Whose "property" are the PCs?

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

I don't think this is an issue of taking the game too seriously. And, I don't think the real issue is the PC's inclusion or not because I can understand the need to know how things turned out with the PCs in order to set up the next campaign. The problem is why is it so hard for a DM to work with the Player to determine what actually happened? In your case did the DM ever ask the players? If not, has he (I assume Universe?) ever asked them what they think of his changes?

If none of it matters because it's just a game, then what is the point of even picking a PC. Let the DM decide what you play.

I don't think anyone is going to cry themselves to sleep because a DM messed with a character after the campaign was over, but I wouldn't be surprised if some players were more than a little annoyed.

Just seems a silly thing to get annoyed about. I certainly don't get annoyed when someone else gets to use the iron in Monopoly, so reason to get annoyed b/c another player decided to set an adventure or campaign in an alternate universe where my PC became an evil lich-lord - even if she *never* would (and if they did it without asking, I wouldn't be annoyed).

I'd be happy to ask any players what they prefer would happen when the game is over, but that doesn't mean it would fit into the new game. Like I said earlier, it might be fun to ask or tell your old PCs - but it seems far, far from necessary.

Can I ask SG1 - did you start things thread b/c of a specific reason?

 

[The_Universe]

Now, see, I just don't grok this. It's "just a game", sure. And you can imagine it however you want, sure. But it's also a shared experience, and there is some validity to that shared experience. If you are just going to "reimagine" stuff, why bother coming to the table in the first place. Just stare at the wall and daydream.

The whole idea re-imagining things is like talking about the steamy shower scene in the original Star Wars.

Well, if I wanted to run a game based on that steamy shower scene, even if it wasn't there at all, I suppose I could, couldn't I? You might get upset because it wasn't in the movie you remember, but as long as the resulting campaign makes sense in terms of that shower scene, can't you just shrug your shoulders and say, "I guess this is just a different thing based on what star wars would have been if it would have had a shower scene."

Return of the Sexy Lathered Jedi might be totally different than the *real* sequel (which you may or may not prefer), but as long as it's fun, who cares?

 

[NuclearWookiee]

I'm gonna take a shot in the dark here and guess that most of the responses so far come from "career" GM's...

I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with most of you. 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. Sure, you can claim credit for providing the tools and backdrop for what was created, but that gives you no right to claim the creation as your own. Perhaps the artist will allow you to display it after he is gone. 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. 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. 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.

I agree with quickleaf. 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.

As I so often say to my fiancee (and just as often are hit for), "know your role!"

 

[S'mon]

That's true - because a book is worth money. That's the only reason those laws exist - to protect money, and investment. Your campaign (unless you're secretly ed greenwood) *isn't* worth money, and so there's no law or rule that applies to it.

Oh you naive American, just try saying that in France, land of Droit D'Auteur and Droits Moreaux d'Auteur! The idea that authors' rights is only about money is a purely Anglo-Saxon phenomenon. And the US is signatory to the Berne Convention & its article 6bis on respecting the Moral Rights of the Author.

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

Sure they can, but in this case the DM is doing more than just imagining. If everyone just imagined it there wouldn't be any problem because no one would ever know.

Then - I don't understand what you're asking.

The game *is* imagination - collective, ordered imagination with dice thrown in. If someone shares their version of the story - their little sliver of imagination - and it doesn't match up with yours: why get annoyed?

 

[SG1Laura]

That's true - because a book is worth money. That's the only reason those laws exist - to protect money, and investment. Your campaign (unless you're secretly ed greenwood) *isn't* worth money, and so there's no law or rule that applies to it.

But it's more than money. I think you are correct in thinking it was probably codified for monetary reasons, but there are authors who I am sure would be mortified if someone took a character and did something to it because it is something they created. I read some of your story hour and it sounds like that was based on a campaign? If so, then you may not be making any money off it but you are making it public and I think players would be annoyed if their characters were altered and then presented publicly (not that I'm saying you're doing that, but I'm just pointing out that not all stories make money).

 

[HellHound]

I use old PCs all the time in my campaigns, and the players have learned to love it. It adds a sense of continuity, and once a campaign or story arc involving PC "X" is over, PC "X" becomes NPC "X" and continues to grow in the game world, usually (but not always) outside of the player's control.

I *generally* stick to what the player would want, but sometimes I don't. One uber-killer character in an old campaign is now a drug-dependent flunky for a big-time information-broker... one old rebelious rocker is now a corporate-owned sell-out and so on. Part of the deal is that the characters, once out of PC control, will likely conform to the game world, even if they managed to avoid it on a general level up to that point.

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

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.

But does that apply *after* the campaign is over?

 

[The Shaman]

I don't use PCs as NPCs without talking to the player first - if the player is no longer involved in the group, then anything goes.

 

[NuclearWookiee]

Just seems a silly thing to get annoyed about. I certainly don't get annoyed when someone else gets to use the iron in Monopoly...

Wow, didn't know you were the creator of the Iron!

So reason to get annoyed b/c another player decided to set an adventure or campaign in an ALTERNATE universe where my PC became an evil lich-lord - even if she *never* would (and if they did it without asking, I wouldn't be annoyed).

I agree, I'd have no problem with one of my characters getting twisted in an alternate universe either. But then, the GM is admitting upfront that he's not claiming the character to be the same.