Characters coming and going (your opinion)

[S'mon]

Absent an explicit license, a character is the intellectual property of its creator. Use of that character in contravention of the wishes of its creator is a violation of copyright law

I don't think you know too much about copyright law. I had The Incredible Hulk in my D&D game once. You think Stan Lee can sue me?

Edit: Also you ignore the implied license that is necessary for a D&D game to function. If I create a PC for GM X's game, yes I probably retain the copyright in the copyrightable aspects of that PC (though note copyright has a fixation requirement, so those may be minimal, basically the character sheet). But when I play that PC in a GM's game I'm authorising them to use that PC. I don't see any reason to think that license is revokable unilaterally by the player, unless that's how the group normally operates.

Edit 2: Yes I teach copyright law.

 

[Doug Sundseth]

I don't think you know too much about copyright law. I had The Incredible Hulk in my D&D game once. You think Stan Lee can sue me?

The harm is de minimis, so probably not. Your version of the character is clearly derived from the copyrighted original, though. Now, perhaps your use was a fair one:

It was non-commercial, and it had no negative effect on the use of the original. OTOH, you were (presumably) using the entire character, though probably not the entirety of any one story. Fair use is a matter for factual determinations, though, so without more information, ...

Now, if you were playing Marvel Super Heroes, I would assume a perpetual license for that use was implied by the nature of the sale of an RPG including the character.

Edit: Also you ignore the implied license that is necessary for a D&D game to function.

There is certainly an implied license, for the GM to include the character in the story. There is also (I would argue) an explicit license for the player to use elements of the GM's world in the character creation. (This arises from the GM saying, "Create a character for {my world}".)

If I create a PC for GM X's game, yes I probably retain the copyright in the copyrightable aspects of that PC ...

The character is clearly not a work for hire in the general sense (unless the player has a very interesting deal with the DM . I suppose you could claim that the character is work by an independent contractor "specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work", but it's still not a work for hire unless "the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire." In fewer words, I agree.

Now, the purely game-rule portions of the character, like game designs themselves, might well not be copyrightable, (I think they are not, FWIW), but those aren't the elements under discussion. I don't think anyone has a particular problem with creating a replacement character with the same stats and items. The problem is precisely those elements of the character that represent the creativity of the player; that is, "the copyrightable aspects of that PC".

... (though note copyright has a fixation requirement, so those may be minimal, basically the character sheet).

Copyright also attaches to any derivative work, though, which means that more than just the actual character sheet and any direct copies is affected by the copyright. I assert that a performance derived from the copyrighted portions of the character is exactly such a derivative work and is thus covered by copyright. Not being a lawyer (as previously noted), I don't have cites to the case law of, say, screen plays based on an in-copyright book. I take the fact that Paramount writes checks to be a strong indicator of the existing law, though. They are not noted for their tremendous generosity in matters of IP.

But when I play that PC in a GM's game I'm authorising them to use that PC. I don't see any reason to think that license is revokable unilaterally by the player, unless that's how the group normally operates.

I don't see any reason to think that the license is perpetual, unless there's some indication that that has been agreed to. Why do you think there is a preference for perpetual rather than limited-use implied licensure? Unlike the case of a character sold as a part of a game or supplement, I see this implied license as only lasting for the life of the association.

To the extent that there is an implicit contract, I would assume that the drawer of that contract would be assumed to be the GM (as creator of the game and organizer of the event in most cases), and thus any unclear clause would be construed in favor of the player as the non-drawing party.

Edit 2: Yes I teach copyright law.

I'm not a complete ignoramus as regards copyright.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think I'd be really angry at this guy. If he's no longer a player he has no rights over his PC anyway.

Interesting. I think everyone that I've ever gamed with has considered that 'their' PC belongs to 'them'. It would be considered incredibly bad form to use someone's PC against their wishes in any circumstances; none of the other players would consider that acceptable either.

 

[Shadeydm]

For the record everyone in the group discussed this last night and all agreed that having the character finish the adventure prior to departing was the fair and appropriate solution.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Well, it sucks to have to be the hard ass, but if it were my game, I'd tell him that he was stuck, since he already acted on his choice to enter the dungeon (or whatever) with the party when he knew what his options were. I'd let him leave the party at the first opportunity, but I wouldn't insert a teleport trap into the dungeon unless it's realistic that the trap might be there.

Yep, seconded. His last minute change of heart is a pain to manage.

However, I'd reassure him his character won't die as that'd take any sting out his position and isn't such a hard stretch to accomplish.

 

[Lanefan]

Interesting. I think everyone that I've ever gamed with has considered that 'their' PC belongs to 'them'. It would be considered incredibly bad form to use someone's PC against their wishes in any circumstances; none of the other players would consider that acceptable either.

To a point I agree; but the character also belongs in some small way to the game as a whole, as represented by those at the table at the time. If someone's missing a single session, their PC gets played as if the player was there. If someone leaves permanently, however, that PC becomes part of the game as a whole and gets played however the remaining players feel like - usually in a decent enough manner until it retires at the first reasonable opportunity - but if the departure was acrimonious, decency is not guaranteed.

Lanefan

 

[Silver Moon]

Well, back when one of our players went away to college and would only be back sporatically we had a Pooka show up and make a companion out of him - it sounds hokey, but made for a great and logical plot device since Pookas can travel to any time and place.

Alternately, when players have left our group and are unlikely to ever return we have retained their characters as party NPC's - it helps for the modules when nobody wants to play one of the key character classes, so instead of strong-arming somebody into playing a character they'd rather not we have the NPC fill the void.

My final two-cents, I'd personally go with PirateCat's teleport idea in a heartbeat. Replacing him with another thief-type isn't all that far-fetched either, just don't make it a carbon copy of the other, pick a race and personality different than anything your party has had before and have some fun with the role playing.

 

[woodelf]

I dunno--doesn't sound like such a dilemma to me. He wants out; it's just a game. So, write his character out. I understand the desire for verisimilitude, but given all the options don't see why you can't contrive--and, yes, it will like be a contrivance--an excuse to extract the character intact.

Personally, i think the only question is whether you want to all agree to just hand-wave it, or to have the characters aware of the change. That is, either his exit can be something you all agree just happened, and everyone agrees not to try and investigate it or make sense of it, or it can be the foundation for a future game: "ok, we know that none of our teleportation magics worked in the caverns, so how did Julie get away? We could really use that device/ability/spell in the future."

Now, my vote on the "necessary skills" issue is that there's no such thing. What would the group have done if stealth guy was killed 1hr into the dungeon? What if they'd decided to brave the dungeon without a stealth guy? Either they'd perish, or they'd come up with solutions that circumvent their lack, or you'd adjust the game to compensate. Whichever solution works for your group should work the same if a character miraculously vanishes.

As for the player's behavior, yeah, he should've made the decision the first time, when you asked. But, really, i think you're turning changing his mind into a mountain when it's just a molehill. Let me turn the situation on its head: someone new is gonna join your group, but at the last minute can't make it to the first session. The characters enter a "no exits" dungeon that session. Are you really going to say "sorry, there's no way to insert your character until they leave the dungeon--call me back in 8 weeks"? Or would you figure out some way to contrive his late arrival?

Oh, and let me piggyback on several other suggestions: if you must keep the character around for whatever reason, i vote for some sort of doppelganger/evil twin/alternate universe version/stunt double having replaced the character some time ago. I think that's the best solution all-round. Gives you the character; gives the player his out; and could even give you a cool quest in the future to go rescue the real character--but you can decide the details later.

 

[S'mon]

I assert that a performance derived from the copyrighted portions of the character is exactly such a derivative work and is thus covered by copyright.

Performance right covers Public Performance of a work. A D&D game session in my house using a PC is not a public performance (of that PC?!) by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[S'mon]

Interesting. I think everyone that I've ever gamed with has considered that 'their' PC belongs to 'them'. It would be considered incredibly bad form to use someone's PC against their wishes in any circumstances; none of the other players would consider that acceptable either.

I'm talking about cases where the player has left the game. I run a continuing world, many dozens of ex PCs are now NPCs.