Throwing in NPCs to help along small parties

[Keeper of Secrets]

Tough call. I guess it depends on the game. If it is a game that is 'city centric' (Shadowrun, Supers, Call of Cthulhu), there are plenty of side plots or side adventures that the characters can do for the evening and have a good time, such as focus in on their background, etc. If it is a D&D dungeon crawl set up, that can be a lot tougher. Or if it is the night for the final confrontation in something, that can get a little dicey, too.

I try to subscribe to 'the show must go on' for a variety of different reasons, only cancelling the night's game when several players cancel or if it is REALLY important for everyone to be there. Currently I am running two games - one with 6 people and one with 7 so the loss of 1 person on any given night will not be a disaster.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

I have a main game, for which I prefer to have full attendance (5-6 players). Then, I run the adventure path from WotC (Sunless Citadel et al when there are 3-4 players. Finally, I'm planning on building a 2-player gestalt campaign for times when I'll only have 2 players.

Of course, we end up playing the adventure path more often than not (and last session, the rug killed the monk!)

(also, for the Adventure Path campaign, 5 players have a character, but one player left for China for 6 months and another player can't play every week. Since those players have the cleric and Wizard respectively, I let their characters come along, but stay behind, and gain ½ XP. The spellcasters are used for buffing and healing, since the WotC adventures can be tough on a monk, a fighter and a rogue (the 3 players that can play almost every week))

AR

 

[Voadam]

Separate the characters in game and play with those who are there. For a climax fight they might have to run

When I play I want to play one character, not a troupe, and I'd rather it just be PCs, not NPCs doing the adventure, in general. When I DM I don't want to play too many PC types, I want to play the world they encounter.

Fewer PCs can mean more intense and immersive roleplaying as you focus on them, so I'd say run with it, perhaps delaying the climactic encounter and coming up with a side quest.

 

[Wombat]

My answer alters radically depending on what is being played and the point in the campaign.

For example, if I have an adventure, usually later on in a campaign, that relies on having a specific character (past coming back to haunt him, etc.), and that person can't show up, I will have a "card & board game day" instead.

If it is early in the campaign, with little established, I will run the game anyway, although maybe with slightly less opposition.

If it is a case of no special character needed, but I don't have near enough to handle the adventure, I might opt for a side quest or I might opt for card & board games, depending on the mood of the group.

In other words, I try to stay flexible, depending on specific circumstances. So far my gaming group has been very cool with this.

(about NPCs aiding)

I have no problem adding in a couple of NPCs to help the main characters through, but I try to make sure that they are just adjuncts, rather than high-powered tukkus-savers. I had a couple of bad experiences with GMs who sent in Deus Ex Machina Man to "save us" and have sworn never to do that to my own players. Thus if I send in extra NPCs, they are of lower levels than the PCs.

 

[shilsen]

Distribute character sheets. All CHARACTERS get full xp. If an important plot point hinged around a missing player's character, change the flow of scenes till next week or cancel.

Ditto.

 

[apegod]

Other

In my champaign. The players leave there character sheets with me, the DM.
If a player doesn't show up, then someone else plays their character. It maintains parity of the levels of the players in the party. If half the players don't show up they just play two characters each. It encourages players to show up, because they don't want someone else to kill their characters. (The reality is as a DM, I would try not to kill a character of an absent player.) Does anybody else do this?

 

[Psionicist]

apegod: Yup.

We have three regulars in our group (two players, one DM), one player who games occasionally and one new player who unfortunately cannot game that much due to military service (we have temporarily retired her character).

Two players plus DM is the bare minimum but it works fairly well thanks to the DM:s NPC. When the third player doesn't show up one of the regulars play his character. The net result is four characters, two players and one DM.

 

[Mark]

Would you do it?

I was planning the (tough battle) climax of one of my adventures this week, but I have had not one but two of my players cancel on me.

But I want to get the game going.

What do you do in such a situation?

If I was you, I'd postpone the climax.

 

[Impeesa]

If I was you, I'd postpone the climax.

This is me.

This is me making my will save vs. dirty comment.

--Impeesa--

 

[Jolly Giant]

Even if there are 5 players (plus me, the DM) we never game unless everybody can make it. Every character is important to the story and I'm uncomfortable with letting player A making descisions for player B's character.

Sometimes a player has to leave an hour early or arrives an hour later than the rest, and the rest of us will game through that hour (as long as there's nothing particularly important going on around that PC just then), but never an entire session.

To be completely honest, there have been two occasions (in the last four years!) where we've played an entire session with one player missing. On both of those times that player had plans for soloprojects beforehand, so his character wouldn't be involved in 90% of the action anyway.