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

[Blue]

Because asking permission would imply some sort of explicit or implicit ownership of that character image that I don't acknowledge as existing.

Would you say that an artist has ownership over an original character they designed and drew? Why would that not be true for a player character?

Heck, look at Critical Role with the guy they got rid of and couldn't use their character after. We know that when you get to commercial works your statement is false. Why do you deny that it could possibly exist for non-commercial works.

If I liked a character you made in a game five years ago, and I make that same character (same name, same build) in someone else's game, I don't owe you a phone call to ask.

That's another level of discourtesy besides using them as NPC in a world they were in.

Would you do that if there were people in the new campaign who would recognize the character was created by someone else? How abut if the original player was in the campaign?

 

[Yaarel]

The DM can create a separate NPC who is obviously a parody of a player character. This is often the case when the DM creates an "anti-party", whose members are a mirror image of the player characters. Order of the Sticks comes to mind.

 

[tetrasodium]

The player isn't sealing off anything of the "GM's game world". The "GM's game world" and the "shared game world" are not the same concept. Limiting it to just what the GM control's with the term "GM's game world" means everything in the world except the characters. The players control their characters.

This idea that everything belongs to the GM may be the root of your misunderstanding.


Again, answer the flip - why does the GM get to carry an "undisclosed expectation" that they can take the player's concept and use it after the player leaves without permission.

Since the beginning of RPGs it has been established players characters are not part of what the GM controls, so that's the far mroe reasonable question.


Logical fallacy, Reductio ad absurdum. That is not what is being suggested, just that the character belonging to the player is written out of the story. Everything else still exists.


Again, PCs are not part of the "GM's setting". They are part of the shared story told by everyone around the table, which is not solely owned by the GM.

Also, after a 17 page thread on it, declaring that it is an "extreme view" is just rhetoric. Look at all the discussion and realize this is not extreme, and is common in a bunch of games. Please don't mischaracterize it as such.


This isn't a point under discussion, not sure why you bring it up. Of course you can refer to prior events that happened while the character was there. It's about turning them into an NPC without permission and running them in future sessions. Please don't try to muddy the issue, or bring up unrelated points trying to make an argument.

Everything else you wrote was a continuation under the mistaken opinion that people are arguing against the history of the game that was played, which no one was. I'm leaving it out as it's not a point under discussion, everyone is fine with the character having had an effect on the world when played. This topic is about the DM deciding to take control of a PC without permission.

I've seen players do it in the middle of a game and described the genericzed circumstances in an earlier post. If the player expects to maintain control over an unused former PC or gain some metagame advantage should that retired PC ever come up where it left off in the GM's game world it is very much not reducto ad absurdum.

In addition to that your artist analogy does not hold up because artwork is actually explicitly copywritten & as noted by others earlier there are various fair use provisions that would almost certainly apply to a private d&d game. If a player managed to somehow assert copyright over a retired PC in a way that prevents the GM from running that NPC should it come up it seems like a pretty clear case of vicarious liability & willful blindness on the player's part to use that PC in a game and not be very up front asserting their copyright to the GM running a game they brought it to.

The situation you are defending would be like zombie stan lee or Bob iger showing up to a mutants and masterminds game secretly playing a poorly known X-Men character for a bit then later complaining that the gm didn't retcon some other NPC in if the character's past in game achievements come up in a future season

 

[Irlo]

Why is that statement more true then:

"This thread demonstrates that the default is not as defaulty as some think it is. For an issue as important to some players as 'ownership' of a character is, it behooves the DM not to leave it as an unspoken default."

Because the DM is not the one who expects to restrict other people's imaginary games? It's simple self-interest for the concerned players. If you have that sense of ownership, let other people know. Or be prepared to have that sense of ownership violated by others who have no clue about your expectations and feelings on the matter.

 

[Irlo]

We all agree from the moment of conception, the character belongs to the player.

Very clearly, we don't all agree on that. Or at least we don't agree on what rights the purported ownership conveys on the player.

 

[TwoSix]

Would you say that an artist has ownership over an original character they designed and drew? Why would that not be true for a player character?

Heck, look at Critical Role with the guy they got rid of and couldn't use their character after. We know that when you get to commercial works your statement is false. Why do you deny that it could possibly exist for non-commercial works.


That's another level of discourtesy besides using them as NPC in a world they were in.

Would you do that if there were people in the new campaign who would recognize the character was created by someone else? How abut if the original player was in the campaign?

I would say they have ownership precisely to the point where it concerns trademark, copyright, or some other commercial concept.

They have zero moral right to restrict my usage in any non-commercial manner.

 

[R_J_K75]

IF I'm DMing I generally discourage players from playing more than one PC at a time, and if a player decides they want to play a different PC than what they are currently playing they are removed from play. If there is good reason for the player to retire the character, then I may use them and have them make an appearance as an NPC on occasion, but that's rare. IME I find that if players can swap out characters on a whim, they're less likely to form an attachment to them and they're just a set of stats on a character sheet. In a case when a player ends up with a character that isn't what they were envisioning then I have no problem letting them retire it for a new one. There's no hard and fast rules and I evaluate it on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Yaarel]

When the 2024 Players Handbook explains what a "player character" is, it is probably worthwhile to mention that the player "owns" this character, and that it is reallife personal space that the DM respects.

As far as I can tell, a sentence or two is enough to convey the intent, without needing to get into legal weeds.

 

[Irlo]

Would you say that an artist has ownership over an original character they designed and drew? Why would that not be true for a player character?

Ownership by a creator over an original character does not restrict anyone from drawing that character, writing or telling stories about that character, or using that character in a role-playing game. I don't think that restriction is a reasonable expectation by the creator, especially if left as an unspoken assumption.

 

[Yaarel]

Ownership by a creator over an original character does not restrict anyone from drawing that character, writing or telling stories about that character, or using that character in a role-playing game. I don't think that restriction is a reasonable expectation by the creator, especially if left as an unspoken assumption.

Legally, there is ownership. D&D was unable to make "Hobbit" a D&D species, for example. But it seems D&D was able to use "Halfling" as a species, and it being deemed sufficiently "transformative", or at least sufficiently part of the public domain.

Likewise, parodies are a kind of transformation and viewed as legal.