When PCs Die When the Player's Not There

[Vraille Darkfang]

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.

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

First, In your case yes, someone is going to die. Either the absent player or the seated player. Thus, given that choice I suppose the missing player 'takes one for the team'.

In my games only the seated players face the propect of death. However, their chance of dying is no greater due to the lack of their allies. In my games, missings mean you take no risk, but you reap no rewards. And your allies are not at a disadvantage for you not being there.

Also, in my games the upside to death is you lose a level. The downside is Raise Dead and stuff is pretty limited.

I understand WHY you are doing it the way you are, I just have a few questions.

How to you prevent player resentment? As in:

"Hey sorry, but my sister had her baby a month early & I had to go up and see what was going on."

"No problem, your wizard's dead. He got Raised by the end of the session, but you are 4th level now."

"Waht the *&*(^&$ happened?!"

"Oh, you got hacked down when you retreated from those ogres. Attacks of Oppurtunity can be nasty."

"Why did I run away? Why not use the Withdraw action? What about my Stoneskin Scroll?"

"What's the Withdraw Action? You HAD a Stoneskin Scroll?"

Thus Player 1 is really ticked off at Player 2.

The way you are doing it must be fine for your group. But mine often comprises individuals I know, but that don't know each other that well. Thus if I did it your way, the first AWOL PC death could begin to drive a wedge between my players.

Something else to think about.

I'm going to be playing in a Gamma World d20 in a few weeks. It will be the 4th time I've actually PLAYED (as opposed to DM) in the last 18 months. I'm really looking foward to it. If I put all this time and effort into creating a character I really want to play. Then when I have to miss a session (I live 40 miles from the DM, its going to happen), being told my character rolled a 1 on his save and bit the big one. I'm going to be very, very, very, ticked off.

Unless, of course I know I've just got to wait unitl I respawn.

Your style might work, in a Multi-player Shooter Death Match kind of way. If death just means waiting to respawn. Fine. (But that's not my gaming style either).

I see your point. Respect it. Not sure I could live with it, though.

But, do you see our points as to how its seems to be unfairly punishing those for circumstances beyond their control? (Note I see yours about unfairly punishing those whoDO make it, just that doesn't apply in my games).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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).

...

Why is situation 1 better than situation 2?

Because you've got the situations wrong. Allow me to help.

1) A present player's PC dies, probably while the player is doing something fun. He loses a level and it will take him several sessions to catch back up. During play, his character can't directly participate, but the player still gets to hang out with his friends, kibbitz about the dungeon, and maybe even play a couple NPCs to help out the DM until the others are able to get him resurrected. It's not the same as playing his own character, of course, but he's still having fun.

2) An absent player's PC dies, and the player isn't even there having fun in the first place. He loses a level and it will take him several sessions to catch back up. During play, he was off doing something he was forced to do by other obligations, rather than hanging out with his friends.

 

[ThirdWizard]

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.

You know, a few months ago I was in a debate on these boards about tailored (adventures are made to suit the players) versus status quo (the adventures do not automatically suit the players, they suit the world) games. I was on the side of tailored games, whereas just about everyone else thought that status quo was the best way to go. Now, it seems the tables have turned, and I'm supposed to change adventures I've already finished based on things suddenly coming up at the last minute for my players.

I can't win!

But, do you see our points as to how its seems to be unfairly punishing those for circumstances beyond their control? (Note I see yours about unfairly punishing those whoDO make it, just that doesn't apply in my games).

Oh, definately. If one of my players was very adamant about not wanting their character to be played if they missed, I wouldn't force their character be played, assuming attendance for them wasn't often a problem (by that I mean missing more than 50% of games).

I think I might not have mentioned that, though I implied it once or twice. Heh... oops.

This is why I have a rather large document containing Table and House Rules that I hand out. Death of an absantee only happened once, I think, and that was a long time ago.

Because you've got the situations wrong. Allow me to help.

Okay, that makes sense. I understand the whole not only missing a fun time but having bad things happen to the character while missing said fun time. It sucks, I admit it.

But, usually what happens is that everyone in the party is better off becaues the PC was present for the battle. Many PC lives have been saved because a PC was present when their player was absent. A month ago versus some grells in fact, two players were absent one of whom plays the ranger. Without that ranged support the encounter would have been much more difficult. Several months ago, that PC with an absent player made the difference in a dragon battle (favored enemy: dragon).

EDIT:
Two things here, by the way. The origional situations where death is inevitable is about me chosing for the absent player to do the dangerous maneuver. That is more difficult to justify, I admit. Someone is going to die, and we now have to decide who will take the bullet so to speak.

The second thing is that I'm altering the adventures to fit the newfound lower amount of PCs. If I did then it might not be a problem. Because the adventure remains the same, it is a good idea to leave the origional PCs in place, thus the part about saving lives through keeping PCs around even without their players. I'm all over the place, I know.

 

[Endur]

No need to alter adventures because you are missing a PC or two. The remaining PCs will have tougher fights. They will have to rest more often. They may have to use 1-shot magic items (potions, etc.) and/or ask for NPC help. Maybe they will fail a mission or have to run from a fight. But, still, I'd run the adventure straight up and let the PCs figure out how to handle the problems.

The second thing is that I'm altering the adventures to fit the newfound lower amount of PCs. If I did then it might not be a problem. Because the adventure remains the same, it is a good idea to leave the origional PCs in place, thus the part about saving lives through keeping PCs around even without their players. I'm all over the place, I know.

 

[ThirdWizard]

No need to alter adventures because you are missing a PC or two. The remaining PCs will have tougher fights. They will have to rest more often. They may have to use 1-shot magic items (potions, etc.) and/or ask for NPC help. Maybe they will fail a mission or have to run from a fight. But, still, I'd run the adventure straight up and let the PCs figure out how to handle the problems.

That's one way to do it, and is perfectly reasonable. Not my preference, but if my players wanted it that way, I wouldn't mind too much. I don't like the idea of the party failing for meta-game reasons, though. We really strive to avoid meta-game considerations, they more than I, in fact. They would be more resistant to the PC wanders off thing than I would, really. Basing party decisions on what players are available at the moment would be pretty much right out.

Thinking about it, they're pretty extreme.

They would never let a PC who was below decks seasick while they fought off pirates hear the end of it, for example. The players would know it isn't the PC's fault, but they wouldn't metagame it. They would play it out. We're talking about a group that would, without hesitation, raise an NPC over a PC if it is what the characters would do. They really really hate metagaming, and the whole PC dissapears for a session would be seen as such by them.

And, that's not even going into why I want to keep the PCs around. I taught them a little too well in that regard (only one has any real previous roleplaying experience). They'll let their PCs die permanently before they do anything that smells remotely like metagaming.

 

[ARandomGod]

Oh, well. I feel bad, but it wasn't the first time that I'd made a rash decision in the heat of DMing. (Frankly, the whole reason I rolled the dice out in the open -- "Will the troglodyte attack the PC or the NPC? Odd or even" -- was because tactically, in that moment, it made much more sense for the troglodyte to attack the absent player rather than run 30' in the other direction to attack some NPC dude, but I wanted to leave a *chance* that the troglodyte would do something stupid just for the absent player's benefit.) If this ends the campaign, che sera, sera. I'd rather it didn't, of course, but at this point it seems to be too late for a retcon.

And now, on behalf of all the people on this thread who have said "You were a MEAN DM!", I'm going to "role-play" you and tell myself "I told you so!!!"

Jason

Hehe. Well, it happens. Really he should have (IMO) given you a chance to 'correct' your mistake. I mean, a GM can't always make the exact right call. I'd just assume that he had other issues with gameplay, and decided not to go anymore (not necessarily issues with the game or you mind, there could easily be outside influences, he might be tired of gaming, whatever). EIther way, by stating that he did not feel bad about it you have to just assume that he really meant that and assume that he really decided to stop for totally unrelated reasons, and he used this as a good time... although it's likely he didn't, that this did have an effect, but you can't communicate for someone else. If he had other issues I assume he also didn't talk with you about those, etcetera... and it would have been a problem eventually. You could use this to try to learn slightly different communication tecniques (improving communication in general is always a good thing to do)

Anyhow, looks like this conversation has evolved well beyond a need for your participation. I'm glad to hear how it turned out, if a little sad that it went poorly. I hope you had/have a fun and slightly educational time reading people 'debate' this topic at each other!

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Hehe. Well, it happens. Really he should have (IMO) given you a chance to 'correct' your mistake. I mean, a GM can't always make the exact right call. I'd just assume that he had other issues with gameplay, and decided not to go anymore (not necessarily issues with the game or you mind, there could easily be outside influences, he might be tired of gaming, whatever). EIther way, by stating that he did not feel bad about it you have to just assume that he really meant that and assume that he really decided to stop for totally unrelated reasons, and he used this as a good time... although it's likely he didn't, that this did have an effect, but you can't communicate for someone else. If he had other issues I assume he also didn't talk with you about those, etcetera... and it would have been a problem eventually. You could use this to try to learn slightly different communication tecniques (improving communication in general is always a good thing to do)

Anyhow, looks like this conversation has evolved well beyond a need for your participation. I'm glad to hear how it turned out, if a little sad that it went poorly. I hope you had/have a fun and slightly educational time reading people 'debate' this topic at each other!

The problem is that the 'fix' is 'sorry buddy, you're dead, and gonna lose a level coming back, sucks to be you.' The reply seems to have been 'well, it's your game, have fun playing without me.' Or in other words another player cost the character a level, but the character's player is the one who gets the shaft. In the player's shoes I might do the same thing. The 'fix' is not a fix.

Had he been there and done those same actions and died then his death would be fully justified. He did not, and the situation was comlpetely unfair.

The Auld Grump

 

[DonTadow]

Hehe. Well, it happens. Really he should have (IMO) given you a chance to 'correct' your mistake. I mean, a GM can't always make the exact right call. I'd just assume that he had other issues with gameplay, and decided not to go anymore (not necessarily issues with the game or you mind, there could easily be outside influences, he might be tired of gaming, whatever). EIther way, by stating that he did not feel bad about it you have to just assume that he really meant that and assume that he really decided to stop for totally unrelated reasons, and he used this as a good time... although it's likely he didn't, that this did have an effect, but you can't communicate for someone else. If he had other issues I assume he also didn't talk with you about those, etcetera... and it would have been a problem eventually. You could use this to try to learn slightly different communication tecniques (improving communication in general is always a good thing to do)

Anyhow, looks like this conversation has evolved well beyond a need for your participation. I'm glad to hear how it turned out, if a little sad that it went poorly. I hope you had/have a fun and slightly educational time reading people 'debate' this topic at each other!

I remember posting in my first post that speed was going to be important if this guy wasn't going to harbor feelings. With the next session coming and his character still dead it had been too late at that point. His anger had harbored. I think anything would have appeased him if the situation had been handled either at the time you told him or the next day.

 

[ThirdWizard]

The guy whose character died isn't faultless, though. He pretended everything was okay when it appears that it wasn't. Had he stated that he didn't like how it went when he first learned of it, they could have compromised. He didn't agree to let his character be run while he wasn't present, and if that upset him enough to eventually leave the game, he really should have said something instead of pretending to be okay with it then come up with an excuse to leave the game. I really think the whole trombone thing is an excuse.

Everybody messes up, they don't talk about it openly, and the game suffers.

Advice to players: if you think the DM made a bad decision, talk to them about it. People would be surprised how often things can be fixed like that.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

The guy whose character died isn't faultless, though. He pretended everything was okay when it appears that it wasn't. Had he stated that he didn't like how it went when he first learned of it, they could have compromised. He didn't agree to let his character be run while he wasn't present, and if that upset him enough to eventually leave the game, he really should have said something instead of pretending to be okay with it then come up with an excuse to leave the game. I really think the whole trombone thing is an excuse.

Everybody messes up, they don't talk about it openly, and the game suffers.

Advice to players: if you think the DM made a bad decision, talk to them about it. People would be surprised how often things can be fixed like that.

Not everyone is confrontational in nature (though goodness knows that I am, I have to work on toning it down sometimes). For them the easiest solution is to leave. Me, I would have made a scene, but likely I would also have left. I do agree that the trombone thing is an excuse, but the greater fault rests with the DM in this instance... I suspect that (among other things) the player feels that he was being punished for not being present - and I am not altogether certain that he is wrong in that assumption. I also think that Ptolemy needs to talk with his other players and see how deep any disatisfaction (if any at all) is. I have seen (and participated in) too many games where one player leaving is only the start of a mass exodus.

Something to bear in mind - those who post on message boards tend to be more confrontational than most, this trait being aggravated by anonymity. An awful lot of folks prefer to avoid the confrontation and just leave, a solution that would work for most of the frequent posters here might not for the vast majority of folks.

The Auld Grump