Whose "property" are the PCs?

Majoru Oakheart said:
No, but he is the one who asked that the character be made in the first place and the one who enabled it to be something other than a story written on a piece of paper. Once it enters his world, it becomes part of the world, whether you like it or not. He has now existed since before you started playing him and will continue to exist after you finish playing him.
But the world the character enters isn't any more specifically the GM's than the character is the player's. It's the world not the GM that owns/possesses the character; the character has no existence or meaning outside of this particular setting.

A setting, though designed by a GM is formed by the actions of the characters and is just as inert without characters as a character is without a setting. As I mentioned previously, GMs outlive settings and settings outlive GMs. Back home, two campaigns are going on right now in "my" settings GMed by other people.

Charactes don't atach to people; they attach to settings.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

fusangite said:
But the world the character enters isn't any more specifically the GM's than the character is the player's. It's the world not the GM that owns/possesses the character; the character has no existence or meaning outside of this particular setting.

A setting, though designed by a GM is formed by the actions of the characters and is just as inert without characters as a character is without a setting. As I mentioned previously, GMs outlive settings and settings outlive GMs. Back home, two campaigns are going on right now in "my" settings GMed by other people.

Charactes don't atach to people; they attach to settings.
I guess that's true, we've just only ever had one incident ever where a DM actually took over someone else's game. If our DM ever had to stop running the game, I doubt anyone else would pick it up. We attack campaigns to the DM who runs them figuring that they are the only one with the "true" vision or the campaign and what is going on. It's easier for someone to start a new campaign than the try to guess what was happening correctly in the old one.
 

Well, S'mon, if the GM says up front that all PCs are ultimately his as a condition of playing in his campaign, then fine- its like a work-for hire.

Personally, my moral position is in accord with my legal position- unless (like above) there is some kind of agreement between the GM and his players, the GM can't just take someone's else's character and play it any way he pleases.

The inspiration for the PC wasn't his, the time in picking feats/spells/weapons, the development of the personality, the actions the PC took weren't the GM's- they were the players.
 

Dannyalcatraz said:
Well, S'mon, if the GM says up front that all PCs are ultimately his as a condition of playing in his campaign, then fine- its like a work-for hire.

Personally, my moral position is in accord with my legal position- unless (like above) there is some kind of agreement between the GM and his players, the GM can't just take someone's else's character and play it any way he pleases.

The inspiration for the PC wasn't his, the time in picking feats/spells/weapons, the development of the personality, the actions the PC took weren't the GM's- they were the players.
So, is it your position that a group of players can't fire a GM and have someone else run his world either? Such things can and do happen, admittedly with less frequency. I'm sorry but the people playing the game define the game. Period. There are no values external to the gaming table in operation here.

People change things in Tolkien's world all the time that would have the old man spinning in his grave but that doesn't matter. Creative power is held by the people engaged in the game of make-believe at the time. There are all kinds of books and movies that are adapted to RPGs that involve people changing the world or the people in it in ways its creator would deem uncharacteristic or inaccurate. But it is in the nature of RPGs to do this.
 

Dannyalcatraz said:
Well, S'mon, if the GM says up front that all PCs are ultimately his as a condition of playing in his

But I don't say the PCs are exclusively mine, like a work for hire - it's a complete fallacy that there need to be exclusive rights in a PC (or any other creation) - both the GM and the player can have rights in a PC. My view is that the PC ultimately belongs to the player who created him/her/it, but if that player uses that PC in a GM's world the GM has certain rights to use that PC within his world. I think my position is pretty reasonable and moderate, I'm a bit disappointed it seems to have been characterised as extremist GM totalitarianism.
 

So, is it your position that a group of players can't fire a GM and have someone else run his world either? Such things can and do happen, admittedly with less frequency. I'm sorry but the people playing the game define the game. Period. There are no values external to the gaming table in operation here.

1) I have NEVER heard of such a situation.

2) Players can QUIT a campaign and even refuse to ever play in a particular person's campaigns, but if someone tried to "fire me" and run MY campaign that I put countless hours into designing, that new guy would have a devil of a time getting my campaign notes, maps, NPC/Homebrew monster stats, etc. That GM would also not be welcome in my house.

(And thats BEFORE I'd even contemplate paying $30 for formal copyright protection by filing with the Library of Congress- I'm not trying to make this ugly, but I could if I wanted.)

3) Just because external values haven't been enforced doesn't mean they CAN'T be.

Let me be PERFECTLY clear- I'm in a couple of campaigns, one of which has been active since 1986 or so. That one has 3 DMs who work in a round robin fashion- each has multiple characters (of various levels) in the campaign as well. Those PCs are treated as NPCs when the need arises- but ABSOLUTELY no SUBSTANTIVE changes are made to those characters unless they are made by the player who created them.


People change things in Tolkien's world all the time...it is in the nature of RPGs to do this

Yes, that's true. AND its unlikely that any writer would ever sue a gaming group for doing so...until/unless they tried to sell product based on their changes.

The question that started this was "who do the characters belong to." The law is pretty clear that they belong to their creators...as does the campaign to its creator.

Relationships in a game group should never rise to the level of a lawsuit about ownership rights over IP. The BEST way to avoid this is to minimize the amount of interference with other people's PCs.

Simply put- you DON'T mess with someone else's creations without permission, these issues don't arise.

For example: Marvel and DC Comics (and other comic book companies) get around this ALL the time by use of a simple device- CHANGE THE NAMES and DETAILS.

Marvel's Squadron Supreme was CLEARLY based on DC's Justice League. Legal action was threatened, but ultimately, despite similarities, Marvel changed the characters enough to give them a distinct identity apart from their origins.

Similarly, when DC killed Superman off in the Doomsday story arc, every comic company that did superheroes launched their own version of the Superman character- each a different enough take on the icon that they were new and yet identifiable as a variation on the theme.

So if I wanted to use one of my players' characters as an NPC, I would use it only as a starting point- I'd change the name and certain details- I'd remake the character into something different.
 
Last edited:

Dannyalcatraz said:
2) Players can QUIT a campaign and even refuse to ever play in a particular person's campaigns, but if someone tried to "fire me" and run MY campaign that I put countless hours into designing, that new guy would have a devil of a time getting my campaign notes, maps, NPC/Homebrew monster stats, etc. That GM would also not be welcome in my house.
I agree that firing a GM would be acrimonious but not necessarily any more acrimonious than firing a player. But how hurt you would feel is neither here nor there.

As to your notes, etc, my point is that these people wouldn't be working from your notes at all. They would be making up all the details of your world that they didn't already know, probably in a way inconsistent with how you'd imagined them or mapped them out.

But let's look at a consensual model. I have given two worlds I created over to friends. Although they ask me for advice from time to time, they have changed a number of things about these worlds and their underlying principles. Does it make me angry that they have deviated from my ideas? No. Do I feel like I somehow own a portion of their worlds? No. The game goes on; it's bigger than me.
(And thats BEFORE I'd even contemplate paying $30 for formal copyright protection by filing with the Library of Congress- I'm not trying to make this ugly, but I could if I wanted.)
I think you are working off the premise that playing a game privately is the same as publishing something by virtue of it being a non-solitary activity. I don't think you'd be as certain to win in court as you imagine. Remember: we're talking about playing games not publishing gaming material.

But I don't really care about the legal angle here. The point is that what you are saying runs contrary to the spirit of D&D. D&D is a hodgepodge of borrowed ideas from fantasy literature and myth.
3) Just because external values haven't been enforced doesn't mean they CAN'T be.
Nope. But these particular values shouldn't be.
Let me be PERFECTLY clear- I'm in a couple of campaigns, one of which has been active since 1986 or so. That one has 3 DMs who work in a round robin fashion- each has multiple characters (of various levels) in the campaign as well. Those PCs are treated as NPCs when the need arises- but ABSOLUTELY no SUBSTANTIVE changes are made to those characters unless they are made by the player who created them.
So, your gaming group has worked out a set of principles for how NPCs are handled in this world. I'm glad it works for you but that's not the only way to organize things.
The question that started this was "who do the characters belong to." The law is pretty clear that they belong to their creators...as does the campaign to its creator.
Yes. But a character's past, her culture, her values, etc. are all contingent upon the world. A character's background is a piece of the world; it cannot be unmoored from it.

In the game in which I currently play, my character is a steppe nomad from Amaria (a country made by my GM) who is a member of the wolf clan (made by my GM) and worships the goddess Almitar (made by my GM), etc. A character is just a bunch of fields and numbers on a sheet outside of the game world.
Relationships in a game group should never rise to the level of a lawsuit about ownership rights over IP. The BEST way to avoid this is to minimize the amount of interference with other people's PCs.
No GM is in danger of being sued if they describe a former PC's actions to their gaming group. The plaintiff would be laughed out of court.
Simply put- you DON'T mess with someone else's creations without permission, these issues don't arise.
And our civilization's culture grinds to a halt. Our culture is vibrant because people are always messing with other people's ideas.
For example: Marvel and DC Comics (and other comic book companies) get around this ALL the time by use of a simple device- CHANGE THE NAMES and DETAILS.
Think about all the kids with action figures who play out different versions of the scenarios in those comics. Do Marvel and DC sue them for their little make-believe worlds? Of course not. D&D groups are just those kids 5-20 years older. Playing and publishing are different things. Could Lucas have sued me and my friends Adam and Taaz for marrying Luke and Leia when we were 8? Of course not!
So if I wanted to use one of my players' characters as an NPC, I would use it only as a starting point- I'd change the name and certain details- I'd remake the character into something different.
That's a real shame because it deprives you of the opportunity to do some interesting things with plot continuity.
 

No, but he is the one who asked that the character be made in the first place and the one who enabled it to be something other than a story written on a piece of paper

On 95% of my characters I make, I could change twenty words, and have them fit in 95% of the campaigns out there.

Even if the DM hasn't told you to rewrite anything, he has collabarated in that character just by telling you his house rules and the setting.

Ridiculous. He's just defined some limits, nothing more. It's like saying that the ESRB collaberates with computer game companies by providing the definitions for what content is suitable for what age.
 

Falkus said:
On 95% of my characters I make, I could change twenty words, and have them fit in 95% of the campaigns out there.
I'm not sure if this is a sadder commentary on the campaigns out there or the way you put characters together. Doesn't the culture in which the character lives matter to you at all?
 

fusangite
But let's look at a consensual model. I have given two worlds I created over to friends. Although they ask me for advice from time to time, they have changed a number of things about these worlds and their underlying principles. Does it make me angry that they have deviated from my ideas? No. Do I feel like I somehow own a portion of their worlds? No.

Note the key words "I have given..." - you have given consent to your friends' use of your material, which is fine

That is different from taking- using someone else's work without their permission..

fusangite
Could Lucas have sued me and my friends Adam and Taaz for marrying Luke and Leia when we were 8? Of course not!

Could? Yes.

Would? No.

fusangite
I think you are working off the premise that playing a game privately is the same as publishing something by virtue of it being a non-solitary activity. I don't think you'd be as certain to win in court as you imagine. Remember: we're talking about playing games not publishing gaming material.

No, I have no such confusion, and I'm pretty sure I could win in Court.

Copyright arises at the point of creation. In the realm of IP, "publication" doesn't mean printing for sale, it means making the work known to the public. Here, making the PC known to the group is "publication."
US Copyright

The most I would lose would be campaign-specific details, like names of locations, unique magic items and NPCs supplied by the DM.

In the game in which I currently play, my character is a steppe nomad from Amaria (a country made by my GM) who is a member of the wolf clan (made by my GM) and worships the goddess Almitar (made by my GM), etc

And could just as easily be re-imagined as being from a steppe in Kruzizhstan, member of the Dire Dog clan, worshiping the Unnamed Goddess, etc. if someone wanted to use it without permission.

fusangite
Nope. But these particular values shouldn't be.

I agree- it should NEVER come to this.

Dannyalcatraz
So if I wanted to use one of my players' characters as an NPC, I would use it only as a starting point- I'd change the name and certain details- I'd remake the character into something different.

fusangite
That's a real shame because it deprives you of the opportunity to do some interesting things with plot continuity.

Sorry- that was an incomplete thought on my part.

It should have read "So if I wanted to use one of my players' characters as an NPC without that player's permission...", especially if I'm using the PC in a way that the player might not agree to- an alignment change or any other plot twist that fundamentally alters the PC.

My core point is: if the player objects to the way the PC is being used, and there is no agreement that the GM is sole or co-owner of the PC, then the GM should back off and use a different PC for his purposes. Its disrespectful of the player, of his rights, of his creation.
 

Remove ads

Top