A rant about character creation

[Belisi]

Though I'll be mentioning Dungeons and Dragons in this thread, the core issue at hand can very easily apply to any game system, so bear with me.

So the other day my friends and I decided to roll up some characters for a 2nd edition campaign. Having only been involved in the hobby for the past six years, I have never played 2nd edition before and I was quite excited about the idea.

I roll up an elven thief with the stats: 14, 18, 13, 16, 11, 14. Needless to say I'm pleased. We move on to choosing our weapon and non-weapon proficiencies (for those not in the know, non-weapon proficiencies are skills, things like swimming, read/write, etc.). For my weapons I choose short sword and short bow, and since everyone was telling me to "just pick something" for my non-weapon proficiencies I choose appraisal, tightrope walking, and tumbling.

After I picked my proficiencies one of my friends looked over at me and asked if I took the "Use Rope" skill, and I told him I did not. After doing so, all of my friends were getting on my back about how I should have picked the skill and claiming that I was the "worst thief ever" and essentially saying that I'm throwing my character away because "use rope" is the most useful skill in the game and my choice of "tightrope walking" as a skill was worthless. After my one friend made the comment about "use rope" I promptly asked him, "if it's so useful then why didn't you take it?" He simply replied, "Because I have actual uses to the party." (he rolled up an elven ranger; his stats and skills escape me at the moment.)

I ended up caving in and taking "use rope" over "tightrope walking," but I regret doing so. Now, I realize that the ability to use rope is quite a useful skill to have when adventuring, but shouldn't the status of "most useful skill in the game" depend on a DM's playing style and the situations he provides to the party? Surely the ability to use rope will not come in handy during all of them. To be frank, in my six years of gaming I cannot recall a single time we've needed to make a check to use rope. More importantly, just because it's a useful skill does not mean I have to take it. Perhaps the ability to use rope doesn't fit with my character concept, and tightrope walking is. Am I really hampering the party by not doing what everyone else wants me to do? And really, what's the point of character creation if I don't have a say in what he is and isn't capable of doing?

So this is just my rant on what happened recently. It's been bugging me all day and I thought it would help if I wrote down my thoughts (which it did). What do you guys think? I'm curious to hear your opinions about character creation. Is creating your character the way you want of main importance, or is creating a character based on what the people in your party want more important?

 

[kitsune9]

You're right to have been offended. While having a balanced party is great--fighter, cleric, mage, thief--really it should be up to your choice and to how you envision your character. No one should have to badger you for making any choice on what you envision your character. At my table, my players play whatever they want. They usually work together to go for the balance party dynamic first, but once that is done, they don't care as to what skills, feats, abilities, or other things are chosen for the individual character.

Anyways, good luck in your game!

 

[Rechan]

First, I want to say your friends are rude.

There's only a degree to which a skill's usefulness depends on the DM. If said skill is tightly bound into the system, then one would have to ACTIVELY work to avoid it in order to not make it relevant.

For instance, any sort of perception skill. This ties into combat (namely spotting ambushes, hidden foes), investigations (clues, might even relate to behavioral abilities), exploration (seeing/noticing things), and so on. It's simply a skill that will pop up in most styles of play.

 

[Henry]

Please don't tell me someone actually wasted time arguing about you not taking use rope. Honestly, they have a lot more to be worried about than whether you can tie a sailor's knot or not -- like, for instance, him actually having a useful bonus versus his favored enemy. I swear, the Ranger's favored enemy thing from 2E felt nigh-on useless. I usually worked the giant-class thing from 1E back in whenever I DM'ed, because otherwise the ranger was a fighter who couldn't specialize and could only hide half as well as a thief...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There are a few issues here.

In a sense, playing in an RPG is a team exercise. Your fellow players, assuming they were aware that you're new to 2Ed, should have offered you help in PC design. However, telling you that you're the "Worst Thief Ever" is over the line.

Honestly? Unless the GM has told you that for his campaign the party needs PCs to have access to X, Y, & Z, the fact that your PC doesn't have access to any of those is nobody's business. Thieves may be best at "Use Rope" but anybody can take it, as I recall.

And with that in mind, your Ranger playing buddy was the rudest of the bunch. If you feel like being petty, when it comes time to open a locked door or treasure chest, tell "Mr. Useful" to try his luck.

Should crossing a chasm on a rope also come up, feel free to give him the hairy eyeball.

 

[Aus_Snow]

(. . .) ince everyone was telling me to "just pick something" for my non-weapon proficiencies I choose appraisal, tightrope walking, and tumbling.

After I picked my proficiencies one of my friends looked over at me and asked if I took the "Use Rope" skill, and I told him I did not. After doing so, all of my friends were getting on my back about how I should have picked the skill and claiming that I was the "worst thief ever" and essentially saying that I'm throwing my character away because "use rope" is the most useful skill in the game and my choice of "tightrope walking" as a skill was worthless. After my one friend made the comment about "use rope" I promptly asked him, "if it's so useful then why didn't you take it?" He simply replied, "Because I have actual uses to the party."

Yeesh. I just hope they're takin' the P, being silly, that kind of thing. Otherwise. . .

Well anyway, hope things improve.

 

[Dross]

For my weapons I choose short sword and short bow, and since everyone was telling me to "just pick something" for my non-weapon proficiencies I choose appraisal, tightrope walking, and tumbling.

After I picked my proficiencies one of my friends looked over at me and asked if I took the "Use Rope" skill, and I told him I did not. After doing so, all of my friends were getting on my back about how I should have picked the skill and claiming that I was the "worst thief ever" and essentially saying that I'm throwing my character away because "use rope" is the most useful skill in the game and my choice of "tightrope walking" as a skill was worthless.

So.... They said pick any skill, then berated you for following their advice?
If it is SO important why did they not tell you, especially as Danny points out it is a team game?

And I 2nd Danny's comment. Mr Useful can do it, and hopefully it'll be a Tie Rope thing.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Um, wow. I honestly can't say what my reaction would be tothat situation and I have never, ever, in 28 years of gaming with friends and strangers and making up dozens of characters, encountered a group so rude and beligerent. I hope these are good friends of yours outside the game because I couldn't fathom hanging around such people otherwise (and even then...)

 

[Lanefan]

Things like this is why, when starting a new campaign, I prefer to have the players roll up their characters WITHOUT knowing what the other players are bringing in. People can generate whatever they like (or that the dice are willing to give) and take it from there. Then, once the dice hit the table, it's up to these characters to form a party as best they can, and if there's any glaring holes (e.g. no spellcasters at all) it falls to the proto-party to go out and do some recruiting...

And nobody has any reason to criticize anyone else's character...in real life, if your hired Thief couldn't tie a knot you might (and probably should) tease him about it, but in the end you'd either have to live with it or go find a second Thief.

Lan-"who needs wizards anyway?"-efan

 

[Chris Knapp]

I see this all the time when playing with strangers in Living Forgotten Realms D&D games. There is a certain set of guys who know the 4E rules inside out and will often drop snide comments when you present your character at the table. Last month I heard: "A 2-handed weapon fighter? Wow, you'll be useful. . ." Previous month it was: "You went with a halfling archer ranger? You realize that strikers are actually supposed to damage people, right?" Luckily the DMs in both cases told the commenters to back off and that this was a game for fun, not a competition.