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

[Maxperson]

So, the details matter.
When a player sits down at the table to play their character, there is an at least implicit agreement about what kind of stuff will happen - possibly an explicit agreement, if you run a solid Session Zero.

Beyond that - the tables I've run at for the past 15+ years have had separate agreements about what might happen if the player isn't at the table - including how much risk the character will be in if their character is present, but run by the GM or another player.

I think there ought to be yet another agreement if the character is going to be used as an NPC in a context beyond the campaign the PC was being played in.

These all seem to be based on the assumption that the player is still playing in the game. If a player is in the game and a former PC from another campaign is encountered, I leave it to the player of that PC to roleplay what the character does. He knows the character best.

I'm talking about what happens when a player leaves the game entirely. There is no obligation for me to track down the player and ask permission to roleplay the now NPC in my game.

That said, I do agree that session zero clarifications are a good thing and do run a session 0 in my games.

Broadly - the PC is the player's intellectual property. Make an agreement on how you use it when it is borrowed.

Unlike most intellectual property, a character is made to be shared in the game world. Primary control resides with the player, but there are times when the DM can and does take over for a bit. The character(s) and the game as a whole belong to everyone playing in the collaborative effort.

Yeah, but "there is no legal harm" is not the basis of the social contracts we work under.

I've yet to be in a social contract that assumes that if a player leaves the game entirely, the DM can't use the character as an NPC.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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?

Because I also wouldn't like my car stolen even if I'm around the corner where I can't see it?

If I own something, I have an expectation that people won't take it without my permission.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
@QuentinGeorge and everyone else

If all you have to add is mockery and disdain, your post is not of any real value to anyone else. So, how about you keep it to yourself next time.

 

[GrimCo]

Because I also wouldn't like my car stolen even if I'm around the corner where I can't see it?

If I own something, I have an expectation that people won't take it without my permission.

False analogy. If i take your car, you don't have it. But me using your character when you leave doesn't leave you without that character. You can still use that same character in another game.

 

[Lanefan]

In fact, it doesn't extend beyond that time. You get to control your current and retired PCs only while you are at the table. The instant you leave my game and cease being a player in it, they are characters not controlled by a player and there are only two categories. Characters controlled by a player are PCs. Characters not controlled by a player are NPCs.

There's a third category that falls in between those two options: a character controlled by a player who is not present at the time that character is being played. We call these QPCs, or Quasi-Player Characters; and this status most often occurs when an ongoing player misses a session in mid-adventure, as for reasons of continuity we don't push missing players' characters into the background but instead play them by committee as their player has previously established. If the player has left instructions, those are followed as practicality allows; e.g. "Sorry, can't make it this week as I'll be in the Bahamas. Jocasta will go mostly for support spells rather than blasty stuff if it comes to that, and will gladly cast Detect Magic if we find anything of interest. Oh, and get Jenny to roll for her - Bob's dice suck."

To me, the characters of players who have left the game are and always remain QPCs until-unless the player proactively hands them over either to another active player as PCs (rare) or to the DM as NPCs (more common).

 

[Vaalingrade]

False analogy. If i take your car, you don't have it. But me using your character when you leave doesn't leave you without that character. You can still use that same character in another game.

None of that matters.

I created the character. I made the build, I named them, I came up with their personality and and backstory.

They are my character. I get to decide how and when they're used and while I might be fine letting a group still use them if I leave the game, that is still MY choice to make/ You don't just get to take things from people because you feel justified and you personally don't feel there's any harm done--that isn't your place to decide any more than I might get to decide if you're done using your car.

 

[nevin]

Because I also wouldn't like my car stolen even if I'm around the corner where I can't see it?

If I own something, I have an expectation that people won't take it without my permission.

if you abandon property it can be claimed by others and then it becomes theirs. At least in most countries in the world. I'd argue same thing applies with characters. If you abandon the game then the property (character) can be destroyed or claimed. Doubt we'll ever agree here but int he real world there are rules for letting people claim and use abandoned things because just leaving it to rot obviously means you don't care or want it.

 

[Lanefan]

And also, if any displeasure over my "treatment" of the character was actually elevated to the point of a confrontation, then the individual would very quickly be disinvited from any future games at my table.

I have zero time for anyone who would actually get upset about the fate of a character in a game they aren't even playing in, or who would view that as some sort of disrespect to their "ownership".

Well, that says some things...

If a player leaves instructions as to what's to become of her character after she leaves the game, do you at least try to honour those?

 

[Vaalingrade]

if you abandon property it can be claimed by others and then it becomes theirs.

I feel like the person saying 'no, this is mine, please stop' can't be considered to have abandoned anything.

And again, I can't just watch my neighbor lock his door to go off to work and decide his apartment is now abandoned, so it's looting time.

 

[Maxperson]

There's a third category that falls in between those two options: a character controlled by a player who is not present at the time that character is being played. We call these QPCs, or Quasi-Player Characters; and this status most often occurs when an ongoing player misses a session in mid-adventure, as for reasons of continuity we don't push missing players' characters into the background but instead play them by committee as their player has previously established. If the player has left instructions, those are followed as practicality allows; e.g. "Sorry, can't make it this week as I'll be in the Bahamas. Jocasta will go mostly for support spells rather than blasty stuff if it comes to that, and will gladly cast Detect Magic if we find anything of interest. Oh, and get Jenny to roll for her - Bob's dice suck."

To me, the characters of players who have left the game are and always remain QPCs until-unless the player proactively hands them over either to another active player as PCs (rare) or to the DM as NPCs (more common).

You're inventing a category that doesn't exist in D&D rules. That's fine for your games, but such a category doesn't and has never existed in mine. There are no quasi-player characters in my game. There are only PCs and NPCs, and if you aren't in my game anymore, your character no longer being a PC, is automatically an NPC.