Whose "property" are the PCs?

[SG1Laura]

Sure it's a game, but I would still want to maintain normal levels of respect and trust. If you as a player spend a lot of time creating a character and establishing this story and working with the DM to determine what happens to this character in-game, it does seem rude for the DM to then just decide how the character turns out. In a sense, you punish good role-players. The more work you put into the story, the more likely the DM will "take the character away."

Of course the player may have their own version of how things turned out. In the example you brought up I'm sure all those players have different versions of the ends of their characters. Sure it may be cool to be a saint of a religion, but just because it's cool doesn't mean that it is what the player wanted.

As a DM, I totally understand the desire to maintain control over the world and set up my story. But I would never want to make players (or in this case, explayers) upset that I created whole new endings without even telling them. In the end it may come down to the relationship between the DM and the players.

 

[SG1Laura]

Imagined deeds and tales are no ones property. Sheesh!

That's what stories are...imagined deeds and tales. Just because there may be multiple people involved in the creation of these characters doesn't mean that they aren't intellectual property. Many people can collobarate on a book and then they all hold claim.

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

Sure it's a game, but I would still want to maintain normal levels of respect and trust. If you as a player spend a lot of time creating a character and establishing this story and working with the DM to determine what happens to this character in-game, it does seem rude for the DM to then just decide how the character turns out. In a sense, you punish good role-players.

So - take it upon yourself to write a story about how it would be in *your* world if you don't like what the DM does. It's entirely made-up stuff - no need to get upset or feel that someone violated your trust b/c they said your Rouge decided to marry a frog and became an evil dictator of the froggy kingdom.

But - I guess - this is probably an example of an instance when people take the game too seriously. If you are investing so much time and energy in your character that you would find your DMs inclusion (in any form) of that PC as an NPC in the history of the world or the next game in that universe offensive: take a step back, roll some dice, and remember it's just for fun.

 

[Mercule]

So - take it upon yourself to write a story about how it would be in *your* world if you don't like what the DM does. It's entirely made-up stuff - no need to get upset or feel that someone violated your trust b/c they said your Rouge decided to marry a frog and became an evil dictator of the froggy kingdom.

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.

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

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.

I would agree if the subject at hand was during game experience. Instead it's what happens with the characters after the campaign is over... at which point, anyone can imagine whatever they want. That's the beauty of imagination.

 

[SG1Laura]

But - I guess - this is probably an example of an instance when people take the game too seriously. If you are investing so much time and energy in your character that you would find your DMs inclusion (in any form) of that PC as an NPC in the history of the world or the next game in that universe offensive: take a step back, roll some dice, and remember it's just for fun.

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.

 

[SG1Laura]

I would agree if the subject at hand was during game experience. Instead it's what happens with the characters after the campaign is over... at which point, anyone can imagine whatever they want. That's the beauty of imagination.

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.

 

[The_Universe]

That's what stories are...imagined deeds and tales. Just because there may be multiple people involved in the creation of these characters doesn't mean that they aren't intellectual property. Many people can collobarate on a book and then they all hold claim.

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.

 

[S'mon]

to this: If a PC is part of my campaign, they stay there and there is a shared ownership. If the PC is played in another setting, they are erased from my world.

As Gm I don't understand why you would want to do this - it seems vindictive. I would be quite happy to see eg Thrin (Upper_Krust's long-term PC in my Ea gameworld) appear in other worlds, as presumably he will do once the relevant section of the Immortals' Handbook is published. I wouldn't erase Thrin from my gameworld just because U_K started playing him in some other GMs' game. Though now you mention it I _do_ get a twinge of jealousy at the thought...

 

[S'mon]

The idea here, people, is that you can't dictate how someone prefers to imagine something. You can gripe all you want (in either case above), but it's not going to make a difference. Imagined deeds and tales are no ones property.

Don't let Disney hear you say that.