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

[SableWyvern]

I completely understand a player wanting to maintain control of their character while they remain participants in the game. Having no control over decisions the PC makes is going to seriously damage the experience for some people. Completely understandable.

Where I'm left utterly befuddled is the notion that, if someone leaves the game permanently, that their vision of how the game should proceed and the characters behave is somehow more important than the players who are still involved. Where does someone get the idea that they have the right to dictate to others what they are allowed to imagine, in the privacy of their own homes?

If the group decides to continue using the character of a player who has left, that causes that former player zero harm (they don't even need to know it's happening). On the other hand, if the group is invested in the character enough that they wish to continue using that character, their experience is lessened if they are unable to use the character. Suggesting that the party with nothing to lose or suffer and, I note again, who is no longer a participant in any way, is the one with the right to determine what happens, is ludicrous.

Here I disagree. As it's my character, my imagination of that character (as best as I can express it during play) trumps everyone else's imagination of that character. They don't get to re-imagine my character in any major way just because I'm no longer there.

(Emphasis mine.)

Yes, they do. They get to imagine anything they want when they show up to game, and if you're not a participant you don't have any right to say otherwise.

 

[tetrasodium]

I was going to leave this at the end but decided to lead with this long overdue cathartic inversion of a phrase...

Spoiler

If a player feels strongly about who controls their character after they stop playing it that player needs to be the one making sure the group has a session zero to bring that up before play or they have only themselves to blame when the GM runs an NPC interaction with a former PC still living in the GM's world.

Like with what @Campbell mentioned in post#7, my campaigns are not isolated parallel dimensions & generally exist in the same world because that makes worldbuilding easier for me as a GM running those campaigns. Because of that during future play where a former PC comes up? The gm without question. Bob might have started something in the world with a PC but he quit playing that PC or the campaign ended and it's not reasonable for Bob to expect his GM to seal off a chunk of the world any more than sealing off an important individual involved in notable events that might still be ongoing like a former PC.

If Bob wants to go home and write stories about his old PC he's welcome to do so but Bob shouldn't expect the GM to keep updating or chain their the game world world from those stories.

I don't care what happens to someone's character sheet & pretty sure the only PCs not my own that I knowingly have sheets for are ones where a PDF was emailed to me for whatever reason.

 

[cbwjm]

I'll sometimes also go the other way if a PC has become an NPC, if the players (generally the same group) want their characters to come out of retirement, then the NPCs become PCs again. I've also had actual NPCs become a PC, though in this case it was me as DM wanting a character for a game run by a friend in the same area.

If there is no expectation that a player is coming back, then anything can happen to the (now NPC) character. Even if the player is still in the same campaign world but old characters have been retired then anything can happen, I might give a fighter that became a baron a noble last stand against an invading army for instance. Probably not just going to kill them for no reason though.

 

[Schmoe]

I admit, the stance that a player can control their former character even after they've left the game is bizarre to me. The game is a shared imagination between the participants, and the participants always have the right to collectively imagine new things about everything within the game. Once you've left the game, you are no longer a participant.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The player.

Being in a roleplaying game doesn't change possession of your intellectual property. Just like... I don't know... ask the player before using their character?

 

[SableWyvern]

The player.

Being in a roleplaying game doesn't change possession of your intellectual property. Just like... I don't know... ask the player before using their character?

Intellectual property law does not work like that.

 

[Yaarel]

I tend to play in persistent worlds. High level characters are still around, even if currently not adventuring. A high level adventure can have the players continuing to play them.

The player "owns" their own character. At the same time, especially at high level, they are part of the setting, having founded prominent institutions of various kinds.

Generally, the DMs leave the nonadventuring characters alone, unless it is part of a new adventure starting up for them.

A DM can NPC a nonadventuring character for a cameo, but the player needs to be ok with it.

 

[Andvari]

My general approach is that if a player leaves the game and still has a living PC, to ask the player what the PC's plans are. If I have a group in a location where the former PC might be, and I have an idea for how the former PC could contribute to the experience, I will contact the player and ask if they think that makes sense or if they have any comments on it. If they don't think their former PC would bother, I keep the former PC out of the way. If they're in, I'll run the former PC as an NPC and try to stay true to character.

 

[GrimCo]

As a DM i have fairly simple policy. Use it or lose it. If you want to retire character for any reason, cool. We figure out his retirement and then PC becomes NPC under my control. I do try to keep them out of game thou. But i will if it fits narrative. Hell, i'll use old PC as antagonist if it fits story.

As a player, i don't care what happens to character once I stop playing it. I stopped caring long ago after seeing enough campaigns fizzle out after only few sessions.

 

[Yaarel]

This relates to relationships as well.

When a character has family members, or close friends, I prefer the players play these other players as well.

In one campaign, every player played two characters, including two spouses, two siblings, and for one player, a character and a pet, a "Dog" (Wolf) with normal Fighter levels.

Obviously, DMs often mess around with family members as adventure hooks, but I dont like to go there.