I don't think it'd take 2 years before most DMs would work something out either. Maybe that's just me though.

Quote from pangurjan >>

I don't think it'd take 2 years before most DMs would work something out either. Maybe that's just me though.

 I guess my feeling on this, and this is just my view, mind -- my feeling on this is that as a responsible adult who has courtesy and is being considerate to the group, the player who knows that for months if not years, they will be MIA due to a newborn -> toddler, that player should not put the DM in the position of having to cut the cord. The player who is having the issue should step up, recognize that their current life situation has made their membership in the group precarious at best, and pull out -- rather than putting the DM and/or rest of the players in the position of making the awkward call, having to run their character on a moment's notice, having to deal with them suddenly stepping away for half a session, and so on.

Yes, the people at the table CAN deal with it -- but I hold that they should not have to. If I could not be a reliable player at a table, I would not ask the others present to carry my weight for me. I don't care how nice they are and how willing to do it -- this is not something that I would ask others to do.

I've had it happen too many times to me. We had a guy named Alvin, this was back in high school, who had his character as one of 5 permanent members of a team we called the Crusaders. He made it to like a session every 4 or 5 months. We kept having to play his character. Nobody wanted to boot him -- he was our friend. So we were burdened with his character. This went on for like 2 years. He never once stepped up and said, "Let's make my character a backup character rather than a main member of the team." And we were not willing to hurt his feelings by asking. So we had to play him (either I, or when I GMed, my best friend) and he played his character all of like 5 times in 2 years. Out of perhaps 50 sessions. This was a burden on us, and he was selfish to make us do it. Now, he was a kid. As a grown up, I would hope he'd not impose on us like this.

So... I have been on the other end of this, and it is not pleasant. I don't think a good gamer -- or a good friend -- would put the rest of the table and the DM into this position.

Can the DM make a tough call if he/she has to? Yes. Should a player force a DM into this position by selfishly trying to stay in a group when he/she knows that there is no real chance of participating regularly? IMO, no.

Again, in my opinion.

This is strongly table dependent, and any advice given here is going to pale in comparison to simply talking to the people at your table. However, I'll give you 2 cents from a group in which players have both had a baby, and even brought that baby to the table for a year - babies are a lot of work, but they aren't a death sentence. I would definitely advise communicating with your group and at least trying to find a compromise, because it absolute can work. 

There are few things more selfish than bringing a newborn to a table. Try doing that in a high end restaurant and see what happens. I know of very few social situations where it is acceptable to bringing a baby to an event that requires the attention of the parents on something else. To suggest someone can DM well and deal with a newborn is ridiculous. Now, because this was your DM, I guess you and the other players are stuck.

When the baby starts to cry, who deals with it, and how?  Do the parents feed the baby at the table?  How are diaper changes dealt with? And don't say "diapers are changed when there is a break in the game. A newborn, ESPECIALLY the first born, dominate parents' lives.

I wanted to address this specifically, because I just don't think this is a reasonable blanket statement to make. Its definitely selfish to force a baby onto people who really don't want to deal with it, and I completely understand that not every table will be up for it, but to suggest that its inherently selfish to even attempt or impossible to pull off is just demonstrably false. To address a couple points for our table:

• The baby almost never had fits at the table. We adjusted our meeting time to better align with nap time, so the baby was asleep for half the session. I only remember one actual disruptive fit across maybe a year of play, and the parent promptly stepped out to deal with it for 10 minutes. We were in town shopping and gathering intel. It was no big deal.
• Yep, the baby was fed at the table. I'm not sure why this one is that crazy. 
• Diapers were changed at breaks. Or rather, breaks were aligned with diaper changes. We naturally took a break or two each session anyways, and diaper changes aren't that frequent. This was one of the least disruptive aspects of having a baby at the table.
• Multiple people at the table were capable of addressing a lot of the baby's needs in some manner (holding the baby for a bit, capturing its attention, even burping or feeding it depending on the mood. No diaper changes though, that was the parent's job). This let the parent focus up for important turns in combat or conversations. It takes a village.

Now I get that some of the above might not sounds pleasant to some people, but I can promise you this: Not one person at our table viewed any of this as selfishness on the part of the parents. Babies are kind of important, as are your friends. We were more than happy to be flexible and help out, and still had a blast playing D&D.  We got the baby giant plushy d20s and D&D onesies to wear. Again, I fully understand that not every group will have this sort of flexibility, and if your particular table doesn't feel up to the task, then then yes - you shouldn't force this on them.

But I don't think merely asking the table if there are any ways to make compromises is being selfish in the slightest. Your group might not be up for "baby at the table", but things like meeting time changes, session length changes, or one or two extra small breaks in a session are all much lower hurdles and are pretty reasonable asks. Some tables won't view them as issues at all, and will be more than happy to oblige, and everyone will be happy. Other tables might not be willing or able to flex on certain points, and that's also fine. But it certainly isn't selfish to ask and see how everyone feels.

Quote from Aethelwolf >>

  It takes a village.

That is true, every table will be different though. Best to work it out with your friends.

Quote from BioWizard >>

 the player who knows that for months if not years, they will be MIA due to a newborn -> toddler...

I don't think this applies to every player who has a newborn child. It didn't apply to a couple in my boardgame group, though they had the advantage that it wouldn't have hindered boardgame nights had they have to cancel regularly. Most couples I know who have separate hobbies tend to keep those up after they had a child, though that may mean one of them taking care of the baby alone one evening or afternoon in the week and the other doing the same another day. I know one couple who alternated evenings as primary caretaker simply because that allowed them both to get more done on the evenings they were off duty, so to speak. If there's maternity leave or one of the parents stays at home after the pregnancy, it wouldn't be surprising for the working spouse to step in more after work both to have their own quality time with the child and to give the other parent more opportunity to socialize (a coworker of mine who intended to take two years off after giving birth to have more time with the newborn came back after six months because she went nuts only having the baby to talk to all day). One couple I know have their grandparents living in the house with them, which was a huge help with their children. 

Every situation is different. Every baby, every couple, every group, every set of circumstances is different. People make it work, because having babies is amazing and wonderful but letting them take over your life completely isn't, at least not for everyone.