Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nevvur" data-source="post: 7411830" data-attributes="member: 6783882">I'm currently running a combined main/alts campaign. Main campaign is every other Saturday, alts campaign is on other Saturdays if I feel like it and players are available. Same players, same setting and time period, but different PCs and different regions within the setting. It's a big homebrew world, an ongoing project of several years, and this setup gives me the opportunity to expose the players to more of it. There's not really much crossover between the two campaigns, but as their exploits become grander and affect larger regions, either group might catch references to or see the aftermath of the other group's adventures.If 2 or more players of our 5 player + 1 DM group will be absent for a main campaign session, we'll do an alts session for sure. If only one person is absent, it depends. The biggest determinant is player preference. If the group majority thinks it'd be best to wait for the player to return before resuming the main campaign, we'll do an alts session. If there's a plausible and convenient way to remove the missing player's character from the ongoing story - and plug it back in when the player returns! - then we'll do that.There are some niche situations that could come up, but which for me have thankfully not. For instance, ending one session with an imminent or in-progress combat and all players present, and next session having a missing player. I am strongly against running another player's PC, or letting the other players do it for the missing player, even with the missing player's permission. This isn't to say I think it's inherently wrong. I just feel like ownership of a PC is sort of a sacred thing. Lacking actual play experience handling this sort of scenario, I can only guess as to what I'd do. Probably invent some reason to knock the PC out of combat. The more forewarning I have, the less contrived it'll be.</blockquote>

Verification