Is it O.K. for the DM to kill a character when the player isn't there?

[DragonLancer]

If a player cannot make a session, we always ask if they don't mind their character being played. If they are fine with that (and usually are) then they accept the responsibility that something might happen to them.

So IMO, as long as the player is fine with it, then theres no problem.

 

[Keith Robinson]

It has happened a couple of times in games I run

At the start of a new campaign, we set out ground rules concerning how the game will run. One of these is what we do when players are absent - whether we have other players run them or whether they just become "shadow" characters who are there, but who aren't involved. This is a group decision made prior to the start of the new campaign, so everyone accepts (and understands) the consequences and no one has ever had a problem with it (so far, anyway).

I don't think players would be happy if the DM just made an ad hoc decision, though.

 

[airwalkrr]

Is it acceptable for the DM to kill a character in the game when the player (for that character) is not at the session?

In my personal opinion, it is something to be avoided. I dislike doing it so much that I specifically engineered a way to run a campaign so that I would never have to worry about a player being absent again. The campaign is simply episodic. You should up, you adventure, you go back to town at the end of the session. The players that show up represent the PCs that want to adventure and no one has to worry about "missing players."

While I have a personal distaste for it, I cannot say it is simply wrong however. But a DM is well-advised to instruct his players in advance on how he will handle PC absences. Penalties, such as less XP or treasure share, are certainly appropriate.

 

[an_idol_mind]

I've killed a character once when his player wasn't around. I felt pretty guilty about it, and I certainly wouldn't do it again. In general, I now write a character out of an adventure entirely if the player can't make it.

 

[JoeGKushner]

If the player is getting xp for his character being there, then yup.

If the character is not in the game, such as at an inn or something and not getting any XP, then nope.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

In our game, we have a rule which has worked very well for a dozen years now. If the player isn't present for the session, the character effectively isn't present. yes, this can be unrealistic (does he just teleport out of the dungeon?) but we find it the fairest, most enjoyable way to handle the stuation. We'll rationalise it if we have to (he's there, but sticking in the background doing other stuff, or whatever), but the essence of the rule is that, as far as the game is concerned, the character is not present. He suffers neither onsequences or rewards of that sesison's play.

This is how we handle it in general. However, there are occasions where the player asks either myself or one of the other players to play his/her character. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, yeah, the character gets both consequences and rewards.

I can't think of any character that'd died during this time, though.

 

[FCWesel]

Short: Yes, it is fair. (Though I think a warning should be given a head of time that the possibility is there.)


Long: Yes. Especially if the group is in a place where I can't excuse the PC away within the story--say a dungeon. (And no, just because a PC might have Teleport is not reason enough to "go away", there has to be REASON in game and ability to do so.)

At my table the a playerless character cannot be used as canon fodder, or as a trap detector. One person (not me the GM) is in charge of the PC's die-rolling, but the group as a whole (me the GM included) decide what the character will ultimately do or not do within a given gaming situation.

That said, if a PC is "in the game" then he gets all the XP that everyone else gets. He also gets his share oif any treasures and what-nots.

Share the dangers, share the rewards. Want the rewards, share the dangers.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

If the player is getting xp for his character being there, then yup.

If the character is not in the game, such as at an inn or something and not getting any XP, then nope.

QFT.

 

[sjmiller]

Again, I ask...
Is it acceptable for the DM to kill a character in the game when the player (for that character) is not at the session? Under what conditions should this be acceptable?

For me, and everyone I have ever played with in my 27 years of gaming, it is never EVER acceptable to kill someone's character if they are not there. At worst, at the end of the session, they can be unconscious and bleeding, but they should never be killed. After all, the player could come up with some extremely clever and innovative way to avoid death.

I know it's the DM's game and they can do what they want and they are the final arbiter, BUT! Is this fair?!?!

What you have to remember is that it is not just the DMs game, it belongs to everyone who is playing. Sure, the DM is the man/woman behind the curtain, but without the players it's nothing but a story waiting for actors.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Again, I ask...
Is it acceptable for the DM to kill a character in the game when the player (for that character) is not at the session?

No. Did it once, felt bad about it. Won't do it again.