Original Character VS Canon Character Roleplaying

[IceHeart]

I like creating OCs to roleplay but then there are times when I feel like just wanting to roleplay some already created character. Do you only play OC characters or do you sometimes skirt into the realm of roleplaying already established characters? What do you like about either option and what do you think are the pros and cons of each? Thought it would be interesting to hear some opinion on this.

[NuttsnBolts]

Original Characters.

Simply for the reason that I don't have to play the character to some expectation except my own.

[Ellri]

We personally have yet to find a character made by someone else that we could satisfactorily play. There's just too many things that are unique to the "owner's" style. That doesn't say such a character can't exist, but rather that we've not found it.

We'd not mind playing with someone else playing a canon character provided they actually manage to play it correctly. If they don't manage that, then we would rather not they try that. Seeing how most cannot do such right, we generally stick to OC only... After all, that saves the problem from starting at all.

[ArenaSnow]

Everyone has a style; those stiles could conflict with popular portrayals of characters or entirely butcher them without meaning to. I have my own style that I wouldn't dare put on characters I like that are canon. It's just easier to make an OC character and fit with that.

If people happen to do canon characters and I know any thing about them, I expect a very "realistic" (sometimes a word that must be greatly bent in fantasy, eh?) portrayal of the character or it just ruins it for me.

[Dervish]

I don't play canon characters for the simple reason that I don't trust my ability to do it right, and a lot of people really aren't true to the characters they want to portray. Making your own characters means you can come up with your own stories, motivations, and you aren't constricted by trying to keep within an existing character's narrative.

[Keyguyperson]

I do only OCs because I can't get into someone else's character. Characters that already exist already have a backstory, and I hate writing a character with a set backstory. I'll take names, maybe some physical traits, but never the whole character. Not only do I feel like I'm stealing them, I just can't write them.

[IceHeart]

Hmmm, well so far is pretty much what I expected. I suppose for myself, as someone with a little of an acting background, I actually enjoy the challenge of trying to be in character. Generally I can do enough research and get pretty close to how a character would act, though probably the biggest problem comes from other people's expectations of that character. You may be super close to the original writer of that character's thought process but fans tend to have a wide range of ideas of exactly how that character would react to a certain situation.

From my experience doing it, though I haven't tried a canon character in a long time, it does take a lot more work to effectively pull off though when done right can be quite fun. I've been kind of wanting to try a canon character again recently but since most people aren't comfortable with that I usually just go the OC route.

[vancexentan]

I heavily prefer OC's due to my ability to play with them as I chose however I am not afraid of playing canon characters you just have to understand you need to stay within their canon settings. Like Dick Greyson AKA Nightwing for example. You can't have him as some emo psychopathic homosexual mad man when in DC he is a smart mouthed, hopeful, and inspiring leader of heroes of his generation and regularly shows compassion for everyone to an extent. He even tried to safe Jason Todd in his darkest moments during the events of battle in the cowl where he offered a hand to Jason even after he claimed to have killed Tim Drake.

[Ellri]

experienced actors are among the few we think who can potentially do canon characters right, simply because they're trained to go into the mindset of someone else's creation. Not all such can do all canon characters, though. It depends fully on a sort of "mental match", on their ability to line up their way of thinking with the character's. Even if that works, you will have people who disagree on whether its done right.

[Jig]

I suppose for myself, as someone with a little of an acting background, I actually enjoy the challenge of trying to be in character.

@IceHeart

Your interpretation of that character, as guided by a director. Some people will find canon characters sympathetic and others unsympathetic. It's interpretation, and when somebody with a particular view plays that character, they're going to frame them from that angle; which is going to be incredibly jarring to anybody that doesn't share the original interpretation, or who hasn't agreed on a communal interpretation of that character.

Leave 'em in the canon.

Apart from anything else, I feel like a character is built to suit a contained plot and vice versa. Taking them out of the action that they shape and that shapes them feels inappropriate to me, unless they're expressly being presented as a radical new interpretation.

[Phoenix]

I can't imagine what the attraction is to playing a canon character. But I psychoanalyze too much and would rather I play characters that would react in a more "logical" way than what I see in some TV dramas, movies, and even the few books I've read. But I will never be able to relate to any canon character because I put so much of myself but also my ideals, aspirations, and even dreams into my characters because I see nothing in a canon character that I can take pleasure or even interest from.

But I've always been a dreamer and always put myself in any role I play (limited acting experience myself). When I watch TV, movies, musicals, etc. I imagine how I would interpret the scene and how I would react, even as that character. I don't believe it's possible to do that with a canon character. The Elphaba from one cast of Wicked will always be different from another Elphaba from another cast, but they will be the same, which can be an argument for putting some of yourself into a canon character. But I feel, with writing and RPing, when taking on another person's character without the creator's direction is disrespectful. I see it akin to copyrighting infringement or stealing art, even.

Absolutely, one can take inspiration from a character, be it a quirk, a strength, weakness, appearance, etc. But it's important to make the character yours and different.

But if you're an RPer that RPs characters very different from yourself, it might be a good exercise to play as a canon character or research other writers' inspirations for characters or psychological sheets of characters (if there are such things). But I still think it's important to create something "new" or "original" for one's sake of personal growth as a writer and creator.

[El Taco Taco]

Oh boy! I actually really love writing canon characters, althougg I do tend to gravitate towards minor characters. Minor and side characters have the flexibility of OCs, but also the appeal of being established in the universe already. They tend to feel more real to me in fandom games, especially if canon characters are kicking around.

I like using the framework provided for canons to explore characters that otherwise wouldn't have as much development. I think the awesome part of writing canons is the challenge in writing them believably and finding your own voice in them. Canon characters are sometimes less flexible than OCs, but there's also groundwork already laid down for you. That's really helpful in fleshing out believable and engaging characters. Minor canons also seem less prone to blatant self-insert and Mary Sue/Gary Stu traits than typical OCs.

There's also the appeal of taking a minor character that received awful characterization in their canon and exploring other alternatives. Some of my best games have been started because of "this writer has no idea how to write women, and definitely not teenaged girls, I will fix this" conversations with fellow writers.

In that vein, AUs are super fun and refreshing. They're massively popular--look at the mountain of fanfiction and roleplays for coffee shop, florist/tattoo shop, fantasy, modern slice of life, and other AUs in just about every fandom ever these days. Canon characters provide the common ground for these works. Since everyone has a strong idea of who these characters are, it's easy to thrust them into new settings and explore new facets of their personalities. You get all the joy of original settings and new lore with established and well rounded characters. That's the best of both worlds!

Obviously not everyone agrees on characterization, but people bicker about how characters behave within the canon itself, so it's no big deal if someone thinks your portrayal of Hermione Granger is garbage or not. It's all for fun anyways.

I've been writing canons and OCs alike over the years, and I love both types of characters. I think the mindset of canon as limiting is really common, but I don't really agree with it. It's certainly a little intimidating, but it's just as fun and rewarding as writing OCs.

[Rilla]

In order, it goes:

Original Characters
Canon Characters
Canon Characters where you can essentially make major changes to their backstories. --- I'd never actually play this, at that point, might as well let me make a original character.

Original Characters are preferred, because there is a lot of creativity to be had with them. I dislike playing canon characters, or characters that are heavily related to canon characters, where it is essentially the same thing with a different costume.

[potatochipgolem]

I vote to original characters.

Why?

I rue the idea of some nerd coming up to me and saying "But Batman wouldn't do that!" twenty years down the road. Then I'm like "WTF!?" and it gets really, really awkward. ...like it is now.