rpanons | 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

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.

i don't care one way or the other about whether or not this game allows nonfandom ocs. that was never what this conversation was about in this thread, or at least not the part i have been part of. (i've kind of lost track of where this is in the comment tree.)

the entire issue at the center of this argument i have been making is whether or not tabletop rpg ocs should count as fandom ocs. i argue that it makes sense to consider them fandom ocs, and have explained my reasons.

the fact the game is based on taz has nothing to do with this. i also think it's silly to not just ban all ocs if they're worried about the concerns they've expressed, but it's not my game so i don't get to decide those things anyway.

either way i've been repeating myself for the last several posts because i wanted to make myself clear, but i think you understand me now and i don't have anything more to add.

i think the faq was updated after the two people came in asking about it, but it says "no table top oc's" now

can this discussion be considered dumb and closed yet

so they're considering tabletop OCs separate from fandom OCs

but still not allowing them

and at the same time still allowing regular OCs

this is still dumb, yeah.

i don't know why anyone's surprised at any of this. People into TAZ enough to base a game on it are guaranteed to be messy

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.

generously pack butt with peanuts & carrots

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