implying: (.so terribly innocent)
Vanadi de Vadarta ([personal profile] implying) wrote in [community profile] exsiliumooc2013-05-24 11:28 pm
Entry tags:

Playerbase poll! pretend this is a modjournal, okay

Hello, Exsilium! Just a quick poll, here. We're considering a revision to the rule that disallows doubles of characters in game. Here's the phrasing as it stands now:
Only one incarnation of a fandom character can exist in Exsilium at a given time. For example, if someone were to play a canon AU version of a character (say, Communist Superman from Red Son), then the place for Superman would be taken and could not be applied for by another Superman.


Essentially, this means that there are no doubles of existing fictional characters, although exceptions are made for well-known characters in literature, such as fairy tales, gods in mythology, and most recently, various incarnations of Sherlock Holmes.

The proposed change would be to allow any and all canon AUs (not including characters from different points on the same timeline). That would allow things like Tony Stark of Marvel 616 playable alongside our current MCU Tony Stark, as well as Star Trek TOS Captain Kirk alongside our current 2009 Captain Kirk. Note: there would be no cap on the multiples allowed, here. If a canon has 4 fleshed out and appable versions of a character (to use Tony as an example again: 616, Ultimates, MCU, Noirverse, that one universe where everyone is a zombie, etc…), then we could potentially have all 4 in game.

Please only vote once/with one journal! The poll will be open for a week, until May 31st, and results will apply to this coming app round.

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 91


Should we change the rule to allow multiples of characters, or keep it the same?

View Answers

Change it!
57 (62.6%)

Keep everything as it is!
34 (37.4%)

wilder: (secondhand embarrasement)

[personal profile] wilder 2013-05-25 07:16 am (UTC)(link)
Question! say a canon such as a video game has multiple endings for particular characters in which their lives drastically change based on different circumstances. Would characters from different ending paths in those cases count as canon AU's or no?
wilder: (NYAN NYAN NYAN~!)

[personal profile] wilder 2013-05-25 04:58 pm (UTC)(link)
LETS ALL ALL THE HAWKES.

But okay! Thank you!
wilder: (Default)

[personal profile] wilder 2013-05-26 03:15 am (UTC)(link)
Okay, that's fair enough I knew that was a tricky one anyway. Thank you!
fintastic: (aroo?)

[personal profile] fintastic 2013-05-26 02:37 am (UTC)(link)
So wait what's the criteria for the difference between "alternate timeline" and "alternate ending"? Or would alternate timelines within the same work now be appable too?
fintastic: ((unsure))

[personal profile] fintastic 2013-05-26 02:52 am (UTC)(link)
Wait, so you're polling us about if the rules should be changed or not, but you're not even sure what those changes are going to be? The original post doesn't even make it sound like alternate endings and alternate timelines within the same work would be applicable, just completely separate bodies of work. When was it going to be debated?
fintastic: (here have a cuttlefish)

[personal profile] fintastic 2013-05-26 03:16 am (UTC)(link)
Alright, that makes a little bit more sense. My only worry is characters from the same work, that are like "just like A except for small laundry list of changes" cause... that can get pretty awkward! (and like someone else said, I don't think the Initiative could handle 4 Dave Striders, that's too much Strider in one place.) :'D Thanks!