Character Pitches: Before or After

It has been brought up in a recent thread that some folks find it strange that GamersPlane has a trend of accepting players to games before a character pitch; indeed, references to other sites have been made, where it is the inverse. Now, not every game here is like this, but it seems to be more common that not to invite folks on vibes (or promptness) rather than pitch.

How do you feel about this? Which way do you prefer, and why? Does your style of game or GMing influence this?

---

Personally, I tend to run a lot of OSR games here. Due to the random nature of character creation, nobody really knows what they'll be playing until they're at the e-table and rolling with everyone else. In fact, I would rather get a group together based on vibes and let them build the party together even if I were to play other, more character-driven games!

When applying to games, I tend to offer my experience and an understanding of the material in place of my offering to play Steve the Stevedore. In fact, my number one reason for leaving a game is when there isn't a cohesive vibe; my number two is when the characters really don't fit the setting or tone.

Depending on the system, it can be a very long process to craft a character. I prefer to make a character that builds into the story the GM is trying to make.
That is why I prefer to join the game and then create a character. It would feel like wasted effort making a complex character first, and then not be a part of the game.

As a player I prefer to just express my interest and maybe give some general idea on how I plan to play. After player selection, ideally everyone should work together and try to weave together some common ground. That’s hard to do when someone has laid out their entire dark dramatic histories that includes entire family trees, and how they got that scar. That doesn’t mean you can’t have a great and detailed backstory, I just think its better to fill in those blanks later and not upfront.

Of course if the characters have no relation to one another and no common ground to speak of then thats all moot.

Another thing I don’t like about detailed character pitches up front is that it also make me feel like damn….now I have to have one, and make it sound just as cool! Pressure…..bahhh that’s why I play these games to get away from all that!

I like the ability to make characters as a group. Perhaps two players agree to make siblings. Maybe the whole group wants to be dwarven pirates in the same crew. Often people coordinate on class balance as well. Things that would at least be harder if the character had to be submitted ahead of time.

It makes sense to make and discuss characters as a group to make sure toes aren't trod on (and as Gearspark said you can link them as well.) Also when you are joining a game you have never played for, that can be quite common here, you will likely need the DM/other players help.

It can also feel bad to put a lot of effort in building a character and not getting picked. I had been debating for when I get around to running my high level pathfinder game (In like 3 years :P) to have people pre make the character so I could see what they are like with pathfinder, but realised it would likely suck to put that effort in then got told no.

Most games that I want to run (or play) are going to warrant creating characters not only in collaboration with the rest of the group, but with the context of the campaign premise in mind.

So ... usually, no submitting already-made characters in advance/to apply for a game for me.

Also, I often like to include more equitable means of player selection (choosing players specifically because they are new to rpgs, or the forums, or just new to a system).

I've had a lot of not great experiences with pre-rolled PCs coming in with OP stats or homebrew or other "special" considerations attached.

Nope.

Let's all build something together in the "moment".

There's some "cultural" aspects to this. I have played on several PbP sites and GP seems to be among the faster for putting together a game. Back when TK was alive it took slower approach but I was still taken a bit by surprise when Myth-weavers frequently has an "application" period that can be several weeks to a month and people make characters and interact with each other and the GM can select from that pool the number of PCs that they want. I found that kind of frustrating. Here, I frequently see people pitch the kinds of characters they might play (and I've certainly done so) but I haven't been in a game where we made full characters before being selected.

As a DM, I have little interest in a player pitching a character in a vacuum, without consideration for what the other players might want. So I don't ask for character ideas during recruitment and assume that it isn't the character that's the hot commodity, but the player themself.

As with many others I prefer to have some interaction in character creation so only do rough ideas before joining a game, though i have had a couple that required full character builds. As a GM I do not required character concepts before admitting players but do admit that some games would likely be easier to run with a specific type of character.

As there are always more players looking for games them GM with open slots I think a GM requesting a character concept to filter those he is interested in playing with is as fair a way to build a game roster as first come first serve. It should be fun for the GM as well as the players so if the GM prefers content and social over combat and/or min/max then this process could be used to build a fun game for them.

I like to build characters together with the others, which is just not possible beforehand.

Being part of the thread is giving me information - background, plans of the others. Most times, I have some ideas, put the in a post and let the others decide what's more fitting.

So, I prefer to invite or be invited on vibes, like it was stated earlier.

Basically what has been said. It depends on the system, but I tend tend to start with a very basic idea of a character and keep an eye out of how the other characters' development, trying to tie in anything that makes sense. So my character is actually fleshed out after I see what the others are doing. This is mostly because on PbP even the games that actually start might not last long, so I don't really want to put too much effort on a game I'm not sure I will play, and then probably spend months trying to force a character I really liked the potential into another game.

I also think the choice being 'of players' and not 'of characters' allows most GMs to try to strike a good balance of new players and GP veterans for their games, since it removes any 'unspoken application rules' that new players would not be aware of.

---

I would be curious to know people's experiences with more complex applications actually. Do you think it makes for better, or more stable games, given the initial player investment?

I did play on Mythweavers a bit, where it is common to write proper applications for games, including writing samples and often weeks long pre-game discussions. While my sample size is not very big, two to be precise, both games ended up with either the GM or a significant portion of the players ghosting the game. So no, I don't think there is any reason to believe that a more involved process leads to more stable games.

I just had a similar experience on MW, with multiple back and forth with the GM, making a fully fleshed character for a game that was very loosely defined, and I had no idea what the other players were making. By the time I was done with my character, I felt that I had already fully explored the character, and I still didn't know if I was in the game. I withdrew my application as I was no longer excited to play the character anymore.

*In my Fallout-narrator voice*
PBP. PBP never changes.

Definitely need some concept before an invite. I'm not sure what "vibes" I'm supposed to gather from "I'm interested" or "Hi, I'd like to play human warrior if that's okay". While I do agree that doing the bulk of character creation should be done in game, with other players, it's more for getting to know each other and the characters, rather than out some need to build a solid party and spec correctly. In games that put a higher importance on tactical combat such party building exercises seem to be common, but they sound rather bland and boring to me. Who cares if you've got 5 fighters in a party if they all cool characters? Or if everyone in the group is a Face?

What I'm looking for in people's submissions is the person - who is this character, really? What is their character, their nature? How do they handle themselves, what are their goals and aspirations? Because, let's be honest here - we're all human. Everyone is different, and wants something different from a game. At this stage it is important to try and discern people who are on the same wavelength as you, who want to play something close to what you're offering. This submitted character concept is what will tell me as an ST/GM - am I the right choice for them? Can I give them the game they want to play? Will they be receptive to the game I'm offering, with it's themes and moods? Or are we just not a good fit - for this particular game or at all? If so, that is fine! Nothing wrong with that. Everyone wants something different.

Regarding the size of the application or the difference between simply expressing interest vs. sending an actual concept. I would only be fine with expressed interest if I knew the person well enough to know what to expect from them. Even then, I might still ask for a concept submission. I don't have a problem with the "first come, first serve" games, but I don't think it's a good idea with strangers. If that works for you - great, but I'd rather stick to simple applications. Because if I see someone who actually took the time out of their day to write up a proper concept, that tells me that something in my game description interested them enough to do so. They're not just throwing a wide net, they want to be in *this* game. That doesn't guarantee that we are on the same page about the game itself, but it is a good start, certainly better than just throwing your hat in.

Personally, I enjoy creating characters, so even if I don't end up being picked, I don't see it as time wasted, since I had fun doing it. It is also a preference that games that I'd apply to had some sort of application process, thus potentially improving the group cohesion.

I don't have a lot of experience with PbP and TTRPGs in general, but the system of "concept applications" seems to be working fine for now, so I'll probably stick with it in the future. Both of the games I've started this year, after finally deciding to dive in, are still alive, so I must be doing at least something right. And where I fail, I can hopefully learn and do better in the future.

It varies for me, rather than one way or the other. There are some players that I'd absolutely take automatically, and others that I won't play with under any circumstances, but the majority of people are ones that I'd like to see what they're thinking of first - would their characters match with what I wanted to run? What are their standards of posting?

Having said that, I do like ensemble character building, so that everyone can have their own niche, you can cover most or all aspects (I tend to run quite a bit of Cthulhu type stuff, so a party that ends up specialising in one approach and skipping a bunch of skills is probably destined to fail horribly in parts) between the group. It also helps create characters that can work well together, or that have existing links, if that's important.

Usually I ask for brief character ideas - if it's a game that uses classes, professions, archetypes, etc, what they're thinking of, a little bit about psychological background (eg how they approach things), and that does a decent job of weeding out the ones that I don't think I'd enjoy having in the group. I don't hold players to what they suggested, especially if the players I pick have similar-ish ideas - I'm partly looking for their creativity and adaptability - but I do prefer to have a pool of applicants to choose from. I also prefer to have pretty small groups too, so they can interact more easily, hence my trying to choose players that can work well together, not just their characters.

ETA: Also, what reversia.ch just said. Couldn't agree more, awesome post.

It's interesting to see the perspective of the other side! Especially since, in my mind, we're trying to achieve the same goal—that is, to find a party that understands the material and will work well together—through different means. With the games I run, I can't imagine how pointless it would be to ask for a concept first. But it makes sense for some systems! And asking for a pitch does seem different from the horror stories of asking for a complete character.

To give an example of my style: I try to create a thorough and immersive pitch, selling the players on the experience. In that pitch I almost always ask for a response of some sort: favorite quotes, movies, etc. from the genre. This is to make sure they read the ad AND to get a handle on where they're coming from. Low effort responses tend to get low effort invites, as in none.

To me, that's an accurate description of "vibes" ;-)

I've had this experience many times, too, and it has dampened my excitement for games, but I generally browse with a "When in Rome..." mentality. I have some characters that are more like literary models I like to fall back on, and if I know generally how the system works or how to manipulate it decently enough, I can re-create the character fairly easily across systems since the concept is already solid, so it isn't such a loss if I have to spend time making a character to submit with no guarantee that a GM will take me. My fun comes from anticipating my old standby going on some wild new adventure in someone else's world/game.

Having to go from scratch with the whole exam-like writing prompt, character submission, and all of that, like I'm some illiterate trying to play an RPG...granted I've just had a recruiting disaster that makes me want to reconsider my words, but...those kind of hoops to jump are not for me, and I think they're a bit useless for making the possibility of any more of a stable game happen, as perhaps my own limited sample adding on can vouch for.

After, my time is valuable.