Things you look for in RP partners' characters

[HotPizza]

Ten character filler.

[Quertus]

I look for compatibility.

Is the party a Paladin, an Assassin, in Undead Hunter, and an Undead Master?

Are there two characters with the background "best archer in the realm"?

Is there a character that a player is super hyped about playing... and another character who completely overlaps and sidelines them?

These are all games I've played in. Guess how they turned out?

[Koo Rehtorb]

I don't ask for characters beforehand in the first place. I ask questions about the players themselves and pick based on that. Character creation belongs after the group is already assembled and we do it as a group.

[RazorChain]

I look for certain qualities in my players not their characters.

First is that they are decent human beings that can cooperate to have fun

Second is style compatibility. We enjoy the same playstyle

[Blacky the Blackball]

Let's suppose you're looking for an RP involving a small group of 2-4 players. You've made a forum thread asking for interested players. People have posted in your thread with their character sheets. There are all sort of characters, with a wide variety of personalities, backstories, powers, and abilities.

I'd do it the other way around. I'd sort out who the players were going to be before bringing up the subject of characters. But assuming that potential players had posted unsolicited character sheets, so I was in the situation that I had them there...

With so many options, how do you choose the best character to RP? What do you look for in a character? Do you pick a character with an interesting personality, or with one least likely to cause friction with the team or NPCs, or a mix of the two? What sort of personality interests you, or makes you want to RP with the character? What personality traits instantly turn you off?

There's a fine line between "interesting" and "special snowflake", so I'd be careful there.

If we're talking about a D&D-style fantasy game (which we seem to be, given the rest of your post), then the following would be pretty instant turn-offs:

• A character with a build planned out - especially one that multiclasses, or worse, has dips into other classes.
• An edgy character, or one that's just plain evil.
• A lone wolf character - not always easy to spot.

When you read a character's story, what do you expect to see? Plot points to tie the character into the plot or setting of the RP? What level of detail do you want to see in the backstory? Are there any "no-no"s when it comes to the backstory?

When it comes to backstory, anything more than a couple of sentences would be a big red flag for me and likely get rejected. Similarly, the use of purple prose (the bane of play-by-post games) is an instant turn off.

How do you decide what powers are best suited for the team and the RP? What types of powers do you look for:

- Damaging (offensive attacks, such as swords, guns, or fireballs)

- Healing and other supportive powers

- Shielding (tanking, takes damage to protect the rest of the team)

- Controller (modifies the terrain to hinder enemies or help teammates e.g. growing vines to hold enemies in place, creating force fields that separate enemies from the team)

- Utilities (flight, water travel, wilderness survival, speaking foreign languages, etc)

Do you look for powers that are useful outside combat? How do you determine if a power is overpowered or underpowered for the RP? Or if the power will make the RP interesting?

Assuming the characters are created by the rules, then I don't care much. It's up to the players what they want to play. I'd probably make sure I selected characters that didn't all have the same speciality (or the same class, if we're talking D&D) but that's about all.

What other things do you look for in a character before accepting into an RP?

There's not really much in terms of character, but in terms of setting expectations, I'd make it explicit that:

1. This is a game, not a novel. Describe your character's actions, not their thoughts and feelings. Sure, your character has thoughts and feelings, but they stay inside their (and your) head. The other characters don't know what your character is thinking, so it's unfair to tell the other players what your character is thinking thereby forcing them to metagame by pretending they don't know when they actually do.
2. This is a game, not a creative writing exercise. When describing your character's actions, don't go into lengthy descriptions of how awesome they look doing things. Remember, their actions might fail - and then those descriptions just look silly. Plus, they're often embarrasing and cringe-inducing to read. Keep your descriptions clear and simple, and preferably keep them in the future tense - concise statements of what your character will try to do, rather than florid descriptions of them actually doing it.

Obviously, players who agree with that style of posting are more likely to get picked.

[Vhaidara]

As a note, I consider everything blackball said to be completely wrong. Having a build in mind is a plus in my opinion. And I think being able to write more detail into your character is a massive advantage of the PbP format. RPGs ARE an exercise in creativity, and since PbP games are handled via writing, it is an exercise in creative writing.

[The Glyphstone]

Kele's absolutely right there - the idea that any background beyond a few sentences is grounds for rejection is something I find absurd. For me, a three-sentence background is in itself grounds for rejection, since it tells me the player is likely too lazy to create a fully fleshed-out character. PbP is a text-based medium; if you are unwilling or unable to participate in a text-based fashion, you're better suited for in-person or IRC gameplay. Nor is there anything wrong with having a build planned, or multiclassing, as long as it supports the character in an organic fashion.

@OP - if you are looking to make a PC, the most important thing to do is read what the GM writes. a GM with any value or skill will have a list of requirements - on GITP we call it the 'Big 16' as a standardized format, but it's not guaranteed. They will tell you what they want - a character sketch or a full build, how long backstories should be, etc.

[Malimar]

As a note, I consider everything blackball said to be completely wrong. Having a build in mind is a plus in my opinion. And I think being able to write more detail into your character is a massive advantage of the PbP format. RPGs ARE an exercise in creativity, and since PbP games are handled via writing, it is an exercise in creative writing.

Not everything, and not completely, but overall I agree.

In 3.5, you pretty much need to have your build planned out, in order to hit prerequisites for prestige classes in a reasonable number of levels. And multiclassing is important for mundanes to be able to contribute to encounters, and pretty much just weakens spellcasters, so is generally a good.

And while concision is generally good, it's not good to leave out important or interesting points. Concisely covering everything > wordily covering everything > concisely covering not enough. This goes for both backstory and posts.

[Kaptin Keen]

Language and engagement.

The rest I'll work out somehow, but I can't change the style of people's posts, and I can't force them to be really interested in the game.

[Quertus]

As a note, I consider everything blackball said to be completely wrong.

Wow. What are we looking at here?

Having a build in mind is a plus in my opinion.

It is. It shows that the player is compatible with 3e. Now, that might not make him compatible with BtB, which, in turn, suggests that he isn't compatible with 3e.

I mean, I intentionally played the 3e character who didn't look towards the future. The campaign ended somewhere in the teens, and I still hadn't qualified for my prestige class (or, I finally had, but too late, and I never got to use its abilities. Not sure which).

When it comes to backstory, anything more than a couple of sentences would be a big red flag for me and likely get rejected.

1. This is a game, not a novel. Describe your character's actions, not their thoughts and feelings. Sure, your character has thoughts and feelings, but they stay inside their (and your) head. The other characters don't know what your character is thinking, so it's unfair to tell the other players what your character is thinking thereby forcing them to metagame by pretending they don't know when they actually do.
2. This is a game, not a creative writing exercise. When describing your character's actions, don't go into lengthy descriptions of how awesome they look doing things. Remember, their actions might fail - and then those descriptions just look silly. Plus, they're often embarrasing and cringe-inducing to read. Keep your descriptions clear and simple, and preferably keep them in the future tense - concise statements of what your character will try to do, rather than florid descriptions of them actually doing it.

Wow. That's surprising. I'm not a PbP gamer if I can help it, but I was under the impression that they all valued verbosity. Apparently not true for everyone.

Now, the detailing the character's thoughts bit is a style preference. One I generally agree with, mind. But not universal. In fact, one of the best groups for role-playing, they would ask whenever they could not reconcile your response / stated actions just what was going on in your character's head. But, outside something like that, I agree, it eats up valuable resources keeping track of And trying to prevent bleed in from what your character doesn't know. However, I don't think that "metagaming" is quite the right word (unless you are role-playing by constantly dropping to the metagame to determine whether your reaction is based on what you know, or what your character knows... And that sounds exhausting!)

Personally, I like concise descriptions of intended future actions, and can tolerate or occasionally even enjoy after-the-fact fluffy narration of past events. I did, however, enjoy one player who, with only one specific character, would go into a quick narration of them rolling across tables, diving between the maidens legs, popping up firing two arrows through their target's eyes... followed by, "what really happens is, hit AC X for Y damage". When you knew that he only did it with that character, it really added something.

But what happened to you that you would describe people's narration as "often embarrasing and cringe-inducing"? did you try to read my horrible attempts at writing ficton or something?

[Blacky the Blackball]

As a note, I consider everything blackball said to be completely wrong.

No, not wrong - I correctly described my preferences. You might disagree with those preferences, but there's no right and wrong; just different preferred styles.

In 3.5, you pretty much need to have your build planned out, in order to hit prerequisites for prestige classes in a reasonable number of levels. And multiclassing is important for mundanes to be able to contribute to encounters, and pretty much just weakens spellcasters, so is generally a good.

There's a reason I don't play 3.5.

It is. It shows that the player is compatible with 3e. Now, that might not make him compatible with BtB, which, in turn, suggests that he isn't compatible with 3e.

Correct.

Bear in mind that the OP didn't say they were playing 3e. They didn't even say they were playing D&D.

But what happened to you that you would describe people's narration as "often embarrasing and cringe-inducing"? did you try to read my horrible attempts at writing ficton or something?

I've had to read far too much purple prose from wannabe novelists. But not from you, as far as I know!

[Faily]

Focus more on having players who can play well together (you included), than the characters. Good players can always make changes to their characters to accomodate for the rest of the group, in my experience, as well as the game you want to play.

[Quertus]

I still don't understand how planned builds can be bad, speaking from a system-agnostic point of view.

Lemme see what I can do.

It removes the "how the **** do we make a workable plan with this group?" minigame.

It's such a remarkable coincidence that this random group happens to have the correct combination of skills that it strains verisimilitude.

[Vhaidara]

That's a planned party, not a planned build. Planned build is more along the lines of "I want to play a spellsword type, so I'm going to start off with a Fighter level, then go Wizard for a few levels until I qualify for Eldritch Knight"*

*don't use this build kids, it's awful

[FreddyNoNose]

I interview new players before they get into my game. If they don't seem a fit for the group and me, they don't get into the game.

Characters should be created in front of me and should only take 5 to 10 minutes max to create, buy gear and be ready for play. No detailed backgrounds. I don't want to read that crap nor will it likely match my world. Now if it were a Bushido game, rank can be a factor.

They should pick a class that the want to play. Generally discouraging the "what does a party need" question. Although I have given into the question if pushed hard because some people do like to play the filler type.

How do I decide what powers best fit? I don't, I have what is available to them and what they can discover along the way. Unless it is a special case of a one shot adventure based on a specific group that was created in advance.

Overpowered shouldn't exist. If you let them make something up, then it can and likely will happen. If it makes it too easy it could be OP.

Non-combat abilities are encouraged as I do run downtime.

[Vhaidara]

Creation time is completely dependent on system and familiarity with the system. I'm at the point with DnD 4e that I can put a character together in about 10 minutes (it won't be a neatly filled out sheet, and I won't be doing something inventive or weird, but it will work). But starting level is also very relevant, I doubt any DnD system supports double digit levels with less than an hour of character creation. Some systems are a lot more light on character generation (which, weirdly, can actually make it take longer to generate if you hit writer's block)

Freddy also appears to be in the camp of not wanting a character to have a history, which cuts out one of the hardest parts of character creation in most systems

[Faily]

I interview new players before they get into my game. If they don't seem a fit for the group and me, they don't get into the game.

Characters should be created in front of me and should only take 5 to 10 minutes max to create, buy gear and be ready for play. No detailed backgrounds. I don't want to read that crap nor will it likely match my world. Now if it were a Bushido game, rank can be a factor.

They should pick a class that the want to play. Generally discouraging the "what does a party need" question. Although I have given into the question if pushed hard because some people do like to play the filler type.

How do I decide what powers best fit? I don't, I have what is available to them and what they can discover along the way. Unless it is a special case of a one shot adventure based on a specific group that was created in advance.

Overpowered shouldn't exist. If you let them make something up, then it can and likely will happen. If it makes it too easy it could be OP.

Non-combat abilities are encouraged as I do run downtime.

Yikes, that's... a pretty harsh stance.

Now I'm all for rolling dice for abilities and such being done in the presence of someone to witness (many groups I play with always do a "spot" for eachother when rolling stats or Hit Points). But not being allowed to take time to think of my character, and what I want to play? No thanks.

Sure, I have enough system mastery with Pathfinder, D&D 3.5, L5R 4E, and FFG's Star Wars to be able to make a character relatively quickly, but chances are high I won't enjoy the character as much, because I might realise a mistake later during play (it can be anything from having misremembered a Feat or Spell, or realising I forgot to take something to make the idea I had work - like ranks in certain Perform skills for a Bard).

I *always* encourage my players to spend time on preparing their character in the time before the game starts (which can be anything from 1 week to 1 month). Not because I expect them to write lengthy backgrounds, but because I want them at least to have a vision of who their character is - and for those who need a session or two to click with their character's voice, I also expect them to learn their character's powers and abilities in that time as it reduces time spent looking up things in books.

Making a character for War For The Crown, I had absolutely no idea on what I wanted to play. I waffled between Alchemist and Summoner, but I had really no firm ideas on what kind of character I wanted it to be. If I hadn't had the weeks leading up to session 1, I wouldn't have been able to come up with the idea of a apothecary-type alchemist who eschewed bombs and mutagens for skullduggery and super-poison (Eldritch Poisoner archtype). Sometimes it just takes a bit longer for a good idea to come to a player.

[FreddyNoNose]

I take anywhere from 3 days to 1 week to create a character. Am I doing something wrong? I can't seem to make a character with a personality and set of abilities otherwise. It's why I usually make a character sheet before looking for a game, adjusting the sheet as needed after I find one, and then apply for the game with my character sheet.

Neither of us are wrong. How would you feel if you put all that effort into creating a character and it died in the first 10 minutes?

[Delta]

Neither of us are wrong. How would you feel if you put all that effort into creating a character and it died in the first 10 minutes?

I can of course only speak for me and not for HotPizza but I've never played a game where that was a realistic possibility (as long as I didn't start the game by saying "Okay, yeah I try to charge at the king with my weapon drawn while he's surrounded by half a dozen of his elite guard!" or something similar), and I'd wager it's the same for him.

Of course, if I ever did play in a game where the GM warned me "PCs will die in this game, they can and will die quickly and often!" I'd put less work into my character background than usually. But, to be honest, if I ever met a GM setting down the ground rules you have for your games, I'd probably respectfully pass, I don't think a game like that would be much fun for me (and I probably wouldn't be a fun player trying to play in it).

[Blacky the Blackball]

I still don't understand how planned builds can be bad, speaking from a system-agnostic point of view.

In my experience, there's a very strong correlation between people who plan out builds in advance and powergamers.

It's at this point that someone usually shouts out the words "Stormwind Fallacy", to which I point out that I've not said that optimising/powergaming must necessarily go hand in hand with bad roleplaying - I'm just saying that in my experience it usually does; to the point where a potential player using the words "system mastery" or "build" (or especially "dip") is a huge red flag.

[Blacky the Blackball]

I can of course only speak for me and not for HotPizza but I've never played a game where that was a realistic possibility (as long as I didn't start the game by saying "Okay, yeah I try to charge at the king with my weapon drawn while he's surrounded by half a dozen of his elite guard!" or something similar), and I'd wager it's the same for him.

Of course, if I ever did play in a game where the GM warned me "PCs will die in this game, they can and will die quickly and often!" I'd put less work into my character background than usually. But, to be honest, if I ever met a GM setting down the ground rules you have for your games, I'd probably respectfully pass, I don't think a game like that would be much fun for me (and I probably wouldn't be a fun player trying to play in it).

It depends on the game. In most editions of D&D, or in Rolemaster or Runequest or a number of other games, a starting character will be rather fragile can often be killed in one hit if an opponent gets lucky.

Some GMs will fudge things to prevent that from happening, others will accept that characters can get unlucky and die in the first combat (or even the first round of combat, if they're particularly jinxed).

Of course, it's unlikely that characters will have got into a fight in the first ten minutes of the game (unless you're playing Feng Shui!), so there may have been some hyperbole in FreddyNoNose's statements.

[Delta]

I gotta admit I hardly play D&D and if so it's been mostly 4e where 1st level characters don't die that easily. To be honest, I haven't witnessed more than a handful of PC deaths over my whole RPG career and about half of those happened at the end of a multi-year campaign when all the PCs (save one) decided to sacrifice themselves in the final confrontation to stop the big bad. Just not something that does seem to happen that often, regardless of system in my experience. So unless the GM warns me in advance, I wouldn't expect a massive likelihood of "random PC death" in most games.

[DeTess]

In my experience, there's a very strong correlation between people who plan out builds in advance and powergamers.

But wouldn't you rather know the build in advance in a case like that? That way you can see if there are actual problems, or if he's just optimizing to actually be able to be a badass warrior on par in usefulness with the casters in the party. I'd be more worried about someone starting wizard or cleric that doesn't give an indication of what he/she is planning to do in the future. Divine Metamagic and twinned shivering touch don't require much in the way of planning or dips, after all.

[Delta]

And sometimes, a certain prestige class is just part of the concept. I can recall that in one D&D group I played years ago, we started out at Level 3 or so and one of the players wanted to play an Eldritch Disciple(? I think, the one that mixes Warlocks and Clerics?) which he couldn't get into before level 5 or something like that. I don't see anything wrong with telling the GM in advance "That's where I'd like to get at some point" so the GM can either tell him that it wouldn't fit the campaign for some reason or on the other hand, so the GM can plan accordingly for the first couple levels so this pans out nicely within the story. Personally, as a GM I very much like to have players who have some kind of vision where they want their character to go, as long as it's more than "At level 10, I'd like to have that sword of superbadassdom +5!"

[Pelle]

But wouldn't you rather know the build in advance in a case like that? That way you can see if there are actual problems, or if he's just optimizing to actually be able to be a badass warrior on par in usefulness with the casters in the party. I'd be more worried about someone starting wizard or cleric that doesn't give an indication of what he/she is planning to do in the future. Divine Metamagic and twinned shivering touch don't require much in the way of planning or dips, after all.

I think the problem with planning out the build 1-20, at least to me, is that it is basically a form of railroading. In this case the non-DM player has already planned out the story, i.e. "my Paladin will fall, then join this PrC organization, then redeem himself in the end". Having a goal of becoming the best champion or whatever is fine IMO, as long as it doesn't prevent you from reacting to things happening in the developing story and deviating from your original goal/build.

I didn't get that this was what HotPizza was talking about with planned builds though. My understanding was that it was planning the party composition together, for example making sure it's 1 cleric, 1 wizard, 1 fighter, 1 rogue. I may be wrong, though.

It's such a remarkable coincidence that this random group happens to have the correct combination of skills that it strains verisimilitude.

Depends on the game. If it's "random freaks meet at a tavern" then yes. If it is "handpicked special operatives being sent on a mission together", then not so much.

[Blacky the Blackball]

But wouldn't you rather know the build in advance in a case like that?

I'd rather be playing with someone who simply chooses a class to play and doesn't talk about (or plan) "builds".

That way you can see if there are actual problems, or if he's just optimizing to actually be able to be a badass warrior on par in usefulness with the casters in the party. I'd be more worried about someone starting wizard or cleric that doesn't give an indication of what he/she is planning to do in the future. Divine Metamagic and twinned shivering touch don't require much in the way of planning or dips, after all.

That's pretty specifically a 3.x problem - and I don't play 3.x, so I don't need that problem solving.

[Mastikator]

I still don't understand how planned builds can be bad, speaking from a system-agnostic point of view.

It's bad if it's not planned with the DM.
It's really bad if it's not planned with the other PCs in mind.
It's extremely bad if it's not planned with the campaign setting and PC location in mind.

But if you check those boxes then it's good.

[Florian]

I still don't understand how planned builds can be bad, speaking from a system-agnostic point of view.

It´s pretty bad, in the sense that it can break verisimilitude very hard, when character development and the actual game you play aren't on the same page. It´s like: "Whoa, we just had 10 sessions of intensive political intrigue and you got a level of barbarian? How is that connected?". It also can be pretty grating when creating characters before having the session zero talk about how the group will handle things, like whether fluff is important or not. And what Mastikator just wrote.

[Delta]

It´s pretty bad, in the sense that it can break verisimilitude very hard, when character development and the actual game you play aren't on the same page. It´s like: "Whoa, we just had 10 sessions of intensive political intrigue and you got a level of barbarian? How is that connected?". It also can be pretty grating when creating characters before having the session zero talk about how the group will handle things, like whether fluff is important or not. And what Mastikator just wrote.

Well, if you don't want something like that, personally I'd simply recommend against running D&D, because isn't that how the game is designed to run? You gather XP, you level up, you gain a level, you get new features and goodies, it's completely unrelated to what you actually did to earn those XP, that's just how the system works.

[Mastikator]

Well, if you don't want something like that, personally I'd simply recommend against running D&D, because isn't that how the game is designed to run? You gather XP, you level up, you gain a level, you get new features and goodies, it's completely unrelated to what you actually did to earn those XP, that's just how the system works.

D&D is also designed around brave heroes going dungeon crawling and breaks when you try to do anything else. Even basic things like shopping breaks all credibility in D&D