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

[Lanefan]

In this instance, I probably wouldn't even count the character as an NPC. I do agree that it is important that each player make a character that participates in whatever adventure/campaign is happening. If I had someone who made a character and was all "actually, I'm just gonna open a flower shop" I'd stop and say that isn't the adventure the party is doing, you need to join in, otherwise you aren't playing. The good thing is, I've never had players like that so it really is a hypothetical situation.

I've had characters of my own leave parties for purely in-character reasons, usually because they couldn't get along with other party members. Their intent wasn't to open flower shops, however; but instead to (usually) find another group and keep adventuring.

 

[Rystefn]

No it doesn't. The slope isn't that slippery.

It's not even a slope. It's literally the same argument. If you don't hold the same "They're not here, so why should I care about their wishes?" stance in regards to everyone who isn't there, then it was not an actual description of your reasoning, it was just a justification you threw down because it suited your purpose in the moment.

 

[Rystefn]

Completely agree thus far.

There's two different things being (IMO wrongly) conflated here:

1. The character doesn't go along with the group but instead sails away or opens a barber shop.
2. The character becomes an NPC.

That the character isn't participating in the primary group activity (party-based adventuring, usually) has nothing at all to do with who that character belongs to. When my character decides to leave the party to open a barber shop then if I want to keep playing I need to roll up a replacement; that seems both obvious and uncontroversial. But that barber-shop owner is still my character, not an NPC; and it's still my choice as to whether I later have him chuck the barbering and return to adventuring, be it with the same party or another.

Also, as a DM I see it as being part of my job to update these characters either at the player's request or (in the case of still-active players) my own, usually done in off-cycle sessions (pubs are handy for these). Big long campaigns like what I run tend to build up a whole bunch of these retired or quasi-retired characters; right now I've a list of about 20 that I'd like to update over the next little while, and that's just for the currently-active players.

I disagree with the bolded. It's still a player character until and unless that player hands it over to the DM; and if that hand-over never happens then the character's really not in good faith available to use IMO.

Your disagreement with me is a semantic one over the definition of an NPC, and not a substantial one over who has ownership and control over a formerly adventuring PC who retires from adventuring. Your last sentence indicates a substantial confusion over that, since I literally and explicitly call out that a DMing trying to claim ownership and use them in active play without permission is a dick move in the post you quoted.

 

[Meech17]

It's not even a slope. It's literally the same argument. If you don't hold the same "They're not here, so why should I care about their wishes?" stance in regards to everyone who isn't there, then it was not an actual description of your reasoning, it was just a justification you threw down because it suited your purpose in the moment.

Are we saying that context carries no weight here?

"You said you believe X in regards to a collaborative story telling game. This means you must also believe X applied to the handling of a person's estate"?

 

[TwoSix]

Just like those banks putting money in vaults. It's just begging people to take it.

People who make a big deal out of things that aren't a big deal are asking to have their motives scrutinized.

It's one thing if I say "Since you're leaving, I'm going to have your character show up as a NPC in a brothel in Dis at some point, for the lulz." and they say "I'd really rather think of my character retiring to open an avocado farm in Netheril, like she had always dreamed." Then I'd be like, "OK, fine."

If they come up to me and say "I'm leaving for 3 years, it's very important to me that you don't do anything involving my character at all because I'm very attached to them and I might come back someday and expect to play them again," I would be like "Ok, I'm going to need you to calm down; this is an Arby's".

 

[tetrasodium]

Are we saying that context carries no weight here?

"You said you believe X in regards to a collaborative story telling game. This means you must also believe X applied to the handling of a person's estate"?

I can't say @Rystefn was going for, but the legal standards for challenging it seem like they also apply to an NPC who is having their affairs managed by a responsible GM due to lacking the status of being a PC.

compos mentis

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

As a DM, you have infinite NPCs. If a player doesn't want you to use their ex-PC any further in the game, it generally costs you nothing to agree, no matter how weird you think such a request is.

 

[Vaalingrade]

People who make a big deal out of things that aren't a big deal are asking to have their motives scrutinized.

It's one thing if I say "Since you're leaving, I'm going to have your character show up as a NPC in a brothel in Dis at some point, for the lulz." and they say "I'd really rather think of my character retiring to open an avocado farm in Netheril, like she had always dreamed." Then I'd be like, "OK, fine."

If they come up to me and say "I'm leaving for 3 years, it's very important to me that you don't do anything involving my character at all because I'm very attached to them and I might come back someday and expect to play them again," I would be like "Ok, I'm going to need you to calm down; this is an Arby's".

So spite is the deciding justification for this behavior?

 

[TwoSix]

So spite is the deciding justification for this behavior?

Nah, I prefer Ppsi.

 

[Campbell]

As a DM, you have infinite NPCs. If a player doesn't want you to use their ex-PC any further in the game, it generally costs you nothing to agree, no matter how weird you think such a request is.

I think a lot depends on the specific characters and how deeply ingrained in the game. For home group having to excise some characters from the fiction would basically end our ability to continue on with the game. Of course, it's not just characters that have shared ownership. It's also significant portions of the setting. I don't have a recent D&D example since we're playing Vampire right now (set in 18th century Paris), but here's what a character proposal looks like in one of our games:


There are long standing relationships between characters, shared relationships with NPCs (in a D&D game we played my character's mentor was another character's mother) and significant situations that characters are in the center of. This is not something that can easily be unwound. If a player was really adamant, we probably would end the game or not return to a given chronicle. However, they would have the same sort of claim on much of the setting material. Like-wise, a large chunk of what makes a character who they are is workshopped to fit the given game and jive with the other characters. It's not really fully authored by the person who plays them.

That's why we tend to address it up front. For what it's worth I would be mindful of please don't use my character, but given the way I run games I would not be able to run how exactly I would use the character by them, particularly if the player is playing a different character in the game.

Note that I would expect and try my best to hold to previous characterization although once a character is an NPC they are often less actively pursuing changes in the status quo since the game is no longer like about them.