One of the biggest hurdles I have as an AL DM is making story sense of players dropping in and out mid-adventure. (mid-adventure!=mid-session) Sometimes, it is easy to pull off by making the new players encounter the party on the road or as prisoners in an enemy keep. If I know that a player will be gone for a week or two, I can usually come up with a decent way to bring them back into the story. However, new players to my FLGS end up getting the copout of "high level spellcasters in your faction teleport you" or "the actions of enemy faction X caused fluctuations in the fabric of the Material Plane" to justify PCs poofing in and out of existence. Dealing with this is part of the reason that I prefer Expeditions over running the book adventures, as their episodic nature lends themselves to easier handling of the situation.
What are some of the ways that other DMs handle this side effect of the drop-in nature of AL?
The missing characters just "wander off" for a while searching for something then miraculously return -- unharmed -- when the players resume the game. Sometimes, it is amusing to have them being chased by a group of monsters and just happen to run right by, not necessarily straight towards, the rest of the party. I always liked sessions that start with "roll initiative!"
If your normal AL session is 4 hours, scheduled well in advance, and you have people dropping in/out mid-adventure, you are doing something wrong.
You may be much too lenient about arrive-on-time.
You are supposed to be able to finish each AL module in 4 hours.
Players who leave early miss out on XP for the rest of the night - a reason to stay.
I am DM'ing my FLGS's "Intro to D&D" sessions, so I have to adapt to people dropping in / out midsession.
But as an AL DM, you should not: AL is supposed to be more structured than that.
It really needs to be handled on a case by case situation. There's no such thing as a generic explanation for drop-ins and outs that makes sense in a consistent and compelling manner. That is, you can invent something that handles consistency such as faction leaders teleporting them in and out, but the narrative suffers from cheesiness. Or you can invent a compelling reason, but would have difficulty applying it to the majority of situations.
It's also one of the few situations where I'm comfortable with a little retcon, though I'll still avoid that when possible (which is, usually).
Some examples I've used before:
Player showed up an hour after the session began. I decided his character made arrangements to catch up with the main party after taking care of some personal business.
Player got called up and had to leave the table early. I said his character got the idea they should watch the route by which they entered, in case reinforcements arrived. I also made it clear the party could not go back to this character for help, and that if they tried, he wouldn't be there (for reasons I would decide if they did go back; cross that bridge when you get there!). Fortunately they never had to go back.
Player was there first half of an adventure, missed the second half. At the start of the second session, his character noticed some tracks splitting off the main path they were following, and decided it needed to be investigated just to be safe. He would catch up with the party, and they should press on.
Player was absent the first half, showed up for the second. At the start of the second session, his character had been independently investigating the adventure area, found it was too much for him to handle alone, and linked up with the party.
Just remember, there's always a little metagame acknowledgement going on, whether the explanation is plausible or not. Sure, it's rarely wise to split the party, or let a stranger into their midst while exploring enemy territory, but the players have to get along with the narrative as reality dictates.
The only other alternative (I can think of) is to not allow drop-ins until the adventure is complete. That's not really a fun solution, and everyone I've ever gamed with is willing to suspend disbelief when it comes to character poofing in and out of existence, if it means everyone is having fun.
I run 2 hour blocks on Wednesdays; so by mid-adventure, I mean the current chapter of the adventure and not mid-session. For example, my recent post in the Feathergale Spire thread shows how I had to handle a situation like this, where half of the table didn't show up the following week and I had to figure out how to incorporate 3 new players into the story.
You might set up a paradigm in the very very first session of your PotA encounters game that sets the tone for PC shifting in and out... It's a variation of "Divine Intervention", replacing absent players and enabling new PCs to join. But the key is to actually make it a component of the game instead of an artificial DM ploy.
For example, I drew attention to the fact that my initial table of players were, oddly, somehow thrown together in the beginning in a rather "artificial" and contrived "meeting". This meant that the PCs all had the feeling they were supposed to be there for some reason, and there were machinations happening to them and around them that were beyond their control. They were somehow "fated" to be present and were being "manipulated' into participating.
I know this smacks strongly of a lame campaign conceit, and all the players have to sorta buy into in order to make it work. It's kind of like applying a "Dungeons and Dragons Cartoon" paradigm on the game itself, where the PCs wonder why they're there... It only works if the DM then commensurately follows through on this idea, and doesn't shirk acknowledging that it's happening. I have had to, in my head, cast the PCs as pawns in the cosmology's efforts to counter the efforts of the Elder Elemental Eye to establish a foothold in Faerun.
It adds a layer to the game that has enabled players to step in easily, even though it's a flimsy story mechanism that's obviously an excuse to simply fascilitate the nature of AL's Encounters. However, I've really been able to use it to my table's benefit. Some of the longer-term players are intrigued by the "hand of fate" idea, and I'm expounding on it by manipulating the content of their dreams to provide premonition flashes to dungeon content, hearing voices on the wind and in the waves or rain, and getting messages through the Sending spell. I've been able to dovetail NPCs in their character backgrounds as prisoners of the cult, discovered through the Elder Elemental Eye's "cosmological awareness" and thus kidnapped, resulting in personal leverage for me and hooks for their PCs. For newer players, I can explain that they really have been "divinely manipulated", and acknowledge that well, yeah--that's a BIG question and they might want to figure out why...
That means as DM I have to follow through on that. I have to invent a way that the PCs can learn why. I have to not let it simply remain a background tool, and recurringly remind the PCs that there might be things happening that are bigger than they are. The good thing is that it creates a built-in opportunity for long-term PCs to inform the newer PCs what has happened to them in the adventure thus far, and it helps fascilitate PC introductions, folding them into the action quickly. The PCs know they may not be there very long, but they know they're there for a reason.
Yes, it can disempower some players and make them feel manipulated, but much of that is mollified by their desire to play the game itself, and they'll buy into whatever logic they need to so they can have fun. Everyone knows there has to be a way to make things work for the situational context of Encounters, and they're gracious. But I am particularly interested in surprising them by making this paradigm something that actually means something, something that is actually relevant and useful and intrigueing instead of a lame pretext. And I've planted seeds. In the end, I want them to feel like they are the "counter" to the presence of the Elder Elemental Eye, the chosen heroes of their plane's efforts to fight back against its intrusion and foothold, selected specifically instead of some of the realm's more powerful entities because the cosmology and pantheon know they are fated to grow in capacity and strength--to become heroes of the Realms themselves.
Anyway, that's my plan and it's working so far. I've made one of the statues in the garden of the Sacred Stone Monastery the mother of one of the PCs. I had one of the mine-working prisoners in that dungeon be one of the PC's brothers, driven mad by the Eye. I have other things planned, like actually learning the Eye isn't from this plane instead of yet another evil inherent to Faerun... Maybe you could try your own variation on something similar?
Most DMs I know just kind of ignore it and assume you've been with the party. After all, we swap up tables every week. But then we're not running the Adventure Paths (hardcovers), but the Expeditions stuff. Just fudge it and play 
Kahless wrote:
CoreyartustheSecond, I might just do that for Out of the Abyss next season. The Underdark Outposts that can be built by PCs will lend themselves to easily swapping party members.
ZHDarkstar, using this particular idea could potentially allow you to "morph in" newer PCs to literally replace PCs that aren't there from the previous week. Lame, yes, but considerably less stress on the DM to figure out a location for the previous week's PCs to "discover" a new PC week after week (a recurring practice that is sometimes necessary for months, literally, as you know...). It enables a bit of role-playing fun as the older PCs realize they have to explain to the new PC what's happening--but that is SO much better than using up play time for the DM to try to summarize weeks of content for new players. It allows all of that to happen "in-game", sometimes with fun roleplaying repercussions and opportunities. In my experience, most Encounters participants at my tables have understood the context of dropping in new players into an ongoing serialized storyline every week, and willingly embrace this opportunity to "suspend their disbelief," even marginally. They know it can be hard on a DM to make everything logical in situations like that, so my tables have graciously just run with it. The trick is to make it an enjoyable, fun occurance and not a burden. They know it is artificial, but it is a smidgeon of justification in an admittedly ridiculous situation foisted on them by WotC's desire to market their books. They swallow it with a big grain of salt. Most of the time, even if they don't enjoy the taste, they'll come back for seconds and then learn to like the dish. I feel my job, as DM, is to make sure that dish becomes delicious if they stick around... I try to make it less lame as we go on.
You'd be surprised at how it endears new players to the game when older players take the time to explain what's happening and why they're in the middle of a situation they know nothing about. Most of the time, campaign setting material has been conveniently shoved into the background so the new players can focus on learning how to play. It seems to me that longer-term players are much more adept at being able to share relevant details to the rookies without overwhelming them with "stuff" that DM's can sometimes provide.
Is it perfect? No. Absolutely not. Is it borderline stupid? Probably. But I'm trying to make their acceptance of this storytelling mechanism something that will pay off for them in the end. And so far, it hasn't been that bad. It could probably use some work.
And I know that next season, I'll have to think up something new. I'm hoping the Outposts, as you mention, will make that a LOT easier.
I just handwave it or it just gets too messy. Generally i DO have the same players each week but sometimes Ill have one gone and a new one. I cant spend too long recapping though.
For us, everyone understands that this is AL and stuff like this happens. We just play on as if those people were always there... or just pretend like the missing ones were never there. Kind of like 1984 that way....
Sometimes we do something funny if it works in easily.... but otherwise just have it happen and move on.
Anyone else have an issue with the new player not knowing the 'Dont split the party rule?'
I keep getting new players who decide to scout like an hour ahead of the party or search a dungeon room after the rest of the party has left.
Tyranthraxus wrote:
I dont like to prod or push at all and I generally find people experiencing a worst case scenario stops it from replicating in the future.
Tyranthraxus wrote:
Its Encounters. I run for 2.25 hours every wed night and I dont have a time limit to finish the module in. They can take as much time as they want. As far as I know there isnt a big time limit where they currently are bar the Barbarian being nuts and getting them kicked outta places. He was essentially run out of Red Larch for kicking open the door of some dudes house and then attempting to burn his house down.
I find time is better spent on recap and getting players involved than coming up with a list of reasons people are together. Hand-wave it and go go go!
Tyranthraxus wrote:
Thats sadly not always possible.
Ill give an example.
I ran dues for the Dead last session. I had a table of 7. So full to the brim.
I had 3 brand new players (not brand new to 5e, just brand new to AL). We get the intro story via Yovir, get given Cassyt and then enter the tomb where she is busy explaining the history of the Catacomb etc and admonishing some of the characters when they bring up defiling the tombs they can see to check for 'stuff'.
So the party moves on and comes to the Blackened room with the Ghouls nearby. It was a reasonable one sided battle. After this they found the Rickety stairs and this where things got messy. One character decided to go back to the funerary feast room with access to the lower levels. a very very new player and his rogue got 'talked' into accompanying them. Despite Cassyts protestations. Despite the rest of the party not liking it. So those 2 went, leaving the party to work out how to get down the rickety old stairs.
In effect I was forced to run 2 kinda different games. They managed to get down to the next level (the 2 of them). they heard noises from the Necropolis and had a look but didnt hang around. They made enough noise stealthing up to the Kobold asleep that he woke up and enough noise to attract more ghouls from the NEcropolis. The Kobold ran off, alerted the Red Wizard. So pitched battle vs the Zombies and the Ghouls. They managed to just eat out a win. Then I had to go to the other group and run them . It wasnt the best and I did what Icould to disuade the group from splitting up. Apart from saying 'No' which I cannot really do, I dont see what else I could have done.
At any rate the 2 pcs bumbling gave the Wizard plenty of time to escape.
Tyranthraxus wrote:
Tyranthraxus wrote:
I guess i just rarely like to say No in game. Ive had to be saying no a lot recently for spots on my expeditions table. Had a bit of a rush lately of new people, and its just me dming locally so cant sit them. In game I like to give the latitude ,so I guess Ill have to crackdown on seperations.
I've found that telling players two things tend to address the situation for most players:
- AL metagames rewards. Reminding players that any treasure (and XP) they find will be split equally at the end of the game. (When I told one rogue that this included any magic items, he was less eager to sneak ahead....)
- The encounters are balanced based on an entire party, but the foes are more than willing to beat on the party one at a time if that's how they present themselves. (Not normally out to kill players on purpose, but
I also have a few players who are more than capable and willing to deal with this kind of players as peers. That goes a long way...