When it comes to breaking anything into two types, you usually have the ones "in the know" and the ones out of it. (Or the ones who can't count.) I, myself, prefer to lean into the "develop in play" method of character development. That's from years and years of writing 20 page character histories and then finding out in the middle of session two, "Oh, that isn't how it happened at all, and, by the way, I didn't know this at all before, but my character is like, gay. Totally gay. Gay, gay, gay, gay, flaming homosexual gay."
(Go ahead and laugh - it could happen to you.)
With the Elfquest group we're working with something that also throws a bit of a monkey into the wrenchworks: we're working on group-cooperative play, rather than the usual group-dysfunctional play. Ahem. OK, that was a bit snarky, but it's a valid term. If the only glue in your group is based on the "mission" or plot, or an obsession with sparklies, you don't probably need a lot of character-to-character intense workshop.
I see absolutely nothing wrong in having "We're all looking for the shiny!" as the reason your group got together, but it isn't what we're looking for in this game.
The problem, of course, is finding the velvet sock approach rather than, ahem, the jackboot of GM fiat.
Hey, if I'm going to mix my metaphors, they're going into the high-speed blender.
You need to be able to say, "No, no, that isn't going to work." I won't say that we have three of seven character concepts that if I were GM I'd probably throw out immediately, because I've got just enough experience to say, "Fine, if you think you can make it work, and, most importantly, that's what you want to play, let's go for it." I know that underlined you is at least half the battle: I'm not going to go out of my way to make something unplayable happen for a player, although I'll give them the same opportunities to play as everyone else.
I am totally going to keep the door open for the player to decide, "You know, this isn't exactly what I wanted to play after all."
I might even remind them gently of that point... less than a dozen times.
But of that potential three of seven players, I do get concerned that the game I want to (help) run isn't the same game they want to play. We've got three deliberately loner (OK, "look for trouble") characters, and an additional one that is alone because of player-driven circumstances. We have a plethora of deliberate troublemakers, and incidental ones simmering on the back of the stove. We have more magic than sense. Yeah, a pretty typical group.
I don't want typical.
- I want players who are happy with average character's abilities and are not afraid of character change. Which isn't to say they don't have Special PC powers, but that their characters aren't, well, munchkin.
- I want characters who have secure, separate, useful niches.
- I want players who enjoy and understand the world as much as the GM(s) do(es).
It seems like so little to ask, and so obvious, doesn't it? These should be the same things the players want so we can go for the shiny together.
We've spent several sessions on character generation. I think we'd have a riot if we told them, "No, no, no, no, and no," now.