It has recently been brought to my attention that, apparently, the accepted way of applying to PbPs is to create a unique and different character for each campaign, rather than create a single character and submit it to multiple games. Is this correct?
It doesn't matter either way, though it's generally considered poor form to have iterations of the same character in multiple active games.
However, it is worthwhile to note that most GMs appreciate when a character is made to fit directly into their campaign instead of converted to meet criteria.
There was a whole post on it somewhere, though personally, I'm not fond of creating a new alias for each and every game, especially since after ten posts, you're stuck with the alias.
So I tend to create the character in text, and then make an alias when I get chosen. Or, as I later discovered, have names that are somewhat modular, so you can re-purpose them with the new idea and such.
|
In theory it's nice to come up with a bright, shiny new character/alias for each game. Obviously it's a little cumbersome in practice. I try to recycle alias's I've made, when I apply I usually keep the post count short for each alias and then just use my regular profile for any updates. That way you can get a little more mileage if you need/want to change things around.
Me'mori and DOI both have good suggestions and it really depends on how you prefer to go about creating characters. While I have a few characters/concepts that would work in multiple settings, I also tend to develop specific characters for each of the games (usually APs) that I'm interested in. I've recycled aliases for characters but I've also made new ones and simply link to them from my main posting profile so I don't accumulate posts and lock the name for that particular alias.
Speaking with my DMs hat on - it's always preferable to get a freshly baked muffin straight from the oven rather than one that's been thawed from frozen, or been passed from hand to hand to hand before landing on your plate.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does that really apply though? Ideas do not rot or stale the way a muffin does. It's guaranteed an old muffin will go bad, an old idea can be refreshed, spruced up and improved upon with criticism.
I'd hate to think that I'd never get to use a PC I'm excited about because a GM felt that he'd been sitting untested for too long.
I've noticed that most DMs here are fine as long as they feel the character fits the campaign. Then of course some pick a character that seems unlikely to be in a certain setting to spice things up.
IMHO (and I'm sure opinions do vary) - yes, it applies.
If the DM's gone to the trouble of putting together a recruitment - the least you could do is read what they've written and respond appropriately.
For clarity - as a DM I like to read:
Cool, I'm thinking I'd like to play an Elven Cleric - here he is with all the bits and bobs you've asked for.
or
Cool, I played an Elven Cleric in a PbP before it crapped out. I'm just giving him a spruce up and updating him to your requirements.
rather than
Here's an Elven Cleric I put together for someone else's game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cool, I played an Elven Cleric in a PbP before it crapped out. I'm just giving him a spruce up and updating him to your requirements.rather than
Here's an Elven Cleric I put together for someone else's game.
These are the exact same thing except the latter says it in less words.
Actually there is a crucial difference. In the former quote, the player is informing the GM that he has read the GM's requirements, and will update his (old) character to fit within the campaign work that the GM has created. In the latter quote, all the player does is submit an old character, even if it is unfit for the GM's vision for his campaign. Its a subtle difference, but an important one.
Actually there is a crucial difference. In the former quote, the player is informing the GM that he has read the GM's requirements, and will update his (old) character to fit within the campaign work that the GM has created. In the latter quote, all the player does is submit an old character, even if it is unfit for the GM's vision for his campaign. Its a subtle difference, but an important one.
Would it not be a given that someone will edit their character based on the requirements of the recruitment thread?
If you are applying without having your character conform to the character creation details of the recruitment thread then that's either lazy or stupidly stubborn.
In my opinion it is common courtesy to acknowledge that you have read and accepted the details of the particular campaign / GM.
It might even be that the cleric put together for another campaign fits this campaign exactly. Even then it is good practice to let the GM know that that is the case.
If you are applying without having your character conform to the character creation details of the recruitment thread then that's either lazy or stupidly stubborn.
I had people asking if they could apply with an alchemist when I clearly stated I wanted to use the CRB only....
what is in my case sometimes is a character that was fresh and new but has not been accepted in a game.
should that character be abandoned?
or has played in a game that died very quickly?
as an example, I have a bard that I created for a Rise of the Runelords. but only played once and that game died in the first encounter.
he has been rejected in the next few attempts to get in.
Edward - not at all.
But you should double check if anything needs to be updated and give the DM the impression that you've checked over his bits and bobs and taken them into account.
Don't say:
I've applied with this character here and to another thread so if he gets into that one I'll withdraw.
or
I'll update him after he gets selected.
You don't even need to mention that it's an old character - just present it as a freshly made one.
In most instances, I find that adapting a character from a previous game can take just as long as creating a new one, especially in PF - 5E, not so much, due to more streamlined creation rules. My point is that just because you use a PC from a prior game does not necessarily mean that you have not put in the appropriate time or consideration to its creation.
A couple of points: I don't think the question was about making an alias or not but about the PC itself.
I don't think that any GM will mind if you present the information requested in some format and then make an alias if the PC is selected.
With regards to a new or recycled PC, I think both are OK as long as they are 'personalized' to the campaign at hand.
If the Gm has the intent of running a game set in the Worldwound about 'hunting demons', he wants to have PCs tailored to this campaign (new or recycled).
What he doesn't want to see is a 'generic PC' that makes no mention of demons or the Worldwound.
I hear and understand that it takes time to submit a 'proper character' and then be rejected (been there, done that) but players must take into account that the GM also invests time in the game.
IMHO, I don't think any worthwhile GM will accept a generic character over a personalized one.
Game on!
If the Gm has the intent of running a game set in the Worldwound about 'hunting demons', he wants to have PCs tailored to this campaign (new or recycled).
What he doesn't want to see is a 'generic PC' that makes no mention of demons or the Worldwound.
I hear and understand that it takes time to submit a 'proper character' and then be rejected (been there, done that) but players must take into account that the GM also invests time in the game.
IMHO, I don't think any worthwhile GM will accept a generic character over a personalized one.
Game on!
I think that really depends on the GM and the campaign itself.
Rise of the Runelords seems to encourage the fact that your PCs are there for very different reasons. There is no common theme or singular reason as to why your PCs are there. Even the traits are widely varied; going from monster hunter to aspiring performer.
Now Curse of the Crimson Throne on the other hand not only encourages but requires that your PCs be hurt in someway by a certain NPC and that you are seeking to resolve this matter.
Sure at some point the adventure will wrap up all of the PCs into one plot but before that not every campaign requires the PCs to be on the same page. The only thing common about these campaigns is that the PCs need to be in one place so they can meet.
While I love Curse of the Crimson Throne I prefer the former approach. Having everyone have a connected goal at the beginning feels forced if it is going to be the case in every adventure.
I personally like having my PCs find themselves in the starting area of an adventure for very different reasons, just like I like them to have varying goals, drives and alignments. A 100% good or evil party usually bores me, but a mix of all alignments? There is fun to be had there...well for myself anyway.
GMs should understand that it's discouraging for a player to put a lot of effort into creating a PC that fits into the GM's vision of their campaign AND to be mechanically correct AND to hopefully be a PC that will fit in with the rest of the potential party AND to be a character that's enjoyable play... only to be repeatedly rejected. GMs should keep in mind that there are far more players who want to play than there are spots for them to play at.
Players should understand that a GM wants players who seem motivated/excited to play in the campaign that they have and will put a lot of effort into. The GMs will look for players that have a PC that thematically fits into their campaign and will be played by someone who isn't going to slow down or de-rail the story.
I say the above because I've seen GMs who have been pretty callous and dismissive during the recruitment phase, and I've seen players who have been extremely inattentive of the GM's requirements and inconsiderate of the effort that their potential fellow players are putting into the shared experience.
I've seen far more inattentive/inconsiderate players than I've seen callous/dismissive GMs, however.
It has recently been brought to my attention that, apparently, the accepted way of applying to PbPs is to create a unique and different character for each campaign, rather than create a single character and submit it to multiple games. Is this correct?
and comments from other posters....
Regarding Alias. Whenever I startup a PbP, I include this: No need for an alias yet. Only selected characters will be required to set one up. I do require a reasonably complete character sheet.
Regarding Recycle of characters. Not a problem. I do agree with the comments above, that the character should be refit to the recruitment requirements that have been described in the recruitment thread. Saying:
This character was in a PbP that ended (for whatever reason), but I have updated it to meet your requirements, including back story adjustments
is fine with me. If you wish to submit a recycled character, you are obviously very interested in playing that character, however if you can not spend the time updating it to the recruitment requirements, I will not spend the time trying to figure out what needs to be changed, ie. 1st level characters are asked for, and the profile shows a 3rd level character, etc or other issues with the character.
-- david
I've seen far more inattentive/inconsiderate players than I've seen callous/dismissive GMs, however.
TBH, there are a lot more prospective players out there than GMs.
Also, to go along with Papa.DRB's point, explicitly specify and ask for the minimum that you as the GM will need to decide whether or not to choose a character. There will be time once you've made the selection for players to adjust and complete the details.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I don't really care whether you've already played the same character in a hundred different campaigns in fifteen different rulesets. As long as the character's new to me, and fits all my recruitment criteria, I'll consider the character just like any other.
Refreshing, GM Jiggy.
After thinking about it a bit more, I think from a GM perspective it might be a little off-putting to receive a character submission where the same character has also been submitted to several other campaigns at the same time. While it shows that the player really likes their PC and really wants to play it, I could see how some GMs would rather have a submission that says, "I really want to play this PC, in your campaign."
After thinking about it a bit more, I think from a GM perspective it might be a little off-putting to receive a character submission where the same character has also been submitted to several other campaigns at the same time. While it shows that the player really likes their PC and really wants to play it, I could see how some GMs would rather have a submission that says, "I really want to play this PC, in your campaign."
It wouldn't necessarily bother me that they'd submitted the character multiple times before--I've recycled characters before, and even gotten recycled chars accepted. What would bother me is the "at the same time" part. But.
This is not necessarily a reasonable reaction, particularly where APs are concerned. I know that in the past I've looked at a particular AP and come up with a concept that fits well (IMHO, at least) with that AP. If it happens that two or three GMs are recruiting for that particular AP, and there's no indication that they want anything out of the ordinary in terms of builds (i.e., all of them are asking for 20 pt build, no 3PP, no gestalt, two traits, blah blah blah)? Yeah, I'd be strongly tempted to submit the same character to all of them with whatever customization they ask for.
That said, you still have to pay attention to what the GM wants: if the recruiting GM has said that one slot is reserved for a friend who's going to be playing a blaster sorcerer, submitting another one is probably a shortcut to the reject box.
Personally, I understand the desire to not keep having to make a new alias for a character when you have one from a game that tapered off or just died. Sometimes you really liked that character, and didn't really get to play them. I usually don't even pay attention when people mention the character was played in another game, so I honestly couldn't tell you if I've ever accepted one previously or not.
That said, it does discourage me when people tell me that they're submitting this character in multiple games at the same time, so I'm much less likely to really consider them. I want to see how you made your PC all nice and shiny new for my own game, and how you worked them into the story as I've presented it to you. I don't care if it was once a character for a different game, but I DO care if it might STILL be a character for a different game, you know?
Also, reusing an alias is something that I take no issue with. Who wants a bunch of dead aliases sitting around? If the name fits for a new character, why not throw them in? This is doubly important considering that two characters that used the same alias may not even be similar to each other at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is fine to submit a character to more than one game.
Just make sure you come up with a backstory that ties into every single game. Don't make a GM try to shoehorn your character into their story, and don't make a backstory so generic that it could fit into every game.
Give each and every game a different backstory pitch. That doesn't necessarily mean a full rewrite. It just means do some tweaking that gives your character story hooks that are unique to each game.
I have recently been a part of a recruitment where the GM wanted 4 (or was it 5?) players, the first 4 to post interest got in. then the last spot was chosen by what niche the first ones didn't fill.
in the end, I was the only one not to get in, since I didn't fill the role the first ones did. despite the fact that by filling up by the first to post gets in method I should have been in.
I really hate the first come first in recruitments.
I feel your pain, but at least in that case it's quick, and you're not waiting for a week or two.
It just occurred to me that first come/first served recruitments actually encourage recycling characters, especially if the GM asks for more than a few lines describing the character concept. It's a lot faster to tweak something I've already built than to make up a character from scratch, and time is of the essence.
As a GM, I'm fine with a character that's been submitted for consideration or even played in another campaign before. However, I want the iteration being submitted for my campaign to have been (re-) written for my campaign.
Ditto...
Am I the only one who puts enough work into his characters where, frankly, I find it a little insulting to not be inclined to try and reuse them in another campaign if it has been rejected for one already? I haven't done so myself, but frankly I don't blame people who just take the shotgun approach to applications and submit one character to nine games at a time.
Concepts, builds, backstories, and personalities don't just fall out of thin air already, and when you see that recruitment threads have like six pages of applicants and require a full sheet geared out with three paragraphs of backstory, it's really ****ing annoying to have to waste all that work because you're one among four dozen applicants that didn't make the cut!
Concepts, builds, backstories, and personalities don't just fall out of thin air already, and when you see that recruitment threads have like six pages of applicants and require a full sheet geared out with three paragraphs of backstory, it's really ****ing annoying to have to waste all that work because you're one among four dozen applicants that didn't make the cut!
Which is why, on the rare occasions that I've done open recruitments, I don't ask for that. Honestly, the crunch can wait--I want to see a reasonable concept. I already know I'm going to have to reject a bunch of people; why make them waste their time on something they can put together easily enough if they're picked?
Am I the only one who puts enough work into his characters where, frankly, I find it a little insulting to not be inclined to try and reuse them in another campaign if it has been rejected for one already? I haven't done so myself, but frankly I don't blame people who just take the shotgun approach to applications and submit one character to nine games at a time.
Concepts, builds, backstories, and personalities don't just fall out of thin air already, and when you see that recruitment threads have like six pages of applicants and require a full sheet geared out with three paragraphs of backstory, it's really ****ing annoying to have to waste all that work because you're one among four dozen applicants that didn't make the cut!
I think everyone agrees that submitting a previously submitted character is OK, as long as you tailor it to the campaign that you are currently submitting it to.
It's the 'shotgun' approach of submitting the SAME character (no alterations) to different games that strikes me as lazy on part of the player.
And I know that it takes time to prepare a decent character and that it sucks to have it rejected (been there, done that) but it really is one of the main ways to discern between different players.
It's not fool proof. Heck, I've had people submit excellent characters only to disappear shortly after the game starts (go figure) but a decent character and the GM checking on the player's posting history will hopefully yield good players.
Happy gaming!