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

[Yaarel]

Question, for those of you who are very particular about the usage of your character after you've stopped playing them.

For me, the basic idea is. My player characters never stop being player characters. There is no such thing as them becoming an NPC.

I can and do have several characters going on at the same time but at different levels or in different but interrelated campaigns. Whether the character is currently in an adventure or not, is irrelevant. The level of a character, is irrelevant. Even a level 20 character can continue in an Epic adventure, that the players are excited about. Continuing with an earlier character can be nostalgic.

Normally, I expect to pick up where I left off my player character.

Also characters can and do shift from one setting to an other, even at low levels.

 

[TwoSix]

This thread has jumped the shark. I’m out.

I’ll be offline the rest of the day. I have to meet with my lawyers because the authorities discovered that I used to pretend to be Fonzie.

Yea, I'm gonna bounce too. Nothing much else to discover beyond the fact that some players have some boundary issues with their characters I'm not qualified to try and understand.

 

[Meech17]

For me, the basic idea is. My player characters never stop being player characters. There is no such thing as them becoming an NPC.

I can and do have several characters going on at the same time but at different levels or in different but interrelated campaigns. Whether the character is currently in an adventure or not, is irrelevant. The level of a character, is irrelevant. Even a level 20 character can continue in an Epic adventure, that the players are excited about. Continuing with an earlier character can be nostalgic.

Normally, I expect to pick up where I left off my player character.

Also characters can and do shift from one setting to an other, even at low levels.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't really answer my questions.

Let's say I ran a campaign and you played in it. Your character made it to epic levels in that campaign and made a lasting impact on the world.

I'm now running a new campaign set in the same world, taking place after the game you played in. You've decided for whatever reasons to not participate in this new game.

You've told me you don't want your old epic level character to be used as an NPC in the new game. I really like the world building we did and want to build on it, and make it central to the new plot.

Obviously after you've already said you don't want the character to be an NPC, doing so despite your wishes would be rude. I'm just curious what would be acceptable.

Would making an NPC that's your character, but not your character be equally rude? (For example, like a grocery store generic brand level knock-off. Honey-O's or the like.)

Would making a new NPC that is distinct from your character, but essentially takes the place of you character be acceptable? (For example a new and distinct character, that happens to just get the credit for all of your character's achievements and becomes the new face to represent the world building that was done in the prior campaign.)

Or should I just instead never run Campaign 2.0, just in case I later decide I'd like to run Campaign 1.5 where we pick up the story from the first campaign, and you also happen to play in this one?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yea, I'm gonna bounce too. Nothing much else to discover beyond the fact that some players have some boundary issues with their characters I'm not qualified to try and understand.

I'm thinking the same. There's assumptions by some people about "ownership" of things that I don't think anyone exclusively owns, so any discussion is going to be based on conflicting basic premises.

 

[cbwjm]

I get to control my character in your game, though; and that control extends beyond my time at the table.

If you've left the game, unless I specifically contact you to ask "hey, what would your character do in this situation" then no, you have no control over what was your character.

 

[cbwjm]

Actually. Something I've been meaning to ask, might have been answered by some people already, has anyone been in a situation where someone left the game and their character was made an NPC and the former player got mad about it?

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Likewise, owning someone elses identity can be dystopian. Including disrespecting the inworld character of a reallife player.

 

[GrimCo]

I'm curious. For the people who strongly stand on "i have ownership always, even if i leave table". Why do you care what's going on in a game in which you are no longer participating?

 

[Yaarel]

Let's say I ran a campaign and you played in it. Your character made it to epic levels in that campaign and made a lasting impact on the world.

Different players have different sensitivities. For example, I am fine with playful, good natured flirting, but an other player who comes from a different experience might have a legitimate problem with that. On the other hand, I come from a minority religious tradition, and am highly sensitive to religious coercion. Things that might not be on the radar of others might be a legitimate problem for me. Because of family, I am also sensitive about whether LGBTQ characters are presented respectfully − and having gay characters and then killing them off would definitely get my attention and if habitual definitely be a problem.

So, you are asking about me as a player personally.

My character is Epic Tier, say, "level 22" (level 20 with two Epic Boons).

I'm now running a new campaign set in the same world, taking place after the game you played in. You've decided for whatever reasons to not participate in this new game.

You've told me you don't want your old epic level character to be used as an NPC in the new game. I really like the world building we did and want to build on it, and make it central to the new plot.

Again, you are asking me personally.

My view is:

The player "owns" the character, and the DM "owns" the setting. There are places that genuinely overlap both character and setting. These overlaps are situations that "you and your DM agree on".

Obviously after you've already said you don't want the character to be an NPC, doing so despite your wishes would be rude. I'm just curious what would be acceptable.

So, say my Epic Tier character has founded a new Druid Circle or Wizard School, or acquired a "divine portfolio". These are clearly setting features.

If my character is no longer around to influence these setting features, then they by default also already belong to the DM.

So. Leave the player character alone, but any setting features are fair game, such as a new NPC continuing on the Druid Circle or Wizard School, or divine portfolio.

Would making an NPC that's your character, but not your character be equally rude? (For example, like a grocery store generic brand level knock-off. Honey-O's or the like.)

Neither I as a DM or any of my DMs would be mean-spirited about it. But the world can continue to turn in the absence of a character.

I would create an NPC to take over a setting institution. I would also let the player know what is going on.

Would making a new NPC that is distinct from your character, but essentially takes the place of you character be acceptable? (For example a new and distinct character, that happens to just get the credit for all of your character's achievements and becomes the new face to represent the world building that was done in the prior campaign.)

Yes.

Or should I just instead never run Campaign 2.0, just in case I later decide I'd like to run Campaign 1.5 where we pick up the story from the first campaign, and you also happen to play in this one?

Players own characters. Players dont own settings. The campaign continues with or without a specific character.

 

[Maxperson]

Permission happens when agreeing to play a lethal game.

However, bullying and harassment can still happen. Such as if every single monster only attacks the marginalized player.


Also part of a game with spells, but again within respectful limits.


Maybe.

If the player rolls the random table, that implies a kind of permission for the result of the table.


Again, bullying and harassment can be an issue, especially if the Dominated is somehow assumed to participate in some sexually suggestive scenario.

Absolutely, permission is necessary.

Better yet, allow the player to roleplay the Dominated effect.

Corner cases are corner. In general I do not need to ask permission for any of that and I never have...........................and never will.

Disrespect is damage.

In fact it is not. I can disrespect you and everyone else in my life and it is not actionable in court. You are not entitled to respect.

Defamation is legally damage. Bullying is damage. Harassment is damage.

And these don't happen when a player has left my game and I roleplay the former PC in my game. Not even a little bit.