Playerbase poll! pretend this is a modjournal, okay

[implying]

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.

Poll #13505

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

View Respondents

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%)

Comments

[fe_male]

yeah baby you use tony as an example oh baby get on it

[implying]

apps zombie tony

[fe_male]

my creys

[shelkethetransparent]

Where would CRAUs fall into this particular mesh?

And while the idea of changing the rule seems good, I think you may still want to put a cap on how *many* AUs of a character you can have. I only say this because I was in a game with four Dave Striders and that is a lot of freakin' Dave Strider.

Too much Dave Strider, one might say.

(This was just an example, Dave Strider is cool and was not harmed in the making of this example.)

[fantasticforcefields]

I love doubles shenanigans, but you are probably going to want to cap the number of duplicates, or you run the risk of a couple media that have a lot of canon AUs (coughcomicscough) overrunning the game.

[implying]

Since CRAUs originate from a canon version, they would take up the slot of that canon version.

And for now, we're going to go with no cap on the multiples allowed. But remember that it comes with the caveat that the canon AU must be fleshed-out enough to be apped as a full character!

[implying]

For now, there won't be a cap in place. We'll revise that if it does turn into an issue.

[commentboxtroll]

My preference is to keep it as it is.

I admit that I'm just not a fan of multiples of the same character in a game, even if they are from canon AUs, especially without a cap, though my biggest concern about it is the increased chances of the casts with so many canon AUs becoming overwhelmed and unintentionally closed off from the rest of the game due to it.

[revolutionized]

I would like to keep it as-is, because of aforementioned concerns about large casts with tons of multiples overwhelming the game. I don't really care for games that allow multiples either.

[gevurah]

I was just thinking about this. There's so many versions of iconic characters alone that I wonder if a cap should be put into place that way we don't have like ten Supermans? (Although they would be useful wouldn't they.)

[implying]

The thing is that if we're going to open the game to multiples, we're going to go all the way with it — ICly, if they begin pulling from all versions of a universe, it would make sense for it to be all versions. So essentially, it's an "all or nothing" type deal.

[fantasticforcefields]

Now we just need to convince people to app from every single different Shakespeare adaptation out there. Macbeth! Macbeth from Gargoyles! Joe McBeth from Scotland, PA! Washizu from Throne of Blood!

...actually those are probably all appable simultaneously without a rule change, now that I think about it.

also holy shit it's 3am where i am. this is your fault somehow.

[raisedbybirds]

Given Exsilium's theme of time-traveling, I think it would be perfectly suitable to see various incarnations of the same character.

[implying]

i'm so on that gargoyles macbeth, you can't stop me

[fantasticforcefields]

dat coat

[hostage]

This is my feeling on it, too. Then again, I'd also be pretty excited about multiples from different timelines even if they aren't necessarily from AUs. I JUST LOVE MULTIPLES.......

[khajidont]

Personally, I think that playing with doubles can be a lot of fun. But considering not everyone is cool with that and that would make it really awkward should the person playing one of the doubles isn't a fan... Is it possible to allow doubles with the stipulation that the existing player(s) have to be cool with it?

[implying]

Just a note, and I'll clarify this on the post in a second! We would only be accepting them from canon AUs, not from earlier/later on the same timeline.

AND IF THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THEN IGNORE ME AND CARRY ON

[hostage]

I KNOW I KNOW I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE COOL!!!!!!

[implying]

If the vote passes this rule and anyone is uncomfortable having a double of their character, since they apped in while it wasn't allowed, we would be perfectly okay with indicating that their character can only have one version around. However, future applicants wouldn't get the same deal, as they apped in while it was an established rule.

[implying]

you just want 18 walts
admit it
jesse buried in walts

[hostage]

gross

maybe I want 500 Jesses did you think about that

[implying]

no, because who would want 500 jesses.
no one.
no one.

[khajidont]

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me!

[hostage]

why