on the regular plane. That's not to say they were safe but I have a standing policy that I don't kill players who aren't present (except in severe circumstances).
*UNLESS: You've given prior permission for someone else to run your character (not the DM, I won't do it). In that case, you're just as vulnerable as everyone else.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Interesting idea. In a FLGS game where you never know who'll show up week-to-week, that could be a really good solution.
That said, however: PLEASE tell me shifted characters don't get the same xp non-shifted characters do!
Otherwise, I can shift my character into autopilot and it'll just keep levelling up...
This "permission" is locked in in our game - that if you're not there your character is at the mercy of whoever ends up playing it, barring any instructions you've given the DM. We don't have it do anything it wouldn't normally do - but if it's always the risk-taker when you play it it'll still be the risk-taker when you're not there.
Well, we did that with our absent player in our latest session. Since he is the only dwarf in the group he had to probe some mushroom for poison since he got resistance to it .. just in case. It is totally fair game since he gets equal XP for the session like the rest of the Group.
In the group where i dm it is different. Missing chars do not get any XP but are also not subject to be the test monkey.
It also depends a bit whether the narative allows for downtime of one character (City adventures e.g.) or the character has to be dragged along all the times because there is no reasonable tale shoehorning him back into the plot (Group is on some journey / trail with "broken bridges" or other Points of no return behind them)
In the group where i dm it is different. Missing chars do not get any XP but are also not subject to be the test monkey.
It also depends a bit whether the narative allows for downtime of one character (City adventures e.g.) or the character has to be dragged along all the times because there is no reasonable tale shoehorning him back into the plot (Group is on some journey / trail with "broken bridges" or other Points of no return behind them)
I'm currently running a combined main/alts campaign. Main campaign is every other Saturday, alts campaign is on other Saturdays if I feel like it and players are available. Same players, same setting and time period, but different PCs and different regions within the setting. It's a big homebrew world, an ongoing project of several years, and this setup gives me the opportunity to expose the players to more of it. There's not really much crossover between the two campaigns, but as their exploits become grander and affect larger regions, either group might catch references to or see the aftermath of the other group's adventures.
If 2 or more players of our 5 player + 1 DM group will be absent for a main campaign session, we'll do an alts session for sure. If only one person is absent, it depends. The biggest determinant is player preference. If the group majority thinks it'd be best to wait for the player to return before resuming the main campaign, we'll do an alts session. If there's a plausible and convenient way to remove the missing player's character from the ongoing story - and plug it back in when the player returns! - then we'll do that.
There are some niche situations that could come up, but which for me have thankfully not. For instance, ending one session with an imminent or in-progress combat and all players present, and next session having a missing player. I am strongly against running another player's PC, or letting the other players do it for the missing player, even with the missing player's permission. This isn't to say I think it's inherently wrong. I just feel like ownership of a PC is sort of a sacred thing.
Lacking actual play experience handling this sort of scenario, I can only guess as to what I'd do. Probably invent some reason to knock the PC out of combat. The more forewarning I have, the less contrived it'll be.
If 2 or more players of our 5 player + 1 DM group will be absent for a main campaign session, we'll do an alts session for sure. If only one person is absent, it depends. The biggest determinant is player preference. If the group majority thinks it'd be best to wait for the player to return before resuming the main campaign, we'll do an alts session. If there's a plausible and convenient way to remove the missing player's character from the ongoing story - and plug it back in when the player returns! - then we'll do that.
There are some niche situations that could come up, but which for me have thankfully not. For instance, ending one session with an imminent or in-progress combat and all players present, and next session having a missing player. I am strongly against running another player's PC, or letting the other players do it for the missing player, even with the missing player's permission. This isn't to say I think it's inherently wrong. I just feel like ownership of a PC is sort of a sacred thing.
Lacking actual play experience handling this sort of scenario, I can only guess as to what I'd do. Probably invent some reason to knock the PC out of combat. The more forewarning I have, the less contrived it'll be.
Rya.Reisender
Explorer
I would NEVER let a PC of an absent player do anything that puts him at risk. I usually just make him do nothing and default to "Dodge" in combat. Usually we simply ignore he is there at all and I don't come up with a story until that player has returned (I talk with him and we find a nice explanation that fits in).
Similar Threads
