D&D 5E (2024) How can I do a Charisma-Investigation (or a Strength/Dexterity-Investigation if I can't use Charisma) to find a secret door?

[ECMO3]

If he had been roleplaying that he didn't give a crap about the rest of the group and was okay staying alone to possibly die to random encounters, then sure.

But what if there is not random encounters? The last time I played and adventure with random encounters was probably around 2010. If the party is sleeping in the dungeon then presumably I can too. If the party is not then I am not either and I will meet up with them when I am back regardless.

It is not that hard unless someone wants to make it hard for the sake of being hard.

Depending on what was happening in the adventure, I'm fine with that. If the group is shopping or engaged in some other unimportant activity, no problem. If the group has just broken into the cultist stronghold and is exploring it, see above.

Player agency. If the player wants to leave, that is the player's choice. And if I am not playing next week I am DEFINITELY leaving.

I am not talking about shopping. For example, we are in the middle of investigating cult activity and we are going from place to place, picking up clues and interviewing witnesses and maybe searching some places. Why can't one of the PCs take the day off and go back to the inn?

Also, don't expect to pop back into the middle of the group next session, since you no longer know where the group is. You can go off searching solo, but the risk will often be very high.

Or the party can drop bread crumbs so you can find them like Hansel and Grettle did ... which any group is going to do if someone misses a session and the DM starts pushing this BS.

Most trivial excuses are just weak justifications that carry with it immense risk of death or removal of the PC from the adventure if you follow that excuse to its logical conclusion.

Since this is a game with rules, it is relevant to look at what the rules actually say on this. The first two exerps from the DMG on what to do if a player missies a session:

"Fading into the Background. Have the character simply fade into the background. This requires everyone to step out of the game world a bit and suspend disbelief, but it might be the easiest solution. Act as if the character were absent, but don’t try to come up with any in-game explanation. Monsters don’t attack the character, who returns the favor. On returning, the player resumes playing as if the absence never happened.

Narrative Contrivance. Decide the character is elsewhere while the rest of the party continues the adventure. Come up with in-game reasons for the character to temporarily leave the party and rejoin later, such as following up on a rumor or reporting back to the party’s patron."

So aside from the fact that we do this at every table I play, the rules actually tell us to do it. Nowhere do the rules say you should kill off a character if a player misses a session.

So at the end of the day, yes we decide the character is elsewhere and that is RAW!

 

[Maxperson]

But what if there is not random encounters? The last time I played and adventure with random encounters was probably around 2005. If the party is sleeping in the dungeon then presumably I can too. If the party is not then I am not either.

Then your DM is going easy on you, yet again. The DM going easy on you like that isn't something that you can count on in other games, and doesn't really apply to conversations like this since it's effectively a house rule.

Player agency. If the player wants to leave, that is the player's choice. And if I am not playing next week I am DEFINITELY leaving if you are going to play me.

Sure. I would never say no, but if a player repeatedly stepped waaaaaaay out of character like that, he wouldn't be invited back to my game. One of the requirement for players in my game is that they roleplay their characters fairly consistently.

Or the party can drop bread crumbs so you can find them like Hansel and Grettle did ... which any group is going to do when someone misses a session.

Monsters can follow bread crumbs, too. Or switch them up so the rogue follows them in the wrong direction.

There is no risk of death from leaving the party, as a matter of fact if it is likely the party is going to be fighting there is usually LESS risk of death if you leave them.

If the game is on easy mode, sure.

 

[ECMO3]

Then your DM is going easy on you, yet again. The DM going easy on you like that isn't something that you can count on in other games, and doesn't really apply to conversations like this since it's effectively a house rule.

Sure. I would never say no, but if a player repeatedly stepped waaaaaaay out of character like that, he wouldn't be invited back to my game. One of the requirement for players in my game is that they roleplay their characters fairly consistently.

Monsters can follow bread crumbs, too. Or switch them up so the rogue follows them in the wrong direction.

If the game is on easy mode, sure.

Since I edited my post, presumably after you replied I will post again here. You can homebrew whatever you want, but this is what the DMG says on this topic:

"Fading into the Background. Have the character simply fade into the background. This requires everyone to step out of the game world a bit and suspend disbelief, but it might be the easiest solution. Act as if the character were absent, but don’t try to come up with any in-game explanation. Monsters don’t attack the character, who returns the favor. On returning, the player resumes playing as if the absence never happened.

Narrative Contrivance. Decide the character is elsewhere while the rest of the party continues the adventure. Come up with in-game reasons for the character to temporarily leave the party and rejoin later, such as following up on a rumor or reporting back to the party’s patron."

That is RAW! The tables I play at apply this, mostly the first example. Your table where you kill characters that miss a session is homebrew, and that is fine, but don't act like you are playing by the rules or like there aren't rules on this topic.

 

[Maxperson]

Since I edited my post, presumably after you replied I will post again here. You can homebrew whatever you want, but this is what the DMG says on this topic:

"Fading into the Background. Have the character simply fade into the background. This requires everyone to step out of the game world a bit and suspend disbelief, but it might be the easiest solution. Act as if the character were absent, but don’t try to come up with any in-game explanation. Monsters don’t attack the character, who returns the favor. On returning, the player resumes playing as if the absence never happened.

Sure. It's 1) easy mode, and 2) is an option, not the default, and 3) even implies that it's ridiculous since it requires you to metagame and suspend disbelief about the character just fading away.

Narrative Contrivance. Decide the character is elsewhere while the rest of the party continues the adventure. Come up with in-game reasons for the character to temporarily leave the party and rejoin later, such as following up on a rumor or reporting back to the party’s patron."

Again, this is an optional rule, and literally says it's a contrivance.

That is RAW! Your table is homebrew, which is fine but don't act like you are playing by the rules.

It's not RAW. It's an optional rule. RAW are the default rules. Optional rules are just official homebrew options that the DM can choose. Another one of those options is to have someone else play the character.

 

[ECMO3]

Sure. It's 1) easy mode, and 2) is an option, not the default, and 3) even says it's ridiculous since it requires you to metagame and suspend disbelief about the character just fading away.

Again, this is an optional rule, and literally says it's a contrivance.

It's now RAW. It's an optional rule. RAW are the default rules. Optional rules are just official homebrew options that the DM can choose. Another one of those options is to have someone else play the character.

Read the 2024 DMG, the two examples I gave you are the ONLY options offered for a player that misses a session if the player does not want anyone else playing their character.

If I am playing at your table and say I am going to miss a session and I do not want anyone else playing my PC, these are the only two things you can do RAW to handle that. You can homebrew all you want and if you want to say anyone that misses a session is automatically disintegrated, that is fine, but what I posted above is RAW.

These ARE the rules for when a player misses a session. You just don't like them.

Oh and I have played with many DMs, well over 20 in 5E, and I never played with any who would kill a PC if someone missed a session, nor with any who would force a player to let someone else play their PC.

 

[Maxperson]

Read the DMG, the two examples I gave you are the ONLY options offered for a player that misses a session if the player does not want anyone else playing their character.

Read the DMG. It's the DM's choice, not the player's. The DM decides which option is in use.

If I am playing at your table and say I am going to miss a session and I do not want anyone else playing my PCs these are the only two things you can do RAW to handle that. You can homebrew all you want and if you want to say anyone that misses a session is disintegrated, that is fine, but what I posted above is RAW.

No. If you say that and I say no, you don't have that option. At my table someone else will run the PC, who by the way will get full shares of treasure and experience. If the PC is there at risk and taking part, he gets equal shares.

These ARE the default rules for when a player misses a session. You just don't like them.

No. YOU don't like them, which is why you're trying to say it's the player's decision instead of the DM's.

The rule says, "When one of your players is absent, what do you do with that player's character? Consider the following options:" At no point is the player given control of the options available.

 

[ECMO3]

Read the DMG. It's the DM's choice, not the player's. The DM decides which option is in use.

There are 3 options in the DMG. The first two I quoted and the third one starts off "With the absent player's consent, have another player run the missing player’s character, or run the character yourself if you feel you can do so. ..."

If you are playing RAW the player must consent to another player or the DM playing his character and if he doesn't, the two options I quoted are the only options available in the DMG.

It is the DMs choice as to whether the player leaves or fades into the background.

At my table someone else will run the PC, who by the way will get full shares of treasure and experience.

And if the player says no you can not do that RAW.

I get it, this is the homebrew at your table, but it is not RAW in 2024 and I have never played with a DM that played that way.

 

[kermit4karate]

You very suavely lean against the light fixture as you take a sip from your wine glass, and just happen to activate the secret door mechanism by nothing else but your overwhelming coolness. Kind of like Fonzie hitting the side of a radio on the fritz and making it play rock and roll.

Ayyyy!

 

[Maxperson]

There are 3 options in the DMG. The first two I quoted and the third one starts off "With the absent player's consent, have another player run the missing player’s character, or run the character yourself if you feel you can do so. ..."

That's the way my group does it. If you are a new player you are consenting or not playing. We aren't going to change how we do things for a new person.

If you are playing RAW the player must consent to another player or the DM playing his character and if he doesn't, the two options I quoted are the only options available in the DMG.

Sure, but there's no character in my game to do the first two options.

 

[kermit4karate]

Read the DMG. It's the DM's choice, not the player's. The DM decides which option is in use.

No. If you say that and I say no, you don't have that option. At my table someone else will run the PC, who by the way will get full shares of treasure and experience. If the PC is there at risk and taking part, he gets equal shares.

No. YOU don't like them, which is why you're trying to say it's the player's decision instead of the DM's.

The rule says, "When one of your players is absent, what do you do with that player's character? Consider the following options:" At no point is the player given control of the options available.

Keep fightin' the good fight, brother!