D&D General Who “owns” a PC after the player stops using them?

[overgeeked]

Breaking out a tangent in the “boring bits” thread with its own thread.

Seems a fairly simply question, but there are some strong feelings about it.

So, as per the title: who “owns” a PC after the player stops using them?

 

[Oofta]

This is an odd question, but in my games the DM "owns" them if it matters. Most of the time there's just a brief epilogue, either something I made up or asked the player about. But I run a persistent campaign world and it doesn't even need to be a player leaving, it could just be a new campaign and PCs from the previous campaign are now NPCs. For that matter, I prefer that the DM run my old PCs if it ever comes up - just try not to do anything radical with them or something way out of bounds for them. In my new campaign the PCs may occasionally run across PCs from the previous campaign but I know the attitudes and drives of those old PCs enough to run them in almost all cases.

 

[Lanefan]

For me, the player still "owns" the character until and unless said player gives permission to someone else to use it.

This is an odd question, but in my games the DM "owns" them if it matters. Most of the time there's just a brief epilogue, either something I made up or asked the player about. But I run a persistent campaign world and it doesn't even need to be a player leaving, it could just be a new campaign and PCs from the previous campaign are now NPCs. For that matter, I prefer that the DM run my old PCs if it ever comes up - just try not to do anything radical with them or something way out of bounds for them. In my new campaign the PCs may occasionally run across PCs from the previous campaign but I know the attitudes and drives of those old PCs enough to run them in almost all cases.

And if you had permission from the players to do this, no problem. Even as simple as at the end of one campaign saying "Hey, guys, there's a chance your characters here might show up as NPCs in future campaigns in this setting - anyone got a problem with that?" To this there's basically three answers:

"No, do what you like". Easy for you, that player's characters just became NPCs.
"If any of my old characters show up in a new campaign that I'm playing in anyway, I want to play them when they do". Easy for you; during those interactions that player has two characters. No problem.
"Yes, I have a problem with that; I'd prefer my characters to sail off into the sunset." Easy for you, those characters are just never seen again.

What gets trickier is if an ex-player's character has unresolved issues that involve other characters. I've hit this: two (or three?) characters shared a common quest, and one of the players left. A few real-time years later when this quest led to an adventure, I got hold of the player and asked what he wanted done. He agreed to let his character go on the mission as what we call a QPC*, if it could then retire into the sunset again afterwards; and that's what happened.

* - QPC: Quasi-Player Character, a character being played when its player is not present at the session.

I should also probably mention that standard practice here is that if a player misses a session that player's character(s) remain in play and are run by whoever wants to do so, with player instructions being followed as best as possible and the character played true to its established patterns, personality, etc.

 

[Oofta]

For me, the player still "owns" the character until and unless said player gives permission to someone else to use it.

And if you had permission from the players to do this, no problem. Even as simple as at the end of one campaign saying "Hey, guys, there's a chance your characters here might show up as NPCs in future campaigns in this setting - anyone got a problem with that?" To this there's basically three answers:

"No, do what you like". Easy for you, that player's characters just became NPCs.
"If any of my old characters show up in a new campaign that I'm playing in anyway, I want to play them when they do". Easy for you; during those interactions that player has two characters. No problem.
"Yes, I have a problem with that; I'd prefer my characters to sail off into the sunset." Easy for you, those characters are just never seen again.

What gets trickier is if an ex-player's character has unresolved issues that involve other characters. I've hit this: two (or three?) characters shared a common quest, and one of the players left. A few real-time years later when this quest led to an adventure, I got hold of the player and asked what he wanted done. He agreed to let his character go on the mission as what we call a QPC*, if it could then retire into the sunset again afterwards; and that's what happened.

* - QPC: Quasi-Player Character, a character being played when its player is not present at the session.

I should also probably mention that standard practice here is that if a player misses a session that player's character(s) remain in play and are run by whoever wants to do so, with player instructions being followed as best as possible and the character played true to its established patterns, personality, etc.

When we're done with a campaign, the PCs are done. There's no "coming back" unless that was part of the agreed upon plan. That to me is a bit different, occasionally someone will ask to play a different PC as a change of pace in which case I would ask them. I'm talking about PCs of players that have moved or retired.

While there is no one true way, this has never been an issue, I treat the PC turned NPC with respect in in a fashion I think the player would approve of.

 

[cbwjm]

If it's the end on a campaign, "ownership" goes 2 ways. The player might keep the sheet, but unless there is the intent to use these characters again, that is PC might become an NPC in a new campaign set in the same region. This is especially true if there was an end scene where the PC retired.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The times I've brought in old PCs of players who'd left the group I'd asked those players as a courtesy.

 

[Campbell]

The characters in the games I run (and most of the games I play) are not isolated islands. They have positions, responsibilities, and a vast array of relationships. It is very rare for a player character to not at least become important on a regional level. Certainly, they are one of the most important people in the lives of the other player characters. You cannot just excise a character from the setting.

The way we tend to think of things in my main home group is that your character (and their attendant associations) belongs to the group from the beginning. It's not unusual for us to ask a player to make some changes to their character to better fit the group and/or ongoing scenarios. Once a character has been removed from being a spotlight character, they still remain important and vibrant parts of the setting and get treated like all important elements of the setting.

This means that even if it is a character, that you originally played as, that character's place is going to be dependent on what makes for a compelling scenario for the current game. They will often have gone through things, lived life in the intervening time and might have changed. More importantly the spotlight is no longer on them so they will tend to either support or stand in the way of the current spotlight characters.

I will be sensitive to feedback, but the current game is always going to take priority. If possible, I will talk to the players in question, but at least for more traditional games there might be details I'm not able to share if you are playing a different character in the current game.

 

[TwoSix]

I would say the player retains some authorial veto over major changes to an ex-character. I wouldn't re-use them as a NPC, unless the character's arc was specifically to retire into NPC status (like running a magic shop, or opening a tavern, or becoming a duke) in such a way that the expectation would be that character would be available to the PCs.

 

[overgeeked]

I think there's a few modes of play or circumstances that could complicate the question.

Do players normally run multiple characters? Either at once or shuffle though characters, like in a West Marches game, or if one character is doing long-term magical research so the player is using a different PC. If the player's intention is at least potentially to use that PC again later, the player owns the PC.

Is the player simply absent this session? Again, the player owns the PC. The other players run the PC or they fade into the background for the session.

Has the player abandoned the character? Clearly the player has no intention of playing the character again, therefore the referee owns the PC. This is close enough to any kind of permission the referee would need.

Has the player left the game? Both the player and the referee own the character. The player is free to take the character forward with them and the referee is free to continue using the character as an NPC. They're alternate timeline versions of the same character. If the player comes back to the game later, then they can either accept what the referee had the character do in the meantime, or they can create a new PC. Or one version is a clone, a copy, a robot in disguise, etc.

But, overall, it's an odd question to me. One that would only actually seem to matter in a modern-style game where the specific PCs are incredibly important to the unfolding story the group is playing through.

In older-style games, where the story is emergent and depends on who's being played now, it's basically a moot point. The referee probably has more NPCs than they know what to do with so wouldn't need the old PC as a new NPC. "What's that old PC up to?" It doesn't matter. We have treasure to find and monsters to fight.

 

[billd91]

Honestly, once a PC becomes a permanent NPC, they're free game for the DM to take over as needed. I'll generally handle them based on the trajectory they were on when they stopped being a PC, but if the active PCs cross paths with them in the future, their status and circumstances may have significantly changed.