Whose "property" are the PCs?

[kigmatzomat]

The player does not own the character. The character is not some great artistic piece of work. It is a game piece created to play a game. It has numbers and stats and (sometimes) a personality.

My characters always have a personality, a history of my own divising, and generally recognizable traits. It is *my* character. It may not be "great" but it is a piece of art, as much as any short story, sculpture or sketch. Maybe that comes from being a "career DM" myself.

When players leave games I try to "fade" them into the background. A few vanish to never be seen again but generally the remaining PCs keep in touch of their own volition. Some have been turned into key NPCs but generally aren't any different than they would have been played, as best I can guess. And, generally, I talk to the former players to get a feel for the path taken.

I've seen DMs diverge known characters so horribly (Think "Higlander 2" grade horrible divergence) that I'm glad I never gave them the chance to mangle. I generally only game with people I trust so it hasn't been an issue; the few NPC-PCs I've had were kept true to form.

But I could never be a player in a game that was going to be published; no way I could relinquish control of my character. The constant nagging thought "He'd never say that, the character's totally misrepresented" would drive me insane. (Of course, I'm a weirdo that puts a (c)opyright notice on all my character sheets and post them to the internet where the WayBack machine can get them but normal people wouldn't find.)

Now, I would never take someone's old character and make it public without their permission, but I have zero qualms about private use. The idea that an old character is the "property" of the player is laughable. It was a character in a game and part of a collective story.

The keyword there is "collective." Once it ceases to be collective it can feel like theft or betrayal, especially if it's a radical departure with no justification. You forcibly turn someone undead, there's some leeway on becoming evil, but otherwise causing a paladin to fall will create a lot of angst for the original paladin player, for example. You're basically piddling on someone's daydream.

For those who don't get the emotional kick, use the word "grandmother" instead of "character." So "Bob's character became an evil, baby-killer who wears puppy skin underpants" changes to "Bob's grandmother became an evil, baby-killer who wears puppy skin underpants." Now imagine this being told to a half dozen people who will believe it as if it is gospel.

 

[Kaodi]

Speculation

Based on what S'mon said, I would have to say that the entire act of playing D&D would be a group licensing of the intellectual property. The DM allows the players to make changes to the game world using their characters, and the players allow the DM to make changes to their characters using the world. Thus, both works become derived from one another. I think that either player or DM should be able to thus create further derivative works based on what they already fashioned together. So, if the DM wanted to write a book based on that campaign, they could, and if the player wanted to write a book based on their characters exploits in that campaign, they could.

 

[JohnSnow]

Based on what S'mon said, I would have to say that the entire act of playing D&D would be a group licensing of the intellectual property. The DM allows the players to make changes to the game world using their characters, and the players allow the DM to make changes to their characters using the world. Thus, both works become derived from one another. I think that either player or DM should be able to thus create further derivative works based on what they already fashioned together. So, if the DM wanted to write a book based on that campaign, they could, and if the player wanted to write a book based on their characters exploits in that campaign, they could.

Clearly, the obligation here is an ethical one, not a legal one. The shared ownership of the intellectual property is absolutely the right way to view this. DMs can only claim the world is entirely "their property" IF the players didn't impact it in any meaningful way. In other words, if your DM railroaded you through the story and pre-determined the outcome, he owns the world. You also weren't really involved in a roleplaying game, just filling roles in the DM's Poor American Fantasy Novel (TM).

If the players contributed, they have some ownership of the setting. If the GM wants to use their characters, he should do so with some regard to the original creations of his players, or he shouldn't be surprised when they get upset. I doubt most players would complain about GM extrapolations that are faithful to the original characterization. The issue is what the GM can change, without consulting the player, and still be dealing ethically with his player's creation. I'd say extrapolations of the kind The_Universe is discussing are probably fine and mostly accepted by his players as just "cool." I'd say the GM owes it to his player, if that person is a friend, to consult with them before making major alterations. It doesn't have to be complicated...

GM: So Bob, I'm doing a new campaign in our old world and I was thinking about having Sir Aloysius the Paladin appear as the major villain. What do you think?

at which point the player will either answer:

Response 1: Cool! I think that he might have fallen due to the evil Baron Thomdor murdering his wife and daughter in front of his eyes, at which point he gave into his revenge and decided mercy led to disastrous consequences. Then slowly he became more and more self-righteous until he had become...

or

Response 2: Ok, do whatever you want.

or

Response 3: Gee Jim, that's not really how I imagined Sir Aloysius ending. And if you're going to change him that drastically, why use him at all?

The GM can either then a) explain, at which point he may get Response 1 or 2 instead, or b) take his former player's advice. And aren't friendships more valuable than fictional characters?

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

If a DM creates a world and the players create PCs for adventures within it and then the campaign ends, if the DM wants to run another campaign in that world at a later time-period, can he/she decide what happens to the PCs? In other words, are the PCs the creation of the players and thus their personalities and decisions are under their control. Or, can the DM just "decide" that after the campaign ended that this PC becomes evil, this one dies, etc. What do you guys think?

When a player leaves a gaming group or a group breaks up (such as if the DM moves away) then the DM should return any character sheets and related stuff to the players of those characters. There's no reason the DM cannot or should not keep a copy of that character sheet, however, and many good reasons he should.

Using "abandoned" characters as _N_PC's:
It would be COURTEOUS, of the DM to ASK the player for permission to continue to use the character as an NPC if he so desires, but there's nothing preventing the DM from simply copying the character sheet and continuing to use the character as he wants to. Yet even if he does he ought to inform the player that whether he likes it or not the character will continue to be used as an NPC in that campaign. When it comes down to it a player character can become an integral part of campaign events and a player has few reasons to actually OBJECT to a DM using his PC as an NPC because of that. A player could ask that the DM RETIRE the PC or kill it off for that game world instead and if it's not overly disruptive to the campaign the DM ought to be willing to do that as an alternative.

Using "abandoned" characters as _P_C's:
In other words handing the character sheet copy over to a new player. This should definitely be something the DM gets permission to do before the player leaves and of course you can't FORCE a player to play a character unless it's agreed well beforehand.

Of course, neither player or DM should be obliged to ask for or make promises regarding the CONDUCT of that character or his fate from that point on. In other words you can't tell the DM "I'll only give you permission to use my character if you agree to never have him do anything I wouldn't want or to kill him off, or otherwise have anything happen to him I wouldn't like." Permission is simple YES/NO, not a contract with clauses and conditions. Once given, the permission to use a character should mean to use a character AS THE NEW "USER" DESIRES. The entire point of maintaining the character as either PC or NPC is generally that the character IS important to the ongoing game and that means that the former "user" is simply not going to be around to control that character any more.

If a character ISN'T particularly important to the campaign it should not be an issue what happens to the character regardless.

If a player says nothing to a DM about an "abandoned" character then it would still be polite for the DM, if possible or practical, to obtain permission (or at least inform the former player) but really all bets are off and the player ought not expect anything. And unless necessary the DM should simply have the character retire, get killed, or otherwise simply go completely "off-camera".

And finally, there's no reason a character can't be used over and over in any number of campaigns. In other words, the same character can be "imported" into someone elses game (with permission of the DM) even as another DM continues to develop that character as an NPC in an entirely unrelated way in another campaign.

 

[Nine Hands]

As a GM who has done this I have learned to talk to the former player first. Unless you are not on speaking terms, then just do what ya want

As a player the current Robotech game I am in, my character is named RJ, her mother is Nora (who happens to be the Captain of the starship we are on), who was my PC in the last game. The GM and I hashed it out a while before as to what would happen if Nora made it through the previous game and her current personality (which did not change much, it just expanded her idea of family to encompass the crew of the ship and the rest of the flotilla). The GM and I both know how Nora would react to most things, its what happens when you play a year and a half with the same character. Now I am a lucky player as I get to see what happens to her in the end.

Trust is part of it honestly, that and a reasonable amount of control is a good thing.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The player owns the character, simply put. While the GM may provide the settings and circumstances under which the character is created, it is the player who creates the character, determines his personality and attributes, and ultimately defines his "essence". It's like somebody handing a canvas and paints to an artist.

No it isn't like that because an artist in your analogy starts with a blank canvas and is constrained by nothing. A D&D character is created in and played against the backdrop of a campaign world that the player had nothing to do with. The development of that character then takes place amid the inputs not just of the game world as-is, but with the constant interaction of the DM and the other players and their characters. That means that the "creation" of that character is INDELIBLY influenced by everyone else at the table and thus you couldn't possibly hope to claim "ownership" of that character at any point.

If your DM has a copy of your character sheet and one day you simply walk away from the game and never come back the DM doesn't suddenly say to himself, "Golly, now I'm really screwed because I don't actually OWN that character and I can't run my campaign without Player X even though I have the character sheet!"

If you want to talk about taking that character and PUBLISHING it in some way for profit, especially if you're also taking sole credit for it and/or failing to acknowledge that someone else is in some part responsible for the origination of the character that's different than simply saying, "I OWN this character therefore you are not even legally allowed to continue to use him in any form in your game around the kitchen table." That's bunk.

But to change the character (a la "my character wouldn't do that", "too bad"... etc.) is to alter something that you did not create and, essentially, destroy the original.

Nonsense. The player assumedly walks away from the game with his character sheet intact and all the memories of that characters development. From that point on the player has his "work of art" perfectly preserved. But that doesn't mean that he is allowed to, much less capable of, mind controlling the DM and other players to wipe that character from the continuing campaign and the memory of the game up to that point.

To return to our artist analogy, you can't walk up to the portrait that was created, scribble glasses and a mustache on it, and still claim that it's the same piece of art.

You most certainly CAN. It'd be rude or at least silly, but you most certainly MAY legally and ethically. If a DM has a copy of that character sheet (as a good DM should in the first place) he can do whatever he wants with that character sheet and EVERYTHING IT REPRESENTS.

To do so is to destroy what was, and create something new. Thus, while it's possible for any GM to claim ownership of a former PC and turn him into an NPC, he has no right to claim the two are the same character.

Purely a matter of semantics. A D&D character is a set of numbers and data on a piece of paper along with a purely subjective idea of aspects of characterization associated with it. Two people - ANY two people - can take that information and do whatever the hell they want with it and are perfectly correct to claim "it's the same character." A player can spend the rest of his life waving that character sheet around and saying, "this is MY character" and all others, even with the same numbers and concepts attached are but pale imitiations because _I_ created it." and that would be true too. But he can't stop me as a DM from allowing another player to take a carbon copy of that character sheet and pick up right where the "original owner" of the character left off, and having that new player similary say, "this is MY character AND NOONE ELSES because from this point on I control decisions for this character the same as if I had rolled it up from scratch."

There is supposed to be a trust of sorts between GM and player. The two are constantly involved in a creative collaboration blending the macroscopic world of the GM with the relatively small world of the player. While the GM is the authority on what happens in the game world, the player must be the authority on what happens within the character.

Absolutely true. But it still doesn't give the player absolute control or remote control of that characters fate in that DM's campaign once he leaves the game no matter how much personal effort went into that characters creation and development. It simply doesn't work that way and it is manifestly obvious.

 

[Chimera]

I spell out quite clearly in my campaign materials that any and all PCs that become NPCs for any reason are entirely under my control as GM and that they may go in entirely different directions as NPCs than the player had intended.

As for the PCs from my previous campaign? Well, my next campaign will be the same setting, only advanced 22 years. The Wizard is now the most powerful Human Wizard in the region, head of several organizations and an all-around bigshot (despite that player and I not being on anything close to speaking terms). The Cleric is the Prelate of her sect. The Monk is a Duke. One Ranger is the head of a large Ranger Company, the other has retired to a small cabin in an out-of-the-way spot (the player had no ambitions for the character, so this fits).

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I'm sorry, but that's a very narrow-minded view of the game. The difference between a novel and a D&D game is simply the number of authors involved.

Again that's nonsense. A novel is a work created for public consumption and for profit. A D&D character is created for private enjoyment, generally among a small group, and profit has nothing to do with it.

For the discussion to be meaningful you must distinguish between the scenarios of private use in a D&D game - which NOBODY CAN NOR SHOULD CONTROL except the participants - and attempts to coopt credit and property rights for use in public and for profit. The two are ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT BEASTS. It's like the thread about WW's asinine attempts to coerce payment from players who use their game products for their private enjoyment - but who exchange money for various reasons when doing so. Just as WW does not legally control my money nor what I do with my characters in privately playing one of their games (even if I pay someone else in the process) the players who create characters in my campaign do not have control over characters in my campaign once they choose to cease participating in it - and that includes any character that they may have created.

In the strictest sense, I, as DM, control absolutely every last detail, past, present, and infinite future, about my campaign. That is, except what I CHOOSE TO ALLOW the players to control. This is generally according to what the written D&D rules specifically do suggest the players should be allowed to control. As DM I am not given permission by the player to have the artistic creations of his characters grace my campaign with their presence. As DM I give permission to the player to participate in MY campaign by allowing them to create FOR ME, and control just one of the infinite number of characters my campaign contains - and even then I have lots of restrictions on what a player will be allowed to do, whereas I have none except the reasonable limits that would otherwise cause a player to be disinclined to participate.

Now THAT is a narrow interpretation - and an attitude that I most VOCIFEROUSLY would not actively exercise - but it's vastly more accurate and applicable interpretation. Certainly it's closer to reality than the idea that the players are creating intellectual property in the form of their characters that I have not even a tangental claim to much less control of in a manner of my choosing should they cease to participate in my campaign.

 

[S'mon]

I basically agree with the man in the funny hat, although I do think players have certain moral rights in their characters (whether or not those are legal rights); at a minimum they have the right to take PC created for campaign X and play them in campaign Y. They also IMO have the right to use a version of that character in stories etc, even commercially published stories. They don't have the right to use the GM's campaign world though, except for any aspects they personally created. Whereas the GM does have the right to use their characters as NPCs in his games or even as characters in stories he publishes. That to me is the implied terms of the typical game-table IP contract. If you want different terms - eg the players here who say GMs have no rights to use their PCs off-table - then you better make that clear up front. I certainly would never accept such a player in my PBEMs or round-table games.

 

[diaglo]

Er, Diaglo's advice is possibly correct circa 1945. Or maybe 1645. It bears no relation to modern copyright law.

i wish it were true.

but it is in fact part of the basis of the OGL.

character creation rules for D&D/d02 are...er... not ... included iirc.

so when you post the stats for say> Meepo... you'd better tell WotC as they own the rights to him.

but when you post your own characters in general on a fan site... you just say they are for fan use.

but if you try and copyright said characters... you'd better make sure you ask permission of WotC/Hasbeen