You've Created A Bad Character. How, why and whose fault is it?

[Thomas Shey]

I'm gonna start my next session by asking one of my players, "would you have listened to me if I told you making a character with no combat ability was a bad idea?"

I'd probably have taken it farther and asked "Given the nature of this campaign, and the kind of things that normally occur, why did you think having a character with no combat capability was a good idea?"

 

[Emberashh]

I'd probably have taken it farther and asked "Given the nature of this campaign, and the kind of things that normally occur, why did you think having a character with no combat capability was a good idea?"

This is the general path I follow when I come to conclusion that people, who go farther than that and call it an issue they can't be X or Y and not waste everyones time, need to examine if they actually like the game they're playing.

Much of the time when I see someone on the internet having a fuss because being pacifist in DND isn't really supported, its not because they're really all that interested in exploring what it means to be a pacifist as a high fantasy adventurer, but because they don't actually like DND and want to play something else.

Ive run campaigns of 5e for people who wanted to do the former genuinely. They don't get to be the cool guy slaying the dragon, but thats the whole point. And as a DM I would already be giving them stuff to do other than fighting, so theres no shortage of stuff for them to shine at in the limited ways 5e allows outside of magic.

 

[CleverNickName]

How did I create a bad character?
I used a "build" that I found online, for a highly-optimized character.

Why did I create a bad character?
Because I am going to WIN.

Who's fault is it?
Well, I'm the one who prioritized optimization. I'm the one who went looking for dubious advice on the Internet, and I'm the one who followed that dubious advice, and now I'm the one who is disappointed. So really, I have no idea who's fault it could be. It's a mystery.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is the general path I follow when I come to conclusion that people, who go farther than that and call it an issue they can't be X or Y and not waste everyones time, need to examine if they actually like the game they're playing.

Much of the time when I see someone on the internet having a fuss because being pacifist in DND isn't really supported, its not because they're really all that interested in exploring what it means to be a pacifist as a high fantasy adventurer, but because they don't actually like DND and want to play something else.

Ive run campaigns of 5e for people who wanted to do the former genuinely. They don't get to be the cool guy slaying the dragon, but thats the whole point. And as a DM I would already be giving them stuff to do other than fighting, so theres no shortage of stuff for them to shine at in the limited ways 5e allows outside of magic.

I'll go as far as to say that if you're going to play a pacifist in almost any action-adventure game, you might want to think whether you're going to have anything useful to do in combat, because that's probably going to be a fairly big part of what goes on in the game, even if there's non-trivial social or intellectual elements in the system/campaign.

There absolutely can be games where that's not true, but they're either usually games where the inverse is true (i.e. leaning into being a combatant is probably counter-indicated) or where the system is set up so that its easy for characters to each do their own thing without taking up much time. I don't think either of those is the routine RPG.

 

[Lanefan]

It was extremely common to make you character (often characters, plural) alone at home long before a game in the earlier days of roleplaying

That's only because your GMs didn't hold to or enforce the idea that all such things must be done in the presence of others.

IME rolling up was (and still is) always done either at the table during (or before) play, or with the DM during the week. If we're starting a new party or campaign the first session is roll-up night; you're not required to tell others what class-species-etc. you're going to play but they're all rolled up in the same place such that people can talk about it if they want, and such (after some sad incidents in the past) that all rolls can be monitored.

because communications were a lot harder prior to the internet, cell phones, and free long distance calls, especially for kids. One of my first GMs was in a different area code, for ex, and calling them between games really wasn't an option with the parents I had.

The experience was normal enough at the time but "these days" I wouldn't want to do so when reaching out to the rest of the table is relatively simple to do. Better communications have largely removed the need to build in isolation, which in hindsight was a dreadful way to make characters. So why accept a limitation that time and technology has removed?

Why are you making your characters at home rather than at the game in the first place, is my question?

 

[Lanefan]

I'll go as far as to say that if you're going to play a pacifist in almost any action-adventure game, you might want to think whether you're going to have anything useful to do in combat, because that's probably going to be a fairly big part of what goes on in the game, even if there's non-trivial social or intellectual elements in the system/campaign.

In one of our generally hack'n'slash D&D campaigns some time ago, a player intentionally tried playing a pacifist PC just to see if she could pull it off. The character was a healer, and in combat she'd use her spells to prevent harm and bloodshed by separating or entangling combatants, or by scaring some of them off, or similar means; otherwise she'd just cure the injured. If memory serves she eschewed proficiency in or use of any weapon.

The character worked out great for the couple of adventures its career lasted, until real life reared its head and the player had to bow out.

 

[Wofano Wotanto]

IME rolling up was (and still is) always done either at the table during (or before) play...

Dandy. Your experiences are very different than those of many people, myself included. People did and still do cook up characters in advance and in isolation for various reasons, not least of which being testing the chargen system out or making a pool of NPCs. There were also plenty of groups (especially in the 70s and early 80s) where showing up to a game as a new player without a ready character was very bad form because it was seen as wasting everyone's time. Same went for replacing fatalities if you lost a PC and the GM allowed you to start a new one mid-session - they weren't going to stop the game for you to make one, so having backups was pretty common in some circles.

And yes, you did see people show with absurdly implausible characters that they'd rolled up at home, "honest" - and sometimes they had, although they'd never mention it took them dozens or even hundreds of tries to do so. I knew one guy who was notorious for having 300 page spiral notebooks filled with potential PCs, one to a page, all made at home and as they died he'd rip out a page and go on to the next ASAP. Most people wouldn't play with him. Traveller might have been the worst for that sort of thing early on, by 1979 there was (crude) software floating around to auto-generate LBB characters and some people really did use it. All that's just one potential problem with making characters in isolation, albeit one rarely seen in 2024.

Why are you making your characters at home rather than at the game in the first place, is my question?

Because even today some groups see it as wasting valuable play time. Other times GMs will want finished character sheets before they even meet the first time because they plan to include character-specific hooks in teh game from before word one. Lots of folks do their chargen via email exchanges along with other session zero stuff even when they plan to play in person. Making characters at home is not the same as making them in isolation with modern tech, which is a big part of the argument for collaborating with your whole table when character building - and world building, for that matter.

Also some folks just get their jollies making characters whether they have an immediate use for them or not. Maybe they wind up as NPCs, maybe they find a PC role someday, maybe they just collect dust, for some folks the process is reward unto itself. And that's not some Ye Olden Days thing that died with the Reagan presidency, people do it even today, as proven by the countless "character build" discussions online - with many builds projected to absurd levels of advancement the character will probably never reach in play.

 

[James Gasik]

Hey in my pre-session I had an absurdly implausible character rolled right up in front of me, with one ability score below 15!

 

[Lanefan]

Hey in my pre-session I had an absurdly implausible character rolled right up in front of me, with one ability score below 15!

Yes, but as it was right in front of you it was fully legit.

I've seen the same: 18-18-17-17-15-15 rolled up right in front of me (and no, the dice weren't loaded!). And in case it matters, that character didn't survive its second combat.

 

[CleverNickName]

Hey in my pre-session I had an absurdly implausible character rolled right up in front of me, with one ability score below 15!

I use a house-rule for reigning this in.

• All characters start with a magic item of their choice from Table A or B.
• All characters roll their stats, using the 4d6 method.
• When stats are rolled up, total up your ability score modifiers.
  • If the total is +4 or lower, you have a choice: reroll them, or keep them and start with a feat.
  • If the total is +10 or higher, you have a choice: reroll them, or keep them and forfeit your magic item.
  • Otherwise, you keep what you rolled.

Probably won't work for every table, but my players really like it.