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

[Crust]

I don't think it's appropriate in any situation. At my table, if the player isn't there, the character isn't there. If the character needs to be there, and the player can't be there, we don't play.

 

[Crothian]

Depends on the group. My current group it is perfectly fine.

 

[Lanefan]

Absolutely. Your character is in play even if you're not there, and if it dies...or loses levels, or gets its items destroyed...so be it. Conversely, if it turns out to be the hero of the night, so be that too.

If I only ran the game when everyone was present, over half my sessions would sink. And characters don't just disappear when their player's not present...the party still needs to rely on them, for one thing, or else they'd not have been brought along in the first place.

Lanefan

 

[Rika]

So my guess is that "do you kill PCs at all" would be a good predictor of the answer to the OP.

Actually I think the better thing to be asking is how story driven are your games.

Sure if you're characters can easily be replaced you're going to be more willing to kill them, but if the tone and story of the game would be seriously disrupted by a new character you'll be less likely too.

That said our games are generally low character death, but the characters are tied very tightly to the central story. They are hard to replace. In that situation if I had to miss a game and came back to find out my character was dead, I'd be pissed. Now I have to figure out how to deal with the situation and work a new character in. That's not fair since I had no say in what happened. (Let's assume that raising the dead isn't a possibility.) I might even decide not to play in that game anymore.

Now if I'm in a game where the characters are dropping like flies I might not care as much. Now given I won't really care about the game or the character either so . . .

Oh! For the record we usually don't play without people, we have an Marvel game for when people can't make it. If we do play our main game without someone they get nothing in terms of xp and such and their character does pretty much nothing.

 

[Arnwyn]

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? 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?!?! It seems to take the joy out of it. This recently happened to me with my character. I'm not sure what to think. Is he taking advantage of his role as the DM? Any thoughts?

It entirely depends on the 'group contract/understanding' at the table. So, the real answer is "maybe".

For example, it is acceptable at our table - but that's specifically what we as a group decided on.

If you don't have that understanding, then it probably isn't acceptable (and based on your confusion, it looks like your group failed to discuss such a possibility beforehand. Oops on your part!).

 

[Warbringer]

If a player has an expectation to participate in any rewards while she is away from the table then she has to accept the risks that go with this. If on the other hand, there is no expectation of reward, treasure or xp, then an invisbile shield keeps the player from harm.

 

[Lanefan]

Actually I think the better thing to be asking is how story driven are your games.

Not entirely related. It is possible to have a very story-driven game and still have characters dropping like flies...provided, of course, that the story is either centered around the *party* (as opposed to any individual characters within it), or is centered around things external to the party that the party can influence.

That said our games are generally low character death, but the characters are tied very tightly to the central story. They are hard to replace. In that situation if I had to miss a game and came back to find out my character was dead, I'd be pissed. Now I have to figure out how to deal with the situation and work a new character in. That's not fair since I had no say in what happened. (Let's assume that raising the dead isn't a possibility.)

Thus defeating the reason that mechanic (revival from death) is in the game in the first place.

I might even decide not to play in that game anymore.

Leaving a game just because your character dies? You'd not last long at my table...

Now if I'm in a game where the characters are dropping like flies I might not care as much. Now given I won't really care about the game or the character either so . . .

Why wouldn't you care about the game? It is, and should be, greater than any one character, or any one player...pick yerself up, dust yerself off, grab the dice, and carry on!

I've gone through 5 characters in 10 sessions and didn't overly care; it didn't affect my fun much, though the DM needed a program each week to see who was in his party...

Lanefan

 

[Rika]

Not entirely related. It is possible to have a very story-driven game and still have characters dropping like flies...provided, of course, that the story is either centered around the *party* (as opposed to any individual characters within it), or is centered around things external to the party that the party can influence.

It is possible, but I haven't played one in a while. Maybe that's the downside to a GM that runs games centered on the players and their characters.

I just don't think that the OP's question is better served by asking first if the GM is even willing to kill PCs. It's still situation and story dependent.

Thus defeating the reason that mechanic (revival from death) is in the game in the first place.

I can't believe that we're the only group that does this. I see threads about it all the time. Don't like it, don't play in games like that. I only brought it up because it seems like people expect that if a character dies they can just get it raised easily. That isn't possible in every single game. Which is why I'd be pissed if I missed a session and my character died.

Leaving a game just because your character dies? You'd not last long at my table...

Leading me to believe that I wouldn't be happy in your game to begin with, but then everyone has their own preference right?

Why wouldn't you care about the game? It is, and should be, greater than any one character, or any one player...pick yerself up, dust yerself off, grab the dice, and carry on!

I've gone through 5 characters in 10 sessions and didn't overly care; it didn't affect my fun much, though the DM needed a program each week to see who was in his party...

Lanefan

And that's fine for you, but not everyone plays like that. I happen to not like the revolving door character games. I find it more productive to have characters develop over time. I like long intricate story lines in which I feel like my character can impact the world or story. Since, for me, my connection to the story is through my character. If I have to find a new way to interact with it every other session I start to feel like there's no point. That's the style I prefer though.

It seems to me that the answer to the OP's question really depends on the style of game people prefer than anything else. I happen to agree that if you're in a game that deals with player absence by letting other players or the GM run the character as normal and they gain xp as normal (or with little variation) you should expect that the character may die when you aren't there. If however, you're in a game that doesn't do that it isn't exactly fair or particularly nice.

 

[Capn_Danger]

I have a definite rule of not allowed absent players to be killed. If they're being played in combat by someone else then I'll typically just fudge damage rolls if they go below 0 and let them hang out a negative-something as stable.

Then again, wizards with baleful polymorph can always affect absent characters. Our ranger should have a fun time roleplaying being a chicken when he gets back until someone can find a cleric who can fix it . If anything is going to permanently affect an absent character I like to make sure that it can be reversed or made up to the character in some reasonable way.

Nobody likes having major things happen to their character when theyre absolutely helpless to do anything about it. That just introduces frustration and disappointment, unless the DM talks it over with the character beforehand if there's some benefit for character development.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Good DMs don't kill characters, whether or not the player is there.

Dice kill characters, and consequences of poor decisions or misjudgments kill characters.