wankgate | 251: back in my day wank meant something

251: back in my day wank meant something

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

i've seen a friend turn a tav down and get a response that felt really passagg and "your loss!" and weird, but for all i know there's more than one like that so idk

i am not everyone in this thread lol

but i think what makes a meme mostly ooc is when most shit played on it leans that way. tfln is mostly ooc.

tav is the default name of the baldur's gate 3 malleable protagonist, from what i know, anon!

i'm ngl i get where you're coming from but letting anon dictate your preferences is some next level brainrot

it would be so easy for that to have just been someone lying and shit stirring

Yes? It was one of the more recent examples I saw of blatant OOC behavior so it was fresh in my mind. Why would an example not be specific?

thank you so much. you are my new favorite anon. we shall never meet again but i will remember you always.

i love you too, my ship in the night!

eh

if it were a whole canon i'd agree, but frankly i don't think i'm losing anything of value by not rping with a bunch of characters who are, at best, donut steel very special blorbos, and at worst self-inserts

plus the fact that they immediately turned around and got mad about the insinuation that they don't get smut threads definitely reinforces that they play a malleable protag, though as someone else said they could be a wol player throwing tavs in front of the train

+3

I've run into multiple people who play three or more characters played by the same actor and without fail, none of their characters had anything resembling a personality.

lmao this is real

i think that was everyone who slept through the first one actually

i don't tag people who write "no malleable protags" because the only people i've ever seen do that are wankgate regulars with poor takes

you aren't going to convince me to tag your tav/wol but i'm sorry if you were offended

hey now, it could be an inquisitor now that the dragon age hype has brought them back

the way my eyes rolled out of my head at a bunch of very unique inquisitors showing up on emp to beg for the nonexistent npcs to tag them

do we finally have a worthy gsai successor

swing and a miss

totes

i'm sure there are MANY cases of rpers caring about permissions that don't directly impact them, and anyway, the polite thing to do would be to put no info in the permissions and just ghost the characters you don't care about

actually i'd be interested in a community-wide poll (that i know won't happen) about which people would honestly prefer: permissions that say "i'm not interested in your character in particular," or permissions that don't indicate, and then the topleveler just ignores the tag-in?

do you piss on your towels or something, how are they getting that dirty after every use

it's way too early so it's fine if i curse it but "do you piss on your towels or something" would be a high tier post title

it would be super on brand for wg to have a post title like that.

oh it's just a little red flag i've noticed

so you're suggesting that in order for these wg regulars to receive your very good tags they're totally missing out on, they should conceal their permissions, pretend they want to play stuff they don't, and then not play it anyway?

i see

i won't anymore because now i'll know it's a wankgate poster and i discriminate against them despite being one myself

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 69 of 308

251: back in my day wank meant something

Re: BAKERSTREET

no subject

Re: nayrt

Re: da

Re: da

ayrt

Re: ayrt

Re: da

no subject

Re: GAME PET PEEVES

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: da

Re: da

Re: da