Other Character sheets, and how to make use of them?

[Sunbather]

Hello everyone,

so this is something I've been struggling with pretty much since the get-go. The first roleplay I ever participated in (which was a semi-detailed roleplay on this site, shortly after joining. I think it was ranked as Casual, back when we had the labels) had what I'd call the most "common" sheets. Basic information such as name, age, sex, date of birth etc., an appearance section, a personality section, and a background section.

So that, for me, became the standard, pretty much because it was the first style I've known, and that usually sorta manifests. But then, as I kept joining roleplays, I've seen a variety of sheets, some really extensive, and some rather simple.

Now I like to post detailed posts. I like describing little things such as the gait of a character in that specific moment, and I like reading multiple paragraphs per post. That's fun and engaging to me. That's absolutely not to shit on simpler/shorter-style roleplays, it's just my preference. But I also noticed that the application process feels like a paradoxical hurdle, almost.

I WANT to attract people with similar interests. I WANT to attract people who are willing to put time and effort into the roleplay. I WANT people who are immersed and engaged.

So how do I weed out the people who don't fit that group? Easy, right? A lengthy character sheet, with a couple of paragraphs. Shows dedication, shows how well people can conceptualize their characters, shows writing levels as well. It's all coolio.

Yeah, except it's really not, unfortunately.

The reason it is not--and this is only my opinion, so feel free to comment on that--is because if you make your players write out their character's personality over three to four paragraphs, they'll likely feel caged. They created this pretty detailed, clearly articulated person, so not only is it easy to organically add more traits to a character that don't feel like they water down the concept, but it also creates this sort of pressure of "staying in character". I mean, that's a natural reflex, I think. I certainly don't blame anyone for doing that. Why would you divert from your character and let them develop naturally if you spend so much time on working on your character already? Wouldn't it feel like wasting your efforts? Would that even be allows, some may question, since the GM accepted THAT character, not whatever you're making your precious baby into.

So then people feel constricted and discouraged to develop, and ultimately, the interest wanes, and the roleplay dies. And that sucks.

So how do YOU go about this? This thread is probably more aimed at people who like detailed roleplays, but feel free to chime in. How do YOU make this work? How do you build your groups and keep a good balance between the selection process being successful, and the players feel motivated to let their characters grow?

 

[rae2nerdy]

So my advice is going to be based on what I saw work on another site. One that pretty much specialized in between detailed and elitist roleplays ( basically if you couldn't write three paragraphs you're kind of SOL when it comes to roleplaying as that was considered the bare minimum. ) GMs would ask players to create entire threads ( called journals ) for their characters and a lot of the more "elite" roleplays would require a multi-step application process. So needless to say joining a roleplay was no joke on that site.

And based on all that I think the problem is a little different than what you're suggesting. Now you got it on point when you said character sheets are used as an application tool. And the more difficult ones were largely used ( in addition to other methods which i'll get into below ) to weed out lesser roleplayers or people not up to the standards of literacy of that particular roleplay.

But they were also rarely actually used for the roleplay itself. By which I mean if you spent like three pages going over your characters auto-biography and you then didn't use more than 15% of it for the roleplay that was fine. No obviously you couldn't like submit a character that was shy and suddenly make them into the life of the party but as long as you stayed close to the personality you submitted there was not going to be anyone going around policing you on keeping word perfect to the personality ( or even the biography ) section. Mostly that stuff was used to come up with relationships and to show the GM that you had read the setting and where dedicated to making a character.

Now as for your specific question - how to keep in character & how to keep a roleplay at a certain quality without alienating people through character sheets.

For keeping it in character just give them a few defining traits and allow them to have room to grow or address those traits through the story. So a good way to do this is ask yourself - what lessons is my character going to learn through this roleplay? What do they need to work on? What are they already good at ? ( in terms of personality although skills also works here too )

And remember what I said above - the character sheet is a guide usually for making relationships OOC it is not really meant to be some kind of written in stone holy document of your character. Mostly because outside of the initial application process few people really reference back to other people's character sheets. And most players use them more as a reference guide to their characters than anything.

Picking Compatible Players - now if your just worried about getting compatible players I recommend not using a character sheet but an application form for this. Now this is usually a small questionnaire type form that people submit when they want to join the roleplay in the first place. And it usually determines whether or not they get to the character making process at all. An example of the application form would be :

• Name
• Time Zone
• Hours Of Availability ( to roleplay )
• Writing Samples

Now some applications are more intensive than others but that's the important information you need. You want to know what time zone they're in, how often and when they would be available to roleplay, and their writing style.

 

[Sir Les Paul]

A character sheet, in the model I use, is a tool. A tool for players to communicate with a GM information about their character, but also a tool for GMs to use to plot or keep continuity straight. Without delving into other curios about character sheets, the simplest answer I could give would be "what will my GM need or want for this role play?" By asking and answering that, you have a good guideline for what to make. Honestly, three paragraphs can be either extensive or skimpy depending on the player, GM and context.

That's where I stand. You really gotta analyze your situation and maybe even ask the GM. It may just be a standard sheet the GM has been using for ages and maybe doesn't actually care about in this case. Yet, there are the other extremes of writing samples, journals and scenarios.

Success is in part due to adaptation from all parties. Styles and preferences vary and from what I've seen they play the largest role of all.

 

[PanOtterPus]

As said above, for me a CS is more of a guideline to work from. I tend to keep mine detailed yet simple. So I'll put in extra little details that make the CS more interesting, yet still making sure those details aren't detrimental to my character's personality - likes, dislikes, a brief history.

When it comes to writing their personality itself, I like to keep this short. I give enough info so my partner(s) knows what to expect, but little enough that it's by an issue if the character changes during the writing process. In all honesty, I never know how I want my characters to actually react until I'm writing in the moment.

Long story short - use it as a guide if needs be, don't overthink it or take it too seriously because guaranteed you'll make changes as the story progresses.

 

[Bone2pick]

So then people feel constricted and discouraged to develop, and ultimately, the interest wanes, and the roleplay dies. And that sucks.

How certain are you about that? I can't recall ever having lost interest in a quality roleplay because my character sheet felt too restrictive. Sure that's merely anecdotal evidence, but I can't imagine other skilled & driven players bailing for that reason either.

 

[Sunbather]

How certain are you about that? I can't recall ever having lost interest in a quality roleplay because my character sheet felt too restrictive. Sure that's merely anecdotal evidence, but I can't imagine other skilled & driven players bailing for that reason either.

I've seen quite a few great writers say that they didn't like extensive personality sections (and some even character sheets in general) because it felt like they had to go by what they had put down during the application.

 

[MISTER UN. 0W3N]

It's why I love having applications THEN the profile skeleton. It helps me see who's all gun-ho about the thread, understands it, meets my standard for posts, and see a general idea of a character. I used to do very lengthy profile skeletons, but I'm falling back a bit. I tend to prefer beefier bios than personality sections. Mostly, I just ask for a general list (give or take a single line to describe/define it) that the character WILL start out as. I do expect things to change and develop in terms of personality and all that jazz. I also like asking for extra information such as likes and shit since it does add to the personality more so than people think. Yeah, some users shit out on these sections, but others take it upon themselves to define their character further.

And, that's my two cents on it.

 

[rae2nerdy]

I do agree that sometimes people just use a character sheet as an excuse to show off which I think is one of the benefits of asking for a writing sample - as then you'll get a look about how they write and a more accurate example of what they'll bring to the roleplay. Because some people can really churn out a character sheet in no time flat but when it comes to posting in a roleplay they fall flat and the reverse is also true.

So if I'm doing a roleplay where-in I'm really worried about keeping to a set quality of posts ( which granted I haven't done in a long long time ) I would use a similar process to Ali - I would just ask for an application first, possibly with a summary of the character they wanted to play. Then I would have them fill out a character sheet. Usually the biggest portion of which was the biography - the personality was usually just list these traits and maybe define them. I never really asked for likes/dislikes but I did have a long section on powers ( since I mostly did superhero roleplays )

 

[MISTER UN. 0W3N]

I'll say this: I tend to let things skimp for most sections (after their app's been approved) EXCEPT for combat/powers. That's where my main focus is at because that's how I can determine who's here to have fun, and who's here to be a jackass. No lie, I can figure out if someone's just here to show off the size of their gonads by their character's powers. Sorry for going off track, I just wanted to respond with the beefed up superpower/combat section of profile skeletons (if applicable).

 

[Blink]

Honestly, if there's anything that's discouraging about a sign-up process to an open group roleplay, it's the meticulousness of it all, the prevailing attitude of it being an obligatory quality-control process, not a source of enrichment in itself. It can take me hours to complete a character sign-up, and the typical return of "Accepted" with a smilie face tagged on is beginning to wear dangerously thin. Frankly, if I write anything for the benefit for anyone else, I want some damn acknowledgement pertaining to what was written, not whether it was "acceptable". For example, if the game master liked it, what in-particular was well done? What could I have executed better? And, based on what I've submitted, in what ways could my character fit into proceedings? Do they have any suggestions on what direction I should take them during the course of the game in terms of development? Do they perceive any similarities or differences between other members of the cast that could create interesting dynamics? Commentary like this acts as a means of encouragement, and I would personally become more engaged from the beginning if a game master immediately presents plans pertaining to my submission, and of course evinces they care!

I suppose, then, the ideal application to me is paired with an interactive game master. Sign-ups can be fun to fill out for the same reasons enjoy sketching character profiles. I'm confident the right attitude and amount of initiative can access creativity from players that otherwise would stay unrealized.

 

[MISTER UN. 0W3N]

Sadly, for veterans that have a standard when they run threads, that's how it is at the beginning: quality control. A lot of problems a thread has (minus things like commitment) can be easily handled through a two-step process, focusing on getting users that are a good fit in the thread and have a good attitude. Sometimes, it's easier to focus on clean up than the actual commentating on a good character (at the beginning). I am one of those users that do give little feedback, at the start, for a good character. But, once they're officially in, I drop all the plots! I make it rain possible character development and story lines. Mostly, I just avoid actual plotting until the character is officially up and accepted into the thread because it can cause different problems in the thread if a character profile/app gets declined.

 

[rae2nerdy]

Honestly, if there's anything that's discouraging about a sign-up process to an open group roleplay, it's the meticulousness of it all, the prevailing attitude of it being an obligatory quality-control process, not a source of enrichment in itself. It can take me hours to complete a character sign-up, and the typical return of "Accepted" with a smilie face tagged on is beginning to wear dangerously thin. Frankly, if I write anything for the benefit for anyone else, I want some damn acknowledgement pertaining to what was written, not whether it was "acceptable". For example, if the game master liked it, what in-particular was well done? What could I have executed better? And, based on what I've submitted, in what ways could my character fit into proceedings? Do they have any suggestions on what direction I should take them during the course of the game in terms of development? Do they perceive any similarities or differences between other members of the cast that could create interesting dynamics? Commentary like this acts as a means of encouragement, and I would personally become more engaged from the beginning if a game master immediately presents plans pertaining to my submission, and of course evinces they care!

I suppose, then, the ideal application to me is paired with an interactive game master. Sign-ups can be fun to fill out for the same reasons enjoy sketching character profiles. I'm confident the right attitude and amount of initiative can access creativity from players that otherwise would stay unrealized.

I can't speak for everyone but I think it's a time management issue. A lot of group roleplays do not have limits in terms of who can apply and why. So if your going through several applications at once you just won't have time to do a detailed review of all of them. And chances are if you are going to review anything it's going to be the applications where things are wrong or people are obviously trying to work around the GM's rules.

Even in smaller groups the GM is initially focused on filling slots - after that is completed then they can get to the nitty gritty of story-telling. So while they are likely to talk to you in the OOC or keep an eye on chatter between players ( in terms of what kind of ideas people are excited about what ideas they might have for interactions between characters, etc. ) they're rarely going to tie that kind of thing directly to a character sheet.

 

[Bone2pick]

I've seen quite a few great writers say that they didn't like extensive personality sections (and some even character sheets in general) because it felt like they had to go by what they had put down during the application.

I'm not a fan of extensive personality sections. In fact, in the RP I'm gearing up to run 'personality' isn't on the sheet. Having said that, it's not nearly enough of an issue to push me out of a well-run roleplay. And again, I'd have a hard time imagining that would be true of anyone else.

Character sheets are an important tool for me because it—along with an IC writing sample—are the best ways to measure whether or not a character is appropriate for my world. And for the players who feel that completing a moderate to lengthy biography section will severely limit their character development... I disagree.

 

[Blink]

It's the "filtering" attitude I dislike. As I see it, if a game master anticipated a specific audience of shared "high-quality", their roleplay wouldn't be open to anyone. The best roleplaying experience I've had involved a multitude of people with varying writing know-how -- the hilariously-named Benicle may not have been as objectively well-written as other highlights of the cast, for example, but he was equally as fun to follow due to the interactions promoted by our game master's keen organization skills; the GM promoted a close-knit environment that allowed Benicle to bounce off others, forming dynamic relationships in order to become developed in a manner that he would not have seemed solely as a stand-alone. Ever since then I've seen anything insubstantial within roleplaying lying within poor leadership, never in the players. It's natural to expect greatness out of others, but the expectation that everyone should assimilate with the standards projected by a "veteran" is unrealistic, and even more so is the act of said veteran making a perfectly open roleplay restrictive out of fear that some peasant might apply as Coldsteel the Hedgehog!

Frankly, too, I loathe sterilized roleplays. I hate peeking into the 'Realistic & Modern' board to find the same sort of people with similar characterization approaches and writing styles utilizing the same aesthetics with the same celebrity face claims; it's straight out of a horror movie. Of course, similar people are drawn together based on corresponding interests, but when it can be done, I will always encourage diversity. We develop from collaborating with people different than us.

I mean, we all gather something different from roleplaying, and I presume it's mere escapism for many. There's a whole realm of genres that I'm unfamiliar with, but for the sort of collaborative writing experiences I've come to crave, I don't think a semblance of respect is much to ask in-return for helping a game get off the ground. It's like if you took a second to say "Hi" to a stranger: it's a sample of camaraderie that could go a long way.

 

[MISTER UN. 0W3N]

I gotta say, Benicle is one of the rare ones out there that works. Honestly, it sounds like luck played a hand with a good GM and the right users being brought together. And, what I mean by right, is that a thread didn't spiral into drama Hell.

You'd be surprise to be honest with you in getting ridiculous characters to RP at a standard. An example would be a literal rapping transformer that goes to a Japanese high school that focuses on fighting one another than passing classes.

But, it's kinda funny because these practices are common in other RP sites I've been on in terms of filtering. And, when going to other sites, it's frowned upon with users assuming elitism is going on. I mean, if that's how someone has fun, then, boom, there you go. That's what it boils down to: how do you have fun. For me, I like RPing in threads that have the "best cast" (subjective as fuck), posts that I want to devour, and kinda chummy environment. So, yeah, I like having set standards in a thread because that's how I have fun these days. I mean, people can do whatever they like in their own threads if that's how they have fun.

 

[Sir Les Paul]

I'd like to expound upon my earlier post and reply to a couple others now that I have some time. As a little preface, I really like that this curio is in the Roleplay Theory area because it really, really does tie a lot into the 'theory' that goes behind roleplaying--both as a game and a narrative construct.

I stated earlier that I felt a character sheet was a 'tool', but that is just in the model I personally use. When I say 'model', I simply mean a set of theories or beliefs around roleplay--I was taught by a handful of people that formalized it. Some call it elite, but honestly it wasn't entirely. That, however, is a less relevant tangent. The importance of considering various models, theories or even just beliefs/opinions regarding roleplay is that we acknowledge them. There is a huge diversity within the player base and I really think it's important to grasp that no one set of players is 'correct'--irrelevant of experience, 'skill' (subjective), post count, activity or any other factor someone might try to measure.

With the idea that no one approach is correct, the fact I want to delve into more deeply is the relationship between a GM and their players. GM's are managers, leaders and supervisors all combined into one role. Not only do they have to decide and effectively execute how a roleplay functions systemically, they have to interact with and encourage their players and furthermore follow-through with everything required to actually keep a roleplay running. Again, there's too much to discuss about those individual roles as they pertain to roleplay management, but what's important here is how many different ways a GM can choose to or simply naturally operates their roleplay. You can think about it yourself, too. What traits in a GM do you like for leadership? I want to actually go off on a personal tangent here and throw in a quote:

It can take me hours to complete a character sign-up, and the typical return of "Accepted" with a smilie face tagged on is beginning to wear dangerously thin. Frankly, if I write anything for the benefit for anyone else, I want some damn acknowledgement pertaining to what was written, not whether it was "acceptable".

This is a beautiful example of what I mean. This is displays interpersonal relationships made with players, including first impressions, but more so the interaction for a character. The way this quote is worded, it also feels very personal; I believe Blink did an amazing job conveying their frustration. That frustration was in no small part caused by how the GM interacted with them, either by choice or passively. A few other examples include later mentions of how players feel 'filtered', 'measured by standards' or even 'sterilized'--I yet again pick on Blink here due to their very effective word choice and expression of their opinion.

But, at the same time, I see counter-arguments for efficiency, 'casting', determining if a character is suitable for their world (a huge factor for myself), and then of course 'slot filling' just to start a roleplay. All of these points are parts of the bittersweet reality that is being a GM and all of them are examples of solutions to problems that exist. Notably, these points were hand-picked from comments I read from virtually everyone else.

I can't say I disagree with any of those points having been both a GM and player. I think the first step here is just acknowledging what is happening as part of social engineering. Which is why I went through all of this effort to point out the dynamic of a GM. They are a leader. That means they have to decide if they are autocratic, democratic, laissez faire. It means they have to set the standards. They have to design the world. They have to decide what changes are allowed to it and what impacts can be made to it. Some GM's love players expanding on their world, others refuse it. Some have a fine line of reviewing changes being made--and then having their own policies as developments happen in those changes. There are a ton of intricacies that require a special finesse that, as I mentioned earlier, can be something intelligently considered or come naturally.

So, why bring up that broad idea to something as specific as character sheets?

Because they are one of the nigh-fundamental aspects of forum-based roleplaying and they're a tool for both the player and GM. It is not just what they are, but how people behave with them. For instance, simply saying "oh this is fine! accepted " for hours of your hard work. While, on the other hand, hollow compliments can have the same sting. Some people do like opinions. And, when you give opinions, do you only give what you like? Will that run the risk of sounding like an all-compliments recruiter? I've had that complaint before. So, do you tell them the parts you didn't like as much? Because, I've also had people react poorly to even neutral criticism--no request to make a change, just not an element I liked. There's a special craft in that type of tact and it comes with the artistic nature of roleplaying.

There are whole other factors that can matter, too. For instance, a pet peeve of mine exists in the form of what I call 'recycled' characters. You see them all the time in low-fantasy settings and even more so in Fandoms. I cannot stand them. Does that mean they're bad? Not inherently. Does it necessarily have to do with character sheets? Again, not entirely. However, it does go along with the theme established and ties quite well into the thought.

But, this won't be just mindless babbling, I want to get back to the questions posed in the OP:

So how do YOU go about this? This thread is probably more aimed at people who like detailed roleplays, but feel free to chime in. How do YOU make this work? How do you build your groups and keep a good balance between the selection process being successful, and the players feel motivated to let their characters grow?

I go about this in different ways depending on my role. If I'm a GM, I generally have a hand in character creation. I'm one of those GM's that probably contribute anywhere between 10% and 30% of a character to a sheet and here's why: I feel that the more you tie a character to a setting and plot initially, the more you load them for success. This isn't always true and sometimes a player hits the nail so damned hard I don't have to give any suggestions. But, more often than not, I have a guiding hand. I'm not being overly controlling, I'm contributing things I consider vastly important to both the fun for that player in the future and the success of the roleplay. Plain and simple, if a suggestion of mine is something the player finds diminishes the value of their character, then it gets scrapped.

As a GM, I have a huge emphasis on the setting and history of the world I'm running. That said, a lot of characters will require more work for integration or more work to completely create whole new elements of lore to fit the setting--and that's fine. Is that the way everyone wants to do it? No. Not everyone likes to merge their ideas and share a canvas--some want to create their whole sub-section of a roleplay. That is not how I operate as a GM, but I respect that method can work. I do say that because many detailed players WANT to create that depth in their personal culture and character and my stance on doing so is not as hands-off as others.

So, in summation for the first question, I do not try to please everyone. I do what I do to create a story and world I like with a unique nature to it that, even if just to me, makes it feel like it has its own identity. I stay true to myself and if the way I run things doesn't work, then I accept that. Not that I cannot change or will not change; I will definitely adapt. But, there is a point any GM should make where they realize a line they are crossing is not that of experience, maturity (as a leader) or learning, but one of their own personal boundaries and those need to be set for your own enjoyment.

In regards to making things work, I do try to be flexible. Adaptable. I often offer different variations of a character sheet including different base coding, but that all contain the same information that I want. The big thing I do is work one-on-one with next to every interested roleplayer I encounter to not only build their character, but interview them. I want to get an idea of what they want to do and how to work it in if it can be done. And, I won't lie to you, some people cannot handle a simple interview process. Not a downplay to anyone, it's just that some very good players and eloquent writers just don't do well in that setting. If that is the case, I might ditch it and let them pitch me a character. The thing is, my style of moderation is very interactive. So, that player despite their reliability, skill and interest might not be the best for my roleplay.

I use one-on-one interaction to feel people out and determine if I want to play with them. Private Messages are my best friend (though I wish there were folders). I think this also establishes a rapport with players, too, and that's a huge networking element to later roleplay.

Nevertheless, my tactics change considerably when I become a player and I think this is important. I analyze everything I see about a roleplay I'm interested in. It's structure, it's GM, the past games of the GM, their past activity in general, the people already accepted, I might even PM the GM directly with some ideas. I'm that guy that also goes overboard in coding a CS, but that's for my own benefit. I make a brand new character based off what I believe I will have fun doing in that roleplay. I try to make it very custom and unique to that game or world, even in a Fandom where a solid quarter of characters are recycled.

The shorter answer for you, then, is that I try to take all things into consideration for my goal, whether I'm a GM or player, make a plan for how I personally want things to go and execute it. It's all an experiment. You cannot please everyone and that's okay. Character sheets are part of Character Creation and often it is that creation that not only binds a new player to a world and plot--determining how dedicating and connected they are--but the likelihood of them becoming an online friend and part of your personal roleplay 'network'--we know they exist. Because of the raw importance of this period, I think it's important to be genuine and true to yourself--especially if you are acting as a leader.

 

[Sunbather]

Sir Les Paul That is so helpful, actually! Great post, I really appreciate it. Some interesting practices as well. I generally try to be engaging, but I've never done an interview or the like. Generally, I like asking questions as to how and why some stuff is there, because it helps me understand a player's vision, and sometimes it also help in making the clearer on what they want.

Honestly, if there's anything that's discouraging about a sign-up process to an open group roleplay, it's the meticulousness of it all, the prevailing attitude of it being an obligatory quality-control process, not a source of enrichment in itself. It can take me hours to complete a character sign-up, and the typical return of "Accepted" with a smilie face tagged on is beginning to wear dangerously thin.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense! I think it's human nature to be more vocal about what isn't working for someone, but I do believe it is important to give feedback that goes beyond "Yeah fine", basically. The last roleplay I ran, for example, had a section where people could invent their own weapons for the roleplay. I really like the concept of one player, but didn't feel the character was properly created for the roleplay, so I sorta took about the personality and history, asking questions, asking why certain things happened and how it tied into the rest of the sheet and the setting. But I was also sure to praise their weapon, and how creative that was, and also offered some ideas on how the weapon's power source could be tied to a certain event in their backstory. I think being engaging, while tricky to master, is the key ability for any GM, across all "skills".

It's the "filtering" attitude I dislike.

Well, for me, it's more of a show of respect? I don't personally look down on people who write one-liners, or have more juvenile interests than I do. I don't think of myself as better or more sophisticated for it. But, to me, it's a matter of showing you respect the work of others. I usually spend hours upon hours preparing the world and lores. Often I make maps, and banners, and graphics, and write out a lot of detail. In fact, for the last roleplay I had, I had like 20 pages in my Google doc that I didn't even use publicly, it was all background information to be revealed eventually.

For me, it is fun working with others who like to put in a lot of effort into a collaborative story. And if someone else doesn't, that's 100% fine, and it's not better or worse than my approach. But to come into my thread and apply with a character like "Shadow the Edgehog, he likes violence and his sister, hates broccoli. He's also the fastest person alive.", to me it's a sign of disrespect. It's a sign of not valuing the work the GM has done. And THEN, on top of that, it's also simply the issue that I wouldn't enjoy collaborating with that writer.

For example, I've had a very... let's say a sheet that had a lot to be desired. But the player behind it was super enthusiastic, nice, and patient. I probably went over four pages of private messages with them, and we worked it out. At the end, I really liked their sheet, and they were excited to use the character. I happily accepted them despite the initially "shitty" sheet. Then I had another player with a very extensive sheet, but the personality was basically 100% edgelord v.29823. I mentioned how I felt the character seemed to lack personality, and asked about certain things in his history. Like for example, how come he did and that in the past, if he's so and so as a person. It was just full of contradictions and was, pardon me, flat as hell. But the player just had this really defensive, snobbishness about him. He wasn't able to logically answer my question, but refused to adjust it, arguing with me about how stuff could be imperfect and whatnot. I ended up just denying him because I felt the player didn't understood neither my setting nor his own character.

So, to me, the amount of effort you put into an application is not only proof of your ability (which is important, but not the end-all-be-all), but a sign of enthusiasm, and a sign of respect for the work of others.