From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

Hello,

This is prompted by a comment in The True Melissa's recent post about
deities.

Fellow DMs, when a player can't make it to a game, what do you do with
their characters?

I tried a few options. NPCing the character just doesn't work for me; I
have enough to handle already as a DM, adding an always-present NPC is
just too much, I will forget the character is even here half the
time. Letting another player run the character has part of the same
issue, plus the problem Melissa ran into: what happens when the fill-in
player gets the character killed? Finally I opted to just let the
character fade into the background: when the player is absent, the
character is just not here, continuity be damned.

I tend to run a picaresque game, not one where the characters'
background matters much, so this works for me for D&D; I probably
wouldn't choose the same option in a character-centered game.

What about you and your games?
--
Arnaud
https://the-dm.oook.fr/
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On 9/19/2026 1:31 PM, Arnaud Gomes wrote:

Hello,

This is prompted by a comment in The True Melissa's recent post about deities.

Fellow DMs, when a player can't make it to a game, what do you do with
their characters?

I tried a few options. NPCing the character just doesn't work for me; I
have enough to handle already as a DM, adding an always-present NPC is
just too much, I will forget the character is even here half the
time. Letting another player run the character has part of the same
issue, plus the problem Melissa ran into: what happens when the fill-in player gets the character killed? Finally I opted to just let the
character fade into the background: when the player is absent, the
character is just not here, continuity be damned.

I tend to run a picaresque game, not one where the characters'
background matters much, so this works for me for D&D; I probably
wouldn't choose the same option in a character-centered game.

What about you and your games?

Most of the games I GM lately are supposed to be open table games (sandbox/Westmarches Style) where the absence of a player at any given
week doesn't matter much, and in fact new players just can join in and
drop out at will. The game will take place on any given Tuesday as long
as there's at least two players signed up for it.
At the end of the session they are supposed to get back to a safe haven
where an exchange of characters is possible for the next session. So far
they have never not managed that, but I do have a table somewhere about
what happens when they actually don't get back in time (they are lost in
the dungeon/wilderness and stuff happens).

This approach is not suitable to many games where the actual player
characters are the center of the game. I don't think it would be easy to
do this with the 5e game that I am playing in for example. The whole
approach to the game is different. On the other hand when I was faced
with the situation in previous games I just assumed the players were
just off-screen for a bit. Most of the times they can just disappear
into the background for one or two sessions. The problem comes up when
they do that for even longer.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 13:31:44 +0200, Arnaud Gomes <arnaud+rgfd@carrosse.frmug.org> said this thing:

Hello,

This is prompted by a comment in The True Melissa's recent post about >deities.

Fellow DMs, when a player can't make it to a game, what do you do with
their characters?

I tried a few options. NPCing the character just doesn't work for me; I
have enough to handle already as a DM, adding an always-present NPC is
just too much, I will forget the character is even here half the
time. Letting another player run the character has part of the same
issue, plus the problem Melissa ran into: what happens when the fill-in >player gets the character killed? Finally I opted to just let the
character fade into the background: when the player is absent, the
character is just not here, continuity be damned.

I tend to run a picaresque game, not one where the characters'
background matters much, so this works for me for D&D; I probably
wouldn't choose the same option in a character-centered game.

What about you and your games?

It depends on the situation. If the break between sessions ended in a
safe place, we usually go "Oh, {missing player} is off doing something
else" (which I sometimes might play with the player in a solo session,
if we can get around to it). A few times we went with the rather
mundane suggestion that the PC had a cold and was sitting it out in a
nice warm bed.

If the break is mid-adventure, though, usually the PC fades into the background. Sometimes we pretend he's there, just following silently
but not interacting. A few times the PC would "head back to town" for {{reasons}} just to ensure he's in a safe spot but other times the PC
stayed with the party. Often in these situations he would get used as
party mule because massive encumbrance wouldn't matter too much to a
player who wasn't going to be fighting or engaging in any derring do
;-)

On the rare occassion where the previous adventure ended in a risky
place (mid-combat, for instance), I'd play the character as DM, but do
so extra conservatively and doing my best not to get him killed. Once
the immediate danger was gone, the PC faded into the background as
above.

It wasn't always possible but when I could I'd ask the absent player
if they had any preference as what to do with their character. The
general opinion of my players was they didn't really seem to mind too
much if they got used as a DM PC, but I was always very hesitant about
taking that route.

More problematic was when the player returned. Inevitably we figurerd
out some nonsense that got the PC back into the party, but very rarely
did it make a lot of sense. Even when the PC was "there but in the
background", often he was a lot less battered than the rest and some
of the interactions he missed (like a villain swearing unending
vengeance against the party) didn't really apply to that PC... but we
rolled with it anyway.



--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

Arnaud Gomes wrote in article <8733v58okf.fsf@moka.glou.org>:

I tried a few options. NPCing the character just doesn't work for me; I
have enough to handle already as a DM, adding an always-present NPC is
just too much, I will forget the character is even here half the
time. Letting another player run the character has part of the same
issue, plus the problem Melissa ran into: what happens when the fill-in player gets the character killed? Finally I opted to just let the
character fade into the background: when the player is absent, the
character is just not here, continuity be damned.

My players beg me not to play without them because everyone else
would be earning XP they won't get.

When one of the characters was abducted, the main party had the
rest of the session and I did a makeup session for the abductee's
experience. Something similar could work for absent players:
declare that the character has trotted off on a side quest, then
do a makeup. Of course, if the player is absent due to grief or
bad health or another large reason, a makeup may not be feasible.

IMO handing the character to another trusted player is the
simplest approach and usually best. There are awkward moments
like that death, though.
--
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 11:19:57 -0400, The True Melissa <thetruemelissa@gmail.comNOSPAM> said this thing:

Arnaud Gomes wrote in article <8733v58okf.fsf@moka.glou.org>:

I tried a few options. NPCing the character just doesn't work for me; I
have enough to handle already as a DM, adding an always-present NPC is
just too much, I will forget the character is even here half the
time. Letting another player run the character has part of the same
issue, plus the problem Melissa ran into: what happens when the fill-in
player gets the character killed? Finally I opted to just let the
character fade into the background: when the player is absent, the
character is just not here, continuity be damned.

My players beg me not to play without them because everyone else
would be earning XP they won't get.

That never was too much of an issue with us, largely because I was
fairly loose with keeping track/ awarding XP. My general 'rule' was
level = # of adventures required to level-up. (I still awarded XP, but
in amounts that just happened to advance the group at the
aforementioned pace).

So long as you particpated in the bulk of the adventure, you were
usually assured of getting enough XP that you wouldn't fall too far
behind. And, anyway, we usually 'retired' PCs after 8 to 10 levels and
replaced them with new ones. I'm of the general opinion that 1E/2E
works best within that level range anyway.

Anyway, XP was never the biggest reward of the sessions. Prestige and reputation played /far/ more important a role than abilities, and
gaining renown through their deeds --whether big or small-- ended up
being much more important than a new spell or bonus to-hit.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

Spalls Hurgenson wrote in article <hov0bldqld5e3cefb2shp1773gh8qrhmuk@4ax.com>:

That never was too much of an issue with us, largely because I was
fairly loose with keeping track/ awarding XP. My general 'rule' was
level = # of adventures required to level-up. (I still awarded XP, but
in amounts that just happened to advance the group at the
aforementioned pace).

I'm pretty freewheeling as well.

So long as you particpated in the bulk of the adventure, you were
usually assured of getting enough XP that you wouldn't fall too far
behind. And, anyway, we usually 'retired' PCs after 8 to 10 levels and replaced them with new ones. I'm of the general opinion that 1E/2E
works best within that level range anyway.

My players are third level, and they're already setting up an
outpost and a guild. One of them even sent me elaborate bylaws.
:D I think they have eight henchmen right now, as well as some
retainers on loan from the city, so a base of operations does
make sense.
--
The True Melissa - Canal Winchester - Ohio
United States of America - North America - Earth
Solar System - Milky Way - Local Group
Virgo Cluster - Laniakea Supercluster - Cosmos
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On 9/21/2026 12:52 PM, The True Melissa wrote:

My players are third level, and they're already setting up an
outpost and a guild. One of them even sent me elaborate bylaws.
:D I think they have eight henchmen right now, as well as some
retainers on loan from the city, so a base of operations does
make sense.

Mine recently took over a village from some bandits and are trying to
build something there. So far they only have stationed some archers there.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.games.frp.dnd

On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 13:20:22 +0200, kyonshi <kyonshi@wilderland.ovh>
said this thing:

On 9/21/2026 12:52 PM, The True Melissa wrote:

My players are third level, and they're already setting up an
outpost and a guild. One of them even sent me elaborate bylaws.
:D I think they have eight henchmen right now, as well as some
retainers on loan from the city, so a base of operations does
make sense.

Mine recently took over a village from some bandits and are trying to
build something there. So far they only have stationed some archers there.

I think, in general, my players never really got up to that sort of
thing by third-level. Well, not in any real significant way. They were
usually too poor and had too low a reputation for them to attract much
in the way of power (or hire many henchmen).

But 3rd level was the point where they usually /started/ the upwards
climb. They'd start having enough cash to hire the occassional
henchman and briefly bribe the attention of the middle-tiers of
society. Its where they often start forming the relationships with
NPCs that become important to their rise later down the line. Not
quite murder-hobos anymore, but entirely having shaken that reputation
either.

Mostly. There were a lot of 3rd level characters under the bridge, and
I'm sure there were exceptions.





--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2