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

[Rystefn]

No. I'm arguing, "In this specific case, the fact that they're no longer present means that what they're wishing for makes no sense."
If Bob is deathly allergic to peanuts, it makes sense if we agree we just don't eat them while he's around. If he leaves the group, and tells us to continue not eating nuts at the sessions, that is not reasonable.

If we always leave Bob the particular chair that he really likes, it is not reasonable for him to tell us to leave it vacant in his memory when he leaves the group.

If Bob is playing his character, it makes sense for him not to want other people to play that character. If he leaves the group, it no longer affects Bob what we do in the session, and if the group really wants that character to continue, why wouldn't Bob respect the group's wishes?

The logic is still the same for a dead person, and in fact, still applies even more to them. It no longer affects Granny who gets her necklace after she's dead in a much more profound way than anything to do with Bob and his character. Unlike Bob, you can be 100% certain that she'll never come back and complain about it.

Also, you're lying. You disagree with people feeling like they own their own characters that they created and controlled, but you know, you 100% know, the basis of the position. It does make sense to you. You are disagreeing and pretending that you don't understand because you feel like it strengthens your position to do so. The same you're pretending that you think it's reasonable for a group of people to claim something that belongs to someone else, and he's being an naughty word if he has a problem with it. You know that your argument is disingenuous, at best, but you're making it anyway, because you're confident that people are going to engage with it as if it's real instead of calling you out.

 

[Rystefn]

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.

Disentangling someone from any plot is a trivial exercise. What would you do if the character suddenly died? You're playing Vampire, so it's pretty safe to assume that's on the table. The Word of Darkness is a dangerous place, after all, and literally every vampire has entire organizations out there just looking for a chance to kill them merely for existing, on top of whoever has personal beef, which is almost never "no one has personal beef." If you're not prepared for dealing with any given plot suddenly no longer having any given character to interact with it, you're going to have problems.

The specific fallout might be a complicated mess, but the act of going "This person is no longer here and isn't involved with this anymore" is as simple as going "This person is longer here and isn't involved anymore." Then you just go from there.

 

[SableWyvern]

The logic is still the same for a dead person, and in fact, still applies even more to them. It no longer affects Granny who gets her necklace after she's dead in a much more profound way than anything to do with Bob and his character. Unlike Bob, you can be 100% certain that she'll never come back and complain about it.

Also, you're lying. You disagree with people feeling like they own their own characters that they created and controlled, but you know, you 100% know, the basis of the position. It does make sense to you. You are disagreeing and pretending that you don't understand because you feel like it strengthens your position to do so. The same you're pretending that you think it's reasonable for a group of people to claim something that belongs to someone else, and he's being an naughty word if he has a problem with it. You know that your argument is disingenuous, at best, but you're making it anyway, because you're confident that people are going to engage with it as if it's real instead of calling you out.

I'm responding here simply to state that no, I'm not lying.

I won't engage with you any further; if you are assuming everything I say is a lie, there is no point.

 

[LordEntrails]

So.... I think it depends on what you mean by own.

IMO from a legal Intellectual Property sense, I'm pretty confident the player owns it. And they are the only ones who can distribute the stories and likeness of the character.

Now, the future of the character in the GM's game world, the character belongs to the GM. But, of course, since they don't own the rights to the IP, they would not be able to commercialize or distribute the character's story (from the time the player controlled the character) w/o permission.

 

[SableWyvern]

but he does own his character.

Well, I think the fundamental point is that I don't agree with this. However, it seems pretty clear at this point that we are not going to get any closer to a mutually agreeable position, because we are working from incompatible axioms.

Edit to add: I could concede you own the character, but only in a situation where it's recognised that the version that continues under new management is not actually the same character, but a new one that just happens to start from the point where the old one left. And to be honest, that's pretty much the way I look at it. The character the GM or player controls moving forward isn't that same one you were playing, it's a new one that appears very similar in many respects, at least at first.

That said, on a practical level, I expect this would be highly unlikely to ever cause problems in the real world. It's a hypothetical issue, not real a real one.

 

[LordEntrails]

Well, I think the fundamental point is that I don't agree with this. However, it seems pretty clear at this point that we are not going to get any closer to a mutually agreeable position, because we are working from incompatible axioms.

That said, on a practical level, I expect this would be highly unlikely to ever cause problems in the real world. It's a hypothetical issue, not real a real one.

So if you and I write a collaborative story together, and then ten years later we no longer see each other, you think you can make a book out of it and make a million dollars and not owe me anything? Pretty sure you will lose that court case in most countries win the world.

But, if you were to use that story as a basis to share with a few friends and right more non-commercial collaborative stories, pretty sure no one could or would have a problem with that.

 

[SableWyvern]

So if you and I write a collaborative story together, and then ten years later we no longer see each other, you think you can make a book out of it and make a million dollars and not owe me anything? Pretty sure you will lose that court case in most countries win the world.

Huh? I'm saying that the player doesn't have exclusive ownership of the character. Just like in your collaborative story example, neither party has exclusive ownership.

Your example is supporting my position.

But, if you were to use that story as a basis to share with a few friends and right more non-commercial collaborative stories, pretty sure no one could or would have a problem with that.

I am very specifically only arguing with people who are saying it is their absolute right to decide they have a problem with it.

 

[Irlo]

So if you and I write a collaborative story together, and then ten years later we no longer see each other, you think you can make a book out of it and make a million dollars and not owe me anything? Pretty sure you will lose that court case in most countries win the world.

But, if you were to use that story as a basis to share with a few friends and right more non-commercial collaborative stories, pretty sure no one could or would have a problem with that.

People in this thread have said that they have very serious problems with others using their characters in non-commercial collaborative stories. Don't underestimate what people could or would have problems with.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Also, you're lying. You disagree with people feeling like they own their own characters that they created and controlled, but you know, you 100% know, the basis of the position. It does make sense to you. You are disagreeing and pretending that you don't understand because you feel like it strengthens your position to do so.

Mod Note:

Disagreement with others is fine. Feel free to push back…politely.

But direct accusations of lying and attempting “amateur mind reading” of others are not acceptable behavior here. Do not repeat this error.

 

[Meech17]

I feel like this discussion isn't bearing a lot of fruit. Both sides are kind of pushing to extremes which I think does the topic a disservice.

We're looking at one side in the most charitable light, while also assuming the worst from the other, and I think this is happening from both directions.

On the "GM owns the character" side it feels like people are assuming players will be slapping their GMs and yelling "Keep my PC's name, out yo mouth!" and will be totally unreasonable in their requests.

Whereas the "Player owns the character side" is kind of leaning towards "Why do you insist you have to have the right to take an old PC and turn them into a clown to parade around in front of the party?" and thinks the DMs are out to lampoon their old players' characters

Ultimately however, I think either of these, while probable things that could happen at some tables, I think they'd be far from the typical outcome.

We're much more likely to see examples like

DM: 'Hey Bob. Remember how when we wrapped up our last campaign you mentioned Gregor, your paladin was going to stay behind in the starting village to try and fix up the temple and maybe start an orphanage? I was thinking of placing this campaign ten years later, and the town has grown and Gregor's kind of become the unofficial mayor. He's going to be like a patron to the party. Perhaps you guys will all play as trainees of the temple. Sounds cool right? "

And then Bob would either say:

Bob: 'Oh wow. That does sound fun. Could my character maybe be Gregor's adoptive son, and then all of my real knowledge of him can play out in game because I'll pretty much know him as well as his son would?'

Or

Bob: `Oh I don't know DM. Gregor was kind of a really special character for me, and I'm really pleased with how his story ended. I'd much prefer to kind of put a bookend on it and leave it there, rather than digging him back up.'

I don't think any of these scenarios are unreasonable, and I think most people would be okay with them. I think a lot of players would like seeing their characters live on past their origin. But at the same time I think most DMs would respect their player's wishes if they did really feel so strongly about it.

So ultimately.. Tl;Dr: The stories we tell are collaborative, and ownership is shared between the player and the DM. As long as that desire to collaborate continues its probably not nearly as dramatic a situation as everyone is making it out to be.