Greetings,

I have a player(gonna go with them they for anonymity) that felt that their old character wasn't seeing anymore eye to eye with the group.

So they let me know at the end of session that their character takes the gargoyle(had given them a construct to control) without informing the other players and leaves the party.

I was a bit shocked bc that character had a lot of plot hooks attached to them, and they tell me their character started flying towards city c to meet her majesty of the country (happened to be her sister(plot point)) from city b which they were.

In the first few mins I didn't know how to respond, but then felt that if the player would feel more engaged with the party like that, then ok; you can create a new one; which they do; get introduced to the party (which didn't had a clue up until the moment of introduction) and they were WTF.

One of the other players for sentimental reasons send a message through sending at which I responded instead of them. They approached me during break and told me their opinion at which I responded with my opinion (which was the opposite of theirs in the subject) causing them to flip out telling me that even though they no longer control that (for me now is NPC) PC I have no right to respond or play their ex PC.

I feel that when in such a scenario that PC becomes NPC since it's out of the scope of the players and I need to keep my world logically consistent. If and when they arrive at the same point as that ex PC (NPC) (city C etc.) I am all for allowing that player continuing controlling for the duration they would be in the same scope or reput them in the party after a short summary of what had transpired to that NPC in the meantime.

Am I wrong in going with this mindset? If yes how should I approach it so I can also keep my world consistent?(please keep in mind due to time constraints I cannot really offer one shots to the player for their ex character). If no how should I approach the player on this?

I think you’re right. Once the player gives up the character, it’s not theirs anymore. You can do what you want with them. Turn them into a villain, have them wander off never to be seen again, anything is fair game. The player here wants to have their cake and eat it, giving up the character but still controlling it — that is a hard no. They only get one character at a time.

If they run into the former PC, don’t give control to the player. The character is yours now, you can have them say and do whatever you like. I usually try to keep their personality consistent with what the player had, but you don’t really have to. 

I agree with your approach but it is one of those topics that you need to discuss with the player ideally before they decide that their character will leave the party so that everyone is on the same page.

e.g.

"By the way, since your character will be leaving the party, it will be treated as an NPC if there are future interactions with the party. I will listen to your suggestion on how they would be played but since the character has left  you won't be playing it any more".

However, I would also tend to recommend that this character never appear in future sessions. Have the character go off and do something else that never intersects with the party even if NPCs previously associated with that PC do appear later in the plot - the former PC should not. This will avoid the player having to play two characters or having to argue with the DM about what their former PC would or would not do in interactions with the party. It also prevents the rest of the players from being jealous, irritated, upset, angry or otherwise put out having to deal with one player who was allowed to swap out their character without telling everyone and yet the former character comes back into the game later AND the former player gets to play them. My suggestion is just say No. Allowing the former PC a future role in the campaign is more likely to cause player friction than not unless every player is onside with it or thinks it is cool and considering that they weren't told about the departure and the character took stuff with them ... there is likely to be some upset.

The played sounds like a jerk on several levels, honestly. 

You should have had a conversation about this before, but definitely you should talk about it now.

Once the player gives up the character, it’s not theirs anymore. You can do what you want with them.

Says who? Where is it written in the DMG or PHB or anywhere that this is a rule in D&D? I'd like a page reference from one of the official rulebooks, please. Because I am aware of no written rule in D&D that once a player has retired (for lack of a better term) a PC, it becomes an NPC.

If you want to house rule that, it's fine. I probably would too. Matt Colville (a famous internet DM) does it all the time. In fact he will resurrect dead PCs and make them evil NPCs, and his players know (and love) this. But his table is aware of it and they are on board. If you want to use this house rule at your table, go ahead (I agree with it, and have always run it that way too), but recognize that it is a house rule, and consequently, you have to be sure your players are on board. It's not a default assumption like the written rules are, and just doing it when they didn't know it was a house rule is unsporting. And good DMs are not unsporting.

My feeling is, a player owns the character unless something is stated otherwise. That means that in a case like this, as a DM, I would not just automatically take over the character. I would have had a conversation with the player, OOC, and discussed "what happens if for some reason your PC would come back into the story?" If my position was that I control it, I'd have said, up front, "OK, you can have a new PC, but your character now becomes an NPC under my control." Did you do that? Apparently not, given the player's reaction.

Failing to have arranged it ahead of time, before answering the sending, you should have discussed at the table, "Look, since you can only play one PC at a time, I am going to have to respond to this and use the character as an NPC." If the player objected, I would say, "OK, you can answer the sending this one time... but after tonight, it's an NPC." If they still don't like it, talk about it out of game, not at the table. And then have a written house rule, going forward, to the effect that "Any PC willingly abandoned by its player for another character will become the sole property of the DM, to use as an NPC in whatever manner the DM sees fit." (Maybe that'll be a deterrent to people just abandoning a PC on a whim.)

But I would not just arbitrarily respond as a former PC unless there is an understanding at the table that the PC has now become an NPC.

No, the PC does not become a NPC. Just because Bob got tired of playing his PC, this action gives you no control and no permission to convert Bob’s PC to an NPC. Ask them if it is okay to convert it.

About the gargoyle, was it Bob’s PC gargoyle construct? Or was the it the party’s toy? If it was the Party’s toy gargoyle, then the gargoyle did not leave the group.

Plot points hanging on ONE PC. This is hard to pull off if the player does not buy in to the plot, as you mentioned, the PC has left the party and now the plot points are bogus.

Now I do tell my players, if they leave the game I may clone their pcs and make them NPCs. But I rarely do this.

Again, it's OK to turn PCs into NPCs if that is the table rule you all agreed to. But it shouldn't be done without the players buying in.

Quote from BioWizard >>

You should have had a conversation about this before, but definitely you should talk about it now.

Once the player gives up the character, it’s not theirs anymore. You can do what you want with them.

Says who? Where is it written in the DMG or PHB or anywhere that this is a rule in D&D? I'd like a page reference from one of the official rulebooks, please. Because I am aware of no written rule in D&D that once a player has retired (for lack of a better term) a PC, it becomes an NPC.

 

There are literally only two types of characters in the game. Characters played by the players (player characters) and character not played by the players. Since this character is no longer played by a player, it is now a non-player character. It has nothing to do with "owning" anything.

@OP. You did nothing wrong. If a player doesn't want to play the character anymore they can't really fault you for taking over, so to speak. However, just to avoid any further issues, if you intend to include the character in the game in the future I suggest you talk to the ex-player and get their opinions on things. Personally I tend to run things so that if a player switches characters the old character is more or less out of the game. It won't affect the story any longer and it won't get killed off-screen or anything of the sort. If the ex-player wants to bring it back at a later date, you need to discuss how that would happen.

There are literally only two types of characters in the game. Characters played by the players (player characters) and character not played by the players.

Nothing in the rules as written gives the DM the automatic right to control a former PC. Show me the page # in which the PHB, DMG, XGE, or other officially published product states that once a player stops playing a PC, it automatically becomes a DM-run NPC.

Again, if you want to run your table that way, it's fine. I do as well. But it is not written in the rules, and players should not necessarily be expected to assume that a DM will take over their PC if they dare retire it.

Heck, I have gone to players who weren't playing with us anymore, and had not done so for years, and asked, "Is it OK if I bring your former PC back as a villain?" Did I have to do that? No. They weren't even part of the group and odds are would never have found out I had done it. But as a matter of, for lack of a better term, "professional courtesy" between DMs and players, you don't just start RPing someone else's PC without their agreement. It is, as I said above, unsporting.

Again, unless the table rules were that all PCs that get retired become DM-run NPCs, then you know what you are going into, and you gave your prior consent by agreeing to the house rule, so then it's fair game. Which is what I would do with my players if I desired to take over PCs as NPCs down the road.

If the character doesn’t become an NPC, then what does happen to it? Cause the player has given up their rights to control the character when they retired it (particularly here, when the way they did it seems so petulant, at least as reported. We are only getting one side). So if the DM isn’t allowed to control it, who does?

It would be one thing if you say they just go off and are never heard from again, but here you had a different PC contact them. Who’s supposed to answer the call? The player doesn’t know what the character is up to. They might know what they planned for their character to do, but there’s a big difference between planning to go somewhere and actually getting there — only the DM knows what actually happened once they left. 

Quote from BioWizard >>

There are literally only two types of characters in the game. Characters played by the players (player characters) and character not played by the players.

 

Nothing in the rules as written gives the DM the automatic right to control a former PC. Show me the page # in which the PHB, DMG, XGE, or other officially published product states that once a player stops playing a PC, it automatically becomes a DM-run NPC.

 

 What kind of "right" are you talking about? The players controls the characters they play, the DM controls every other character. This character wasn't controlled by the player, therefor it must be controlled by the DM, making it an NPC. It really is that simple.

If the player said they didn't want to play the PC anymore and voluntarily left the party in order to create a new PC, they are giving up playing that PC. The person pretty much said so when they left. It probably would have helped all of the players if they had this conversation together - keep in mind for future reference.

I have had players take their PCs out of the game to oversee building strongholds and such but that was understood to be temporary. When the construction was complete, they would return to the party. During that interim time, they played somebody else.

If the character doesn’t become an NPC, then what does happen to it? Cause the player has given up their rights to control the character when they retired it (particularly here, when the way they did it seems so petulant, at least as reported. We are only getting one side). So if the DM isn’t allowed to control it, who does?

As I have said, as a matter of courtesy, if the player doesn't want the DM to control it, the the DM shouldn't -- so then nobody controls the character. The character is written out of the story. We assume it is out there "somewhere" and we never see it again... much like what often happens when an actor leaves a TV show and their character is written off but not killed. In the West Wing, for example, Moira Kelly played the prickly PR consultant Mandy in the 1st season. She started out as one of the main characters. But there was a lot of friction between Kelly and her cast-mates and they did not renew her contract. She was in the final episode of Season 1 (advising the president about wearing a top-coat). She was never seen again. Nobody ever mentions her again, and her character is never seen again. There are no "phone calls from Mandy" without Kelly on screen or any of that -- she's just gone. It didn't screw up the narrative at all... honestly I don't think most people noticed much, and those who did were probably glad, as the character didn't really suit the direction the show had taken by the end of Season 1.

So, the answer is -- you do something like that. He's gone. The characters might reference him from time to time, but nobody interacts with him. He's out of the continuity. He's out in the world somewhere, you can assume... but there is not any reason why anyone has to play him, DM or otherwise.

After all when the player cast sending the DM could have just said "there is no response." Did he receive it? Dunno... but he could have received it and not responded.

I see your point, and I can understand doing it as a courtesy, but I disagree that it’s an obligation. As far as RAW goes, I never said it was a rule, so that argument is a bit of a straw man. But if you want to go that route, show me the rule that supports your position. There isn’t a direct one either way (though I agree with the other posters who’ve found an implied rule) so the whole discussion is, effectively about house rules.

Also, I don’t think the example holds up. If you want to go to TV shows, there’s lots of examples where they re-cast a character. Or kill them off screen. Or have the occasional correspondence from them either directly or indirectly after they leave the show. Directors, writers and producers have the freedom to do that. It’s their “world” and the actors don’t own the IP rights to their character.

I see your point, and I can understand doing it as a courtesy, but I disagree that it’s an obligation. 

I guess I would argue that as a DM, being courteous to the players is an obligation. I sure wouldn't want to play with a DM who is discourteous.

And my point about the show had nothing to do with IP, but was an example of how one can execute the removal of a character from a storyline, including one who had "plot hooks" without ever bringing the character back into it -- NO ONE played Moira Kelly's character, and it worked. 

NO ONE had to play the guy who made off with the gargoyle. It's a red herring to say that "someone" had to play it, so if not the player the DM. No, they didn't... someone didn't have to play Mandy on the West Wing either. They just wrote her out. That's all the DM in the OP had to do.

From what the OP provided, player "quits" a role in a established game and from the context provided I'd say an "integral" role to the game (as integral as the other characters).  More so whether the gargoyle belonged to the PC or the party, there's, at least as reported, a "taking my ball and going home" vibe to the character.  Player shows up and doesn't expect there to be consequences or fallout from the original character's disappearing act.  

I agree the healthier thing at the table when a character messaged the vanished the DM does a "how do we want to do this?" with the table and lay out the option that the former player can respond or the DM can take on the role.  It seems feelings were already a little raw so it didn't go that way but I wouldn't fault the DM too greatly since they were rolling with a blow to the game on short or no notice.  I would say going forward greater clarity needs to be established as to whether and how "abandoned" or deceased characters can return to game.  

Then again, I think the time this thread has spent talking about best ways to retcon and reinvent characters dropped and reintroduced into a storyline is far more sophisticated and attentive that say what you see in The Fast and the Furious franchise, so your mileage may vary, so to speak.

This is honestly a consent issue. Whether it's how you want to run your table or not, some players feel like their character is an extension of their identity, and if you violate their free will, it feels like you have taken a part of them.

I would suggest, if you need to keep things logically consistent, you try to make it work, or leave that character out of the story.

In the case of this sending, I would have, first of all, pulled the player aside and asked how they would like to respond. If it doesn't lead to any contradictions, let them respond. If it does, negotiate a response you mutually agree on.

Or if not, simply say there is no response to the sending. There are many reasons this could be. The person could be choosing not to respond. They could be unconscious or dead or charmed. They could be subject to an anti-magic field.

Quote from BioWizard >>

Nothing in the rules as written gives the DM the automatic right to control a former PC.

 Rule 0 is the most applicable here. Now rule 0 is often thought of as saying, "The DM is always right." So if the DM decides a former PC does something, they do.

However, a more subtle expression of rule 0 by Gygax was, "It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. NEVER hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, IF it goes against the obvious intent of the game."

Now, this still leaves the question open, because what is "the spirit of the game"? I imagine this will differ from table to table. You have to decide for your own table what its spirit is and whether DMs controlling former PCs is part of it. But in deciding the spirit of the game for your table, again, the DM is not an absolute ruler. It should be a democratic, consensus discussion with the whole group.

For my table, the spirit of the game is players being able to take on an identity and have autonomy and achieve feats they could never hope to in real life. To uphold that, I must consider my players' wishes for former PCs.

I think it's arguably a consent issue.  If you want to import the rhetoric of consent and agency into the discussion, the the question's still begged of the abuse the player who abandoned their identity in exchange for newer identity had inflicted on the table by abandoning their role (let's think about what that means in terms of social contract dynamics before we load all the accountability on the DM) and depriving the party of resources they trusted.

We can talk about some "right" way of doing things with modern social dynamic sensibilities, but I think the moment we're addressing is one of those "everybody has a plan until they're punched in the face" dynamics and it's harder to adhere to principles when rolling with a blow.  Could have been performed better? Sure.  Should the table take time out of actual play to check in on the fallout and figure out better practices going forward? Sure.  But to enter player consent as the high consideration here as opposed to the damage the player did I don't think is an honest approach to the problem at all. 

I think clearly, this needed a conversation at the table before the play started up again, which doesn't seem to have happened.