rpanons | Countdown to free!dom

Rundown:

rpanons is an anonymous community for role-play related topics. This place serves as a forum for game discussions, canon discussions, RP solicitations (ATP, game ads, open memes), and advice. The occasional off topic comment is inevitable, but please keep heated social and political topics to their respective communities. Posting them here will only get them frozen. Subsequent threads made to bypass a freeze will then be deleted.

Rules:

Do not post pornographic or shocking images.
Do not share private entries, plurks, chat logs, etc.
Do not use this community as your social/political/hatespeech soapbox.
Do not be redundant. One page does not need three or more threads on one topic/theme.
Do not treat this comm like your personal Plurk or Twitter. Off-topic happens, but it should be open for discussion and not just a play-by-play of your life. No one cares.

CONCERNS | RESOURCES

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think that kind of rule exists because of fandom's general perception of OCs; some are good, but more of them are really really bad. I don't agree with that (I think the really bad ones are actually in the minority) but the really terrible OCs are the ones that get people talking, so those are the ones that automatically come to mind when people say "Original Character."

So games with that rule probably just want to see how the player would work with a character within an established canon before they let them loose with a character of their own design. If someone godmodes or goes wildly ooc or ship pushes with a character someone else came up with, what are they going to do with a character they made up themselves?

While a rule like that is disappointing, I can kind of see where it comes from.

on the one hand, i see where it comes from, but on the other, it's still not saving anyone any work. flaky player comes in with a canon character and is flaky with them. they'll be flaky with their oc and just as bad.

good player comes in with a canon character they don't want to play, but they do for the time period that they have to to bring in their oc, they still drop the canon character because they don't want to play them.

and again, i point out: what if all the canon characters a person plays are taken? how fair is it to make them find and make a new character that they can app/play well enough for a couple months just to bring in their oc that they wanted to play in the first place?

the mod still has to deal with a character being dropped. the player then gets an unfair mark of 'flaky dropper' on them when they drop their not-wanted character to bring in the oc.

just accept them or don't. if someone's playing a character shittily, oc or canon, the mods should be able to talk to the player and figure out what/why they're doing it. if they're just a shitty player, then by all means, boot the character. canon vs oc is never going to be a good way to find out the quality of someone's playing. their playing is going to be the best way to find that out.

If someone godmodes or goes wildly ooc or ship pushes with a character someone else came up with, what are they going to do with a character they made up themselves?

i don't think you can really ever tell though - i could be terrible at character x and great at my oc, or great with a canon character and a terrible oc player. if someone is a godmoding, ship-pushing dickface with their oc: give them a warning and if they continue kick them out. it's no different to kicking out a player of a canon character if they do the same. you can talk about "because they're ocs we can't compare to canon", but behaviours such as godmoding and ship pushing are just bad rp behaviours and should be stopped regardless of what type of character someone plays. (and you can - if someone goes wildly off-app for their oc call them out - if they ignore you, they're a dick). the only difference with canon character first is that you get them playing someone else first.

also, anon above sums it up pretty well.

Countdown to free!dom

Re: ITT: VENTING

Re: ITT: VENTING

Re: ITT: VENTING