![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Players and characters
Dec. 13th, 2024 02:01 pmFirst, a story.
A decade ago, I was running a campaign (still my best, I think). However, our friends from a neighboring village (both players, I knew their DM) came to stay for a few days. So, I asked the party if they were okay that there will be two more characters, I asked the friends if they were okay for a one-session wonder with a throwaway character, we had a session, and before the next session I asked one of the friends if she was okay with my killing of her character in the final dungeon to show the shit was getting real. Well, I got okayed on all the questions, and that's exactly how it all went.
As DMs go, I'm on the dictatorial and non-picky side. Other DMs I know go to much greater lengths when it comes to such issues in a sometimes most absurd, but also most gentlemanly way.
Second, over the years, I've elaborated a convention (which I've also seen in play with other DMs), that if we are having a session, and someone can't make it because life happens, then the character is temporarily under DM control. The character provides the resources as per the game system (skill checks etc.) as required, participates in combat with reasonable efficiency etc. etc., so the party isn't lamed from the functionality standpoint. On the other hand, the character does not make any decisions, does not have a say in whatever happens at the table - in other words, even more limited than an ally NPC who is still entitled to a quip or two or a parcel of information.
This convention isn't perfect, but it works reasonably well - for occasional and/or unforeseen absences. One important thing here is that the character, if occasionally controlled by DM, is still owned by the player.
Third, what if those absences become frequent and yet irregular? If they are regular, one can work something out, rearrange the campaign so that the party spends every third session indoors, where Grask the Ranger isn't much needed - which perfectly coincides with Mike, Grask's player, being absent every third session because life happens. But what if Mike has a one-in-three (perish the thought, two-in-three) chance to miss any given session, yet you get only a short notice and sometimes not even that?
Well, if the DM and the party want to play it out gentlemanly, they're screwed. Any and all Grask-related quests may just hang in the air because Grask didn't show up, and the DM and the party will have to scramble to work around that... or if there's none, then it's unfair to Mike (who will be bored) who showed up. And what if those weren't just throwaway quests, what if that was an entire questline, perhaps created specifically for Mike to put Grask into the limelight?
You could say that life happens. Cry me a river. Two months ago I bid farewell to a colleague who had, on a short notice, to quit the job and move away from the country "to take care of a relative for a year or so" - sapienti sat. That's how life happens.
Sure, life does happen. But most of the time it does that gradually and semi-predictably. In this case, the onus is on Mike to get together with the DM and let him know that he will be, "because reasons", we respect privacy, frequently and yet irregularly absent. They sit down together and work something out. And if they don't, I assert that the interest of the game, of the party and even of the DM (because it is a job) in this case prevails over Mike's interests - of course only in the case when an amicable agreement has not been reached.
Which means that if Mike had a foreseeable scheduling issue (e.g. impending divorce, house renovation, commitment as a reserve player in a local team etc.) yet did not elaborate that to the DM and carried on "just as normal", he's done a number on both the DM and the party. Don't be Mike.
P.S. If you know someone who you know and I know and who you think Mike is based on - you are probably right.
A decade ago, I was running a campaign (still my best, I think). However, our friends from a neighboring village (both players, I knew their DM) came to stay for a few days. So, I asked the party if they were okay that there will be two more characters, I asked the friends if they were okay for a one-session wonder with a throwaway character, we had a session, and before the next session I asked one of the friends if she was okay with my killing of her character in the final dungeon to show the shit was getting real. Well, I got okayed on all the questions, and that's exactly how it all went.
As DMs go, I'm on the dictatorial and non-picky side. Other DMs I know go to much greater lengths when it comes to such issues in a sometimes most absurd, but also most gentlemanly way.
Second, over the years, I've elaborated a convention (which I've also seen in play with other DMs), that if we are having a session, and someone can't make it because life happens, then the character is temporarily under DM control. The character provides the resources as per the game system (skill checks etc.) as required, participates in combat with reasonable efficiency etc. etc., so the party isn't lamed from the functionality standpoint. On the other hand, the character does not make any decisions, does not have a say in whatever happens at the table - in other words, even more limited than an ally NPC who is still entitled to a quip or two or a parcel of information.
This convention isn't perfect, but it works reasonably well - for occasional and/or unforeseen absences. One important thing here is that the character, if occasionally controlled by DM, is still owned by the player.
Third, what if those absences become frequent and yet irregular? If they are regular, one can work something out, rearrange the campaign so that the party spends every third session indoors, where Grask the Ranger isn't much needed - which perfectly coincides with Mike, Grask's player, being absent every third session because life happens. But what if Mike has a one-in-three (perish the thought, two-in-three) chance to miss any given session, yet you get only a short notice and sometimes not even that?
Well, if the DM and the party want to play it out gentlemanly, they're screwed. Any and all Grask-related quests may just hang in the air because Grask didn't show up, and the DM and the party will have to scramble to work around that... or if there's none, then it's unfair to Mike (who will be bored) who showed up. And what if those weren't just throwaway quests, what if that was an entire questline, perhaps created specifically for Mike to put Grask into the limelight?
You could say that life happens. Cry me a river. Two months ago I bid farewell to a colleague who had, on a short notice, to quit the job and move away from the country "to take care of a relative for a year or so" - sapienti sat. That's how life happens.
Sure, life does happen. But most of the time it does that gradually and semi-predictably. In this case, the onus is on Mike to get together with the DM and let him know that he will be, "because reasons", we respect privacy, frequently and yet irregularly absent. They sit down together and work something out. And if they don't, I assert that the interest of the game, of the party and even of the DM (because it is a job) in this case prevails over Mike's interests - of course only in the case when an amicable agreement has not been reached.
Which means that if Mike had a foreseeable scheduling issue (e.g. impending divorce, house renovation, commitment as a reserve player in a local team etc.) yet did not elaborate that to the DM and carried on "just as normal", he's done a number on both the DM and the party. Don't be Mike.
P.S. If you know someone who you know and I know and who you think Mike is based on - you are probably right.
