How would non-canon characters be handled? Like, say (hypothetically) I wanted to do a line of Danny stories where he dates people who aren't established characters? Is this possible? It's not a gen line, but it's also not Danny/OC because that implies that he's dating the *same* OC.
Following on that, if I requested a character line, would it be possible to do some of the fills with a pairing and some not? In this kind of case, I'd assume that the named character would be given more "weight" in the story than the pairing, like, e.g. a story where someone deals with a break-up.
Are stories where characters are in an established relationship (like Chris/Victoria) and who may do relationshippy things like kiss or sleep in the same bed while in the background of someone else's story considered "vague mentions"?
Are there going to be bonus points or benchmarks for exceeding the minimums for fills, like in other bingos where 5000 words is +50 points and so on?
How would non-canon characters be handled? Like, say (hypothetically) I wanted to do a line of Danny stories where he dates people who aren't established characters? Is this possible? It's not a gen line, but it's also not Danny/OC because that implies that he's dating the *same* OC.
OCs weren't actually something that came up when laying down the rules! My take on it is if you want to have say, one pairing with an OC that'll be fine, providing your other pairings/characters focus on actual canon characters from Teen Wolf. Danny/OC would work much like the General heading (not to be confused with Gen character-specific headings!) - basically, each fic can have a different focus. So if Danny dates a guy named Gus, he can then date a guy named Barry in another fic. You're following the pairing header, not the fics that preceded it, so it's cool. (Uh, if you need more clarification on this, just ask - it's 4 am here and I maybe SHOULDN'T be trying to explain myself right now.)
Following on that, if I requested a character line, would
( ... )
Otherwise, it's very possible for a full card to have 15 squares with the same pairing filled in.
Yeah, I can see someone trying to do this. The challenge of bingos is in breaking one's comfort zone, so establishing a card that's fully within it would really defeat the point.
Considering this, may I suggest a benchmark or bonus points or award of some sort for getting a bingo that fills at least one square from each column? (with the goal of encouraging people to write more than one pairing)
That was actually something I had implemented initially, though decided to remove before the comm went live. Apart from a vertical line bingo, all other patterns require you to expand beyond just a sole pairing/character, so I didn't think there needed to be much added incentive. :)
However, it's definitely something I'll look into adding if, once posting starts, there's an influx of just a single pairing! I'm thinking the first few posting weeks will be able to give a good approximation as to what could make the challenge better and more varied.
Comments 27
I have two questions.
a) How long will the challenge run?
b) Would "pack" qualify as a pairing? As in, the whole pack together? ^^
Reply
Tentatively, the challenge is going to run until April 30th. That may change depending on the level activity the comm sees.
Pack should be fine as a pairing - just try to include a big chunk of them in there!
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
How would non-canon characters be handled? Like, say (hypothetically) I wanted to do a line of Danny stories where he dates people who aren't established characters? Is this possible? It's not a gen line, but it's also not Danny/OC because that implies that he's dating the *same* OC.
Following on that, if I requested a character line, would it be possible to do some of the fills with a pairing and some not? In this kind of case, I'd assume that the named character would be given more "weight" in the story than the pairing, like, e.g. a story where someone deals with a break-up.
Are stories where characters are in an established relationship (like Chris/Victoria) and who may do relationshippy things like kiss or sleep in the same bed while in the background of someone else's story considered "vague mentions"?
Are there going to be bonus points or benchmarks for exceeding the minimums for fills, like in other bingos where 5000 words is +50 points and so on?
Sorry to complicate things.
Reply
OCs weren't actually something that came up when laying down the rules! My take on it is if you want to have say, one pairing with an OC that'll be fine, providing your other pairings/characters focus on actual canon characters from Teen Wolf. Danny/OC would work much like the General heading (not to be confused with Gen character-specific headings!) - basically, each fic can have a different focus. So if Danny dates a guy named Gus, he can then date a guy named Barry in another fic. You're following the pairing header, not the fics that preceded it, so it's cool. (Uh, if you need more clarification on this, just ask - it's 4 am here and I maybe SHOULDN'T be trying to explain myself right now.)
Following on that, if I requested a character line, would ( ... )
Reply
Otherwise, it's very possible for a full card to have 15 squares with the same pairing filled in.
Yeah, I can see someone trying to do this. The challenge of bingos is in breaking one's comfort zone, so establishing a card that's fully within it would really defeat the point.
Considering this, may I suggest a benchmark or bonus points or award of some sort for getting a bingo that fills at least one square from each column? (with the goal of encouraging people to write more than one pairing)
Reply
However, it's definitely something I'll look into adding if, once posting starts, there's an influx of just a single pairing! I'm thinking the first few posting weeks will be able to give a good approximation as to what could make the challenge better and more varied.
Thanks so much for your suggestions, though! :D
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment