03 of 4
What's the difference between picking from a list and open picks?
When you set up a draft, you have two options for how picks work: you can provide a list of valid options upfront, or you can let players type in anything they want.
Both approaches are legitimate. Both have real tradeoffs. And the right choice depends almost entirely on what you're drafting.
Picking from a list
With list picks, you — the commissioner — define every valid option before the draft starts. Players can only choose from what's on the list.
The upside
Lists solve the hardest problem in casual drafting: the "does that count?" argument.
Without a list, someone will always try to sneak in something questionable. Is a TV miniseries a "movie"? Is a hot dog a sandwich? Is Pluto a planet? These debates are fun for about 90 seconds, then they derail the entire draft.
A list draws the boundary clearly before the draft begins. Everyone knows the rules. No one can complain about a pick being invalid, because invalid picks aren't possible.
Lists also raise the strategic stakes. When everyone can see the same pool of options, you can track what's available, anticipate what your opponents want, and actually steal things. That tension — watching someone grab your pick three slots ahead of you — is where a lot of the fun lives.
The downside
Lists require upfront work. Someone has to build them.
For some topics that's easy — there's a canonical list of NBA teams, James Bond movies, or U.S. states. For others, it's genuinely hard. "Greatest road trip snacks" doesn't have an official registry. You'll make the list, someone will immediately suggest something you forgot, and now you're editing a spreadsheet before the draft even starts.
Incomplete lists also create a quiet frustration: if a player's first choice isn't on the list, they feel constrained in a way that doesn't happen with open picks.
Open picks
With open picks, the field is unlimited. Players type in whatever they want, and it's valid. Full stop.
The upside
Zero setup. Just send the draft link and go.
Open picks also unlock a different kind of creativity. When the field is unlimited, players make bolder, weirder choices. Someone will draft an obscure 1987 film no one else considered, and it'll either be a stroke of genius or a catastrophic reach — and the argument afterward is half the fun.
For highly subjective topics — "best pizza toppings," "things you'd bring to a deserted island," "most underrated albums of the 90s" — a list would kill the spontaneity. Open picks let the draft breathe.
The downside
Without a list, you're trusting everyone to self-regulate. That works until it doesn't.
Somebody will type something slightly different from what someone else already picked. Is "The Dark Knight" the same pick as "Batman Begins"? Is "Coltrane" the same as "John Coltrane"? The commissioner ends up making judgment calls mid-draft, which is its own kind of headache.
Open drafts also tend to produce more chaotic, harder-to-compare boards. That's fine if chaos is the point. It's less fine if you want a clean, debatable result at the end.
So which should you use?
A rough heuristic that works most of the time:
Use a list when the topic has a defined universe
NBA players. Academy Award Best Picture winners. Countries in Europe. Characters from a specific TV show. If there's a canonical set of things that "count," make a list. The draft will be tighter, more strategic, and easier to argue about afterward.
Use open picks when the topic is inherently subjective
Best sandwiches. Most iconic album covers. Ideal travel destinations. Things you'd draft for a perfect Saturday. For topics where the whole point is personal taste, open picks let people bring their full weird selves to the table.
When in doubt, make the list
Lists feel like more work upfront, but they almost always produce a better draft. The constraint forces creativity — players have to compete for the same options instead of retreating into their own private universe of picks.
And if someone complains that their favorite thing isn't on the list?
You should've been the commissioner.