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

[Maxperson]

I dont understand this view of DMs assuming they own other peoples characters.

That isn't what I said.

I am the DM. I can create whatever NPC I desire. I can draw inspiration and good ideas from any player character that I have seen played, to create a new NPC.

Sure.

Why would I want to mess around with someone elses personal space that the reallife player self-identifies with? It seems gratuitously cruel.

You have left my game, so you have no longer have any personal space in it..

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've written thousands of silly poems etc. over the years. Never made a cent off 'em. They still belong to me, though.

And I don't consider any of the creative works I've done to "belong" to me in any meaningful sense, so here we are.

 

[Campbell]

I dont understand this view of DMs assuming they own other peoples characters.

I am the DM. I can create whatever NPC I desire. I can draw inspiration and good ideas from any player character that I have seen played, to create a new NPC.

Why would I want to mess around with someone elses personal space that the reallife player self-identifies with? It seems gratuitously cruel and inherently violating.

A player character belongs 100% to the player.

I know I am opening a can of worms here, but I really don't want to play or run a game where players are self-identifying with their characters, or the GM has this sort of pristine vision of the setting (as something that can be "ruined"). Stuff is going to happen in the games I care to play/run that is going to cause you to reevaluate who the character you are playing fundamentally is and what's important to them. I need the people I'm playing with to not see the things their character goes through as happening to them. I also like really desire people to create characters that are distinct from themselves and not just basically self-inserts.

I can understand a case that joint creative development means a GM should get your permission to use your creative work, but the self-identify bit is frankly something I don't want any part of.

 

[tetrasodium]

I dont understand this view of DMs assuming they own other peoples characters.

I am the DM. I can create whatever NPC I desire. I can draw inspiration and good ideas from any player character that I have seen played, to create a new NPC.

Why would I want to mess around with someone elses personal space that the reallife player self-identifies with? It seems gratuitously cruel and inherently violating.

A player character belongs 100% to the player.

"Own" is an unfortunate word choice that brings in the player's own (possibly shared)copyright ownership and vicarious infringement to a discussion that should largely be about who has authority/control of unused/retired PC at the table.

So can you address the player's vicarious infringement or explain what page of a 5e book contains the section that allows a player to unilaterally choose to grant themselves A B or C from this post over the GM's world without calling for a session zero so they can reveal their major red flag expectation ?

 

[Irlo]

A player character belongs 100% to the player.

I have to ask -- what does that mean, specifically? What limits can the owner require of others with regard to the player character?

Can I tell my friends a story about your PC's adventures from the game last night? Can I make up a story to tell my friends about your PC? Are you the only one who can describe imaginary exploits of your PC during a game session? Outside of a game session?

The concept of ownership gets pretty darn weird when ownership conveys the expectation that you can restrict other people's imaginations. Fortunately, restrictions like that are unenforcable in any practical or legal sense. But it's disturbing to me that anyone would want to impose them. I don't think people are thinking through the implications.

I've said before and I'll say again: there are good reasons for complying with player requests about the use of their characters, but ownership is not one of those reasons.

 

[Schmoe]

It really doesn’t.

Interesting, thanks for the reference! I guess it's more nuanced than a strict yes or no.

My read of that is that it really depends on whether a derivative work falls under Fair Use, and that is explicitly hard to gauge except on a case-by-case basis. In the case of a DM writing things for their home game about someone else's character, I guess that's for the courts to figure out if such a case were ever to come their way. I'm struggling to come up with any read of Fair Use that would prohibit it, though.

 

[Yaarel]

Here are offical rules in Tashas about the Social Contract when playing D&D.

To be disrespectful and inflict discomfort in-world against the character of a player that is at the table during the abuse, is little different from such against the character of a player that is away from the table and is likewise the target of abuse.

"
SOCIAL CONTRACT

D&D is first and foremost meant to be a fun-for-ALL experience. If one or more participants aren't having fun, the game won't last long.

Session zero is the perfect time for you and the players to discuss the experience they're hoping for, as well as topics, themes, and behavior they deem inappropriate. Out of this discussion, a social contract begins to form.

Sometimes a social contract takes shape organically, but it's good practice to have a direct conversation during session zero to establish boundaries and expectations.

A typical social contract in a D&D group includes implicit or explicit commitments to the following points:

• YOU WILL RESPECT THE PLAYERS BY RUNNING A GAME THAT IS FUN FAIR AND TAILORED FOR THEM. You will allow every player to contribute to the ongoing story and give every character moments to shine. When a player is talking, you are listening.
• The players will respect you and the effort it takes to create a fun game for everyone. The players will allow you to direct the campaign, arbitrate the rules, and settle arguments. When you are talking, the players are listening.

• The players will respect one another, listen to one another, support one another, and do their utmost to preserve the cohesion of the adventuring party.
• Should you or a player disrespect each other or violate the social contract in some other way, the group may dismiss that person from the table.

This social contract covers the basics, but individual groups might require additional agreed-upon terms to guarantee a fun play experience for all. And a social contract typically evolves as a group's members learn more about one another.

HARD AND SOFT LIMITS

Once you and the players have acknowledged the terms of the game's social contract and agreed to uphold them, the conversation can segue into a discussion about soft and hard limits. There are many ways to mediate this discussion, and you might want to do some research to find an approach that might work well for your group. For purposes of this explanation, these terms are described as follows:

A soft limit is a threshold that one should think twice about crossing, as it is likely to create GENUINE anxiety, fear, and DISCOMFORT.

A hard limit is a threshold that should never be crossed. Every member of the group has soft and hard limits, and it behooves everyone in the group to know what they are. Make sure everyone at the table is comfortable with how this discussion takes place. Players might not want to discuss their limits aloud around the table, especially if they're new to roleplaying games or haven't spent a lot of time with certain other members of the group.

One way to alleviate such discomfort is to encourage the players to share their limits privately with you and allow you to present them without attribution to the whole group. For example, the players could write their limits on index cards for you to read aloud. However these limits are presented, it would be useful for you or one of the players to compile the limits into one list that can be shared with the whole group. Keep in mind that any discussion about limits should be treated with care-even sharing a person's limits can be a very painful experience, and this conversation should be handled with respect.

Common in-game limits include - but are not limited to - themes or scenes of sex, exploitation, racial profiling, slavery, violence toward children and animals, gratuitous swearing, and intra-party romance.

Common out-of-game limits include unwanted physical contact, dice-sharing, dice-throwing, shouting, vulgarity, rules lawyering, distracting use of cellphones, and generally disrespectful behavior.

The discussion of limits is important because DMs and players can have phobias or triggers that others might not be aware of. ANY IN-GAME TOPIC OR THEME THAT MAKES A MEMBER OF THE GAMING GROUP FEEL UNSAFE OR UNCOMFORTABLE SHOULD BE AVOIDED. If a topic or theme makes one or more players nervous but they give you consent to include it in-game, incorporating it should be handled with care, and you must be ready to veer away from such topics and themes quickly.

While session zero is the perfect place to start this discussion, it might not be the only time limits are addressed. Someone might cross a line and need to be reminded of a limit, or someone might not think to include some of their limits in the initial discus sion. Players can also discover new limits as the campaign unfolds. Make a plan to check in with the group to make sure the list of hard and soft limits is up to date, and remind everyone to revisit this list often in case it changes.

"


The description of the Social Contract focuses on the player who are currently at the table. However, it is only a starting point.

To be disrespectful and inflicting discomfort in-world against the character of a player that is away from the table and is likewise the target of abuse, is little different from such against the character of a player that his at the table during the abuse.

 

[Yaarel]

Stuff that happens during a D&D game can in various circumstances constitute harassment, bullying, and similar.

 

[Irlo]

Stuff that happens during a D&D game can in various circumstances constitute harassment, bullying, and similar.

Yes, that's true. Perhaps you're responding to someone whose posts I can't read. How does this observation relate to the idea that a player can expect to restrict the imagined game content of others? Or is it unrelated?

 

[Yaarel]

How does this observation relate to the idea that a player can expect to restrict the imagined game content of others? Or is it unrelated?

Being ethical and respectful toward the boundaries of fellow D&D players never stops because they are currently not looking at you and are away from the table.