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

[cbwjm]

This is written assuming that PC -> NPC. Since that is the entire point of this thread, you can't just assert that without any support.

Assert what?

 

[Blue]

Assert what?

What you wrote assumed that PCs become NPCs, without saying anything in support of that. Since that's the whole point of this thread, making that assertion without support undermines anything else said since that's not agreed on.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure, your character is your creation, but once they're part of my game now they're a part of my creative work.

The game and the work in total both belong to the group, not the DM. Specific elements may be yours, but the game is not.

I have a friend who got a tattoo of his favorite character. He's recreated him across multiple campaigns and even multiple systems. The idea that it is his "former" character is bizarre to me. It's his character, nothing former to it.

Yeah the idea of any of my characters being "former" in any way is absurd, to me. They're my character.

 

[aco175]

duplicate post

 

[aco175]

Does the character sheet matter?

I mean I never kept sheets of the characters or asked for them if they died or left the game, or even when the game ended. I feel that is the players. The concept of the character in the game world is something I do not have a problem with using. Especially in another campaign that is in the same world where I am DMing. The old PC is now a NPC, but I do not have the sheet or if the new PCs somehow chose to fight the old PC, it would not have the same powers or items. I would just run it like a monster

 

[Blue]

Soo.... What is the typical reaction when you bring all of this up im session zero? You did make sure to have the group do a session zero so you could get these rather strong feelings that you seem to have out right? It seems like a player bringing up all of this would immediately present as a major red flag even if I was another player at some other GM's table.

I'm not the person you were asking, but I don't bring up if we're going to use d20s at Session 0 even if I have strong feelings that 2d10 bell curve isn't right for D&D. Why? Because it's the default to use d20s and unless we hear otherwise we don't need to chase every possible non-standard thing down to ensure that it isn't being surprised on us.

Same for this - the player creates the character, sometimes well before a campaign. Why would I address the default that the player owns the character?

Again, I have no problems with a DM asking to use, and usually if leaving a campaign before the end will explicitly tell the DM to make use of my character. Because as the owner of the character that is mine to give away.

 

[Blue]

That said, the specific example this conversation spun off from was of a character choosing not to participate in the activity the game is explicitly about and thereby becoming an NPC. And this is a different beast entirely. Every player at the table has a responsibility to make a character that is going to participate in the game. This is a pretty non-controversial statement, in general. If you make a character that is antagonistic, antisocial, and decides to wander off away from the rest of the group to solo adventures, the DM is entirely within their rights to go "Congratulations, you're an NPC now. Now either make a character that will be a part of the group, or find another table" rather than running a separate solo adventure for you while the rest of the group sits around doing nothing. This applies equally to "I'm going to sail away to a new continent without the rest of the group," "I'm going to retire from adventuring to start a quaint little B&B," or any other form of choosing not to participate.

There is a leap here caused by a false boolean.

There can be no requirement for a DM to continue to run for someone, without there also being a requirement that the character also becomes under the control of the DM as an NPC.

There's always just "this character is written out of the story" and moving on with a new character.

 

[cbwjm]

What you wrote assumed that PCs become NPCs, without saying anything in support of that. Since that's the whole point of this thread, making that assertion without support undermines anything else said since that's not agreed on.

I said what can happen in my games. I don't need to write an essay in support of what can happen in my games.

 

[billd91]

Sure, but they don't automatically become an NPC, that needs to be transferred by the player.

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.

 

[Irlo]

Why would I address the default that the player owns the character?

This thread demonstrates that the default is not as defaulty as some think it is. For an issue as important to some players as "ownership" of a character is, it behooves the player not to leave it as an unspoken default.