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

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

generously pack butt with peanuts & carrots

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda

Re: dda