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

[Lanefan]

If they’re not being played by the player, they’re an NPC in that campaign to be used by the DM as the situation necessitates. I don’t see that as particularly controversial. If the PCs are never in a position to encounter that character again, fine. If they do, however, the character is now the DM’s responsibility since the player who used to play them is either gone or has moved on to another character that now serves as their PC. Giving up playing a PC, as I see it, automatically relegates them to NPC status for as long as that situation persists.

The bolded makes an almost binding assumption that a player may only play one character at a time. This is IMO a faulty assumption.

 

[billd91]

Please provide support for "Giving up playing a PC, as I see it, automatically relegates them to NPC status for as long as that situation persists." since that is the topic at hand and cannot be accepted by just assertion.

What "support" is needed? The character isn't currently being played by a player. If they're encountered in some capacity, they're going to be played by somebody and that somebody is the DM.

 

[Wofano Wotanto]

if ever needed, I know where to find the sheet and the player knows I have it - unless my place burns down, it can't get lost

Gah. Don't jinx yourself like that. I lost over half of a 25 year-old game collection a fire - along with all of the then-current campaign's paperwork. Lot of stuff I'll never replace up in smoke.

 

[billd91]

The bolded makes an almost binding assumption that a player may only play one character at a time. This is IMO a faulty assumption.

Not in the games I run.

 

[SableWyvern]

Moral rights. Now we're talking.

So you are asserting that your moral rights to use someone else's creation without permission exceed their rights not to have it used without permission.

Is that correct?

It's sociopathic to assume that only one person as moral rights, so how do their moral rights to their creation fit into this?

We're saying any moral right that may exist doesn't and shouldn't prevent me from using a version of your creation in my private, home RPG game (or drawing pictures of it in my spare time, or writing steamy journal entries to myself about your creation (even if I then share those entries with a few close friends), or whatever people want to do in private, with their friends.

I think most of us would agree the situation changes in circumstances where you're publicly distributing your works, especially (but not only) if you're monetising it. However, it doesn't change to be, "the original player is the only one with rights" but "the character, to at least some extent, is a shared creation, that affects a shared world, and multiple parties can have a legitimate interest in making use of the character"

 

[Yaarel]

Gah. Don't jinx yourself like that. I lost over half of a 25 year-old game collection a fire - along with all of the then-current campaign's paperwork. Lot of stuff I'll never replace up in smoke.

Losses while packing and moving can similarly disappear gaming stuff.

 

[tetrasodium]

Moral rights. Now we're talking.

So you are asserting that your moral rights to use someone else's creation without permission exceed their rights not to have it used without permission.

Is that correct?

It's sociopathic to assume that only one person as moral rights, so how do their moral rights to their creation fit into this?

Yes when "your" is the gm who ran the game where that player played a character (let's call the PC Andy) that achieved notable accomplishments. When those past accomplishments come up in future gameplay sessions the player's failure to make known their expectations to gain benefits for their future PC Bob through Andy should it ever come up very much puts that player in the wrong.

Alternately they are a disruption to the future session should they disrupt the session by making a surprise reveal of those hidden expectations. In making that disruption the player is even more in the wrong by using an unstated expectation to justify disrupting everyone's fun with the goal of metagaming.

@Lanefan it's extremely rare for a player to have multiple PCs in modern RPGs barring things like a dcc funnel with random pregens or an unusual circumstance like a small group. What was common in 1e is no longer the case for many many reasons

 

[SableWyvern]

This seem that you are saying that the player DOES own the character but that doesn't restrict others from using the character.

This thread is about owning, I just want to make sure I'm reading this right and not putting words in your mouth.

The original premise the thread was built on is that the original player of a PC gets absolute right of veto over anyone ever playing the same PC in any game ever. I disagreed. Overgeeked decided the topic interesting enough to start a new thread.

 

[Wofano Wotanto]

Not in the games I run.

No doubt, but there are entire systems that expect every player to maintain multiple PCs that they rotate through in different situations. For ex, Ars Magica calls for everyone to have a spellcaster, a skilled companion or two, and to cooperate in acting as some of the group's shared grog lackeys. Dark Sun's character tree had you generate four PCs and use one until there was a narratively appropriate time to change, then you could shift to another if desired. The "off stage' characters leveled up based on the active PC's actions, and would crop up more or less immediately if the active PC was killed (Dark Sun being rather on the fatal side).

Questions about "ownership" get really complex in a game like those.

 

[Umbran]

It's sociopathic...

Mod Note:

How about we stop throwing around havily chaarged words like "sociopathhic". Now.

The rhetoric in this discussion has to be kept at reasonable levels, folks.