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

[Lanefan]

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.

Not the way I see it; as in my view there's only one of that character and as far as I know, it's in the same setting where it was last seen.

 

[TwoSix]

Why not? If the player asks permission (rather than just flatly stating) to have that character jump from its current setting to a new one (e.g. if the player already has a game lined up in the new city), I'd be surprised if a DM didn't find a way to accommodate this. I would.

And then, in the new game that character can regale everyone with tales of its former life on another world...

I'm not saying I wouldn't do it, as long as I can make there's a narrative that isn't going to be disruptive to my current game. (Mostly, I want to make the sure other PCs aren't going to spend a bunch of time looking for the PC who has disappeared.)

It's just the need to have some continuous continuity from the first game to the second game that seems like a waste of session time. If you go to your new game with your old character and they're on board, you can describe the first game for your character's backstory in any terms you feel like. You don't need me as your old DM to give you a permission slip to travel.

 

[cbwjm]

Why not? If the player asks permission (rather than just flatly stating) to have that character jump from its current setting to a new one (e.g. if the player already has a game lined up in the new city), I'd be surprised if a DM didn't find a way to accommodate this. I would.

And then, in the new game that character can regale everyone with tales of its former life on another world...

What's weird to me is that the old player is having that conversation with the old DM when it really is a question for the new DM. If the new DM looks over their character and says "Yes, you can use it" it doesn't mean a thing to me if I'm the old DM, they don't need my permission. I wouldn't even feel the need to remove their rogue from my game, they probably just won't be adventuring with the party any more.

 

[cbwjm]

Yes. I was the player.

So why were you mad about it? What was it about your former PC being turned into an NPC that was so maddening for you? Were you planning on coming back to the game and taking up that character again or had you completely moved on from that group?

I am genuinely curious about this because, to me, it seems like a non-issue.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Can we please stop acting befuddled and amazed that someone might not be delighted at people using their creations without permission?

 

[tetrasodium]

Can we please stop acting befuddled and amazed that someone might not be delighted at people using their creations without permission?

That depends, can we quit pretending that a character collaboratively grown through adventures run by a second person in a group likely to have even more people contributing in various ways were the exclusive creation of one single person with no involvement from others? You know... Since that's a critical problem for your statement

 

[TwoSix]

Can we please stop acting befuddled and amazed that someone might not be delighted at people using their creations without permission?

Not acting, actually befuddled.

 

[Campbell]

Let's say we establish ahead of time that if you leave you do not your character to be used in any way. Do you care about the ephemera around the character - love interests, family, mentors, organizations they are part of, rivals, etc. - continuing to be used? Does it matter if those characters were also originally established by you? What if those ephemera became important to either scenarios or other player characters? Would it bother you if other players and the GM treated your character differently because of the agreement (not building in connections, not designing scenarios with their ephemera in mind, not building friendships and/or rivalries between your characters)?

Let's say for instance your PC was best friends with an older PC that your PC kind of looks up to, but also points out their lack of ambition. Say over the course of a year or so of play the other PC develops a romantic connection your character encouraged with your character's mother (an NPC that you helped create). Then let's say another PC has a strained relationship with your character's wife (an NPC the GM created but is inspired by background elements you introduced) because of a duel he lost to her way back at the start of the game (and had at one point sworn to kill her). How would you advise the GM to untangle all of the ephemera?

 

[SableWyvern]

I am not an expert on IP Law. Some of what follows may not be completely accurate, but I'm confident about the broad strokes.

Copyright was designed to be literally what it says -- it conveys the right to copy something.

When copyright was being developed, the following points were taken as axiomatic:

• The creation and existence of artistic works is a good thing.
• Artistic works provide the most value to society if as many people as possible have access to them. Limiting access and use to certain people is a bad thing.

It was determined that, although limiting access is bad, providing creators a temporary monopoly on making and distributing copies of their work would help them earn money for their efforts, and encourage more creation. However, this right to copy should be kept as brief as possible -- it's not an inherent right we want to encourage, it's a concession we're making to encourage creation, with the ultimate goal being the enrichment of the public domain.

This original intent has now been warped, in no small part due to Disney and their unwillingness to let their cash cow mouse be released into the public domain.

But this idea that people own ideas is very new, and stands in stark contrast to what copyright was designed to do.

Many people still believe that good and interesting ideas and art should be shared across society, and that the only restrictions that should be applied to that spread should be whatever the minimum is to ensure that art continues to be created. I, and several others in this thread who oppose ownership of PCs, agree with this philosophy.

Giving someone "ownership" of their former PC, even when they're not involved in a game, is actively at odds with that philosophy that ideas should be shared rather than owned, and is a perspective that some of us genuinely and honestly consider to be damaging to society as a whole.

I wholeheartedly oppose the notion that ideas should be owned and controlled by individuals, and that includes your PC. The people who created the first copyright laws were broadly in agreement with me. The people who fought to change those laws, to make them more restrictive and to enforce ownership are almost universal large corporations who consider their personal profits more important than enriching the public domain.

I'm quite comfortable in the belief that I'm on the side of right and good in this one.

 

[aco175]

I want to extend an apology to using your old PC Robilar (where I'm not sure you got that name from) last night in my game. The four of us in the back room of the Legion Hall met him is a tavern and he gave us his +4 holy avenger. I now need you to cross that off your character sheet. Again, so sorry, he just offered it up to use for the world-saving quest we were on.