A rant about character creation

[Alas]

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.

As a DM, I try to tailor adventures to my PCs' traits and specialties. However, there's six of them and one of me, so there comes a point when irregularly used abilities fall off my encounter-design radar. If you decide to keep the Use Rope skill (and I'm not saying you're obliged to), be aggressive with it. Carry that rope around, and look for opportunities to use it. Advocate the second-story approach to burglary, the over-mountain route when travelling, the hog tying of captives.

Most DM's I've played with react well to player initiative-- it saves us a lot of mental effort. Be a squeaky wheel when it comes to your skills!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There's also the issue of being taken for granted.

Personally, I was the guy whose PCs always had 50-200' of rope...usually silk.

It surprised the entire table when, during an early session of a new campaign, we needed to climb down a cliff and everyone looked at me...and I told them my PC didn't have any rope.

(My other 2 heads were whispering in my ears about how everyone else at the table had their mouths open.)

When questioned, I told them it wasn't in character for this PC to carry rope- which was true- and we had best start looking for another way down the cliff.

Eventually, the Ranger & Druid found enough vines to form an improvised rope, and we got down. When we eventually hit the next town, at least 2 PCs- neither of which was mine- bought rope.

 

[Holy Bovine]

As a DM, I try to tailor adventures to my PCs' traits and specialties. However, there's six of them and one of me, so there comes a point when irregularly used abilities fall off my encounter-design radar. If you decide to keep the Use Rope skill (and I'm not saying you're obliged to), be aggressive with it. Carry that rope around, and look for opportunities to use it. Advocate the second-story approach to burglary, the over-mountain route when travelling, the hog tying of captives.

Most DM's I've played with react well to player initiative-- it saves us a lot of mental effort. Be a squeaky wheel when it comes to your skills!

Oh i like this idea. Use that rope. use it like there is no tomorrow.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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?

If a certain ability/skill is important in a game then the game's rule book should tell you so, especially if it's something like Use Rope which wouldn't be obvious to new players. If a GM emphasizes a certain ability or skill, s/he should tell you so at character creation.

PS, "Just pick something" directly followed by "What, you didn't pick X?" is an invitation to walk out of a game IMO. Your friends are dicks.

 

[coyote6]

If you decide to keep the Use Rope skill (and I'm not saying you're obliged to), be aggressive with it. Carry that rope around, and look for opportunities to use it. Advocate the second-story approach to burglary, the over-mountain route when travelling, the hog tying of captives.

I suggest finding ways or reasons to use the skill on the PC of the whiny player.

 

[Stuntman]

It just sounds like the other players are trying to build your character for you in a rude way or they want you to take a NWP that they themselves do not want or are unable to. This just sounds like one of my 1E groups who wants a cleric in their group, but no one wants to play a cleric. I'm glad that 4E has made the game fun and playable (without making the DM and players jump through hoops) even if you don't have all of the roles covered.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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.

It should be a notably different experience. If you have a decent DM you may never want to abandon 1E/2E.

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.

Well your fellow players are not "representin'" very well. They tell you to "just pick something" - and then complain about what you pick. This would have been where you should have told them what they could do with their passive-aggressive crap. Honestly, the only reason I can think of that they would take this kind of attitude is that they are interested in using you as a punching bag to demonstrate their own superior knowledge of the edition you're playing. I'd go to the DM and register a complaint of your own - that you got browbeaten into taking rope use and you really feel that THE OTHER PLAYERS should have either offered their knowledge and expertise when it was needed in the first place, or shut the hell up in the second place and let you decide and learn for yourself what the good and bad choices were. The DM should allow you to take rearrange your skills as you now think appropriate and the other players should be admonished to offering their opinions on such matters only when they are ASKED for them.

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?

It strikes me as a little sad that this question even needs to be asked, but... YOUR choice is of greatly more importance than playing ego-support to your fellow players or their PC's. Yes, there is a certain amount of effort that you should put into fitting your PC with the rest of the party but if there is ONE thing that should be UNTOUCHABLE in any RPG is control over the creation and play of your PC. Other players and the DM should be beaten senseless for ever - EVER - trying to tell you what YOUR character should be or do.

The limit of the DM's interference is to limit the choices presented to ALL players for class, race, etc., and in-game effects like charms or domination. Other players? If any one of them really thinks you're creating a worthless character for any reason then they are perfectly welcome to ask if THEY could create and play a more "appropriate" version and let you try an entirely different choice. Otherwise they can shut the hell up and concern themselves with their OWN PC and let YOU create and run yours. Their ability to enjoy their own character and the game does NOT rely on your PC living up to THEIR set of minimum qualifications. YOUR character is not present in the game to conform to THEIR expectations.

 

[Estlor]

Use Rope? On a thief? Bah! That's what the Climb percentage is for!

Seriously, you'll probably use Use Rope about as much as you actually use your level limit.

 

[Orius]

It surprised the entire table when, during an early session of a new campaign, we needed to climb down a cliff and everyone looked at me...and I told them my PC didn't have any rope.

(My other 2 heads were whispering in my ears about how everyone else at the table had their mouths open.)

When questioned, I told them it wasn't in character for this PC to carry rope- which was true- and we had best start looking for another way down the cliff.

Eventually, the Ranger & Druid found enough vines to form an improvised rope, and we got down. When we eventually hit the next town, at least 2 PCs- neither of which was mine- bought rope.

That's why rope is one of those things you should always have on your character sheet, never know when you're going to need it.

My PCs always have rope and know how to use it.

 

[Holy Bovine]

It just sounds like the other players are trying to build your character for you in a rude way or they want you to take a NWP that they themselves do not want or are unable to. This just sounds like one of my 1E groups who wants a cleric in their group, but no one wants to play a cleric. I'm glad that 4E has made the game fun and playable (without making the DM and players jump through hoops) even if you don't have all of the roles covered.

To be fair previous editions of D&D are tons of fun with the right players. The guys the OP is talking about really don't sound like they are that much fun to be around at the game table. I wouldn't condemn an entire edition for the actions of a few.