i'm sure some of them are, maybe even most, but it doesn't change the fact that no other game has ever qualified tabletop OCs as "fandom" OCs prior to this that I can think of, and their reasoning behind qualifying them as "fandom" OCs specifically makes zero sense since TAZ isn't set in any "canon" d&d campaign setting, and even if it was, that wouldn't apply to OCs from other campaign settings or tabletop games.

if the concern is that tabletop OCs would flood the game, that's silly, because like an anon said, the majority of DWRP players don't play tabletop games, much less have their tabletop OCs imported, as far as i can tell since most games that allow for OCs get the same generic urban fantasy OCs everyone complains about.

if the concern is about lack of canon-ness compared to characters from TAZ or Critical Role, why allow OCs at all? you can easily get away with just having a blanket "no OC" rule these days. there'd be some griping, but whatever.

you can make your game with your rules, and they don't HAVE to make sense, but if you make that game open and public and have those rules out for others to read and scrutinize, you're going to get feedback if those rules are weird or wonky. that's just how RP is, anon.