<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=194612.msg9641649#msg9641649">Quote from: Changingsaint on 25-02-2014, 01:48:11</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Personally i'd say that having them drop out makes the most sense. Sure, they 'could' be killed but really that's just kind of mean spirited I feel.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>I run a game where character death is a possibility if someone just disappears without saying anything.<br/><br/>There are several reasons for this, and I don't believe any of them are spiteful:<br/><br/>1) I need to explain what happened to the the characters and I need characters who are continuing in the game to have some type of resolution that doesn't take the game in an unwanted direction.  Such as searching for the character that no one is playing.  This works best with characters whom other characters have grown attached to.<br/><br/>2) As Vill has suggested, it can make a compelling plot device.  If a character the players are familiar with dies in a battle, than that battle has even more meaning to the players and the characters involved.<br/><br/>3) It makes less work for me.  If a player shows up a month or three from now and wants to play their character, all the questions of where that character has been, does that character know as much as the characters who've been actively played for that entire time, is that character as strong as characters who've been played the entire time, etc, don't have to be answered.<br/><br/>It's really not supposed to be spiteful, especially if you tell the players up front that is the result of simply disappearing.<br/><br/>Just my opinion.