I've played with this character only once, in which he stayed out of combat as much as he could. Note that the GM actually wanted a less combat focused character from me to help with knowledge skills and such.
But does anyone here think it is okay to have your character played by someone else when you can't make it to a session, in which the character dies? And without checking with me if it was ok. The GM told me later that I would get half xp from the session.
Previously when players couldn't make it, the GM found excuses for why the PCs could participate in the action (stomach cramps etc.), but this time he claims it didn't fit, and that doing it this way was how it was done in the group.
Sorry, just had to went a bit. I'm seriously considering dropping out of the game, even if I like the setting. Bad stuff happens to characters, but there should at least be some chance for a player to prevent some.
What do you guys think?
I declare shenanigans.
I would use slightly ruder language, but nonetheless, these words ring true.
I declare shenanigans.
This.
Your DM gets a slap upside the head for allowing this nonsense in the first place, being inconsistent in its application in the second place, letting you suffer ALL the consequences while enjoying half the xp for your PC in the third place, and for failing to state it formally and PUBLICLY as being "policy" in the fourth place.
Your DM should apologize, retcon the events or FULLY compensate you/your PC for the abuse perpetrated AT HIS HANDS, and formally - and publicly - state the full policy he will follow for the future AS WELL AS ALL OTHER UNSPOKEN AND UNWRITTEN POLICIES THAT HE MAY DECIDE TO SPONTANEOUSLY ENFORCE IN YOUR ABSENCE.
Accept nothing less. If he offers less hit him HARDER and repeat. If the cycle winds up with you kicking his inert body on the ground maybe you should find another game.
But does anyone here think it is okay to have your character played by someone else when you can't make it to a session, in which the character dies?
Yes. BUT, only if that's how a group agrees to run it, and they have consistent game days. If you know the group meets every Friday night, and you miss a session for whatever reason and know that your PC is played by another player, that PC should have just as much of a risk of dying as a PC who's player is present. Keeping PCs present independently of the players' presence makes the game world more believable (stomach cramps? really...?), it keeps the group's resources in tact (the cleric leaves in the middle of a dungeon and the rest of the group is screwed), and it puts less strain on the DM because they don't have to rebalance the session's planned encounters.
In your situation I think the DM handled things incorrectly. If your group makes PCs disappear when the player is gone, this should happen consistently. It's the verbal contract you have with your DM, and he breached that contract.
That said, I don't necessarily think this is worth leaving the group over. This was a new PC that you haven't had a lot of time to get attached to. You should have a talk with your DM and let him know how unfair this is for you and see how he reacts. If he's understanding, you should be fine to keep playing. If he acts like a jerk, you should feel confident that leaving will save you future headaches.
Well I do agree (except for the excessive violence part). I seriously doubt I will get an apology, the GM is fairly stubborn to begin with and will probably not admit being wrong in the first place.
Worse is, I'm not even sure the other players doesen't agree with him either, and one of them did play him and got him killed. The GM also said other players had to burn Fate Points that evening, and the party took a serious beating. Heck I don't mind fighting against the odds at times, and I have no trouble with dying from poor judgement or bad luck.
Thanks for your input, just had to see if I was being unreasonable for reacting this way.
@ dragonsblood: You have a valid point, and if I was informed of this beforehand or willingly let my PC be handled by a different player, I'd be ok with it. I'll talk with the GM and ask if he is willing to have this be a "free" death, after all I did invest some time in building the character and my previous one also died when I wasn't there, as I had to leave that session early. But that I did accept.
We all agreed not to have a repeat of that. We willingly suspend disbelief for what the DM does for the PC when a player can't make it or will arrive late. The PC won't be killed and metagame will not adversely affect plot points. We accept real life happens.
We almost had the opposite of what you had a few sessions ago. The leader couldn't make it, we declined his offer to let us play her and 2 party members dropped to 0.
You should not be punished for RL. Even if you make 1/10 sessions, get full experience. It isn't a race to level 30. It is about working as a team to accomplish goals TOGETHER.
As a side note, I would leave that game in a heartbeat.
I always have a player's character participate when their player is gone, but I make sure that there will not be a "by the way, your character died." situation by having one of the others play the character as best they can - and your fellow players rarely just let your character die.
This is a very lethal game, and I doubt the player in question let my character die intentionally. However, I might have prevented the death had I been there, either through tactics or sheer cowardice. The player might not play that character as I intended in any case.
Most RPGs have some section regarding absent players, and the usual advice is to make an excuse to why the PC is absent, play him as an NPC but avoid killing him by chance (fudging even), or let the player hand him over to another player he trusts. The latter is not easy if said player doesn't know my PC though, and I would never have agreed to it beforehand unless I had to.
This is a very lethal game, and I doubt the player in question let my character die intentionally. However, I might have prevented the death had I been there, either through tactics or sheer cowardice. The player might not play that character as I intended in any case.
Most RPGs have some section regarding absent players, and the usual advice is to make an excuse to why the PC is absent, play him as an NPC but avoid killing him by chance (fudging even), or let the player hand him over to another player he trusts. The latter is not easy if said player doesn't know my PC though, and I would never have agreed to it beforehand unless I had to.
Oh yes, in games run with the "lethality" (I prefer to call it difficult) cranked up - your character should be somewhere in the background out of danger (so long as the whole party doesn't die) so that you aren't coming back to a dead character.
It's high "lethality" games that make players think "Is the DM trying to kill absent player's characters?" and such.
I have a system that works for me and my group, and involves no fudging, but I understand that not all groups could use the same system as well - some people just can't think like other people, no matter how well they know them.
I was actually thinking of implementing a system in my campaign that if a player was unable to come, they could choose: either their character is played (with full risk of death) and they get full XP or their character has "stomach cramps" and dissapears (and they get 1/2 XP to keep them on par with those they adventure with).
Then I realized that real life happens. Penalizing people for not coming doesn't make the game more fun, and if it makes them come begrudgingly, I don't really want them at the table.
So full XP it is, and either they are NPC'd for the evening (DM takes over and they can't die) or they are played by another player (and thus more effective to the group, but can die).
That's my policy.
On the other hand, despite being accused of being a sadistic GM, I've never had a single unplanned death in my campaigns yet, so I guess I'm a softy. I do give full XP whether a player misses a session or a semester.
Maybe it's because I do more GMing than playing, but I don't get attached to my characters the way a lot of people seem to do. I think it's funny that most of us have a zillion character concepts we want to play, but balk when given the opportunity. In fact, one of my players temporarily took over as GM for a side quest, and I'm currently enjoying very much the planning of the most appropriate way to kill off my character as I take the reins back over. The funny thing is, I see him as a plot device or a game piece to be used to make the game more fun, the other players are the ones who have become attached because he was a PC for a while. I know just the place to use that to my advantage to remind my players of PCs' mortality without having to kill their own characters.
I try to remove a character from the session, if possible, but it doesn't always work. For example, if the only healer in the group is missing, if that character is central to the plot, or if they have an important but difficult encounter scheduled that isn't feasible to scale down. Sometimes in those circumstances, I'll just cancel the entire session, but usually I'll have another player take over, and all my players know that.
On the other hand, despite being accused of being a sadistic GM, I've never had a single unplanned death in my campaigns yet, so I guess I'm a softy. I do give full XP whether a player misses a session or a semester.
Maybe it's because I do more GMing than playing, but I don't get attached to my characters the way a lot of people seem to do. I think it's funny that most of us have a zillion character concepts we want to play, but balk when given the opportunity. In fact, one of my players temporarily took over as GM for a side quest, and I'm currently enjoying very much the planning of the most appropriate way to kill off my character as I take the reins back over. The funny thing is, I see him as a plot device or a game piece to be used to make the game more fun, the other players are the ones who have become attached because he was a PC for a while. I know just the place to use that to my advantage to remind my players of PCs' mortality without having to kill their own characters.
When you're a player, your character is the only thing you control. It's the only constant thing you have from game session to game session so naturally players will bond with their character. As a DM, you control everything else. You have gazillion NPCs and cultures and monsters and plot devices at your disposal. You're attached to your whole world, not one particular thing, so it's natural that when you do play a character for bit it means nothing to you. However, not saying you are, that doesn't mean one should belittle regular players' attachments to their characters. Having your character die when you are not there is much, much worse than if you were there. It becomes a metagame hurt.
Still, there are a few players who couldn't care less. To them a character is just writing on a character sheet (which does not preclude roleplaying). That's their business.
But does anyone here think it is okay to have your character played by someone else when you can't make it to a session,
Only if the GM had previously set this as a condition of the campaign. Otherwise, no.
It's not really that hard to modify an adventure for less people anyway.
Your character was played (and died) with out your permission? Pure Bunk.
If you had given permission and he died; well thems the breaks, but this is pretty unfair.
Then I realized that real life happens. Penalizing people for not coming doesn't make the game more fun, and if it makes them come begrudgingly, I don't really want them at the table.
So full XP it is, and either they are NPC'd for the evening (DM takes over and they can't die) or they are played by another player (and thus more effective to the group, but can die).
That's my policy.
The group I played is this way as well.
If a player can't make it, someone else plays the character, and if they die, they die. But this is understood by all of the players.
Our group almost always has one player or another absent for some reason or other so we have developed a decent system, I think. Usually we just leave the character behind, citing some in game reason for his absence. However there are certain circumstances underwhich his character will be played; i.e. if the group was right in the middle of a dungeon the previous week then he will be played at least until they get out, or if I as DM know that the game will put the group in a situation where it would be hard to explain the character coming into the next game seperately from the group then he will be played until the group hits that point, etc. The player designates another player that he trusts to control his character without getting him killed.
Usually the 'designated driver' plays the character very conservatively and he gets ditched at the earliest opportunity, so I can't remember an 'away from game' character death ever happening unless there was a TPK to begin with. So there is a chance of a character dying while one is not playing him, but its small and the chance is taken with the player's consent.
@ dragonsblood: You have a valid point, and if I was informed of this beforehand or willingly let my PC be handled by a different player, I'd be ok with it. I'll talk with the GM and ask if he is willing to have this be a "free" death, after all I did invest some time in building the character and my previous one also died when I wasn't there, as I had to leave that session early. But that I did accept.
This point jumped out at me. Is it possible that your DM just has it out for you and/or your characters? Getting one "BTW, he died while you were gone" is a pain; getting two is a bit suspicious.
This point jumped out at me. Is it possible that your DM just has it out for you and/or your characters? Getting one "BTW, he died while you were gone" is a pain; getting two is a bit suspicious.
That was my thought too. Is it possible he's mad at you? (Because god forbid you miss a game session :D)
Ask your DM if the following are potential things that could happen to your character while you're not there:
1) Your character picks up a cursed item that he won't be able to get rid of, and has serious side effects
2) Your character betrays a party member or long time ally
3) Your character changes his alignment
4) Your character goes against his god (particularly if he's a paladin, and will thus lose most of his powers)
5) Your character puts on a girdle of masculinity/femininity, or otherwise changes gender
6) Your character commits a serious crime for which he is incarcerated (particularly a horrible crime you'd never have the character commit, like ****)
7) Your character got an incredibly powerful magical item despite the fact that others in the group wanted it
8) Your character had sex with an npc (or pc!)
9) Your character acquired an STD because of #8
10) Your character touched a sphere of annihilation, or otherwise destroyed himself in such a manner that he cannot ever be raised
If the answer to all these questions is 'no', then you shouldn't be able to die either. If the answer to any of these questions is 'yes', you should find a new campaign.
As a Dm I will try to find a reason for a missing players Pc not to be involved. But some times a game session ends in the middle of an adventure and there is IMO no plausible reason for the missing player's PC not to be involved in the current encounter. That is just how I am as a Dm, I like consistency.
I must say most of our gaming group has been together for 6 years. So we tend to respect other players PCs. So there is no using a missing player's PC as cannon fodder or a meat shields.
Anyway your Dm and the other players may have an unspoken agreement you may not have been aware of concerning missing players and there PCs. Now would be the time to ask if there are any other unspoken house rules in the group. Before you cry shinanigans talk to the DM and others about what happened. If such a house rule does not appeal to you then quite the game and move on. But just remember every group has house rules to deal with missing players, if your new to the group then it is on you to ask questions and learn what these house rules may be.
....
So full XP it is,....played by another player (and thus more effective to the group, but can die).
That's my policy.
I give full xp for PC's in the game wheter there player was there or not for the same reason. I don't want someone to get punished for living there lives and missing a game. I also adopted giving a dead pc's xp to the new pc a player makes to replace the dead one. Again for the same reasons as you stated.
I talked with the GM and it turns out our co-gm was in charge at the time, as we were finishing a mission that my PC was a part of. The party's spaceship crashed into a space hulk, and there was no excuse for the PC not to go with the party.
The co-gm's PC was also played by another, and he lost his arm during the same play and two others also had to burn Fate.
The GM was sorry he had not made it clear beforehand that this was the group policy, so my choise is to either accept it or find another group. Since it also happens to others and they are ok with it, I think I'm gonna stay a little longer and give it a shot though, I will still be able to play the same character, although gimped a bit.
I can always drop out later if I'm not having fun.
Hey guys, here's a little update:
I talked with the GM and it turns out our co-gm was in charge at the time, as we were finishing a mission that my PC was a part of. The party's spaceship crashed into a space hulk, and there was no excuse for the PC not to go with the party.
The co-gm's PC was also played by another, and he lost his arm during the same play and two others also had to burn Fate.
The GM was sorry he had not made it clear beforehand that this was the group policy, so my choise is to either accept it or find another group. Since it also happens to others and they are ok with it, I think I'm gonna stay a little longer and give it a shot though, I will still be able to play the same character, although gimped a bit.
I can always drop out later if I'm not having fun.
Is everyone else's character dead? Heck, is ANYONE else's character dead? If not, why is yours?
IMO, if you weren't present to control your character, and suffered the worst fate out of anyone, it indicates your PC was being played the worst by those present. Sure, you might've lost an arm or burned fate or whatever, but something smells fishy.
But hey, apparently in this campaign death is a common thing, and if that's your thing go with it. But personally, I'd head for the hills. :P
There's nothing wrong with having your PC played by other players in your absence, and it is true it makes things easier both on the party and on the DM. It also reduces awkward suspension of disbelief issues, as well as awkward issues where you're carrying loot and the rest of the party can't sell it or what have you and split it with you. If you do it this way, its acceptable for your PC to die if you're absent.
If the group decides that your character pops out or whatever when you aren't there, then that's the standard you should hold to.
The real issue isn't dying while you're not there, but consistancy.
I'd speak with the DM and talk to him about how it annoys you because it was inconsistant. Ask him and the rest of the group to set a standard policy about what happens with a PC when their player is absent; do they sit out, or do they participate and be controlled by someone else?
It seems like you are taking the high road. You might want to ask for a complete list of the rules implicit and implyed so this sort of understanding doesn't happen again.
As said I can still play the PC, burning fate isn't end of the line (I have two more points, probably highest in the group atm).
I'm going to talk to the group, ask if they like it this way, and if so make a consistent rule about it. That PCs sometimes die because it MIGHT not fit that they are absent isn't good enough for me. If PCs are consistantly played by proxy, I can live with that.
"Ok, suddenly you guys wake up XXX knowing that you died, but are for some reason living, you feel a little bit weaker, but you know thats cause you were dead for a bit. You don't know how long you were dead, but your glad your alive!"
Nowadays, we pretty much don't play at all if one of us cannot make it because we have such a small group, but this is how we dealt with it in the two campaigns before this one.
My character suffered a fate as bad as two other party members, and I doubt the player in question did it on purpose. The co-gm possibly, but although I don't know him that well I still doubt it.
Well you would know better than any of us would. There are a few people out there who do get their jollies by being tyrannical, oppressive, abusive, etc., towards PC's and even a little towards players. It can be a power trip being DM. You control the fate of PC's and therefore have a certain amount of control over the PLAYERS. Not many actively seek to excercise and abuse that power but they're there.
I can say that I was personally convinced of the need to NOT allow other players to control someone elses PC, and of the need for the DM to define and make very public what his policy is on absent players decades ago. The former was when a player happened to be absent, control of his character was given to other players and the players (who were indeed good friends of the absent player) immediately sought to abuse the character. He became a mindless trap detector - why risk MY character when there's this one to open every door, do all the searching, test every potion and lead the way? He was used as a meat shield being moved into harms way so that nobody else had to face danger - just him. He was even a source of free stuff as his potions were used first, his charged items depleted with reckless abandon. They'd have just effectively used him until he was used up if I hadn't finally had more than I could stomach and stepped in to put a stop to it.
Now I wouldn't expect that as a rule - but then I would not really have expected it from friends. They weren't thinking in terms of friendship or even common courtesy simply because nobody was going to stand up for the absent player until I did. If nothing else, the standing rule MUST be that in absence of specific permission and instructions from the absent player, and in absence of an ANNOUNCED "policy" then PC's are to be utterly untouched. Make up any excuse you like but as was said above - the PC is the ONE THING that a player really gets to control in the game. It is the player of that PC and that player ALONE who should be deciding what that character does and why. I don't care HOW cautious another player is trying to be with that PC it is simply NOT that players right to control another players PC. It is even LESS appropriate for the DM to usurp control of a PC and hand it over to someone other than himself. A DM should avoid interfering with a players control of his PC with EXCEPTIONAL reluctance. He should be bending over backward and jumping through hoops to accomodate an absent player. The DM doesn't have any right to insist that a PC is too important to his games continuity to be allowed to go unplayed in a players absence. If the character really is that important then BY GOD you can play something else for one night until the player can return.
As for the DM establishing a policy and making it clearly known long before it becomes an issue I can relate the first time it happened to me. I'm a die-hard player. If I miss a regularly scheduled game you can be well assured that there was just no other way. The first game I EVER had to be absent from was about 30 years ago and probably 2-3 years into an ongoing campaign. In my absence my character wasn't usurped but that night the DM chose to have the PC's catch the BBEG that all of our PC's had fought repeatedly over a year of real time. They killed him, his minions, and took their stuff - and they were dripping with it. I got NOTHING because... well, gosh, dude, you weren't there. So I get nothing for having spent gold, used magic, expended time and effort fighting this NPC and his minions every other session and not only am I not there for the final battle due to circumstances beyond my control (me, the player) but my character gets no compensation whatsoever. Not a copper of money, not so much as the cheapest potion, not a single xp. Words still escape me for how CHEATED I felt. I resolved never to allow that to happen while I ran the game. Eventually I extended that to include insisting that certain things be made clear to any new player, and repeated at the start of ANY campaign whether the players were new or not.
I'm going to talk to the group, ask if they like it this way, and if so make a consistent rule about it. That PCs sometimes die because it MIGHT not fit that they are absent isn't good enough for me. If PCs are consistantly played by proxy, I can live with that.
And that is definitely a must - you have to KNOW the rule and willingly accept it. No DM worthy of the position should offer any less and no player should stand for not getting it.
But I personally still say that NOBODY has a right to my PC but me. NOBODY. Bad things can and will happen to my character of course, that isn't the issue. The issue is that even when some magical effect afflicts a PC that removes control of the characters actions from the player the DM must be EXCEPTIONALLY mindful of the fact that this cuts off the player from the very purpose of his being at the table - to control his character. It doesn't matter if the player wouldn't have done anything different or couldn't have saved his own PC if he'd been there to try. Hell, the player could have willingly sacrificed his PC where the DM or another player wouldn't. But THAT'S the point.
Control of a players PC is SACRED, IMO, and the DM violates that only with reluctance and extreme caution as to the consequences. Also, apply no IN-GAME consequences for OUT-OF-GAME events. Better that you should all play some other game for a night if a player must be absent than come ANYWHERE NEAR having to say, "BTW, while you couldn't make it to the session, your character died."
My god, Lunitari, stepped in on my behalf. The fiery whip that would have killed me instead left me with a badass scar down the left end of my face, giving me a nasty +2 to Intimidate, but -2 to Diplomacy. My character is always more aggressive than diplomatic, so it's a nice change from, "Oh, your character got jumped by a demon with a whip."
Of course, I only was getting hit by the whip because the DM thought he could play my wizard instead of a party member, and had me trying to shocking grasp the giant damn demon. :P
However: http://www.dorktower.com/2001/03/08/comics-archive-113/
Carl
I'd say your DM failed again by not really negotiating all that well with you about it. Having said all of that, the group I play in goes with the following.
If you are there, way cool.
If you are not, then...
1. DM tries to find a legitimate way to not include your character in adventure. No XP, no risk.
2. DM runs your character as an NPC. Full XP, full risk. But he is usually pretty good and smart about it and plays the character well and I have never seem him get one killed this way. He likes to come off tough and lethal but in his heart I think he is a softy and would feel horrible if it happened.
3. Ahead of time, player hands off their character to another player of their choice, to run for the session. This is frequently also what happens if someone must leave early. Full XP, full risk.
It works well for our group.
Although it seems to me (I could be wrong ;) ) your gripe should really be more about your DM and his judgment, and this situation is just an symptom of a larger problem.
I can say that I was personally convinced of the need to NOT allow other players to control someone elses PC, and of the need for the DM to define and make very public what his policy is on absent players decades ago. The former was when a player happened to be absent, control of his character was given to other players and the players (who were indeed good friends of the absent player) immediately sought to abuse the character. He became a mindless trap detector - why risk MY character when there's this one to open every door, do all the searching, test every potion and lead the way? He was used as a meat shield being moved into harms way so that nobody else had to face danger - just him. He was even a source of free stuff as his potions were used first, his charged items depleted with reckless abandon. They'd have just effectively used him until he was used up if I hadn't finally had more than I could stomach and stepped in to put a stop to it.
The problem here wasn't that another player was playing someone else's PC, the problem was obviously a lack of maturity. Quite frankly I wouldn't want to play with this group regardless of policy. Though I suppose if this happened decades ago you were all children? So maybe things aren't so bad now...
D&D is a group activity. If a group member is absent, it detracts from the game.
The problem here wasn't that another player was playing someone else's PC, the problem was obviously a lack of maturity. Quite frankly I wouldn't want to play with this group regardless of policy. Though I suppose if this happened decades ago you were all children? So maybe things aren't so bad now...
Not children, but younger. Much MUCH younger. Yes there was immaturity, but DM's who have not seen that sort of thing first hand have a tendency to think that the thing they are supposed to do is put their campaign continuity ahead of the interests of any individual player and that's just not the case.
There are certainly plenty of groups that can handle a players PC effectively and respectfully in his absence, but then such people don't post to "What's a player/DM to do?" forums describing just the opposite. By rights a PC is for the PLAYER to play. Not another player, nor even the DM.
in our group, while i'm a player, we handle things this way:
If a player can't make it to a session, his char simply will not participate in any action. This is pure metagaming, but we find this the most correct way. The char won't get any xp from that session and no loot (if there is any). Again, this is highly metagaming, but the char won't be killed, too, cause he simply is not there. Besides, since we're playing D&D 3.5, a char falling behind concerning his xp will catch up in time.
When i am the DM, i handle it a bit more depending on the situation. So if a missing player's char is vital to a successful session, i will play him, with no risk of dying.
No one complained about that procedure until today. Besides, i'm more on the "softy" side of DMing, so there are very few deaths anyways.
Cheerio
Will
Other than for short durations or for the span of a few roles i've never really had the situation come up for the exact reason the op is miffed about. Its kinda like wearing someone elses underwear, its just not done.
I've been a part of a number of long time groups over the span of 20+ years and i can't think of a single instance where a player missing a session or even more wasn't simply passed off as the pc attending to other tasks. Whether it be as lame as the pc is sick, or had an emergency in the family come up.
I think dms become intractable situations like these sometimes to punish players, become enamored with their power or just are occasinally mean spiritied
Really this is just something to keep in your mind against future events in the same campaign. It might be sign of poor dming or it just might be a single poor desicion.
You not being there aside, that was a jerk move on the GM's part.
Unless you agreed to allow such to happen, you should say no, my characters not dead, because he wasn't in play. The only way he'd be in play is if I was playing him. You got some random hobo that looked like me killed.