Whose "property" are the PCs?

[ThirdWizard]

Totally the player's. Even after the game is over. If you want to use the PC, ask the player. The DM could use the PC for minor encounters, but never anything that would actually change the PC in question or would be extremely involving.

I can just see it now. Suddenly you realize that the Blackguard you've been going after is your old Paladin from the last campaign, who you played for 3 years, fallen and turned evil, now working for an evil lich who was his arch enemy of the campaign where you played him. Good storytelling? Maybe. Good gaming? No. I do not wish to fight to the death old PCs who are now inexplicably completely different than before.

Looking back at that previous campaign, I would not be able to remember the exploits of my character as he faced down evil. I would just remember that I killed him because the DM decided he would turn evil as soon as I wasn't in control of him. Gah. I can't accept such a thing.

Now, old PCs as peaceful benefactors, sure. Old PCs hiring new PCs to do jobs for them since they are retired, okay. Meeting them in a tavern somewhere as they travel the world, fine. Changing them to suit your story, no way.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Rarely have I ever seen 2 more inconsistent statements in the same paragraph.

I'm fortunate that this has never come up for me, I guess, but if it did, I think it could cost a friendship. Why?

Using someone's creation over their objection is like spitting in the creator's face- but only in the nicest possible sense.

I just don't see it that way, I see any character in my game as equally owned by me. I know other people view it that way, but I see everything in my game as cooperative fun amongst the members with a slight dictatorship in favor of the DM.

In the same way, as a DM if I said "Your character breaks out in sores", you can't say "What!? You can't make things happen to my character that I never intended!", you can't do it AFTER you stop playing either.

I wouldn't give a character a disease in order to make the player feel bad. However, if the rules say they failed a save or I decided that it was needed to have a player come down with a disease in order to make the story more interesting, it would happen. Same thing if the player wasn't there and I was running their character, even if they left the campaign.

And yes, I "abuse" artists on the radio by purposefully singing the wrong words to their songs when I hear them on the radio, and I've used popular characters in my games before without asking the authors permission and probably ran them different than they would. I could kill off Elminster in my game and not feel the need to apologize to the creator of the Forgotten Realms. The same contract exists "unwritten" in my game that exists when Elminster's stats appear in the book "here is a character, use him how you want". I allow the players as much freedom as I can, but it is still my game, my story, and I allow players to play in it.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Now, old PCs as peaceful benefactors, sure. Old PCs hiring new PCs to do jobs for them since they are retired, okay. Meeting them in a tavern somewhere as they travel the world, fine. Changing them to suit your story, no way.

Alright, here's something I did recently in a game.

There was a TPK, all the party paralyzed by a Blasphemy for minutes. The enemies could Coup de Grace them at will. I told them all I had a story way to bring them back to life, should they wish. Two of them decided to, the rest decided to stay dead.

At that point the characters became mine. The enemies had a vampire, instead of killing them, they turned them all into vampires, turning their alignment to CE. They then became villians that the PCs fought later in the adventure. It was fun, and the PCs loved the idea of fighting THEMSELVES. They chose not to play the characters anymore because they weren't that interested in them.

Frankly, I can't see being SO invested in a character that it wouldn't be interesting to see what happened to it, no matter what it was.

 

[ThirdWizard]

To some, a character failing a save and contracting the measels is different than a change of alignment. And, remember, once the character is an NPC, the player has no recourse to change anything about their beloved character. While the player is actually playing the character, they can attempt to change things back to the way that they want the character to be.

EDIT: You're changing how the player remembers their old character. Instead of remembering the valiant efforts they took overthrowing a fiendish lord, or destroying a corrupt artifact, they are inevitably going to be in a non-heroic situation. And if the DM is taking too much liberty here, in possibly a situation that detracts from their previous heroic nature. The example did include a good PC turned evil, after all. How are you going to feel watching your great barbarian lord who forged an empire then retired die of leprosy?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In the same way, as a DM if I said "Your character breaks out in sores", you can't say "What!? You can't make things happen to my character that I never intended!", you can't do it AFTER you stop playing either.

In the first situation, you are running a campaign with the expressed consent of the player- he is sitting at your table and thus, consenting to the whims of die and script. The player can act to get the affliction cured.

After that player leaves your campaign, however, that relationship has ended. He cannot react. His baby has become your marionette.

There was a TPK, all the party paralyzed by a Blasphemy for minutes. The enemies could Coup de Grace them at will. I told them all I had a story way to bring them back to life, should they wish. Two of them decided to, the rest decided to stay dead.

At that point the characters became mine. The enemies had a vampire, instead of killing them, they turned them all into vampires, turning their alignment to CE.

Once again- this is cooperative, within the game- and no one objected.

If a player had objected- maybe even threatened to leave- what would you have done?

 

[fusangite]

The kids playing Star Wars have made minor alterations for personal use and likely lack the requisite intent to be found guilty. It is unlikely that any jury would believe that the kids had any commercial intent. In contrast, a jury could very well believe you intended to self-publish your campaign materials if you so alleged, especially given the state of the industry today.

You're changing your tack here. My point is that the play, itself, does not constitute publication. It sounds like you now agree with me on that. So, you're now suggesting that third-party publishing of D20 materials is so common that a jury could reasonably assume that anything that happens at a gaming table is something the GM intends to publish? Sorry but I don't buy that either. Based on the current state of the market, it would be totally unreasonable to assume that what takes place at a gaming table is something the GM intends to publish. And, even if it were, all that would allow is for the aggrieved party to seek injunctive relief against publication; the publication would still not have taken place. It is totally unreasonable to see the presentation of something at a gaming table by a GM as the first act in the publishing process.

However, publication isn't key to copyright anymore. Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

Copyright simply circumscribes others' rights to publish or profit from things about the thing you made. It doesn't prohibit people from discussing the thing you made in the privacy of their own homes -- and that is what gaming is. Once you realize that play does not equal publishing, copyright becomes irrelevant to this argument.

99% of the time, the DM supplies place names and some house rules, and not much else. In 28 years of gaming, I've had significant PC creation input from the DM 3 times- twice from the same DM

I'm really sorry you have had such an impoverished gaming experience. That sucks. In such a creativity-free zone, I'm surprised anyone is coming up with sufficiently new and interesting ideas that it would be worth suing over them.

The character as copyrighted IP arises as soon as the player's got pencil on paper with a name, race, and class or sketches him out in a sketchbook.

Yeah -- but intellectual property laws today are silly and, in many cases, unenforceable (thank God!). And so what if the wizard I made in basic D&D in 1981 was named Phasenthal? Whoopee -- I own the name Phasenthal (unless I read it somewhere and then forgot). The fact that I "own" the right to write about all human wizards named Phasenthal doesn't impact on people's right to discuss the fact that I made that character when I was nine. If I can't sue people sitting around a dinner table for saying fusangite "made a magic-user named Phasenthal when he was in grade four;" then I don't have the right to sue them for having Phasenthal make a cameo appearance in the D&D episode they're playing at the same table.

The PC concept is independent of the rule system in which it exists, and may even be independent of the campaign.

In my view, and here I'm speaking as a lover of literature not a person offering a legal opinion, but I don't buy that one could make a compelling character without reference to his physical or cultural environment; I certainly wouldn't read about him.

(Personally, I have a couple of universal concept PCs that I can drop into almost any setting- and no, they're not generic.)

I beg to differ. You're making a heap of assumptions about the cultures, traditions, beliefs and values of the people in the world in which they are situated.

And how will you know until the situation arises?

And, more importantly, if you DO offend the player by messing with their PC, what will you do then- kick them out?

Well, I'd imagine I'd react by laughing and saying, "You can't be serious." They would either realize the way they were acting was silly and join the rest of the gaming group in our inevitable chuckles, or they would get offended and leave.

 

[fusangite]

At that point the characters became mine. The enemies had a vampire, instead of killing them, they turned them all into vampires, turning their alignment to CE. They then became villians that the PCs fought later in the adventure.

I did the same. It went over well in my game too. And it's such fun to stick a vampire template on a sorceror; it can be devastating.

Frankly, I can't see being SO invested in a character that it wouldn't be interesting to see what happened to it, no matter what it was.

I agree. The longer this debate goes on, the more pathological the other side sounds.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

fusangite
So, you're now suggesting that third-party publishing of D20 materials is so common that a jury could reasonably assume that anything that happens at a gaming table is something the GM intends to publish?

No. What I said is that an allegation that I intend to self-publish is believable. To have it believed enough for the court to take action would require additional info besides the allegation, like a showing of actions taken in that direction, perhaps notes showing a line of inquiry about the costs of publishing.

Self-publication is fairly common, commercially viable self-publication isn't. But in IP litigation, there need be no proof of commercial viability, though it may affect the damage award (if any).

fusangite
And, even if it were, all that would allow is for the aggrieved party to seek injunctive relief against publication; the publication would still not have taken place

Actually, fines as well as confiscation & destruction of infringing material are also possible.

fusangite
Once you realize that play does not equal publishing, copyright becomes irrelevant to this argument.

First- publication is not required to support a suit for copyright infringement. Publication is just usually the method by which infringement is discovered or enabled.

US Copyright office
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

(This, BTW, is the standard in most nations that are signatories to the various international IP treaties.)

As soon as a player affixes his concept to paper (or electronic form), its copyrighted material. This is the reason why you usually have to surrender your IP rights to submissions to game magazines and "Design a PC" contests.

Second- IP need not be registered with the nation's copyright office to be protected. Registration just gives additional protection and remedies.

Third- Once you realize that play doesn't negate copyright protection or transfer ownership in any way, you'll be much better off.

Unless the DM's input is significant (which is a jury question in the extremely unlikely event something like this came to trial), the PC belongs to the player.

fusangite
I'm really sorry you have had such an impoverished gaming experience. That sucks. In such a creativity-free zone, I'm surprised anyone is coming up with sufficiently new and interesting ideas that it would be worth suing over them.

While it is true that I have not had much DM participation in PC creation (take THAT Jesse Jackson!), it isn't because of DM dullards or uninteresting campaigns, its because I have no need for their input, other than the odd name of the appropriate region of origin for my PC.

(Personally, I have a couple of universal concept PCs that I can drop into almost any setting- and no, they're not generic.)

the response:

fusangite
I beg to differ. You're making a heap of assumptions about the cultures, traditions, beliefs and values of the people in the world in which they are situated.

No. I speak from experience. Each of those PCs I described have each been played in at least 3 different systems- one exists in Rifts, GURPS, HERO, 2Ed D&D, Mage, Shadowrun, ACE, MechWarrior and Traveller- and maybe a few others. Currently, I'm planning multiple D20 versions of him as well- for D&D, Modern, and Past. He is analagous to an "Eternal Champion" type character. He's been well recieved in each campaign, and players who've seen him before like him.

fusangite
Well, I'd imagine I'd react by laughing and saying, "You can't be serious." They would either realize the way they were acting was silly and join the rest of the gaming group in our inevitable chuckles, or they would get offended and leave.

Well, if it were my character you were yanking around after I had retired it, and you didn't respect my objection, you would find me walking out of your door. (And no, I wouldn't sue.)

 

[S'mon]

Well, if it were my character you were yanking around after I had retired it, and you didn't respect my objection, you would find me walking out of your door. (And no, I wouldn't sue.)

*whew* I'm glad to hear it - you were sounding a bit pathological, Danny.

I agree entirely re the need for mutual player-GM respect. It's simple politeness for the GM to treat the players' creations with respect - and if the GM comes to hate the ex-PC's concept, kill them off or ignore them, don't twist them.

Where ex-PCs enter the legends of my campaign world, which I consider an honour - that can be bestowed on relatively few - for players who have created a great PC and done great things with them - I carry on that PC in the way he was behaving as a PC. The hero who strives hard and wins great battles against Chaos, will continue to do so as an NPC. Ineffectual PCs carry on in their ineffectuality, and are soon forgotten.

 

[wedgeski]

Wow. I haven't read the entirety of this thread but I'm stunned how strongly I disagree with a few folks here. (Edit: okay now I have and I still strongly disagree ).

I would *never*, in a million gajillion years, do *anything* with one of my players' PC's, without consulting with them first. And, I would happily take 'No' for an answer.

The way I see it, the DM gets to express himself all over the place, but the player only gets to express himself once. It's not about DM fiat or the God-complex; you've got an effectively unlimited pool of NPC's to play with, go mess with them.

The PC is the player's property, no question.

I think this needs a poll.