Lots to unpack here...
I don't really know why this rankles me, but it does, and I'm going to try to articulate my thoughts here. This may not be explicitly discussed during session zero but to me this is the fundamental premise of the social agreement that makes RPGs what they are (regardless as to whether or not PVP is allowed, evil PCs are allowed, or any other number of questions that may come up).
RPGs are a collaborative work.
Only to a point, says I. The end result (e.g. the in-hindsight game record or log) may look like a collaboration but it's still a collection of individual people producing said result, and each individual is IMO entitled to be and remain their own independent free-thinking person throughout the process - both as player and as character.
The Dungeon Master prepares the world, and "sets the initial state" of all characters except the PCs (among other initial states set), but once player characters are invited to begin acting upon the world, the world no longer belongs wholly to the DM. The players are active agents whose actions shape the world by forcing the Dungeon Master to adjudicate the way in which the world is changed by/reacts to their actions. Every NPC created by the DM - especially one that interacts directly with the PCs but even some that do not due to ripple effects of the PCs actions - is no longer fully under the DM's control - player actions matter and so to some degree, each NPC "belongs" not to the DM, but to the group as a whole. The DM may be responsible for running the NPC at most times, but every character in the world becomes shared among the DM and the players as soon as session one starts.
Just because an NPC interacts with one or more PCs doesn't take any control over that NPC away from the DM, barring charm or control magics. The DM still gets to determine how or even if that NPC responds to what the PCs do or say.
"Social mechanics" (e.g. Intimidate, Persuasion, etc.) are however a fraught question; player agency tends to frown on NPCs using these mechanics against PCs, and unless a mechanic works equally both ways I want no part of it either as player or DM.
In the same way, you as a player prepare a character and "set the initial state" of the character, but once session one starts, your character is now acted upon by the world and by other characters. A player may be responsible for running the PC at most times, but every character in the world becomes shared among the DM and the players as soon as session one starts.
Again, not really buying this. It's the equivalent to saying we'd be sharing our real selves with each other were we to sit down for a beer somewhere.
When a PC dies mid-session, frequently the player is offered a familiar NPC (hireling, ally, etc.) to control for the remainder of that session. That NPC might have originally been created by the DM, but has become a shared character over the course of play and the DM cedes control of that character to the player.
Given that the DM has an entire world to share and a player only has whatever characters they have in the setting, the DM loaning out an NPC in such cases makes sense. In the past I've even once or twice signed over NPCs to players to become their full-time PCs, though admittedly with mixed results.
What makes your PC so special that you cannot fathom ceding control of a shared character to the DM? You say "it's still my character" - what makes you solely and specially entitled to "possess" that persona?
What makes me entitled to possess that persona is the fact that I created it for myself to run. Had I created it for someone else to run, that'd be different; but IME that's very rare (though I've seen it happen).
My character(s) is (are) the only thing in the game and setting that belongs to me. Other players' characters belong to them, and everything else belongs to the DM.
I suppose most often I play the part of a DM, and so to hear a player say "you cannot control my character!" rings in my ears as "I don't trust you to control this character in a way that is faithful to the way I imagine him."
Even if I have complete trust in your ability to run my character true, just on the principle of "what's mine is mine" I'm still not gonna let you have it.
Or, at the very least, I reserve the right to not let you have it.
Or perhaps it's just my thinking that every character in the game world is theoretically capable of being inhabited by a player; the distinction between "PC" and "NPC" is only "is the real-world person currently inhabiting this character currently acting in the capacity of a Dungeon Master?"
On this we fully agree, though we're probably coming at it from two very different directions.
My take is that PCs and NPCs are indistinguishable in the setting. There's no such thing as 'PC Glow', and the game mechanics apply equally to all.
But then, perhaps that comes from playing at a number of tables where the role of Dungeon Master rotated weekly and quite often PCs were controlled by different players when the "usual" player took on the role of DM.
On the odd occasion we've temporarily switched DMs within the same campaign, one of two things happens: either the DM's characters retire for that bit or they become adventuring NPCs in the party for that bit. (adventuring NPCs in the party are extremely common here anyway so this would be par for the course)
Okay, your character picked up an item that forced an immediate alignment change. I feel that some of my players (past and present) would be capable of adequately playing the new alignment, ethos, outlook, etc. - and others of my players absolutely would not be capable of (or comfortable) doing so.
If they're not (yet) capable of it, now's their chance to learn!
If they're not comfortable with it then fine, sign it over to the DM (or better yet, to another player) to play. But that sign-over has to be the player's choice, not something forced by the DM (which was the initial root of this tangent).
But are there cases in which you would feel the character could be relinquished (perhaps when it is barely recognizable as the character any more)? For example, what if your character is slain by a vampire and rises the next night as a vampire spawn? Perhaps the character died 10 years ago and is raised as a mindless skeleton by an evil cleric? Would you object to either of these? What about failing a Will save against a possession? Or is it your position that your control of absolutely everything about your character is exclusively your domain?
As far as I can I try to leave it in the player's hands. Many a time in the past I've passed a player a note after a bad roll saying something to the effect of "He's charmed you. Play along" and IME nearly all players are pretty good with this and play the charmed character well. For something more extreme like domination I'll pass notes until the domination is obvious to other then just speak as the dominator and tell the character what to do, though the player still rolls all its dice.
The vampire spawn and animated dead questions are more gray. Though very rare, I've had it go both ways: I've run the undead, or the player has.
Where does the line get drawn, I guess? When you put your character into an RPG, you potentially subject them to maiming, disfigurement, curses, possession, and even death! All of these things are changes forced upon the character from the outside, and while you might argue you are capable of effectively role-playing them, what exactly is wrong with, say the DM taking control of a possessed character (since presumably the character is no longer in control of their body, the likely-malevolent entity possessing them is in control).
Indeed, the game-state can at times force a player to cede character control. I don't have a problem with this as it's a known part of the game.
Maybe, maybe not. As I mentioned, in some groups I am in, we have had multiple Dungeon Masters and nearly every player has a chance to inhabit nearly every character at some point (this actually is kind of nice so you're not always pigeonholed into being the tank or the artillery or the support).
I accomplish the same thing as player by having multiple characters in the setting, and cycling them in and out depending on a) what the party needs at the time and b) what I feel like playing.
Again, I think it comes back to trust. If you are in a one-shot, or the first time at the table with a group, there's not enough time for them to have earned your trust for you to think they can effectively inhabit the character you created. But if this is a group that you've been with for a long time, and you don't think anyone but you is capable of inhabiting that character, that to me is a bit of a giveaway that something's gone adrift - why are you still collaborating with these people if you don't trust their ability to collaborate?
Because, as I said up top, even though our crew have been together for decades we're still individuals; and while we might be collaborating on generating the emerging story the characters we use to do so are still our own to do with as we will.
Ugh... I wonder if this post is starting to read as a personal attack, which is not my intent. Rather, I'm asking you to look at the "my character" mindset ... and ask if you can imagine a collaborative group where on any given day, any member of the group could effectively inhabit every character ("PC" or "NPC")? That doesn't mean they would make every decision and execute every detail exactly the same way I would... what it means is they would understand the character and all of their decisions would be true to the "essence" of the character - in the same way we can see a dozen renditions of Hamlet, and even though they are not quite identical, each actor in the title role is inhabiting/portraying a "Hamlet" that is true to the character.
Given the crew I run with, I see that mostly as a massive breeding ground for arguments over whose interpretation of any given character is correct at any given time.
For example, I might see Lanefan the Fighter as a drunken loudmouth boor, you might see him as a dashing paragon of virtue, and a third player might see him as the strong silent type. Who is right? And when I say for his action that he'll charge screaming, at the same time you say he'll negotiate and the third player says he'll pull out his bow and shoot it, again who is right?
Multiply that out over half a dozen characters and I hope you brought earmuffs.
If you can imagine such a group, and it appeals to you, and you're not a part of one, I would encourage you to find such a group. I honestly cannot fathom playing more than a couple of sessions with a group of people if I couldn't trust most (maybe not all) of them to inhabit most characters I create
I don't need to trust anyone to inhabit my characters because they're not going to get the opportunity to do so.
That said, our SOP here is if a player knows ahead of time they'l be missing a session someone else does the rolling for that player and we kinda play the character(s) by committee. If the player has given any instructions they are followed as closely as practicality allows, given of course that not every eventuality can be foreseen.
(yes, I know, some people are not comfortable with portraying some sorts of characters - I have friends that don't like to inhabit "evil" characters or "quirky" characters or what have you, but for the most part, I no longer see characters as "extensions of me" or "mine"
I don't necessarily see them as extensions of me. Hell, I often play characters very different from my real self, just for the hell of it. But they're still mine.
- I see them as roles that anyone who desires to fill that role should be able to step into). I find a group like that, where occasionally I get to step outside a character I have created so I can "examine them from the outside" gives me much greater depth of understanding of who they really are than always trying to inhabit the character and only ever "seeing the character from the inside."
Fair point, though given I only ever see myself from the inside only seeing one's character from the inside is a good reflection of that.
