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

[Lanefan]

Perhaps I should have rephrased that - I think people do care whether another player frequently misses sessions. As a DM, I know I certainly care (no-shows more than scheduled absences; life comes up, after all). However, I don't think people care if the character just phases out without an in-game reason until the player returns.

That's my point: for reasons of in-game continuity and consistency I very much care if a character phases out without an in-game reason.

I mean, if the session is all downtime then it's easy enough to just deal with the other PCs' downtime activities for that session. But if halfway through that session the downtime's done and it's time to get back in the field but you don't know which character the missing player is planning to bring this trip, then what? Stop the session? Not bloody likely.

Most of the time, though, our sessions stop in mid-adventure and sometimes even in mid-combat. The PCs are already in place and are already committed to doing whatever they're doing. Phasing one out for a while for no valid reason just doesn't make in-game sense; therefore, it (almost) never happens.

Even if a player drops out of the game, if their PC is still in the field what usually happens is it carries on as a QPC until the next downtime, whereupon it retires from adventuring.

As for a scenario where I can't make gaming and I get a text asking me what my character would decide to do, chances are I can't make gaming for a good reason. If I'm on vacation or out to dinner with my wife for an anniversary or somesuch (back when going places was a thing), that's a little bit much, someone bothering me about what my character would do when I'm not even there playing.

If I'm on vacation or at some other pre-planned event I'll have left instructions with the DM, and if something dire happens that my instructions don't cover or can't have foreseen then I'd be damn annoyed if I didn't get a text; even if my own situation meant I couldn't reply right away I'd still appreciate the attempt being made. And if I forget to leave instructions then my character is largely at the mercy of whoever does show up, and I just have to trust that they'll play it consistent with what it would do if I was there.

Everybody's experience is different, but if it takes the threat of something bad happening to their character to make people show up, that's not a game I want to run.

Conversely, I don't want to run (or play in) a game where characters get a free pass when their player doesn't show up.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

To each their own. If that sort of thing works for your group, who am I to argue? For me, I suspect my players would not be made happy by that sort of playstyle.

Conversely, I don't want to run (or play in) a game where characters get a free pass when their player doesn't show up.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

For me, this comes under the umbrella of "acceptable metagaming".

If a player is not present then their character is offscreen. They are present in the encounter, but they are doing their own stuff slightly out of view of the camera. Their abilities and items are not available to the characters who are "in camera"; but they don't suffer any fates unless the whole party does. For example, if the party fights rust monsters then none of the absent player's character's gear gets rusted.

In the case above, I would just say "at the end of the combat, the mangled unconscious stable rogue is on the ground."

Don't overthink it. Don't try to explain it with ingame events, because you can't explain it with ingame events (that's what metagaming is, after all). Just do it.

 

[Dire Bare]

It's poor form to kill a player's character while they're away. I've had it done to me. Doesn't feel great. Instead, have them taken captive. Or find another workaround.

I would impose zero penalties on the character/player . . . . not death, not being taken captive, not having their gear stolen, not even the loss of XP. Any of that would suck to return to the next game session.

If the party ultimately survived the combat . . . so does the PC of the absent player. What actually happened to the character? I'd leave it vague, it doesn't need to be overthought. If the character has already been killed, it's easy enough to retcon without worrying about figuring out, "But HOW?" I'd be straightforward and ask the player before making a final decision how to handle it. The player might be fine with the results, might even be interested in the chance to roll up a new PC. If the PC survives, you might even turn that into a roleplaying opportunity. Ask the player to come up with a story about how their rogue survived being eaten by goblins!!!

@Klaudius Rex, you aren't a dick or a poor DM . . . you just had to make a call you weren't expecting to make, that's all. Your absent player, hopefully is a cool person, and will understand regardless of how your group decides to deal with the situation. You've probably noticed the responses in this thread are all over the place, there are a lot of different styles and approaches to playing D&D!!

 

[Unwise]

The party conveniently finds a magical Whatever of One Wish, which they can use to wish their fallen comrade back to life. Then move on.

Oh that's nice. I have not seen a game like that for a long time. No way my players are spending a Wish to bring one of them back.

Heck the last Wish a player had resulted in an item that could repeatedly summon a gorgeous nymphomaniac djinni lady who was also a world-class chef and always seemed to have wagyu steaks with her. Somewhat predictably, they ended up insulting her, so she just berated them and did not help any time she was summoned.

Heck, the very first one they ever had simply results in "Woo hoo! Cocaine and hookers for everybody!". Though I think that was based on them no believing I would give them an item with Wish.

 

[Lanefan]

For me, this comes under the umbrella of "acceptable metagaming".

If a player is not present then their character is offscreen. They are present in the encounter, but they are doing their own stuff slightly out of view of the camera. Their abilities and items are not available to the characters who are "in camera"; but they don't suffer any fates unless the whole party does. For example, if the party fights rust monsters then none of the absent player's character's gear gets rusted.

Which means it was ultimately to the PC's ongoing benefit for its player to miss that session: everyone else's armour is dust and they have to buy new (which can be a significant expense in treasure-stingy 5e) but look, her armour is A-OK. To me, that's just wrong; and were I one of the newly-disarmoured I'd be more than a bit annoyed.

In the case above, I would just say "at the end of the combat, the mangled unconscious stable rogue is on the ground."

Don't overthink it. Don't try to explain it with ingame events, because you can't explain it with ingame events (that's what metagaming is, after all). Just do it.

As a DM, if I can't explain it with in-game events then it doesn't happen except in the absolute rarest of circumstances. As a player, if it can't be explained with in-game events then I want no part of it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Which means it was ultimately to the PC's ongoing benefit for its player to miss that session: everyone else's armour is dust and they have to buy new (which can be a significant expense in treasure-stingy 5e) but look, her armour is A-OK. To me, that's just wrong; and were I one of the newly-disarmoured I'd be more than a bit annoyed.

As a DM, if I can't explain it with in-game events then it doesn't happen except in the absolute rarest of circumstances. As a player, if it can't be explained with in-game events then I want no part of it.

High level since that is what you are talking now:

There’s a difference in “we have all agreed to play this way” and “the absence of an agreement to play that way” and what is acceptable to do in each situation.