Whose "property" are the PCs?

[TheGM]

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).

Now that is a different story. We write about the characters in one of my worlds, and even though I have an "I reserve that right" policy in the world, and all of the players know it, if I am writing something that will be public - particularly books, but also just short stories - I ask the player for permission first. I don't tell them what will happen, but I do let them know that it's coming. I try to stay true to character, maybe that helps, and I don't just arbitrarily kill them off either - timeline or actual gameplay does that, I just change how they died.

 

[cuteasaurus]

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

While I should hit you for that comment I agree with everything you said. In game and after the campaign is over the player is the final authority.

 

[S'mon]

The player owns the character, simply put.

I agree that the player owns the character - but they license the GM to do what they want with the character when the character enters the GMs' world. This is necessary if the GM wishes to run a consistent world for multiple campaigns rather than a series of unconnected worlds. Personally I've been running mine since '86. Most players enjoy the sense of continuity & history, and the idea their PCs can become legends who other players will hear about in future years (in fact only 1 player I know of has ever slagged me off for running a continuing world, and I think she had other issues).

Now, that doesn't mean I 'mistreat' PCs when the players are gone. If I really hated the PC, I'll give them a swift heroic death. If I really liked the PC, I'll give them a heroic life where they get to fulfil their life's goal and are still making history years after I've lost touch with the player. In either case the player is free to use the PC in some other game (etc), but not to tell me I have to erase the PC from the existence of my gameworld.

 

[NuclearWookiee]

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

Absolutely.

Same world... same character... why wouldn't it?

 

[NuclearWookiee]

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).

Hey The_Universe... does this remind you of anything? *cough* Kevin J. Anderson making Mara Jade into Lando's love toy and Timothy Zahn writing two more books to fix that *cough* lol

 

[reveal]

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 would use a different analogy. I would say that D&D is more like an improv group. The GM (the director) creates the scenery, the emotional backdrops, the situations, the supporting characters involved, and pretty much just about every other aspect of the game. The players, true, can bring in their own stuff but, for the most part, the PCs are like the improv actors. They take what the director (the GM) gives them and says what they want and acts the way they want to. In that respect, who does the character belong to? The GM (director), who gave them almost everything they could possibly need to bring their character to life? Or the player (actor), who breathed life into the character and made it act in a certain fashion depending on the circumstances?

 

[Mercule]

As Gm I don't understand why you would want to do this - it seems vindictive.

Mmm... not so much vindictive. Either the character exists in my world or it exists in another world. I've had a couple of experiences where I've been talking to another GM about a cool character in their game and it turns out it was a character that originated in my game. It felt... awkward. Like having Luke Skywalker show up in Aliens or something like that. Thus the rule. If Luke's over there, he can't be here.

Also, I tend to do things like have PCs ascend to godhood (only once), rule nations, or save the world. It's bizarre in the extreme to have the Regent of Dace also be a merc-for-hire for the King of Cormyr.

In return, I try to have enough happen in a campaign that the players feel the characters were played to "completion". If their character's "story" has been resolved, then it becomes a non-issue.

It's not as big of a deal in something like the WoD. I've had a couple of PCs in a Vampire game take off for Chicago and New Orleans for a while. Since my WoD games are set in Oakland or Seattle, there's no conflict. The characters can come back in without a problem. They are just "out of town" for a bit.

 

[The_Universe]

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.

Right on. Once the player isn't playing him, he's not the same character, at least not exactly.

Interestingly, I've done this exact thing to one (or two) of Nuclear Wookiee's characters, and neither of us has been too upset about it. I don't think I did anything that conflicted with the way *he* would have, but he wasn't there - so it didn't really matter, either. If he doesn't like it, he can say it was "alternate universe" or a different character with a similar name and history and it wouldn't really matter to either of us.

There's *nothing I could do* to corrupt the way he chooses to imagine it, and there's *nothing he can do* to enforce his version in my mind. Accepting that is the key.

 

[Mercule]

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?

Ah. I understand, now. We have different goals. My goals are to create a shared story of daring-do that can be shared with others and retold amongst the participants. As GM, I'm responsible for weaving all these tales into an ongoing history of a continuing effort.

There is only one version of the story to share.

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

There's *nothing I could do* to corrupt the way he chooses to imagine it, and there's *nothing he can do* to enforce his version in my mind. Accepting that is the key.

And that, friends is why I married him: he can always seem to say what I want to say, but better.