rpanons | generously pack butt with peanuts & carrots

generously pack butt with peanuts & carrots

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. Your unfunny, forced memes also fall under this rule.
Do not treat this comm like your personal therapist. Threads about nonfictional suicide, self injury, rape, and abuse will be deleted. There are better resources out there for you.
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.
Shut up about Tumblr. If it's not a discussion about Tumblr RP it will be deleted.

CONCERNS | RESOURCES

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

i really fail to see how making an oc in someone else's setting is not a fandom oc.

because tabletop games are designed for that purpose. the creators of all table top games are inviting you to create characters with their established parameters and participate in their worldbuilding. hell you don't even have to do that, you can put the characters wherever the hell you want and make up the setting and lore wholecloth from nothing.

other canons do not do this.

mmos do. rpgs with malleable protagonists do.

in those you're making a character to play through a pre-determined story the creators of the canon designed for you.

in tabletop, that storytelling aspect is left entirely in the hands of the GM, there are no canon rules as to the scope or purpose of your story, where it has to be set, what NPCs are included, so on and so forth. and sometimes the GM barely even has that much control, as the players have just as much power to guide the story and the GM often improvises based on player choices, rather than forcing players down a solid path (well, *good* GMs improvise, at least).

the canons, in this case, are about building your characters and their stories from scratch. they just lend you some building blocks to use, and you can choose to ignore them. you can't do this in (most) MMOs or rpgs with silent, malleable protags.

i'd put all of these (tabletop OCs, MMO pcs, malleable RPG protags, fandom OCs) in separate categories. traditionally, in a lot of LJ and DWRP games, they *have* been in varying degrees of separation.

you're still using someone else's worldbuilding.

ocs from games where the gm has made up their own thing shouldn't count. the thing is if you're playing a character from forgotten realms or some other canon setting, you're doing fanwork in someone else's ip.

just because a creator lets you write fanfic in their world doesn't mean your functional fanfic character is not a fandom oc.

that seems like really bending the logic of what people have traditionally called fandom OCs, anon.

the term was originally coined to describe folks who made OCs for, like, dean's long lost cousin or goku's OTHER son from the future or something, not tabletop OCs.

it doesn't seem like you really get tabletop, or at least don't approach it the same way most other people do. plus i'm sure even IF you brought a d&d character to the mods that was from a wholly original campaign to these mods, they still wouldn't accept it under their rules. in fact they already said as much.

we've had these conversations in journal rp for years? a fandom oc who's from supernatural's world but has nothing to do with the cast is still a fandom oc. this isn't different. tabletop is not special.

this conversation never included tabletop OCs because people generally understand that's different.

like another anon said, the creation and playing of your own original characters and stories, just under a set of gameplay-related guidelines. is the entire point of tabletop. other canons are not like that. treating them like they're the same isn't really fair, at all.

tabletop... doesn't really have a cast tho. you have a world but there's no cohesive cast that everyone deals with like in canon fandoms.

in fact a lot of the early D&D novels started out as a bunch of tabletop campaigns that the authors just formatted into a novel format.

i mean if tabletop isn't that special, then everyone in TAZ is a fandom OC because they're playing in a D&D setting and was based off of someone else's worldbuilding.

taz and critical role are established stories recorded and shared. d&d novels are the same thing. somebody's oc they wrote in a canon they didn't make up is not the same thing as that.

the worldbuilding is a canon. it doesn't necessarily need a central narrative with a canon cast of protagonists for it to be a canon. you can find d&d fans who love the forgotten realms or eberron or any of these other worlds and play campaigns in them, but those campaigns are still fan work even if they're the draw of the hobby.

taz even had to change the names of d&d canon pieces in its published graphic novel because it's technically publishing fanwork and could've hit ip snags. critical role gets away with things through licensing from wizards of the coast iirc.

this all doesn't matter anyway about this game because the mods have made a decision, but i still really don't see how somebody's tabletop character from a borrowed setting is so extremely different from playing a fandom oc that borrows the setting of a non-tabletop canon.

taz and critical role are established stories recorded and shared. d&d novels are the same thing. somebody's oc they wrote in a canon they didn't make up is not the same thing as that.

no, by the logic you're using, they're exactly that. all of the characters in TAZ, Critical Role, all of those shitty Forgotten Realms books, all of them were OCs ther were written in a canon they didn't make up. every single one of them.

yes but their stories are published with wide recognition and the people playing from them on dreamwidth are not the people who created them. they are fandom characters on dreamwidth.

then why allow OCs at all in the game?

i really have no clue. this is about why considering tabletop game ocs, when based on a published tabletop rpg setting canon, can be considered fandom ocs without it being "inconsistent."

i mean, i still think it is inconsistent, because if your argument is "well these are different because they're from published/popular works" then that should disqualify *all* OCs from the game, not just tabletop OCs.

if your rule is just "used an established canon for their worldbuilding" then the entire game shouldn't exist because that's exactly what TAZ is.

so its inconsistent, either way.

Re: dda

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-26 03:35 (UTC) - Expand

Re: dda

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-26 03:40 (UTC) - Expand

Re: dda

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-26 03:57 (UTC) - Expand

Re: dda

(Anonymous) - 2018-10-26 07:17 (UTC) - Expand

i mean by that logic you could app someone's OC from a wildly popular fanfic since they've been 'published'. honestly in this day and age, being published doesn't mean jack shit since anyone can self-publish their work like this lady who wrote prince william/self-insert mary sue fiction: https://www.amazon.com/British-Born-American-Bred-William/dp/1419603264

that would be allowed since it does fall under the rules

but than hit the snag of being tied to rpf which isnt cool

in what fucking world are regular vanilla-ass tabletop campaigns considered "fanworks" of those "canons"? no one calls them that. no one has ever called them that. no one thinks of them in those terms.

you, and the mods of this game if you're not one of them, are so weird if this is how you think about them

They don't want them because THEIR tabletop OCs aren't like everyone else's tabletop OCs

Except they are

i think this honestly boils down to taz and critrole somehow being considered separate from dnd at large in some way. just because those campaigns have a following or whatever doesn't mean they're not still tabletop characters.

are you seriously comparing tabletop rp to fanfic writing?

creating characters and playing campaigns isn't fanfic. fanfic is *supplemental* to canon. it's not your main engagement with a canon. creating a character and playing them is the primary engagement method in tabletop, anon.

this is a nonsensical argument because the game is also disallowing tabletop OCs from settings that are completely removed from forgotten realms/eberron etc. essentially, if you do all of your own worldbuilding from scratch (included gods, regions, major NPCs, governments, alternate planes, whatever) and just use the dnd battle mechanics for your game, you still can't app your OC. i don't understand how you could argue that a dnd OC in that situation is a "fandom" OC, and most of the dnd groups I know do that for their campaigns.

i wouldn't tbh. i think that was a very weird mod call. scratch worldbuilding = complete oc as far as i'm concerned.

than say you figure out the battles by rock-paper-scissors irl

gdi why do we have to do all the thinking for you

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

generously pack butt with peanuts & carrots

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

no subject

ayrt

no subject