D&D 5E Advice needed: is it ok to kill a player’s character if he is not there!

[pming]

Hiya!

My table rule: If you aren't there, your PC becomes an "APC" (Absent Player Character). They get sort of 'ghost like' in appearance, with a glazed look in their eye... They are still 'there', but don't do much of anything and are mostly ignored unless that PC has something that is vitally needed; then another Player rolls the dice for the APC. If the actions of that APC draw too much attention (say, a spell that does serious damage/effect against the bad guys), then that APC may be targeted...and potentially killed. But, the group as a whole dislikes this so they almost always do whatever is needed to REALLY try and keep that APC alive....even to the detriment of their own PC.

Death: As long as MOST of the party dies, then yeah, the APC can be killed as well...if 2 or more PC's survive, it is assumed that APC was with them and survived as well. But if 1 or 0 PC's survive...we assume the APC died as well.

This is an accepted part of the "Table Rules" and a risk you take when you leave your PC in the middle of an adventure with no clear way to have them "wait at camp", so to speak.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[jgsugden]

I disagree with most of the posters here. It sucks when a PC dies when they are not there, but if it happens, it happens. You don't cheat the system to save them.

When a player is not there, I have another player run their PC. The missing player usually designates someone, but if that is not possible, I pick someone. That player is often unable to perfectly duplicate what the character's primary player would do, but they do their best. As a DM, if they take a foolish risk, or fail to realize a capability the PC has, I may make a suggestion, but that is it. Beyond that, the chips fall where the chips fall. If there are monsters that would have finished off the PC had the player been there, they'll do the same if he is not.

Why not save the player?

1.) It disrupts the story. If monsters suddenly put on kid gloves, it changes the story in less interesting ways.
2.) It gives an incentive to disappear when your PC is in a bad situation. If saying, "I have a family thing - be back in an hour" is a get out of jail free card, crafty players may start disappearing just to avoid bad situations.
3.) It hurts the other PCs and players. If the goblins do not attack the downed PC, they attack other PCs.

 

[Mort]

I disagree with most of the posters here. It sucks when a PC dies when they are not there, but if it happens, it happens. You don't cheat the system to save them.

When a player is not there, I have another player run their PC. The missing player usually designates someone, but if that is not possible, I pick someone. That player is often unable to perfectly duplicate what the character's primary player would do, but they do their best. As a DM, if they take a foolish risk, or fail to realize a capability the PC has, I may make a suggestion, but that is it. Beyond that, the chips fall where the chips fall. If there are monsters that would have finished off the PC had the player been there, they'll do the same if he is not.

Why not save the player?

1.) It disrupts the story. If monsters suddenly put on kid gloves, it changes the story in less interesting ways.
2.) It gives an incentive to disappear when your PC is in a bad situation. If saying, "I have a family thing - be back in an hour" is a get out of jail free card, crafty players may start disappearing just to avoid bad situations.
3.) It hurts the other PCs and players. If the goblins do not attack the downed PC, they attack other PCs.

If you and the players agreed to this than great, everyone is on the same page.

That said:

For me, real life over the game - every time. A person dealing with an emergency shouldn't have to worry about how their absence affects the story of the game;

I can't imagine someone concocting an emergency to avoid a consequence in game, at least not in my group. If it ever comes up then it would merit a discussion about priorities and bad faith gaming;

While the disappearance may hurt other PCs, foisting a PC on another player is much more likely to cause a player problem (arguments over what could have been done, arguments over items, etc.)

So different preference for me.

 

[overgeeked]

Q: is it ok to kill a player’s character if he is not there?

A: no.

100% this. If the player’s not there, don’t kill their character. Side quest, do something else, give them plot immunity, whatever. I’m perfectly fine killing characters. It is really low to kill someone’s character when they’re not around.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Q: is it ok to kill a player’s character if he is not there?

A: no.

the only viable option if you wish the group to survive.

 

[DemoMonkey]

Is the character active and present and earning experience and treasure when the player is not present?

Yes? They are fair game. Kill them if you would kill a present PC in the same circumstance.

No? They disappear off screen for the duration into the same invincible narrative pocket dimension familiars disappear into.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I disagree with most of the posters here. It sucks when a PC dies when they are not there, but if it happens, it happens. You don't cheat the system to save them.

When a player is not there, I have another player run their PC. The missing player usually designates someone, but if that is not possible, I pick someone. That player is often unable to perfectly duplicate what the character's primary player would do, but they do their best. As a DM, if they take a foolish risk, or fail to realize a capability the PC has, I may make a suggestion, but that is it. Beyond that, the chips fall where the chips fall. If there are monsters that would have finished off the PC had the player been there, they'll do the same if he is not.

I never have players play other player's PCs. Some players can't make a session now and then and that is fine. We just play with whoever can make it. The missing player's PC is off doing something else and I adjust (or don't adjust) my challenges accordingly. And I don't worry if this ends up with level differences among PCs over time. D&D 5e works just fine with PCs of varied levels.

Why not save the player?

1.) It disrupts the story. If monsters suddenly put on kid gloves, it changes the story in less interesting ways.

If someone has to leave mid-session for whatever reason at our table, their character goes off and does something off-camera. Now, granted, the OP's particular situation was middle of combat so seemingly a bit harder to pull off. But, really, it is not. Worrying about immersion or verisimilitude or RAW or story at that point is not only unnecessary, it is heartless if a player is having a real-life emergency.

2.) It gives an incentive to disappear when your PC is in a bad situation. If saying, "I have a family thing - be back in an hour" is a get out of jail free card, crafty players may start disappearing just to avoid bad situations.

Invoking the Jerk Fallacy is not helpful. We're assuming good faith play. Good faith players want to play through challenges. Jerk players and jerk DMs can ruin anything.

3.) It hurts the other PCs and players. If the goblins do not attack the downed PC, they attack other PCs.

We're really going to put the well-being of the pretend characters over this real-life human's emergency situation? The DM simply needs to adjust the encounter accordingly on the fly to compensate for 1 less PC in the action. It is really not hard.

 

[FrogReaver]

In my weekly Dungeon of the Mad Mage game (online via Discord/Owlbear Rodeo), everyone showed up, and we immediately proceeded to roll initiative against some starving goblins, bugbears and 2 ettins.

then once like the first round of combat was over, one of my players had to go handle family business all of a sudden...

I tend to believe that player actually had to go do something in his personal life, but it was at a real bad time because it left his rogue alone in the middle of combat against two ettins who pounded on him to death and killed him without him being there.

now. I must point out that even if the player didn’t have to leave, he would have died anyways because the ettin’s turn came before his turn, ...and the same thing would have happened anyways...

yet...somehow, it feels wrong to kill a player when he’s not there to see it go down...

am I over thinking this?
How should I break the news to this player?
should I fudge something?
man I wrong to feel like a jerk?
Am I a jerk?

1. Who controlled the players PC when he left? Was it you, another player, or was his turn just skipped? If it was you or his turn was skipped I would retcon the situation. If another player was playing his in good faith then I'd have to dig a little deeper.

2. Did you continue to target the PC after he was down? If so then it was your decision to kill him while not being there - and frankly even if it wasn't intended doing so looks bad - almost vindictive. So IMO, avoid targeting anyone's PC that is down when they aren't there even if it's something you normally would do, just don't. If this happened and I wanted to fix it then I would retcon the situation. Lot's of ways to do that either by adding something in so that the PC is suddenly not dead anymore, or by altering the fiction such that he didn't actually die.

 

[Charlaquin]

I never have players play other player's PCs. Some players can't make a session now and then and that is fine. We just play with whoever can make it. The missing player's PC is off doing something else and I adjust (or don't adjust) my challenges accordingly. And I don't worry if this ends up with level differences among PCs over time. D&D 5e works just fine with PCs of varied levels.


If someone has to leave mid-session for whatever reason at our table, their character goes off and does something off-camera. Now, granted, the OP's particular situation was middle of combat so seemingly a bit harder to pull off. But, really, it is not. Worrying about immersion or verisimilitude or RAW or story at that point is not only unnecessary, it is heartless if a player is having a real-life emergency.

For the record, this is how I would prefer to run it too. But, I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with letting a present player control an absent player’s character, or with allowing the character to die while their player is absent, so long as everyone agreed to that. I think every group should hash out how they’re going to handle player absences in session 0. Personally, I find your solution of “if the player isn’t there, the character isn’t there; they can’t die but they don’t gain XP” to be the solution that works best for me.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

For the record, this is how I would prefer to run it too. But, I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with letting a present player control an absent player’s character, or with allowing the character to die while their player is absent, so long as everyone agreed to that. I think every group should hash out how they’re going to handle player absences in session 0. Personally, I find your solution of “if the player isn’t there, the character isn’t there; they can’t die but they don’t gain XP” to be the solution that works best for me.

For sure - if everyone is on board ahead of time, have at it.