Questions/Question 8: Difference between revisions

From Karteria DWRP Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
undoIcie (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Users who may use two-factor authentication, oauthadmin, Administrators
2,621 edits
VisualWikitext
Icie (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Users who may use two-factor authentication, oauthadmin, Administrators
2,621 edits
Created page with "{{Question |QuestionFaqPage=FAQ/Main FAQ |Topics=Fandom,Blaseball |Link=https://alogos.dreamwidth.org/1341.html?thread=12093#cmt12093 |AskedBy=charkattack |DateAsked=2025-02-21 |QuestionText=I come to you here on this day with a Really Weird Question about 'OCs from canon settings', sorry, this canon is hard to explain.<br><br>Basically: <i>Blaseball</i>, the game this character originates from, is a surrealist horror sports simulator. It has a narrative that -- on any l..."
 
Icie (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Users who may use two-factor authentication, oauthadmin, Administrators
2,621 edits
No edit summary
 
Line 5: Line 5:
|AskedBy=charkattack
|AskedBy=charkattack
|DateAsked=2025-02-21
|DateAsked=2025-02-21
|QuestionText=I come to you here on this day with a Really Weird Question about 'OCs from canon settings', sorry, this canon is hard to explain.<br><br>Basically: <i>Blaseball</i>, the game this character originates from, is a surrealist horror sports simulator. It has a narrative that -- on any level smaller than broad strokes and specific 'canon NPCs' -- was determined entirely by the RNG, and the fanbase's interpretation of that RNG; in that sense, every single Blaseball player in the game itself has about ten characteristics beyond their name, and those are things like 'blood type', 'batting ability', 'coffee style', 'fielding position'.<br><br>Siobhan is not a fandom OC, in the sense that she exists within the canon: there is a player named Siobhan Chark whose RNG-narrative is the same as the events that've happened to this character. But everything from personality to appearance to history is... <i>entirely</i> fan-developed, albeit it's sort of a collaborative sandbox canon -- <a href="https://www.blaseball.wiki/w/Siobhan_Chark">there's a player page on the wiki</a>, it has a history/backstory/appearance section (fanwritten, as they all are), and for almost all intents and purposes that's the variant of the character I'd be playing.<br><br>So, like. Not a fandom <i>OC,</i> I didn't make her up in my head: there is objectively Siobhan Chark, an entity that exists within the sim. And then there's a collectively agreed-on fandom interpretation of that into a three-dimensional <i>character</i>.<br><br>So under fandom OC rules, she doesn't work, as she's directly engaged with the "main cast" per se. But she also doesn't work under 'there has to be adequate material for the character to be played' because <i>no</i> blaseball player has that.<br><br>I TOTALLY GET IF THE ANSWER IS NO, it's a really weird canon that falls into a bizarre cross-section of 'fandom OC' and 'canon character' for basically every character in it :&gt;
|QuestionText=Any different effect for a non-Aves singing at the peacock-figure?<br><br><small>[https://enochlesis.dreamwidth.org/19927.html?thread=5477079#cmt5477079 I roll to sing a space-bug mating song to big bird.]</small>
|DateAnswered=2025-02-21
|DateAnswered=2025-02-21
|AnswerText=Hello there! You have certainly pitched quite the curveball of a quandary for us, and we appreciate the challenge. Do I think I know anything about Blaseball after looking extensively at think-pieces, Blaseball's Wikipedia page, or Siobahn's page? Scarcely, though I believe I know slightly more than I did a day ago. But I appreciate this absurdist baseball weirdness.<br><br>The tl;dr answer: Yes, we think this particular instance is okay, it seems neat!<br><br>Long answer: Where I think this falls on the FAQ is the following: <i>"Characters with limited roles in their story/limited canon information will also be judged on a case-by-case basis. We embrace the fleshing out of characters who may not have every last detail written on paper, but there must be adequate material for the character to be played."</i> We have this rule for a myriad of reasons, but one of them is to ensure that people are being normal and not using a side character with little information in bad faith and imposing on well-developed characters from the same series. I would agree with you: the canon itself has very little detail about Siobahn as an individual, documenting only their participation in the game and what they faced.<br><br>However, it seems to me that potential canonmates would be relying upon the same "book" of information. It seems to be a collaborative effort to build up a character based solely on a name and her role in the (impersonally written) story. A whole canon full of characters fleshed out entirely by fans! In a sense, it's sort of a collaborative OC. It's an interesting concept. After conferring with someone familiar with the canon we ultimately agreed upon this: It wouldn't be imposing upon other canonmates, since none of them are more developed than this and come from the same sort of collaborative lore. I don't see a reason why you can't app this character! I stress in this comment that this is an example of a case-by-case decision being made.
|AnswerText=Hello there! You have certainly pitched quite the curveball of a quandary for us, and we appreciate the challenge. Do I think I know anything about Blaseball after looking extensively at think-pieces, Blaseball's Wikipedia page, or Siobahn's page? Scarcely, though I believe I know slightly more than I did a day ago. But I appreciate this absurdist baseball weirdness.<br><br>The tl;dr answer: Yes, we think this particular instance is okay, it seems neat!<br><br>Long answer: Where I think this falls on the FAQ is the following: <i>"Characters with limited roles in their story/limited canon information will also be judged on a case-by-case basis. We embrace the fleshing out of characters who may not have every last detail written on paper, but there must be adequate material for the character to be played."</i> We have this rule for a myriad of reasons, but one of them is to ensure that people are being normal and not using a side character with little information in bad faith and imposing on well-developed characters from the same series. I would agree with you: the canon itself has very little detail about Siobahn as an individual, documenting only their participation in the game and what they faced.<br><br>However, it seems to me that potential canonmates would be relying upon the same "book" of information. It seems to be a collaborative effort to build up a character based solely on a name and her role in the (impersonally written) story. A whole canon full of characters fleshed out entirely by fans! In a sense, it's sort of a collaborative OC. It's an interesting concept. After conferring with someone familiar with the canon we ultimately agreed upon this: It wouldn't be imposing upon other canonmates, since none of them are more developed than this and come from the same sort of collaborative lore. I don't see a reason why you can't app this character! I stress in this comment that this is an example of a case-by-case decision being made.
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 09:37, 27 December 2025


Information Question Answer
#1

wiki | comment

Topics: Fandom, Blaseball

Edit question: edit

charkattack asked on FAQ/Main FAQ at 2025-02-21

Answer date: 2025-02-21

Any different effect for a non-Aves singing at the peacock-figure?

I roll to sing a space-bug mating song to big bird. 		Hello there! You have certainly pitched quite the curveball of a quandary for us, and we appreciate the challenge. Do I think I know anything about Blaseball after looking extensively at think-pieces, Blaseball's Wikipedia page, or Siobahn's page? Scarcely, though I believe I know slightly more than I did a day ago. But I appreciate this absurdist baseball weirdness.

The tl;dr answer: Yes, we think this particular instance is okay, it seems neat!

Long answer: Where I think this falls on the FAQ is the following: "Characters with limited roles in their story/limited canon information will also be judged on a case-by-case basis. We embrace the fleshing out of characters who may not have every last detail written on paper, but there must be adequate material for the character to be played." We have this rule for a myriad of reasons, but one of them is to ensure that people are being normal and not using a side character with little information in bad faith and imposing on well-developed characters from the same series. I would agree with you: the canon itself has very little detail about Siobahn as an individual, documenting only their participation in the game and what they faced.

However, it seems to me that potential canonmates would be relying upon the same "book" of information. It seems to be a collaborative effort to build up a character based solely on a name and her role in the (impersonally written) story. A whole canon full of characters fleshed out entirely by fans! In a sense, it's sort of a collaborative OC. It's an interesting concept. After conferring with someone familiar with the canon we ultimately agreed upon this: It wouldn't be imposing upon other canonmates, since none of them are more developed than this and come from the same sort of collaborative lore. I don't see a reason why you can't app this character! I stress in this comment that this is an example of a case-by-case decision being made.
Retrieved from "https://karteria.blossom.blue/w/index.php?title=Questions/Question_8&oldid=1943"