Who "Owns" Old PC's?
- Thread starter Oaken25
- Start date
Mercule
Adventurer
My answer: It depends on the (usually implied) "contract" of the game.
I have two modes I DM in: 1) casual, 2) intense. The latter is reserved for my homebrew world while the former is always what I use for published settings (Greyhawk is my usual choice, FWIW).
In the case of Greyhawk, the character is always the player's property. Anything other than that is absurd. Heroes come and heroes go. A few legends may spring up, but nobody really cares. Once the player leaves the game, the character is never heard from again. Anytime the campaign is reset, we go back to the way the setting book presents it.
My homebrew is very much different and I make no secret of this to my players. The PCs in my homebrew have free license to enact massive changes to my setting. In fact, I endeavor to present the opportunity to them. The world will mold to them and their characters names will go down in history.
There are still many characters as old as 20 years, real world (400 years, game time) who are legendary to current players and characters. None of the current players in my group are part of that first group, but they are all familiar with some of their exploits.
The trade off for this is that characters created for my world are a part of my world. That you for your contribution. You will be recognized for it whenever possible, but your character is a derivitive work of my world and I'll retain all applicable rights.
I have but one world that I develop and add depth to. A player has many characters over his career. Please be respectful of that difference and leave your character where he belongs. If I'm going to write your character into the history of my world, you need to write my world into your character.
A note on this, though. I'll only NPC a retired character that I feel _very_ comfortable with. If the player wants to pick up the character again, it's his right. This is where I've gotten into running a god game before -- the character was retired into godhood and a couple of years later, the player said, "Gosh, I sure miss playing him."
Basically, I define the sandbox, but the player always has the right to pursue any course of action within that sandbox. If you create a character for my homebrew, I expect it to stay there, but you'll always have control while you stay there. For all intents, the character will not be played without both of us there.
The difference between the casual game and the intense game is whether the stories are retold in character of out of character.
FWIW, I almost always consider email games to be casual games. They are just too much of a mixed bag usually. (There are, of course, exceptions.)
The flip-side to that is that you can run a character that is wholly yours and I really don't care what happens to him. Of course, he'll never be more than a bit player in the grand scheme of things and his name will never be written into the history books. He'll be a sidekick and all the limelight will go to the PCs who are agreeable to the other contract.
I have two modes I DM in: 1) casual, 2) intense. The latter is reserved for my homebrew world while the former is always what I use for published settings (Greyhawk is my usual choice, FWIW).
In the case of Greyhawk, the character is always the player's property. Anything other than that is absurd. Heroes come and heroes go. A few legends may spring up, but nobody really cares. Once the player leaves the game, the character is never heard from again. Anytime the campaign is reset, we go back to the way the setting book presents it.
My homebrew is very much different and I make no secret of this to my players. The PCs in my homebrew have free license to enact massive changes to my setting. In fact, I endeavor to present the opportunity to them. The world will mold to them and their characters names will go down in history.
There are still many characters as old as 20 years, real world (400 years, game time) who are legendary to current players and characters. None of the current players in my group are part of that first group, but they are all familiar with some of their exploits.
The trade off for this is that characters created for my world are a part of my world. That you for your contribution. You will be recognized for it whenever possible, but your character is a derivitive work of my world and I'll retain all applicable rights.
I have but one world that I develop and add depth to. A player has many characters over his career. Please be respectful of that difference and leave your character where he belongs. If I'm going to write your character into the history of my world, you need to write my world into your character.
A note on this, though. I'll only NPC a retired character that I feel _very_ comfortable with. If the player wants to pick up the character again, it's his right. This is where I've gotten into running a god game before -- the character was retired into godhood and a couple of years later, the player said, "Gosh, I sure miss playing him."
Basically, I define the sandbox, but the player always has the right to pursue any course of action within that sandbox. If you create a character for my homebrew, I expect it to stay there, but you'll always have control while you stay there. For all intents, the character will not be played without both of us there.
The difference between the casual game and the intense game is whether the stories are retold in character of out of character.
FWIW, I almost always consider email games to be casual games. They are just too much of a mixed bag usually. (There are, of course, exceptions.)
The flip-side to that is that you can run a character that is wholly yours and I really don't care what happens to him. Of course, he'll never be more than a bit player in the grand scheme of things and his name will never be written into the history books. He'll be a sidekick and all the limelight will go to the PCs who are agreeable to the other contract.
Crothian
First Post
If the DM wants to use a retired PC in his game that';s in the same world and the same time period it should be done. It's not like the chjaracter just vanished and all he's done is forgotten. But I really can't say this has even occured to me much less happened. Why wouldn't you want a character you don't use to be an NPC?
I've used old PCs all the time. I've used the same homebrew world for many campaigns, so the old characters are living in the world or known about.
I've used old PCs all the time. I've used the same homebrew world for many campaigns, so the old characters are living in the world or known about.
Last edited:
Skade
Explorer
I'll assume you are correct. In that case, simlply use "obviously" in the more literal sense. It was obvious to us, but not necesarilly correct. We were 12 at the time, come on now. In any case, the example still holds true. The adventures were written, they were playtested, the books came from the playtest and the players got nothing.
If that was not the exact order it would not change much.
As to the new question, I often use the characters actions and thier names. I do not often use them as NPCs. In the instance that I have I have often asked the original player to do double duty, or simply switch characters for time, having provided him with a tiny little guidline on what needs to happen, but allowing him plenty of room to improv.
If that was not the exact order it would not change much.
As to the new question, I often use the characters actions and thier names. I do not often use them as NPCs. In the instance that I have I have often asked the original player to do double duty, or simply switch characters for time, having provided him with a tiny little guidline on what needs to happen, but allowing him plenty of room to improv.
Mercule
Adventurer
Oaken25 said:Who out there that DM's, reuses PC's without PC's knowing about it? Or even uses old PC's if the PC's have allowed the DM to reuse them. Be honest also.
Other than a couple of specific cases that were directly entrusted to me, I do not use a former PC as an NPC except in legend and rumor.
Usually, I leave enough of a time span between campaigns that this isn't even an option. The last batch of PCs have died. Except the elves, but no one knows where to find them.
Mercule, summed up what I've been trying to say all night, and couldn't put into words. In that the PC's have free reign to change the world as they see fit, and they become part of that world's history, legends, and maybe at some point they might met thier old PC's, like if the old PC's run a city or a temple, etc. That's how I usally run my games, but after this experience with this Player it made me rethink some of the ways i've been playing for years, and I was just looking for ideas on what other's had to say about it.
So thanks Mercule for commenting on what i've been trying to say for awhile now but havn't managed to say.
Guess I also learned a lesson about this and from now on I guess i'll have to start stating upfront how PC's in my games are used after the game ends.
So thanks Mercule for commenting on what i've been trying to say for awhile now but havn't managed to say.
Guess I also learned a lesson about this and from now on I guess i'll have to start stating upfront how PC's in my games are used after the game ends.
Last edited:
That's always the best plan. A little communication at the start goes a long way.
I'm personally one of those people very clingy about PCs, after seeing so many of them wussified into passive creatures and hearing "That's not how I would have played <x>" arguments. It's one thing if the DM clearly states his intentions beforehand, but the important thing to remember is that assuming players understand isn't good enough.
I'm personally one of those people very clingy about PCs, after seeing so many of them wussified into passive creatures and hearing "That's not how I would have played <x>" arguments. It's one thing if the DM clearly states his intentions beforehand, but the important thing to remember is that assuming players understand isn't good enough.
bloodymage
House Ruler
I used to have a rule. If I kill your character, then I get the character sheet and use it as an NPC, but change the name to protect the innocent. That was old school, though.
Now, I do the same thing, but I use a previous photocopy instead of the actual character sheet.
Oh. And it's important that none of the former party members meet the new NPC. That could cause uncomfortable feelings of deja vu!
Now, I do the same thing, but I use a previous photocopy instead of the actual character sheet.
Oh. And it's important that none of the former party members meet the new NPC. That could cause uncomfortable feelings of deja vu!
Oni
First Post
So lets say a player creates a PC that is an important part of the fabric of your world. Several of you seem to feel entitled to that character.
Now lets say that a player creates a PC in which your world is intrinsic to that character. What would you say if they went to do other things with that character and used your world regardless of your wishes because it was integral to the character? How would you feel about that?
Now lets say that a player creates a PC in which your world is intrinsic to that character. What would you say if they went to do other things with that character and used your world regardless of your wishes because it was integral to the character? How would you feel about that?
