Fan Character/Concept Help Thread

[Kamiccolo9]

While I can't speak for every single Dragon Ball fan, I don't have to. There's a ton of assholes here that will absolutely bully you to hell and back. For some young people, particularly those that grew up on the internet and have made it a very significant part of their lives, being stalked and harassed and belittled constantly because of a bad story you wrote is very damaging. Maybe you're from a previous generation and do not hold the internet in such a position of importance in your life, but there are those that do.

You're using his work to make your own. If he didn't lay the groundwork, you wouldn't have a story at all. And I think I should clarify what I mean by "breaking the rules of the setting". You added details, you perhaps made characters, you brought Whis back to life presumably through a method we haven't seen before. But did you outright contradict any established facts that say those things couldn't be done? If you answer yes, then you broke the established rules...but otherwise no. Now, I'll go back to my example in the Original Post, about there possibly being surviving Saiyans.

Let's say, I want to make a character who is Gokuu's sister. Fair enough. Vegeta had a brother we'd never heard about until relatively recently. I'll have to explain why Vegeta never knew of her, or failed to mention her if he did, but it's not breaking the setting by any means.

If, however...I decided that she's also a one quarter Saiyan, one quarter Majin, one quarter Arcosian, one quarter Nekoseijin super-hybrid and was born through Bardock pollinating with a flower, that is breaking the setting for many different reasons. Unless you're writing a parody and trying to be ridiculous, of course. If that's what you meant by "you can make anything work", then fair enough. If you're writing an intentional parody, I agree that all bets are off.

Also, try and put yourself in the shoes of someone else for a change. Not everyone is a thirty or forty-something with an established career in literature. Some are just young teens trying their hand at writing online, who want to avoid being tormented and harassed because somebody saw that they were new to writing and decided to tear them down. I'm trying to help them avoid that. Maybe that threat isn't "real" to you, Mr. Literary Professor, but it is to them. They're being alienated in a community they care about, they're young and do not know how to deal with it, and some do break over it. A young girl was driven to try and commit suicide because people endlessly harassed her for making Steven Universe fan characters.

I find it ironic that you're talking about encouraging creativity, when you all you've done is mock others plights and try and tear me down. I wonder how good you really are at encouraging anyone?

You are victim-blaming here. If people attack them for not liking their stories, it's not the author's fault. You don't try to "change" the victim to make them more "acceptable." The better solution would be to deal with the problem at its source: the obviously unstable people who would go to such lengths due to fan fiction. And don't try to pass yourself off as a paragon of internet virtue. Your posts on this forum certainly don't support that kind of attitude from you.

And yes, I'm using his work. However, I'm not bound by it. Nobody is. In Toriyama's story, Goku doesn't have a sister. Making a story with Goku's sister is already contradicting it. You are just drawing arbitrary lines that certain things are "too much."

I seriously doubt I'm that much older than you. I'm hardly in my thirties or forties. Unless you are in your teens, in which case I'd argue that you most likely lack the experience to back up your argument in this discussion, anyway.

I haven't mocked anyone's plights, although trying to shift the discussion to my perceived attitude is a poor attempt at a strawman. And I'm not sure how you can rightfully accuse me of not being "encouraging," when the entire point of this thread is shutting down ideas that you feel "just can't work."

[Blackstripe]

You are victim-blaming here. If people attack them for not liking their stories, it's not the author's fault. You don't try to "change" the victim to make them more "acceptable." The better solution would be to deal with the problem at its source: the obviously unstable people who would go to such lengths due to fan fiction. And don't try to pass yourself off as a paragon of internet virtue. Your posts on this forum certainly don't support that kind of attitude from you.

Now I'm interested in seeing what you mean. It's not like you haven't already hopelessly derailed my thread, which I'm sure was your intention in the first place, so no reason to stop now. Tell me, what heinous things have I done on this forum? Also, don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was the author's fault. I'm saying bullies will take any avenue you give them to rip into you, but if you write well thought-out concepts that do not outright contradict established canon, you'll attract far less of them, and you'll likely have fans that will defend you from those you DO attract.

And yes, I'm using his work. However, I'm not bound by it. Nobody is. In Toriyama's story, Goku doesn't have a sister. Making a story with Goku's sister is already contradicting it. You are just drawing arbitrary lines that certain things are "too much."

It's not arbitrary. Nothing outright says he can't have a sister, but making hybrids from massively different species and pollinating flowers is definitely something Saiyans cannot do. Special note was given to humans being similar enough to breed with. I've read a metric ton of fanfiction, and I've never seen a character like the hypotheticals I've listed be written well. Have you?

Like I said, you need but provide an example, either one from yourself or from someone else, of such a character being well written, and I'll retract my assertion that it cannot practically be done in a serious work.

I seriously doubt I'm that much older than you. I'm hardly in my thirties or forties. Unless you are in your teens, in which case I'd argue that you most likely lack the experience to back up your argument in this discussion, anyway.

I haven't mocked anyone's plights, although trying to shift the discussion to my perceived attitude is a poor attempt at a strawman. And I'm not sure how you can rightfully accuse me of not being "encouraging," when the entire point of this thread is shutting down ideas that you feel "just can't work."

Well, I don't honestly know how old you are. You just come across to me as sort of uptight and stuffy, not to mention condescending and belittling...towards me at least. I shouldn't imply you do so with your students, though, since I don't know how you teach with them. For that I apologize.

The entire point of this thread was to help people learn to write more plausible fanfiction. Less Catgirl-Saiyan hybrid Mary Sue Princesses and more entertaining, Dragon ball-esque stories. Apparently, you considered that to be a great crime against literally freedom.

[Kamiccolo9]

I'll admit that I have done my part in blowing this argument out of proportion. My apologies for that.

Teacher-mode time.

Think of it this way.

Have you seen the Lego movie? You know how the dad is the antagonist, in that he insists on making his son follow the instructions instead of doing what he wants with the legos? The dad, at the beginning, at least, sees his son's efforts as immature nonsense. The son is having the time of his life, and letting his imagination do the work, not following a premade set of instructions.

Continuing the Lego analogy, you are treating the Dragon Ball setting as an instruction book. It's not. It is the table that you are building whatever it is you're making on.

Instead of saying, "no, that can't work," ask the writer "and how would you make that work?" You might be surprised at the answers you'll get.


This kind of "criticism," instead of only possibly benefiting one party, actively benefits both. It causes the writer to defend their ideas, and come up with a rational way to explain things. Saying "that doesn't work," doesn't accomplish this at all. And, to the critic's benefit, it allows them to engage in an actual discourse with a writer, instead of just shutting them down.


To convert this to a classroom analogy, it's the difference between a teacher marking incorrect answers on a multiple choice test, and having an actual class discussion. One might give immediate feedback, but, ultimately, far greater benefit comes from the option that invites actual discourse.

Back to the Lego analogy, a kid could want to make some kind of top-heavy statue that has no chance of standing up due to its weight. You could say that "it won't work," but the better option would be to ask the kid "how would you get it to stand up?" There is still a chance of the kid not being able to find a way to make it work, of course, but, there is also the chance that you would see the statue the next day, being supported by strings from the ceiling, or by using Play-Doh to stabilize the base.

The issue with saying "no, that can't work," is that you are, literally, applying what you perceive as your own limitations to everyone else. It's like those people in the other threads who are saying that "You cannot make the Earthlings relevant," or "Future Trunks' story is over; you can't do anything else with him." Both of which are hilariously false. All it takes is the right idea, and the right person to pull it off, and you've got a story. Obviously there are varying degrees of this, but the idea holds, regardless of what extremes you take it to. Even moreso than the Legos I was referring to earlier, (fan)fiction is a totally free medium. There are no limits on what you write besides those that you give yourself. If something violates a rule of an established setting, an author can introduce something to change that rule, or render it irrelevant.

And now I'm done here. I've made my point. Adieu.

[Blackstripe]

Yeah, I accused you of being condescending, but looking back I was being pretty snarky myself, too. Sorry.

I see what you're saying. Rather than just telling people no, encourage them to explain and, if necessary, refine their concept so that they gain a more coherent idea of what they're trying to accomplish. If they can't do it, then that is the end of it, but if they can you might end up with quite an entertaining story. At least, that's where I think you're going with this.

Bullies cannot be effectively stopped or combated, merely avoided. But I guess if the cost of avoiding them is never stepping out of the comfort zone, that is a price that's a bit too high to pay. Though, really, a lot of these concepts I named were hardly new and have become quite the cliches in their own right...though actually doing them well? That'd definitely be new.

A lot of my opposition does in fact come from my own weariness at seeing these same, tired old cliches being rehashed in the same incompetent way. It doesn't help that a lot of these authors themselves are every bit as loud and obnoxious as any troll, and are resistant to receiving any form of critique, no matter how constructive or well-intentioned. But I guess letting them color my perception of others is a rather cynical thing to do.

Anyway, no hard feelings about anything.

[Zephyr]

You won't do it, because it can't be done. I mean, hell, you're imagining this nebulously skilled author that could actually make that character work, saying "if you're just good enough". You can technically justify any nonsense with that line of reasoning.

I don't think that this is a very practical mindset to have. For starters, you're presupposing what is and is not nonsense. Salagir's DBM version of Broly's power growth is seen by some as nonsense, Sorbet's ring is seen by some as nonsense, Freeza being able to get as powerful as he did in "F" is seen by some as nonsense, many of the things that GT has done are seen by some as nonsense, and I think it's likewise entirely reasonable for someone to view any artificially created automatons surpassing Freeza to be seen by some as nonsense. And yet, very obviously, not everyone views any of those as nonsense. There is not a full 100% consensus among the fandom for what is and is not nonsense.

It depends entirely on the individual's limit for their suspension of disbelief. And by saying "no this is too far" without tacking a "...for me" on the end, you are implicitly presupposing the existence of an objectively true standard for how far anyone's suspension of disbelief ought to go. Well okay, you're free to do that if you really want to, but then where do we go from there? Who exactly knows the objectively correct limit for suspension of disbelief? How do you figure this out? How do we test and measure this? Is there some higher, meta-human authority on the matter?

This question is meant to be a rhetorical one. It is meant to illustrate the obvious fact that it's a thing that is relative to individual taste.

But let us briefly entertain the idea of there being a full 100% consensus. That a certain viewpoint on something being "nonsense" is popular. You could appeal to "popularity" if you wish, but that is still not necessarily "correct". For instance, if 100% of fans believed that Freeza surviving being cut in half on Namek was nonsense, would that indeed make the assertion "Freeza surviving getting cut in half on Namek is nonsense" an objectively correct statement? If so, then it would necessarily still be objectively correct if a new fan was born, and they felt that it wasn't nonsense. However, I don't believe that anyone would reasonably assert this. What if you were that one single fan who thought something wasn't nonsense, who believed that it was explainable, whose suspension of disbelief wasn't too constrained to be able to buy it? How could anyone legitimately, sincerely, and correctly say "you're suspension of disbelief is incorrect!"?

Perhaps a better example might be that red and blue paint mixed together makes purple paint. If literally every human being on the planet believed otherwise, would that render "red and blue paint mixed together makes purple paint" somehow truly, objectively, measurably, testably false? Unless you're subscribing to an entirely unconventional connotation of objective truth (which would mean that we're not actually talking about the same sort of "truth", and thus you're belief that it is "false" isn't the kind of false I'm even asking about), then how?

Again, this is a rhetorical question meant to illustrate the asininity of conflating subjective preference with objective truth.

"You could figure out how to turn cow paddies into gold, if you're skilled and innovative enough!" or "You can figure out how to make nuclear polonium drinkable, if you've got the willpower!"

Alter the molecular structure of the cow paddies so that they are gold. Find the temperature at which point polonium becomes a liquid.

For example: The daughter of Gokuu and Vegeta (cause male Saiyans can totally get M-preg with each other, m'kay?) that can turn SSJG 10,000 Omnicolor and wield magic far stronger than Majin Buu. She can also transform into a magical girl and is dating (insert real life popular musical artist here), has made Beerus and Champa her house cats and is the adopted Goddaughter of Whis and Vados. Consequently, she's also both the sole Goddess of Creation AND Destruction of every single Universe...but doesn't actually have to destroy worlds, unless she wants to.

You can brainstorm all of the crazy facts about your story. All you need to do is ask "what must necessarily be true in order for this to be a thing". What is necessarily true for Goku and Vegeta to have a kid together? Somehow, some way, for at least one single instance, two males were capable of producing offspring together. Therefore, we need only have one demonstrable instance of this. Super science and magic both exist in Dragon Ball. If you're going to say that "two males producing offspring is the limit of these things", people are going to raise eyebrows, because that is an incredibly arbitrary line to draw for the limitations of super science and magic.

Super Saiyan God 10,000 Omnicolor. This is a form. What is the problem with this being a form? It's silly, sure, but what necessarily precludes this from ever at all possibly being a thing? Why can there not be ten thousand levels of a transformation? Why can there not be an "Omnicolor" version of this ten thousandth level of the form?

Why can someone not find a means of acquiring magic that surpasses Buu?

Why can someone not become powerful enough to tame cat characters?

Why can someone not become adopted by two characters?

Why can someone not alter the existing pantheon of gods? Why can they not become powerful enough to instate a paradigm shift in the bureaucratic structure of things, fire the people in two positions, and subsequently take on two positions at once? Why can they not extend their jurisdiction? Why can they not be lazy and choose when they do and do not do their jobs?

The problem is that you're presupposing constraints on the rules of the universe of Dragon Ball of all things, a series known for having poorly laid out rules, which tend to be broken at every turn. You're putting arbitrary constraints on the potentialities of things to happen in this universe.

You're putting constraints on the transformation capabilities of a race that seems to perpetually gain new transformations, on how powerful someone can become in a series where people only become more and more powerful with each story arc, on fucking adoption practices, rules for what kinds of magic can exist, etc. Why? With what justification do you do this? Where are you getting these constraints from? Who explicitly laid them out? It most certainly wasn't anyone in charge of Dragon Ball.

Do you see the problem that you are unnecessarily creating? There is absolutely no reason for these constraints, which are absolutely necessary to preclude a character possessing these "impossible" features, to be presupposed to exist. The task of precluding the possibility of something is much more daunting than the task of justifying something. You have to explain why something absolutely cannot be the case, before you can even dream to say that something cannot be the case, which you must do in order to question the possibility of something.

Sure, you're most certainly free to come up with your own constraints on these sorts of things, but they are still your constraints. Not everyone is going to agree with them. And even if everyone did, eventually someone may come along who disagrees with them, and that is entirely acceptable.

[Blackstripe]

snip

Well, hello there.

Um...I probably came across as more of a hard-ass than I intended to be in this thread. To better explain where I was going, though...

I wasn't actually saying "No, you cannot do this, or that!", since...you know, that would be sort of silly. You can write whatever you want about Dragon Ball, nobody's going to come to your house and arrest you. What I should have more properly elaborated on was that I was trying to help people write more entertaining stories. What do I mean by entertaining? Basically, look at the sort of stories that have the most reviews, are the most popular...they're generally the ones that show some respect to established facts, character portrayals and are reasonable with the new ideas they implement.

Sure, you could write that parody sue I made there, nobody would kill you for it...but I doubt you'd earn yourself too many readers that weren't also trolls. Basically, the goal was to help you be an entertaining and more successful fanfic writer, rather than one that just gets trolled and bullied. It's not victim blaming to say that writing Mary Sue fics results in being targeted, it's just pointing out a fact. Hell, there's even some people who intentionally write Troll Fics to invoke this reaction.

So no, I'm not the continuity or characterization police for the Dragon Ball fandom. I just wanted to help people interested in writing more popularly accepted stories.