Handling abandoned/dropped out PCs

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Spawned from the other thread, where people were mentioning their sweet spot for player group size...

How do you handle it when a player drops out? Assuming you have the character sheet and you know the player isn't coming back - do you turn the PC into an NPC? Does another player take over that PC as a secondary PC? Do you kill the PC off?

I've never been a fan of that third option. It seems silly and illogical to target and kill off a PC simply because the player stopped using it, especially if it's a case where the player was a troublemaker and the players and DM take it out on the abandoned character. The character is still part of the evolving game world. Why not make use of it? I've also never liked the "bolt from the blue" example given in the DMG. It just seems too ham-handed.

Usually I'll ask to see if any of the players want to manage the (PC) character. If not I'll usually run him as an NPC. If the players liked the PC, I'll keep it in the game as an NPC party member. If they had significant conflict with the now-absent player and can't separate their attitude towards the now-absent player from their attitude towards the still-present PC, then I'll usually figure out an in-game-logical reason for the PC to leave the party. He may even show up as a villain in a future game.

It's harder when there are 3-4 PCs leaving a larger group. I've seen it done where those PCs form their own NPC party and separate from the PC party.

So, how does everyone else handle it?

[JadedDM]

I've never been comfortable playing other people's characters. If a player drops, I do NPC their character until the current adventure is over, then I have them leave the party. They then retire from adventuring and go home (or find a home, for those PCs that are orphans/homeless/etc.). Normally they are never heard from again. If the other PCs seek them out, they can have a conversation or something, but they won't rejoin the party. Although usually the other PCs tend to act like the abandoned PC never existed in the first place after they are gone, even if they were quite close in-character.

This is how I do it as well

[garhkal]

Spawned from the other thread, where people were mentioning their sweet spot for player group size...

How do you handle it when a player drops out? Assuming you have the character sheet and you know the player isn't coming back - do you turn the PC into an NPC? Does another player take over that PC as a secondary PC? Do you kill the PC off?

I ask the Player who's leaving. Do they want me to kill his character(s) off in a creative manner? Do they want his character(s) to become party henchmen? Or just 'fade off into the great nothingness'??
It can also matter where they are.. Is the group in town, where said character CAN easily just fade away? Or are they on the road, / mid combat/dungeon to where there is no chance FOR them to 'fade' away without being 'teleported up (trek style) to disappear..?

I've never been a fan of that third option. It seems silly and illogical to target and kill off a PC simply because the player stopped using it, especially if it's a case where the player was a troublemaker and the players and DM take it out on the abandoned character. The character is still part of the evolving game world. Why not make use of it? I've also never liked the "bolt from the blue" example given in the DMG. It just seems too ham-handed.

Well, i've killed off Dozens upon Dozens of characters, cause the player left the group, and i've never seen it as illogical.. Especially as many of those characters were front line tanks and the like, so it was EASY for them to 'hold the line while the others made a run for it, when they got outmatched', and sacrificed themselves for the others...

It's harder when there are 3-4 PCs leaving a larger group. I've seen it done where those PCs form their own NPC party and separate from the PC party.

Done that and made the npc group into an adversarial group..

[Lyrwik]

I've never been comfortable playing other people's characters.

Same here. I'm especially not a fan of having other players run someone else's PC, even if they've left. For the same reason, if someone isn't able to make it to a session, I just ignore their character for that session.

I recently had a game where I had a few people who had to drop out at roughly the same time. Prior to that there had been discussions (and disagreements) in-game about what to do with a couple of key magic items, so I wove that into the story of how they left. Essentially I played out a separate session with the leaving players for how they abandoned the rest of the party (with some of their stuff), and turned them into antagonists. I gave the other players some forewarning that something along those lines was going to happen, and made it clear that it was me, as the DM, using it as part of the story rather than letting them think the other players were just being jerks. (In truth, at least one of the other players was being a jerk, but I didn't want the other players knowing that as I wanted to avoid the potential issues it could cause.

Other times when someone has dropped out, I've usually just had their character go their own way, at an opportune time.

[Billy_Buttcheese]

I've never been comfortable playing other people's characters. If a player drops, I do NPC their character until the current adventure is over, then I have them leave the party. They then retire from adventuring and go home (or find a home, for those PCs that are orphans/homeless/etc.). Normally they are never heard from again. If the other PCs seek them out, they can have a conversation or something, but they won't rejoin the party. Although usually the other PCs tend to act like the abandoned PC never existed in the first place after they are gone, even if they were quite close in-character.

This. Although I may occasionally use the character as an NPC for other groups that have never known the PC before, especially if they have some fun role-playing aspects (mannerisms, abilities, etc.) about them. As Gharkal noted, I try to ask the departing player how they want me to handle their PC. Typically, they don't give a rat's @$$ what happens to them but at least I provide the option.

[garhkal]

Same here. I'm especially not a fan of having other players run someone else's PC, even if they've left. For the same reason, if someone isn't able to make it to a session, I just ignore their character for that session.

So, what happens to their character? Do they just go into a bubble of 'nothing will affect them/nothing can touch them"?? Do they just "Ping, red warrior has exited the game"?

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

JadedDM wrote:

Although usually the other PCs tend to act like the abandoned PC never existed in the first place after they are gone, even if they were quite close in-character.

That's one of the points I was getting at. It would seem weird - in an in-game logic sense - for the characters to be so close and then it's suddenly as if one of them doesn't exist. Especially if it was a tight-knit group, I'd expect that they'd hope for some continued future contact.

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

Well, i've killed off Dozens upon Dozens of characters, cause the player left the group, and i've never seen it as illogical.. Especially as many of those characters were front line tanks and the like, so it was EASY for them to 'hold the line while the others made a run for it, when they got outmatched', and sacrificed themselves for the others...

But see, that make sense. In-game logic and consistency is maintained. They go down heroically or at least on their feet fighting, and the character dies so he's no longer a member of the party. What I find strange is the "bolt from the blue" technique to just discard the character. It never felt satisfactory to me to simply have them drop dead or mysteriously vanish just because the player stopped gaming. Either have them die in combat, or wander off to do their own thing or something. But the "bolt from the blue" seems so horrible clumsy and amateurish that I hate that it was ever given as an example.

Now here is an interesting twist on this particular example you gave. So let's say the party had a pact/agreement/contract that required them to at least attempt to get team mates who were killed raised or resurrected? I'm not sure if it was you or someone else, but someone recently mentioned having a group savings account to be used for resurrections. So now the player quit playing and doesn't care, but the character in the game/story is expecting to be raised. The other team members agreed to it. The other players may not care, but if their characters are Good aligned, or even more so Lawful aligned, aren't they bound to raise that dead character? Hmmm. I've never had that come up, but it does create some interesting issues.

Done that and made the npc group into an adversarial group..

The cool thing about that is you can change their alignment and allow them to become evil foes, or simply keep their alignment and become competitors. It's a great use of NPCs.

Lyrwik wrote:

I recently had a game where I had a few people who had to drop out at roughly the same time. Prior to that there had been discussions (and disagreements) in-game about what to do with a couple of key magic items, so I wove that into the story of how they left. Essentially I played out a separate session with the leaving players for how they abandoned the rest of the party (with some of their stuff), and turned them into antagonists. I gave the other players some forewarning that something along those lines was going to happen, and made it clear that it was me, as the DM, using it as part of the story rather than letting them think the other players were just being jerks. (In truth, at least one of the other players was being a jerk, but I didn't want the other players knowing that as I wanted to avoid the potential issues it could cause.

That's sheer genius! I love it! If I were a departing player, I'd be happy to give the DM some details and ideas for my now-NPC character, so that even after I leave, I can be part of the game (well, at least until the PCs kill my now-NPC character). Great use of characters and players!

For the same reason, if someone isn't able to make it to a session, I just ignore their character for that session.

I had the same question Garhkal had when I read this. I can't see just pretending one of the characters is not there. It throws the whole narrative off.

[Lyrwik]

So, what happens to their character? Do they just go into a bubble of 'nothing will affect them/nothing can touch them"?? Do they just "Ping, red warrior has exited the game"?

I had the same question Garhkal had when I read this. I can't see just pretending one of the characters is not there. It throws the whole narrative off.

Not quite disappear, but I don't really have that character contribute during the session.

Wherever possible (and this is most of the time), I will weave in a reason for why they're not there/are not contributing, such as the character is off doing something else (if they're in a town), or possibly they're currently injured and need time to recover (if applicable), or if they're out and about or in a dungeon, then they're off scouting out an area or keeping watch at the entrance. However yes, sometimes there isn't really a good in-game reason for it, and I do agree that it's unfortunate for the story if this happens. Where this happens, if the character's presence and participation are critical to the story, I'd usually postpone the session. Otherwise I would consider running the PC myself, however they would still take a much less active role (ie. not including them in combat and not relying on their skills unless it's impossible not to).

I agree it's unfortunate for the story, if there's not a good in-game reason for them being less active. However I prefer it over having another player run the character, because:

• Most importantly (and as mentioned above), I have a general distaste for players playing others' characters. I wish I could better define this. If I was confident that the players knew each other well, and would understand how they'd want their characters to be played, then I might be less worried by this, but that's usually not the case. I also don't want another's character to simply be treated as a walking bag of skills/heal-bot/whatever, which is what I find usually happens when people play someone else's character, because they don't want to interfere with the RP of that character, or make story decisions for them.
• I prefer players to solve problems on their own rather than relying on NPCs (which the character effectively is currently).
• I don't want the character to be put into danger through a decision of another player while they're not there. While I don't think my players would do this in any bad way, it's simply a situation I'd rather avoid.
• I prefer not having the extra character in combat if their player is not there to play them. I'd rather simply adjust the combat to take account of the fact that there's one less character. This is both for logistical reasons, but also for the reason above of not having a player put another character in danger without their player present.

How do you both go about it? Do you run the character yourself, or just postpone the session if someone can't make it?

That's sheer genius! I love it! If I were a departing player, I'd be happy to give the DM some details and ideas for my now-NPC character, so that even after I leave, I can be part of the game (well, at least until the PCs kill my now-NPC character). Great use of characters and players!

Glad you like it!

[garhkal]

But the "bolt from the blue" seems so horrible clumsy and amateurish that I hate that it was ever given as an example.

The only time i have ever 'bolt from the blue'ed" someone, was a cleric pc who was badmouthing his OWN GOD< and just got done peeing on an alter TO his god in a small shrine while on the road...
I've threatened it for other real offensive activities to their god, or for paladins as well..

Now here is an interesting twist on this particular example you gave. So let's say the party had a pact/agreement/contract that required them to at least attempt to get team mates who were killed raised or resurrected? I'm not sure if it was you or someone else, but someone recently mentioned having a group savings account to be used for resurrections. So now the player quit playing and doesn't care, but the character in the game/story is expecting to be raised. The other team members agreed to it. The other players may not care, but if their characters are Good aligned, or even more so Lawful aligned, aren't they bound to raise that dead character? Hmmm. I've never had that come up, but it does create some interesting issues.

Then the ressie would fail... Since the spirit/soul does not wish to return...

I had the same question Garhkal had when I read this. I can't see just pretending one of the characters is not there. It throws the whole narrative off.

Especially if something attacks the group, and kills everyone else.. DO THose being 'ignored' die?
OR if they have a maguffin on them, that the party needs, do they all of a sudden 'hand it over'?

How do you both go about it? Do you run the character yourself, or just postpone the session if someone can't make it?

As i already stated, that's a question left to the player himself.. Does HE (or she) Want someone Else to run them, or would they rather I do..

[Lyrwik]

Especially if something attacks the group, and kills everyone else.. DO THose being 'ignored' die?
OR if they have a maguffin on them, that the party needs, do they all of a sudden 'hand it over'?

In the case of a TPK with someone absent, it would likely mean the end of the group as a whole anyway. As for whether that character is presumed dead or survived would really depend on the context and available explanation for where the PC was at the time. I've never had this come up in-game though.

If they have an item on them which would rightly be treated as a group item, then yes it should be accessible to the other party members (unless the explanation for where they are necessitates that it wouldn't be accessible - eg. the character is out scouting somewhere). However, if it was something which was very specific/unique to that character (eg. some family heirloom which they'd never let anyone else get a hold of), then I'd be inclined to say no, it's not available.

As i already stated, that's a question left to the player himself.. Does HE (or she) Want someone Else to run them, or would they rather I do..

How do you deal with loss/death to that character in that case? Does the character gain experience (given the character may have faced risks, etc.) or no experience because the player wasn't there?

In the case of another player running the character, do they just have to suffer the consequences of whatever decisions they make? Do you step in, if you think they're making a decision which wouldn't be fitting to that character, or if you think they're putting them unnecessarily in harm's way? Do they run them purely mechanically (ie in combat and for skills), or do they also RP them/make story decisions?

Alternatively, when you run them as the DM, do you just run them as close as possible to how the player would, and then let them incur the benefits/suffer the consequences accordingly? Do you simply run them mechanically, or also RP them and have them contribute to party decisions, etc. using what they would know and based on what you think that player/character would likely be thinking?

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Lyrwik wrote:

How do you both go about it? Do you run the character yourself, or just postpone the session if someone can't make it?

Depends on the situation. If we're in the middle of some epic adventure, we usually postpone so everyone can attend. If it's a short side adventure, sometimes I've seen the player who's missing ask another player to play his character. We usually game with tight groups of friends, so usually this doesn't cause problems. Since they're usually such a close group, we generally postpone overall, regardless of the situation. It all really depends.

[Halaster-Blackcloak]

Garhkal wrote:

The only time i have ever 'bolt from the blue'ed" someone, was a cleric pc who was badmouthing his OWN GOD< and just got done peeing on an alter TO his god in a small shrine while on the road...
I've threatened it for other real offensive activities to their god, or for paladins as well..

Oh hell no! What was he, crazy? For stuff like that, I favor spontaneous human combustion. And it can't be put out with mortal magic.

Then the ressie would fail... Since the spirit/soul does not wish to return...

Hadn't considered that. Good call!

[garhkal]

In the case of a TPK with someone absent, it would likely mean the end of the group as a whole anyway. As for whether that character is presumed dead or survived would really depend on the context and available explanation for where the PC was at the time. I've never had this come up in-game though.

Roger that (PS sorry for my earlier misspelling of your name)

If they have an item on them which would rightly be treated as a group item, then yes it should be accessible to the other party members (unless the explanation for where they are necessitates that it wouldn't be accessible - eg. the character is out scouting somewhere). However, if it was something which was very specific/unique to that character (eg. some family heirloom which they'd never let anyone else get a hold of), then I'd be inclined to say no, it's not available.

Say it was one of the magic items he had gained in loot..

How do you deal with loss/death to that character in that case? Does the character gain experience (given the character may have faced risks, etc.) or no experience because the player wasn't there?

I've had a few who did get a little MORE peeved their pc died. BUT since the group as a whole, had one or another person out on occasion, nearly everyone in the group got a chance in running someone else's PC, so they all knew the risk and understood it.. One earlier group (back in the mid 90s)< even gave full permission to the dm we played with..
As for XP, yes they do still get a full share..

In the case of another player running the character, do they just have to suffer the consequences of whatever decisions they make? Do you step in, if you think they're making a decision which wouldn't be fitting to that character, or if you think they're putting them unnecessarily in harm's way? Do they run them purely mechanically (ie in combat and for skills), or do they also RP them/make story decisions?

Its been rare that i've had to override what a character was going to do, when ran by someone else, and most of it was in relation to "NO that character never casts that spell on someone" or "no he wouldn't use that scroll, he specifically was saving it for research"..
On the 'suffer the concequences", yes.
On the "are they purely mechanically there, or do they also RP", more mechanical, but some were good enough to also keep with that character's RP schict.. Like our resident lizardman, would always go without using a weapon, favoring his claw/claw routine when fighting crawling claws.. so when one of the other players had to run him (the owning pc was off that week, as his wife needed a new car and hoodwinked him into coming along), that player had the LM do the same, and while chomping into a big crawling claw, looked to one of the npcs they were escorting, and said "Oi, got any salt!"

Alternatively, when you run them as the DM, do you just run them as close as possible to how the player would, and then let them incur the benefits/suffer the consequences accordingly? Do you simply run them mechanically, or also RP them and have them contribute to party decisions, etc. using what they would know and based on what you think that player/character would likely be thinking?

I do my best to run them as i've seen the player do in regards to the RP side, and they contribute to decisions as much (Or as little) as that player actually did.. And i TRY to do so without putting what i know into play, via them, but i will admit, i've failed to catch myself before i let something important slip..

[Lyrwik]

Say it was one of the magic items he had gained in loot..

That would most likely be an item which rightly belongs to the group, so it would be available (again, assuming it wouldn't logically be physically elsewhere, such as if the absent PC is off doing something else).

Its been rare that i've had to override what a character was going to do, when ran by someone else, and most of it was in relation to "NO that character never casts that spell on someone" or "no he wouldn't use that scroll, he specifically was saving it for research"..
On the 'suffer the concequences", yes.
On the "are they purely mechanically there, or do they also RP", more mechanical, but some were good enough to also keep with that character's RP schict.. Like our resident lizardman, would always go without using a weapon, favoring his claw/claw routine when fighting crawling claws.. so when one of the other players had to run him (the owning pc was off that week, as his wife needed a new car and hoodwinked him into coming along), that player had the LM do the same, and while chomping into a big crawling claw, looked to one of the npcs they were escorting, and said "Oi, got any salt!"

Depends on the situation. If we're in the middle of some epic adventure, we usually postpone so everyone can attend. If it's a short side adventure, sometimes I've seen the player who's missing ask another player to play his character. We usually game with tight groups of friends, so usually this doesn't cause problems. Since they're usually such a close group, we generally postpone overall, regardless of the situation. It all really depends.

Hearing your experiences with it, I'll consider giving it a try once my current group has got to know each other a little more (most of us only met for the first time about 2 months ago when we started this new campaign).

Cheers