-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E D&D online - one PC cant make next session. What to do
- Thread starter jaffab
- Start date
Rhenny
Adventurer
I actually ran a long-term campaign with 3e where I invented a "Chaos Curse." It started because one player was playing a Celestial Dwarf who had offended the Celestial Dwarf queen. The "Chaos Curse" even affected the Dwarf's allies. As a result of the curse, at any moment for unknown amounts of time, any one or more PC could disappear from the material plane and end up on the Celestial Plane. It was my way of not having to deal with missing player PCs and it fit our story. Part of the Celestial Dwarf's motivation was to prove himself capable and worthy to the Celestial queen, so this curse kept everyone tied into his ongoing story too.
redrick
First Post
Did the curse ever have any effects on PCs who's players were present for the session? Did the PCs prove themselves to the Celestial queen but then continue the campaign? That would be kind of awkward. "As a reward for your epic quest, now you will get to run each other's characters when somebody is sick!"
Rhenny
Adventurer
The campaign went on for about 2.5 years, but it fizzled toward the end. I never actually had an ending. Although many of the PCs achieved their ultimate goals, the Dwarf never was able to get back into good graces with the Queen. I think the player of the Celestial Dwarf actually liked acting crudely and being generally offensive whenever he had a chance to roleplay with other Celestial Dwarves or the Queen. It was very funny. Toward the end of the campaign, I got too busy to run it so another person took over, but I didn't check back and eventually it was fazed out.
The curse never had ill effects on the players who made the session although sometimes the party was 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 people depending on who could make it.
It was basically a device we invented so that I wouldn't have to DM control PCs. It did sometimes lead to side treks for certain party members too.
The curse never had ill effects on the players who made the session although sometimes the party was 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 people depending on who could make it.
It was basically a device we invented so that I wouldn't have to DM control PCs. It did sometimes lead to side treks for certain party members too.
Last edited:
Jeff Albertson
Explorer
Bingo, I was a player in a campaign where if a player could not make it, the DM went on as usual, the character was somehow magically not present for that session (no explanation), lame.
redrick
First Post
I think that a holiday is a special case and worth rescheduling, but, in general, would you rather play half as often than frequently play with a player down? In my experience, with a group of 5 players, we will have at least one session a month with a player missing. We tried to reschedule in the past, but rescheduling is hard — people have busy lives and we picked the time we picked because that's when we all have an opening. And what about situations where a player has to cancel last minute because: a kid had an ear infection and they had to go to the ER; they had car troubles on the way home from work; they came down with the flu that morning and needed to sleep it off; their boss freaked out and kept everybody late for 2 hours. (That one happens to me at least once a week, though I try really hard to keep it from happening on game night.)
In my experience, the players who are able to make it are always happy to have the session, and I hate prepping a session only to have it canceled at the last minute, since a lot of that prep will go stale by the time the next week rolls around. The only time we even attempt to reschedule is if I (the GM) can't make a certain night because of a long-anticipated conflict. And we just cancel for holiday weeks.
I'm even thinking about recruiting one of the players to a one-shot with pregen characters waiting in the wings. That way, if I can't make it one week, I can tap that player and say, "hey, want to run your horror one-shot while I'm out of town?"
S
Sunseeker
Guest
This is simply an unreasonable position to take, especially when you have 5 or more players as more often than not, someone is missing.
Kikuras
First Post
This one is easy, cancel the session. Whether it's on Easter, or on a day close to Easter, it's a holiday, and those awesome souls who are willing to play are a credit to the guild of players, but this is a circumstance where the reward for them being awesome and willing to play is that they don't have to. Send them to spend the evening with their families or friends. I would, however, suggest that you make up a similar family-based Easter conflict, and cancel because of that. It's a lot easier to swallow a rescheduling when it's the DM and not a single player.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
Two thoughts.
Cancelling is fine, and running a substitute one-shot game for the other players is a great option too. Ask them if they are interested in such a thing, or if they would rather just take a break that week.
My other thought: Make sure you know what you are players like with regards to dealing with characters whose players aren't there.
As a player whose DM just makes characters go *poof*, I hate it! I never run it that way as a DM. It destroys my immersion. Its like the magically convenient horse that never seems to be around when it would be in the way (despite not actually being magical, and having no explanation for its absence). Now, that doesn't always mean the character has to be with the party. There are ways to concoct reasons for their absence that make sense in most situations. Maybe he/she came down with some mild ailment and didn't feel like adventuring. You might say that someone needed to stay behind and guard the camp this time (come up with a plausible reason!) and this character volunteered. If you're in the middle of a dungeon, perhaps they are kidnapped by monsters.
And not only does it destroy my immersion, but I feel like my character and the rest of the party is being punished because we are down a character through no fault of our own. It's a real pain and an imposition.
But honestly, I simply run the player's character myself as the DM. I'm already keeping track of all the NPCs, monsters, spell effects, etc going on in the game; I don't find it a major ordeal to track one additional creature. (I should mention that I keep a copy of each PCs character sheet, and have them open and available in my preferred format when I DM.) One thing you might do at the start of the campaign is, again, ask the players how they want you to handle their individual character. I gave them a few options:
1. Minimal interaction: If I can find reasonable excuse for absenting the character (see examples above), I will. Otherwise I'll play according to 2.
2. Cautious interaction: You play the character extra carefully. Avoid taking risks, etc.
3. Normal interaction: Attempt to play the character more or less how their player does. If they charge heedless into danger, then they do it when you run it too.
So far, everyone has pretty much just gone with #3. I found that a bit surprising, but there you have it. They were fine with me just running their character.
They also get full XP. The argument that convinced me for that was to the effect that missing out on the fun of the game is penalty enough, why further "punish" the player for it in addition? "Not missing XP" is a really crappy motivation for showing up for game--motivation should be that they actually enjoy the session. And in that case, no XP penalty needs to be levied to rub salt in the wound.
Cancelling is fine, and running a substitute one-shot game for the other players is a great option too. Ask them if they are interested in such a thing, or if they would rather just take a break that week.
My other thought: Make sure you know what you are players like with regards to dealing with characters whose players aren't there.
As a player whose DM just makes characters go *poof*, I hate it! I never run it that way as a DM. It destroys my immersion. Its like the magically convenient horse that never seems to be around when it would be in the way (despite not actually being magical, and having no explanation for its absence). Now, that doesn't always mean the character has to be with the party. There are ways to concoct reasons for their absence that make sense in most situations. Maybe he/she came down with some mild ailment and didn't feel like adventuring. You might say that someone needed to stay behind and guard the camp this time (come up with a plausible reason!) and this character volunteered. If you're in the middle of a dungeon, perhaps they are kidnapped by monsters.
And not only does it destroy my immersion, but I feel like my character and the rest of the party is being punished because we are down a character through no fault of our own. It's a real pain and an imposition.
But honestly, I simply run the player's character myself as the DM. I'm already keeping track of all the NPCs, monsters, spell effects, etc going on in the game; I don't find it a major ordeal to track one additional creature. (I should mention that I keep a copy of each PCs character sheet, and have them open and available in my preferred format when I DM.) One thing you might do at the start of the campaign is, again, ask the players how they want you to handle their individual character. I gave them a few options:
1. Minimal interaction: If I can find reasonable excuse for absenting the character (see examples above), I will. Otherwise I'll play according to 2.
2. Cautious interaction: You play the character extra carefully. Avoid taking risks, etc.
3. Normal interaction: Attempt to play the character more or less how their player does. If they charge heedless into danger, then they do it when you run it too.
So far, everyone has pretty much just gone with #3. I found that a bit surprising, but there you have it. They were fine with me just running their character.
They also get full XP. The argument that convinced me for that was to the effect that missing out on the fun of the game is penalty enough, why further "punish" the player for it in addition? "Not missing XP" is a really crappy motivation for showing up for game--motivation should be that they actually enjoy the session. And in that case, no XP penalty needs to be levied to rub salt in the wound.
Last edited:
