when a player skips a session

[HappyDaze]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.