When PCs Die When the Player's Not There

[ThirdWizard]

My goodness, people, this has nothing to do with making the game more important. It makes the game a GAME. You are the ones with an overattachment to your PCs' levels, from my standpoint. Oh no, when I left my PC had X experience points and now he has X-Y experience points! *weep* That's what it sounds like to me. You didn't read my posts in the least.

I don't really think it takes much effort to reduce an encounter a cl or too.

I can't help but think you don't play higher level games. It can be difficult to balance a series of encounters or an encounter for a group of four PCs. A group of three? Removing some HD or lowering damage doesn't work. Being down one PC is a huge difference in combat. What happens when your cleric dies, for example? Suddenly you're out healing, buffing, and some offensive damage output. You cannot make that equivalent to some hit dice. And what if they're fighting, as an example of something I have used, an adveanced owl-bear? It took me 30 minutes to advance that creature and make sure I had everything right. It grapples, which means that it typically takes one combatant practically out of the fight, so now they're down two characters for much of the encounter.

Players can have lives outside the game but the DM must always have time to reorganize an adventure based on how many players can make it? Isn't that a double-standard?

This is just unfeasable. Not only is it already a guess as to whether a party of four could take it. A party of three on an enemy re-calculated on the fly the day before the game? If you're running a game at 5th level, okay, sounds easy, but when you're hitting around level 10 this becomes a big issue. Say an adventure is balanced for a party of five characters. Now, two are missing the game, and we have three. I can't fix everything so that it works. I just can't.

I have to agree with arandom that this seems to be a difference between younger players with no families and older players. Dming for a younger crowd and older crowd is too different things at time.

You keep making these wild assumptions about me and my game. Perhaps you are just stuck in your own way of doing things and can't imagine other people prefering a different experience. Hmm? Maybe you should accept that instead of coming up with these "explainations" for how someone could possibly think differently than you. I really don't like being likened to kids. Thanks.

1. It doesn't maek sense for a PC to just 'disappear' in the middle of a dungeon for a few hours, days, etc; then reappear.

Well, it doesn't but that's not the reason.

2. "How can you have anything better to do than the GAME, man?"

Wrong again.

Try this: The adventure is designed for a group of five level 10 characters and if a party of four level 10 characters try it then someone will die. Period. Hey, I think I said that right above. So, basically I would rather possibly kill the PC of an absent player than have a sure chance of killing a present player's PC. Good stuff. We'll add that as #3.

Many people keep yapping about how if the missing PC has no threat of death, then he didn't really miss much. When my players miss a session, they're first question when they get back is: Whadda I miss?, What Happened? Wish I could have been there! While I don't claim to be the one Dungeon Master to Rule Them All, I run a pretty good game (though I've been slipping lately). Thus the worst punishment I had out to missing players is they miss the EXPERIENCE. That's right, my players really, really, regret missing a session because they didn't get a chance to game.

Exact same thing.

The difference is that we don't sweat death. Death = lose one level after you're raised. By the time the player gets back they're alive again. Why? Read my post above which you must have missed earlier. [I'll give you a hint, it has something to do with instant death effects.]

I don't think of killing them as punishing them for missing. I wonder if anyone sees that. Their "punishment" is not getting to play the game.

This is agreed on by everyone before it ever comes up in play.

This is important. Nobody is hit from left field that thier PC died while they were gone. The players have agreed to it. I havn't had anyone challenge it. If one did then there might be issue but noone has. When I'm a player, I abide by this rule too. Try not to be too concerned for my players, they're fine with the way things work right now. It's all good.

ptolemy18, this is where you made your mistake, unfortunately. :\ I suggest you make some Table Rules about this kind of thing, including other various mishaps that can happen and run it by the players at the start of a campaign and whenever a new player joins the group. That way they have a chance to see how things work and won't be blindsided by the unexpected. They can also show their distaste for any of your standing Table Rules and you might consider altering anything that the players don't like. The game belongs to the players, too.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

well, ptolemy, thanks for letting us know how the original situation turned out. the player might very well have left anyway, so you may have just given him an easy out.

it sounds like you're comfortable with your decision in any case, and that's what matters. at least your remaining players know where you stand. i do think that you could have opened it up for discussion with the group in public, rather than saying "here's my decision ... maybe if they'd rallied behind my back and argued I'd have changed my mind." that's just a personal style issue.

anyway, i think it's over, and i just wouldn't worry about it any more. good luck with the game!

 

[FCWesel]

When it comes to thing like this, this is what I do...

If the group is in a position that I can explain a character away, I do so. If not, then the character is in it and I run him (rolling his dice out in the open) and I challenge the group to make sure that "they keep me honest" on what he might or might not do.

The PC is not a scout, he's not a fore-front man. He's support at best unless he is the ONLY person who has the needed ability to get things done. Basically the character isn't a tool to be used and abused by the other players or myself.

However, if the character falls in combat or dies in some other way...that's it he's dead.

All my players know this going in and don't have a problem with it. Buyt in the dozens and dozens of times I have had to "take on a PC" I think maybe I have only lost 1 or 2 (Though there's been a dozen close calls.).

When a PC dies the player has the possibility for reincarnation, ressurection, new characters, etc...

Frankly there's too many options and too many character ideas to get bent over it all.

 

[DonTadow]

My goodness, people, this has nothing to do with making the game more important. It makes the game a GAME. You are the ones with an overattachment to your PCs' levels, from my standpoint. Oh no, when I left my PC had X experience points and now he has X-Y experience points! *weep* That's what it sounds like to me. You didn't read my posts in the least.



I can't help but think you don't play higher level games. It can be difficult to balance a series of encounters or an encounter for a group of four PCs. A group of three? Removing some HD or lowering damage doesn't work. Being down one PC is a huge difference in combat. What happens when your cleric dies, for example? Suddenly you're out healing, buffing, and some offensive damage output. You cannot make that equivalent to some hit dice. And what if they're fighting, as an example of something I have used, an adveanced owl-bear? It took me 30 minutes to advance that creature and make sure I had everything right. It grapples, which means that it typically takes one combatant practically out of the fight, so now they're down two characters for much of the encounter.

Players can have lives outside the game but the DM must always have time to reorganize an adventure based on how many players can make it? Isn't that a double-standard?

This is just unfeasable. Not only is it already a guess as to whether a party of four could take it. A party of three on an enemy re-calculated on the fly the day before the game? If you're running a game at 5th level, okay, sounds easy, but when you're hitting around level 10 this becomes a big issue. Say an adventure is balanced for a party of five characters. Now, two are missing the game, and we have three. I can't fix everything so that it works. I just can't.



You keep making these wild assumptions about me and my game. Perhaps you are just stuck in your own way of doing things and can't imagine other people prefering a different experience. Hmm? Maybe you should accept that instead of coming up with these "explainations" for how someone could possibly think differently than you. I really don't like being likened to kids. Thanks.




Well, it doesn't but that's not the reason.



Wrong again.

Try this: The adventure is designed for a group of five level 10 characters and if a party of four level 10 characters try it then someone will die. Period. Hey, I think I said that right above. So, basically I would rather possibly kill the PC of an absent player than have a sure chance of killing a present player's PC. Good stuff. We'll add that as #3.



Exact same thing.

The difference is that we don't sweat death. Death = lose one level after you're raised. By the time the player gets back they're alive again. Why? Read my post above which you must have missed earlier. [I'll give you a hint, it has something to do with instant death effects.]

I don't think of killing them as punishing them for missing. I wonder if anyone sees that. Their "punishment" is not getting to play the game.

This is agreed on by everyone before it ever comes up in play.

This is important. Nobody is hit from left field that thier PC died while they were gone. The players have agreed to it. I havn't had anyone challenge it. If one did then there might be issue but noone has. When I'm a player, I abide by this rule too. Try not to be too concerned for my players, they're fine with the way things work right now. It's all good.

ptolemy18, this is where you made your mistake, unfortunately. :\ I suggest you make some Table Rules about this kind of thing, including other various mishaps that can happen and run it by the players at the start of a campaign and whenever a new player joins the group. That way they have a chance to see how things work and won't be blindsided by the unexpected. They can also show their distaste for any of your standing Table Rules and you might consider altering anything that the players don't like. The game belongs to the players, too.

Actually I mostly run higher level campaigns between 8 to 18. I adjust CRs all the time. Honestly it is really not that difficult. You make it seem like high level Calc. Unless you're using an abbacus taking away some HD and lowering DR and SR doesn't take that much time. It also doesn't take that much time to adjust spell class levels. Again you just don't want to spend the time preparing, which is fine to me, but say that. Don't make it sound 'unfeasable'. It's just something you do not wish to do. There are a half dozen FREE programs that can cacluate appropriate challenge levels for a party. When I"m in doubt I use them.

I know alot of DMs whom strive to make their game the most fun for their players. For me minor adjusting during the week is worth it by giving them an awarding challenging experience. Again, you can always replace a missing cleric with a found wand of healing or lost NPC healer. I've played several campaigns where there was no cleric. I don't force my players to play a particular class to fit a niche because I want them to have control over there own characters, so tweaking a few games in game is not a problem.

I don't think too many people compare role playing games to straight board games. There are board game aspects in role playing games but to two are distinctively different. Role player games have the player play a character.

I'm in no way calling you a kid, but you're obviously a dm or have players whom don't have wives, families and fulltime jobs. Obviously havn't experienced being in a campaign with older adults whom do not wish to be punlished for missing a session. They play the game to have fun. They may stay up late after work and after helping Jimmy with his homework to make a character, write the background for it and stat it out. Then you tell the guy one week later that his character died because he wasn't there. It just doesn't work with us
older gamers.

In most campaigns resserects don't just come easily. They are very very difficult to come by in my own campaign. Death is 95 percent of the time permenant. Death also has lasting mental effects as well in the campaigns that Ive been apart of. You just can't die, get raised and things don't change. Where's the role playing in that.

You say you're not punishing them but you don't realize that you are. Whenever you take someone else's creation and do what you want to do with it because they can't, you're putting their creation at risk against there will. If we're writing an anthology together, and i submit my draft but can not make one editing meeting, then you go and change everything hack it up and completely rewrite it, then come back andtell me "hey sorry you wern't here" I"d be pissed. I think anyone would be pissed.

For most players a character is not a sheet with a bunch of numbers on it. They are creations of those people. I don't think its obsessive or far fetched to care about something you create. Which goes back to older adults. When you sacrafice time you can spend with your family to build characters and such, it becomes unfair for anyone to put that creation at risk.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

I can't help but think you don't play higher level games. It can be difficult to balance a series of encounters or an encounter for a group of four PCs. A group of three?

One of the places we differ. I run on alternate Weds a high level Game with 9 (regular) PC's of 20-25th level. If only 4 show I have no problem adusting (or re-writeing) encounters of the fly to accomadate what is going on. I realize my DM style is more organic than most, allowing for rapid changes in mid-stream and allowing for me to quickly raise or lower the dificulty based on who is present. But it took years of practice to be able to do that. And everthing's not 100% Kosher, but its close.

I can't fix everything so that it works. I just can't.

Well I can (now). But that is more my style than anything else. If you don't want to change your game based on who shows/doesn't show, then you're right; Those who make it to the game are penalized by a harder encounter than the DM assumed.

You keep making these wild assumptions about me and my game. Perhaps you are just stuck in your own way of doing things and can't imagine other people prefering a different experience. Hmm? Maybe you should accept that instead of coming up with these "explainations" for how someone could possibly think differently than you. I really don't like being likened to kids. Thanks.?

Sorry, my responses were directed to Pltolemy, not you. From everything he told us he seems to be just starting to DM. Not calling you a kid. Calling the new DM a kid (as it pertains to DMing, he could be 18 or 81). I'm not stuck in my way of doing things. I have no problem if you miss, you character might die, I'm just going to play it completely differently to how I used to. I won't really care about the character, just throw some stuff together on a character sheet. Won't put a whole lot of effort into backstory of character development (I also so this in 'high kill' campaigns where I expect to have to make characters quickly). I'd also refuse to play another character's PC when he's absent for fear of him dying & beginning a 'Grudge War' or resentment towards me. If your players stay above that. Congradulations.

I could play in your game, I'm just not sure how much fun I'd have. But, you are up front & let people know ahead of time, so pre-warned, they have no right to complain.

Try this: The adventure is designed for a group of five level 10 characters and if a party of four level 10 characters try it then someone will die. Period. Hey, I think I said that right above. So, basically I would rather possibly kill the PC of an absent player than have a sure chance of killing a present player's PC. Good stuff. We'll add that as #3.

Forgot that one. I was never good at running Modules. In all my time DMing I've ran maybe 10 modules through to the end and 3 without heavily modifying the adventure half-way thorugh. But, If the DM was running Module X, then I would worry about Bob the Barbarian missing. However, if you know the DM can adjust things up or down as needed, then I wouldn't be worried.

The difference is that we don't sweat death. Death = lose one level after you're raised. By the time the player gets back they're alive again. Why? Read my post above which you must have missed earlier. [I'll give you a hint, it has something to do with instant death effects.]

Unless you run a game where Death is a more permanent condition. Unless the PC's are high enough level to cast Raise Dead, then Dead is Dead, make new character. And at high level lose one level is a big XP hit. (I didn't miss your post. Instant death happens. I had a 12th level fighter fail a save vs the poison of a prismatic spray and die. Of course I failed the save, not Robby who was playing my character so I could visit my mom across the state. Instant Death is fine, Instant Death when I'm no where around is not.

This is agreed on by everyone before it ever comes up in play.

And this is the most important part. You TELL everyone in advance. If they don't like it. They don't have to play.


I'm not attacking you. You & your players have reached a concensus you can all agree too. Fine. That works for you. But in all my time DM'ing I find your posistion to be in the minority (I stress not BAD, just the minority). I could be wrong. I haven't done any research & my gaming is limited to various parts of Missouri. I'm just warning Ptolemy that players aren't going to like coming back from a missed session & being told Dave's Dead, make a new Dave.

Your advice is to go ahead and do it that way, As long as you tell them about it ahead of time. Which I'm fine with. I'm just representing those of us who only get to game 1/week, month or even less; and who have no choice but to miss a session or two. We get to enjoy our hobby way too little as it is, and already have way too many things beyond our control. Taking our PC's out of our control seems cruel.

Otoh, You been making a case for the PC's who do show up. In Ptolemy's example, maybe a TPK would have resulted had the PC's Archer just 'faded away'.

So I guess Ptolemy need to make a decision between those who can make it & those who can't & let everyone know what that decision is ahead of time.

My personal preference is to favor those who can't make it, but I compensate for those who do. I can see the your arguement. I know its not for me. But it might be for Pltolemy. Or it might not. That's why he posted here, to see what others do. I have my way. You have Yours. Ptolemy will find his as well.

 

[Arnwyn]

Haven't read the entire thread yet... but here are my answers to the OP:

What would you have done in this situation?

(1) Would you have done pretty much as I did?
(2) Would you have assured that the troglodytes *always* preferentially attacked *anyone but* that character, instead of leaving it even partly up to chance, like I did?
(3) Would you have rolled the dice secretly and fudged it? (Instead of rolling out in the open in front of everyone for extra drama, like I did?) (This would be my last choice, since I hate fudging the dice.)

1) Yes.
2) No, not likely.
3) Maybe... but then again, I like some drama sometimes.

In any case, I, fortunately, do not "feel bad" when that happens. Why? We have long since set a clear policy on what happens with characters when player(s) are away. Everyone knows what to expect, so there aren't any surprises.

but since I'm the DM I am obviously ultimately to blame.

I disagree. Vehemently.

Should I feel guilty? I dunno. I wouldn't feel guilty at all if the PC had been there, but now I feel extremely bad. I guess it depends on my campaign and on my knowledge that I am about to have one extremely pissed-off, and possibly soon-to-be-former, player.

Not to be (too) harsh, but 'too bad for you'. Consider setting up appropriate policies next time.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'm in no way calling you a kid, but you're obviously a dm or have players whom don't have wives, families and fulltime jobs. Obviously havn't experienced being in a campaign with older adults whom do not wish to be punlished for missing a session.

A player's wife went into labor during a D&D game.

You say you're not punishing them but you don't realize that you are. Whenever you take someone else's creation and do what you want to do with it because they can't, you're putting their creation at risk against there will. If we're writing an anthology together, and i submit my draft but can not make one editing meeting, then you go and change everything hack it up and completely rewrite it, then come back andtell me "hey sorry you wern't here" I"d be pissed. I think anyone would be pissed.

No. It isn't punishment. Someone is dying. Doesn't it make more sense for someone's PC to die who isn't present so everyone there can keep playing? I don't understand this. Two possibilities:

1) A present player's PC dies. He loses a level and it will take him several sessions to catch back up. During play he must sit around and do nothing while waiting for the others to be able to get him ressurected.

2) An absent player's PC dies. He loses a level and will take several sessions to catch back up. He already isn't there so no time is spent watching others roleplay (not a lot of fun).

At high levels with true ressurection, level loss isn't even an issue anymore! It's expensive, yes, I admit. But, our PCs split the cost of all resses anyway, so that doesn't come into the picture here.

Why is situation 1 better than situation 2?

For most players a character is not a sheet with a bunch of numbers on it. They are creations of those people. I don't think its obsessive or far fetched to care about something you create. Which goes back to older adults. When you sacrafice time you can spend with your family to build characters and such, it becomes unfair for anyone to put that creation at risk.

They're always at risk when present. Not fair? Is it not fair for me to throw a Power Word: Kill at the wizard when I know that he has 43 hp? Is it any less fair to insta-kill a player who isn't there? Fair? I don't see it. If I weren't present, I'd rather the ones who were there get the most out of their time there.

Adults are more mature and have a deeper story? Come on man, what propoganda are you reading from? I know adults who are bums. I know kids still in college who are the most responsible people I've ever met. Get over the age thing. You don't realize who you're talking to.

Well I can (now). But that is more my style than anything else. If you don't want to change your game based on who shows/doesn't show, then you're right; Those who make it to the game are penalized by a harder encounter than the DM assumed.

For the past eight years I ran a game for two players only. If one didn't make it we couldn't play. Reorganization of an adventure is something that I'm not extremely good at yet. Heck, working around five is a brand new experience for me. Waaay back when I started college, I had seven players, and since then its been two until about eight months ago.

I also don't have time to work it out. When a player says they won't make it, we're talking a matter of at most three days usually, if I get that much warning. Like people are fond of pointing out, people have lives that they can't always control. If someone's kid gets sick Friday night, then they're gone. We play on Saturday at 1pm. That doesn't give me enough time to rework a whole lot.

Sorry, my responses were directed to Pltolemy, not you. From everything he told us he seems to be just starting to DM. Not calling you a kid.

Appologies for the misunderstanding. That was directed at this statement:

I have to agree with arandom that this seems to be a difference between younger players with no families and older players. Dming for a younger crowd and older crowd is too different things at time.

Which I think he might have retracted, although he still seems to think my playstyle better fits children... I know 25 might be a bit young around here, and I'm not the most mature person on the planet, I still like to play "lets pretend" after all. . But, I think it qualifes as something.

And this is the most important part. You TELL everyone in advance. If they don't like it. They don't have to play.

It seems obvious, but a lot of people miss it.

 

[DonTadow]

A player's wife went into labor during a D&D game.



No. It isn't punishment. Someone is dying. Doesn't it make more sense for someone's PC to die who isn't present so everyone there can keep playing? I don't understand this. Two possibilities:

1) A present player's PC dies. He loses a level and it will take him several sessions to catch back up. During play he must sit around and do nothing while waiting for the others to be able to get him ressurected.

2) An absent player's PC dies. He loses a level and will take several sessions to catch back up. He already isn't there so no time is spent watching others roleplay (not a lot of fun).

At high levels with true ressurection, level loss isn't even an issue anymore! It's expensive, yes, I admit. But, our PCs split the cost of all resses anyway, so that doesn't come into the picture here.

Why is situation 1 better than situation 2?



They're always at risk when present. Not fair? Is it not fair for me to throw a Power Word: Kill at the wizard when I know that he has 43 hp? Is it any less fair to insta-kill a player who isn't there? Fair? I don't see it. If I weren't present, I'd rather the ones who were there get the most out of their time there.

Adults are more mature and have a deeper story? Come on man, what propoganda are you reading from? I know adults who are bums. I know kids still in college who are the most responsible people I've ever met. Get over the age thing. You don't realize who you're talking to.



For the past eight years I ran a game for two players only. If one didn't make it we couldn't play. Reorganization of an adventure is something that I'm not extremely good at yet. Heck, working around five is a brand new experience for me. Waaay back when I started college, I had seven players, and since then its been two until about eight months ago.

I also don't have time to work it out. When a player says they won't make it, we're talking a matter of at most three days usually, if I get that much warning. Like people are fond of pointing out, people have lives that they can't always control. If someone's kid gets sick Friday night, then they're gone. We play on Saturday at 1pm. That doesn't give me enough time to rework a whole lot.


It seems obvious, but a lot of people miss it.

1. Ok let me clarify, you don't deal with players whom have consistant family problems. Congrats to the one player whom is about to begin a family BTW.

2 Does it make sense for a player to sacrifice someone else's character to save the players that are there??? As a journalist they tell us that there are no stupid questions and oh how questions like that test my instructions. Again say that you don't feel like adjusting the encounter for the remaining players and move on. But don't bully your players into playing someone elses character by threatening death to there characters because they "might not make it without the missing character".

I take it there are no lasting consequences of death.

3. Again there is a BIG difference between threatening someone's character whom is absent and someone whom is in control of there character. The difference can be compared to a man on trial in full control of his mental state and a guy whom is retarded, mentally handicap and legally insane. If a pc dies it should be because of the actions or non actions of the character whom created him. I"m sure your players do not create their characters for your campaign, but for themselves. The way you talk, it is as if once one of your players creates a character it is the groups and they can do with that character as they wish if he is not present.

4. Ok please don't be offended by that statement but a game full of adults with families and such is diffirent from the college night game most of the time. In college I played for 10 hours straight... with a family I play for 5 hours and that's a long session. This is not about how mature people are at certain ages. It is about how family life changes a gamer and games in general. When you DM games with family people you are more lienient on the rules for missiong sessions and such. Characters are more important to players as they sacrificed precious family time to make them. Most of us have played for so long that death is an important event when it happens. It's just different all around. Sorry if it sounds offensive and its not meant to. But the game changes when you get older. Just a fact of life.

 

[ThirdWizard]

1. Ok let me clarify, you don't deal with players whom have consistant family problems. Congrats to the one player whom is about to begin a family BTW.

Thanks, the kid's just a few months over a year now. Little guy's fast.

The player with the baby is the only one who has consistantly made it to all the games. The others who are recent graduates or still in college are the ones that miss the most games.

2 Does it make sense for a player to sacrifice someone else's character to save the players that are there??? As a journalist they tell us that there are no stupid questions and oh how questions like that test my instructions. Again say that you don't feel like adjusting the encounter for the remaining players and move on. But don't bully your players into playing someone elses character by threatening death to there characters because they "might not make it without the missing character".

I'm confused. We're talking about a situation where a character is going to die right? I mean, if noone was going to die then this wouldn't even come up. So, someone is dying. In the case where the PC is fading away, a present player dies. In the situation where the PC is being controlled by another player, one of the two dies.

We arn't talking about a situation in which either an absent player dies or noone dies. Obviously the desired outcome is for noone to die in that instance. But, in the context of this thread, we're basically choosing between an absent player and a present player for who dies, right? I mean, its hard to make an absent player die in a situation where death can be avoided...

I take it there are no lasting consequences of death.

The biggest downside to death is having to watch while waiting to be raised.

Characters are more important to players as they sacrificed precious family time to make them.

I disagree. The character is secondary. The time spent with friends and the experience of roleplaying is what the game is about.

 

[DonTadow]

Thanks, the kid's just a few months over a year now. Little guy's fast.

The player with the baby is the only one who has consistantly made it to all the games. The others who are recent graduates or still in college are the ones that miss the most games.



I'm confused. We're talking about a situation where a character is going to die right? I mean, if noone was going to die then this wouldn't even come up. So, someone is dying. In the case where the PC is fading away, a present player dies. In the situation where the PC is being controlled by another player, one of the two dies.

We arn't talking about a situation in which either an absent player dies or noone dies. Obviously the desired outcome is for noone to die in that instance. But, in the context of this thread, we're basically choosing between an absent player and a present player for who dies, right? I mean, its hard to make an absent player die in a situation where death can be avoided...



The biggest downside to death is having to watch while waiting to be raised.



I disagree. The character is secondary. The time spent with friends and the experience of roleplaying is what the game is about.

Ok I think I see the situation you're talking about and the argument. In other words what if another player died while that pc wasn't there and that pc could have saved him.

I say that just brings up a what if situation. HOnestly what if a lot of things. What if I recruited another player at the table or what if we had went left instead of right. It's up to the pcs whom are there to save there own pcs lives. I understand you don't want the complaint "if only leroy and his barbarian level 12 was there" to be coming from the present players. But then theres the flip, "leroy's character dying from the encounter that he was not apart of" . Right now it's screw the player whom isn't there. Leaving the encounter as it is is screwing the party.

Again, people run campaigns differently according to style. But the only way that neither side gets screwed is to scale the encounter. Regardless of style this seems to be the most faire way. Yes as a DM you got to eat an encounter or change it sometimes more so than the way you designed it "which sucks at times" but so long as you can do it where it is fair to everyone and you have fun, that is what matters.

The session before last I had a great adventure planned. The pcs were going to switch bodies and the adventure was to be a two parter. I planned this 2 months ago. Then one of my players had to attend his child's baby shower, but he'd be back the next session. I hated it, but I had to scale some things to fit the dungeon into one session. I know I plan on dm'n for some time so i took three cool encounters I took out for time purposes and put them off for another day. I hated it but everyone still had fun and the adventure was still challenging (three player deaths) and the missing player wasn't screwed.