Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;996367Yes, it's difficult.  But once you get it going the excitement and fun should be enough to outweigh the distraction.

The day I'm not more interesting than a TV show or a tablet game, I quit this fucking hobby for good.

I'd love to have a play environment where multiple groups pursuing their own agendas with people moving between groups or forming new groups really happened. Unfortunately these days I barely get one 2-3 hour game session a week...

Well, actually, play by post is a place where it really could happen, in in fact, in the big play by post campaign I was in for close to 10 years (currently on hiatus), we did actually split off. When the campaign got put on pause, there were 4 different groups, one formed with two high level PCs who had stepped out of the action for awhile and started in town adventuring together, another that was formed when one player didn't fit into the style of the high level group, and I'm not quite sure of the circumstances of the 4th group's formation. The GM also did some running on other boards though I'm not sure if they were technically  in the same campaign even if they used the same setting. I am running two Wilderlands of High Fantasy campaigns on two different boards, but would consider them in the same campaign. My Wine Dark Rift Classic Traveller game has three active PbP groups on three different boards, plus an idle Roll20/Hangouts group, plus a pick up Roll20/Hangouts game that runs when the GM for my Tuesday night game isn't available. In theory all groups could interact though they are all on different timelines so it might be challenging.

As to the OP question, as many have suggested, if you can wing it, a catch up game (solo or with other players picking up 2nd PCs to play with the Paladin) would be the best way to handle it. Otherwise, come to some agreement on how to abstract it. If you want the Paladin back in the game, make sure it's possible. The suggestion of a random roll that gives him a 10% chance of survival I think is sort of insulting - either make it reasonable for the PC to come back, or if you really don't want the PC come back say so, don't use dice to "hide" your desires... That doesn't mean having him come back has to be a cake walk, there should be chance of failure, and if he plays it out, there should be chance of wild success. And if other players roll up PCs to play with the Paladin, who knows, everyone might decide the Paladin centered game is more fun...

Frank

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996033One of my players' Paladins split off from the party because the player determined the party was too Evil for the Paladin to get along with them anymore.

So far, so good.

The problem is where he split off. In a supremely inhospitable jungle environment that was basically magic Vietnam, and was sorely testing the party's strength combined.

Seems like a natural consequence of party failure in planning and compatibility. Maybe they'll learn something, especially if you don't handwave the situation away.

QuoteI didn't bother checking what happened to him since the party had left for a while, but now the player is wondering if he can bring that character back.

Is the player wondering that because of OOC concern for the rest of the party, or IC concern of the paladin? I would try to avoid having the paladin come rescue the people he deemed evil without IC reasoning from the paladin's perspective... of course, that may come naturally if you start to play out the paladin's situation.

QuoteThe thing is I feel like there's a 80% chance that this Paladin would have never made it out alive, but it feels cheap to just say he died offscreen.

Yes that seems cheap to me, especially if the player still wants to play the paladin. But it is of course up to the GM especially if the player had been saying they were done with that character and several days of action for the others have been resolved. I would think that even if the GM isn't willing to play out what happens to the paladin in detail, it would be more interesting and not much harder to assess general odds and roll dice to decide what his fate was and where he went. And I wouldn't tell the players that result until their characters were able to witness it somehow.

QuoteWould it make more sense to just handwave it and say he's available to use again?

I'd say that makes less sense and undermines the situation and consequences of choices. It makes the game about artificially having PCs win and having that trump the situation and natural consequences of their choices. It would also set them up to have more OOC expectations of nannying and complaints if in future you don't let them do similar things again.

QuoteOtherwise, I was going to sit down and plot out his survival path, rolling for navigation and seeing how many days it would take VS how many rations he had, that sort of thing, to see if he'd actually have made it out.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996037...Maybe running it as a side session could work though, or online...

Quote from: Dumarest;996038If it's an option, I'd run a solo session in person or online so the player has the satisfaction of knowing whatever happened to his paladin was fair and the result of his own choices rather than just "GM said so."

This is what I would do & recommend.

QuoteThis question can be broadened to how you deal with offscreened PCs in general. Do you still track their movements and behavior with the same rigor that you'd track a normal PC "onscreen," or just GM fiat it for whatever makes the most drama or is most convenient?

I track PCs and important NPCs (including nearby groups of interest, monsters, etc) in this way, but not in exactly the same degree of rigor. If I catch myself making decisions for or about offscreen characters for reasons of drama or convenience, then a warning alarm sounds and I question if I want to play drama/convenience or the situation, and usually rule for things that make sense, because experience with both routes has shown me that usually I am far happier having things make sense than having convenience or drama rule the world.

Quote from: Omega;996194It was barely a thing even into the 90s so you can stop complaining about something that barely happens ...

I notice it often enough in online discussions. This thread is more or less an example, too.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;996275Because all I have seen since... jeez, the early 80s.... is that there is one group of players in a campaign.  People don't split up and pursue their own agendas any more.  If that's still being done anywhere I'd really like to hear about it.

Happens in campaigns that I and some other GURPS GMs run quite a lot. A fair part of the time (sometimes the majority) is spent either with one player at a time as their PC does stuff away from other PCs (or often when the whole group splits and all do different things in different places), or with other players playing other characters near the PC, whether companions or adversaries or just other people on the same boat or in the same caravan or council chamber. I think it helps when the game system doesn't have fundamental divides between PCs and NPCs. (Often some of the best fun and roleplaying happens when people aren't playing their PCs, but some incidental characters.)

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996336I don't think it's a bad idea for a special circumstance like this one.

I just meant, as a general way of doing things, it seems like it would promote taking a group of friends playing together and then just splinter them up into separate groups.

Is that fun? It seems like you either play separately, in which case you lose the social aspect, or you still play together but everyone spends 90% of the game watching other people play separate 1-player games essentially.

I've seen people "check out" and get bored, start looking at their phones, etc., once they basically have to spectate for too long.

Or was it different in your experience?

Is it fun? It is for me. Often more fun than group sessions, and certainly more fun for me that being forced to pal around together always because of conventions, GM inflexibility, or players who can't find anything to do with themselves.

There are various ways to do this, and the worst is having a group of people watch someone else play. In fact, sometimes they aren't even allowed to see or talk about what happened until the characters get reunited.

1. Play separate sessions. Play by email and/or phone can help make this practical.
2. Run splinter sessions when other players do things like go on a food run or whatever.
3. Have other players play other characters who are there (allied and/or adversary or incidental) when their PCs aren't present.
4. Rotate which player is being tracked, spending only so much time before switching to another player.
5. Have other games or pursuits that the other players can do when they're not playing with the GM who is running action for others.
6. Have multiple GMs who can run the same game for different player groups at once. Not usually a luxury I have, but I have done it and it works (with another GM who thinks like I do and has the time etc, which is why it's been rare for me). Does have the issue though of GMs having to debrief each other and stay on the same page, but was fun/interesting.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;996361That's exactly what happens in mine. Even when they ARE all together, if say combat is very long and there is a long time between turns, you'll have people basically stop paying attention until it is their turn. I mean, I can't blame them.

Sure you can. How would they react if they went into a long explanation of their actions, and at the end you as the GM replied, huh? sorry I was checking my texts, could you repeat that?


Maybe you should try that. Any time the players talk to anyone but you for more than 30 seconds, start a game of Angry birds and make them wait.

It is extremely rude.

In the first place, this sounds like there's a problem with the player. Whether it's willful or unintentional, it seems like your player is having trouble fitting with the group's general style.

As for the question of the PC who was off-scene, that's a tricky one. Whatever you do, you  have to keep in mind that you're establishing precedent. As long as you're fair, though, in the sense that if this happens again with this group you handle it in the same sort of way, you can probably go any way.

Sounds like there's a character compatibility issue here. The first thing is, what happens when said Paladin goes back to the group and they start back their evil ways? Would he be better off with a character that actually fits within the group? Or will he bugger off yet again.

Personally, I'd never kill a character 'off screen' without the player's involvement (or consent, for the good of the story). Even if the environment is harsh, he could still survive and thus make the story way more dramatic (with a remarkable comeback against the odds, etc.).

As was suggested, you could play him through a solo adventure.

Just my two cents.

Well, as far as killing them offscreen if it makes sense goes (super dangerous environment), the idea is that if they're giving up the PC then for all intents and purposes the character might as well be dead. It's not like they're using them anymore.

I don't understand why people seem to have a problem with that, though I'm not against playing it out either. For me I'd feel a little guilty doing it, I guess. Even though I'd be entitled to do it.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;997373Well, as far as killing them offscreen if it makes sense goes (super dangerous environment), the idea is that if they're giving up the PC then for all intents and purposes the character might as well be dead. It's not like they're using them anymore.

This makes an assumption that the player who ran (and presumably created) the PC has no interest in the PCs fate after they decide they don't feel like running that PC. That's an assumption that I'm not especially comfortable with for two reasons.

First, as you have now seen, players sometimes change their mind and decide that they again want to run that PC they had set aside earlier. I'd be a little disgruntled if I said, "Hey MC I'd like to run my Paladin again" and you responded "Sorry he died when you weren't looking." So long as that player is still in the game or even somewhat likely to return to the game there is the chance that the player will want to play that character again. I have had players leave a campaign and then had to decide what to do with their character for the sake of continuity and running a sensible, living world. In that case killing the character is pretty low on my list of fiat outcomes.

Second, there is a readily available alternative (which several people have mentioned) to the GM killing a PC outside of play and outside of the player's control. To whit, run a side adventure (solo or otherwise) to find out what happens to the Paladin. Maybe he dies. Maybe he doesn't. But at least that way the player was able to make choices that might influence the outcome.

I agree with what Bren just wrote.

Even if a player was totally uninterested in running an abandoned PC, it still seems far more interesting and fun to me to figure out what actually happens to that character than to use DM fiat to simply say they're dead. Tracking PCs and NPCs that leave parties and having them become dynamic independent elements is one of the elements of a dynamic campaign that I find most fun and interesting.

Quote from: Skarg;997459I agree with what Bren just wrote.

Skarg mentioned the possibility to turn the PC into an interesting NPC. I've done that a number of times with PCs whose players moved away.

There's a fourth reason I'd be reluctant to off-screen kill a PC. I've had some players who like to think about their characters outside of the game. If the character is still dead the possibilities are still open for that player's imagination. If I kill the character off-screen by GM fiat then in one sense I've terminated those possibilities.

And a fifth reason. The PC is not my creation, it's the player's. So I'm reluctant to kill the PC outside of play absent some compelling reason to do that.

Wow some remarkably bad GM advice in this thread.

?

To be clear: I was surprised to see anyone advocating off screen character death. Terrible idea even with a dice roll  

To me though I have to wonder how you ended up with a Paladin in an apparently evil group. Such party make-up will inevitably lead to PvP or party breakdown unless the player is half-assing the Paladin Rping.

Quote from: Voros;997511To be clear: I was surprised to see anyone advocating off screen character death. Terrible idea even with a dice roll

I suppose it could be my confirmation bias, but I thought death off screen was by far the least popular resolution method suggested in this thread.