D&D General Scheduling Games (Herding Cats)

[Brotton Goodfellow]

Not entirely related to scheduling, but: some people (here) state that they still play when one person has to cancel. I'm just curious about how people handle the details of that ? Does another person play the character of the missing person instead ? If not, does there have to be an 'in-game' reason for the missing person's character to be gone for a session, and then re-appear the next session ? Something else entirely ?

I’ve made it make sense in the fiction, I’ve had characters sucked into a vortex, simply go unconscious, have really bad IBS, etc. I don’t care and neither do the players. We all understand that life happens but the game must go on.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Not entirely related to scheduling, but: some people (here) state that they still play when one person has to cancel. I'm just curious about how people handle the details of that ? Does another person play the character of the missing person instead ? If not, does there have to be an 'in-game' reason for the missing person's character to be gone for a session, and then re-appear the next session ? Something else entirely ?

Hand wave it aka ignore the PC.
Or if we access to their character sheet, let others play their character.

Oh, and the PC gets XP, even if they don't show.

 

[SableWyvern]

I put out a survey that covers a three month block, to see who's available when. I then set a schedule that aims for a session once every two weeks, while trying as best as possible to accommodate maximising attendance for those who have replied to the survey. Towards the end of the three month block, we go again.

If you don't respond to the survey, your availability isn't considered when scheduling.

The game will generally go ahead as long as at least three players are present; the group size is currently 8 (plus myself) and has been as small as 5 + 1 at times in the past.

This process has been working for us for about ten years so far, and has been much more successful than previous attempts to just set a fixed scheduled. In the past we tried every second Saturday and then switched to the first and third Saturday of the month, but these would tend to fall apart when real life conspired against us and we were left trying to reschedule on an ad hoc basis (or, if we didn't reschedule, we had long empty periods if a session didn't happen). These days, the planned sessions rarely fail to happen -- we missed a few recently when I had a bad cough I could not shake and wasn't in a position to run games, but other than that I think we probably only lose one planned session every couple of years.

If you're not at a session, the default is that your PC fades into non-existence until your return. We make no effort to explain this in game; it's a convenience to enable play, not part of the events of the game. If you show up next session while things are in media res, the character pops back into existence as if they were always there.

At the player's option, other players can control the character, but they get no special protection from danger or death, and no right to complain if they feel the character was mishandled (we also don't have players who will intentionally screw with another player's character). If the game is using individual experience (we usually do), you get experience if your character is played, but not if it isn't.

 

[abazaba]

People, thanks for all the feedback on "what to do 'in-game' when a person is absent". Based on that, it seems to be quite common to just 'ignore' (in-game) that a certain character is absent one session, and then present again the next. Or at most come up with reasons that do not really matter all that much story-wise: kidnapped, teleported, took a quick side-quest, poofed in and out of existence, etc. Having other players take over the character for the session seem uncommon.

One of the reasons I asked is because some of the players in our group are really into the story aspect of the game, and need an in-game reason/explanation. This was also true when (years ago) a player suddenly quit the group in between sessions (sometimes a new player joins and finds out the group just isn't a good fit for them). In this case I was perfectly fine with something like 'a dragon swooped down and just took him, never to be seen again', but others need a better explanation like coming up with character reasons: he went on different adventure 'x' (where 'x' needed to be relatively specific).


Thanks again (sorry if I forgot anyone here)

@Lord_Blacksteel, @Ralif Redhammer, @Dessert Nomad, @plecostomus, @Brotton Goodfellow, , @Eyes of Nine, @SableWyvern.

 

[el-remmen]

While having a fixed day is best, I think, which specific date is what requires the scheduling for my in-person group. In other words, we play Friday nights (tho this week we moved to Saturday) but that Friday could be in 3 weeks or could in 6 (we average around 4 to 5 weeks). We decide this at the end of the session.

Similarly, the online group I run meets late Saturday mornings (well, Saturday morning for three players), Saturday evening for the player in Italy and VERY early Saturday morning for the player in L.A. But which specific Saturday each time is what is up in the air (usually every 3 to 5 weeks)

Do I wish we could play more often? Yes.
Can we? No.
Am I happy to play as often as we manage? Yes.

 

[el-remmen]

Not entirely related to scheduling, but: some people (here) state that they still play when one person has to cancel. I'm just curious about how people handle the details of that ? Does another person play the character of the missing person instead ? If not, does there have to be an 'in-game' reason for the missing person's character to be gone for a session, and then re-appear the next session ? Something else entirely ?

I am the type that needs a reasonable in-game explanation, too and would not be down to "just ignore them."

If the adventure is happening in town, it easy enough for the missing PC to go off and do something, or to hang behind while the rest of the party travels somewhere nearby to look into something (we use the "bog flu" excuse a lot). If the current events of the game make a character leaving temporarily a difficult pill to swallow, the DM runs them, with one player being designated person to roll the dice for them, keep track of HPs etc. . . Are they run as optimally as if the player were there? Not usually. But I prefer that to handwaving.

 

[abazaba]

I am the type that needs a reasonable in-game explanation, too and would not be down to "just ignore them."

If the adventure is happening in town, it easy enough for the missing PC to go off and do something, or to hang behind while the rest of the party travels somewhere nearby to look into something (we use the "bog flu" excuse a lot). If the current events of the game make a character leaving temporarily a difficult pill to swallow, the DM runs them, with one player being designated person to roll the dice for them, keep track of HPs etc. . . Are they run as optimally as if the player were there? Not usually. But I prefer that to handwaving.

Thank you for providing an alternate point of view. In that case, I think I would prefer it if another player took over the character instead of the DM (he already has enough on his plate). Also, I think I would be mildly mad if my character were to die in the session I wasn't present. Did that ever happen at your table ? If so, was everyone ok with that ?

 

[el-remmen]

Thank you for providing an alternate point of view. In that case, I think I would prefer it if another player took over the character instead of the DM (he already has enough on his plate). Also, I think I would be mildly mad if my character were to die in the session I wasn't present. Did that ever happen at your table ? If so, was everyone ok with that ?

Well, in our case the DM has final say on what a missing player's character would do (as an agreed upon "neutral" arbiter) with another player at the table handling the mechanics and bookkeeping and sometimes the minor choices. We have some unspoken rules we've followed for years, for example, we would not use a missing character's limited use magic item unless it would save their life or the life of a party member (or an established NPC that the PC would want protected), etc. . Or for example, a missing player's paladin is not gonna be made to do something to violate their oath. . .

As for a character dying while a player was absent, that has only happened twice. Once back in the 90s, in a tough fight where the PC was fighting to save two other members of the party who had fallen (it would have been a TPK otherwise) but I think I would handle the situation differently today - see below). The other time was a player who had recently quit the campaign, so I don't think that really counts.

These days I think the missing character is played cautiously enough to usually avoid it (and as I said, we find the first opportunity to reasonably put the character aside - someone needs to guard the prisoners? Someone needs to guide the rescued captives back to town? someone needs to remain researching in the discovered dungeon library while the others continue exploring? In all those cases and more, it is gonna be the missing player's character). That said, if there were a situation that a missing players character died as part of a TPK (or MoPK - Most of Party Killed) then at least others shared their fate and the player would have to be satisfied with knowing that they were not the first or only to die.

Of course, defeat does not always mean death. It also depends on the specific scenario.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

Having other players take over the character for the session seem uncommon.

Getting into more detail on my groups:

In one out of two of the groups I play in, we do this - if the missing player has shared the character sheet. If no char sheet for others to refer to, no takeovers. This is in part because we play in-person, and all but one of us play on paper sheets.
My other group I am a player, there are only 3 of us, and if 2 can play, we play, and ignore the missing player.

The third group I am a player in is a playtest of a non-D&D type game, so it doesn't really apply similarly, but if a player is absent, their character just poofs out, and returns the next time the player is there.

The two games I GM, one is on 100% remote, and the players are mostly new. It's on Roll20, so I actually encourage them to take over other player's characters so they can learn what other classes do.
The other is a hybrid game. In other words, we play in person, but use Roll20 for our character sheets and maps - everyone brings their laptop. EXCEPT one player, who has a paper character sheet and looks at her sister's laptop at the map. It's because we started during the pandemic, and love being in person, but I love the virtual map resources I've paid for on Roll20 lol. Anyway, if a player is missing, then people can run their character in absentia.

Thus, of my 5 regular groups, 3 of them we allow others to play a character if the player is missing AND we have access to their char sheet.

 

[Zardnaar]

The idea that the DM is the one responsible for everything except saying what PCs do is one of the things that leads to fewer DMs being available. The only stuff that is really the DM's job is creating the adventure and running the game as it goes, trying to say it's also their job to coordinate food, act as HR, act as scheduler, act as space-provider, be a rules expert, know every player's character's mechanics better than the player does, act as recruiter, act as banker (floating the money for space and/or food), and all of the other things that seem to be commonly expected. Divvying up responsibility among the various people playing the game makes a lot of sense, and encourages people to try out DMing.

Also I'm a firm believer that if you are going to delegate responsibility to someone, you have to accept their authority. If everyone expects the DM to sort out scheduling and refuses to take responsibility, then you have to accept that the DM may decide that scheduling a game that works for them and some players but not all is the best choice and live with it. Dumping 'you're responsible for scheduling' on the DM but also saying 'you have to schedule to my preferences or I'll pout' is just not reasonable, and moves to impossible when multiple people have conflicitng preferences.

It sounds like the group in the OP isn't taking responsibility for scheduling and everyone is just hoping someone else sorts it out, or half-way paying attention and thinking a date has been settled when it hasn't. I think you have to either accpet that not everyone will make every session and just scheudle when you can get a decent amount of people while accepting some won't be there, or have everyone make the game a priority and put singificant energy into finding and committing to dates that work. If people are taking the 'I have kids so I won't commit to anything' tack, I don't think the second route will actually work.

Isnt tgat how it goes?