This is a query about game design and the systems used to define characters: does it matter if your character isn't defined as being good at anything, with the mechanics of the game?
At one end of the spectrum, D&D centrally defines characters by their attributes, skills, feats, powers and so on: it is devoted to defining the difference between characters within the rules of play, so the Barbarian can do X attacks with Y chance to hit, while the Wizard has lesser numbers for X & Y but can instead cast Z spells, etc.
At the other end, A Penny for My Thoughts does away with all definition of character: you don't know anything about them until you begin playing and there are no stats or abilities attached to any of them, they are just defined by their experiences as the story unfolds.
In the middle of the spectrum though, how important is it to distinguish your character from others via their specialities? Imagine that the basic rule of the game is "Toss a coin when your character does something; on a heads, they succeed and on a tails, they fail." Are you happy that everyone has the same chance at everything, all the time? Or do you want to pick abilities for your character that let them toss more coins, for an increased chance of success under the right circumstances?
Would it make a difference if, instead of a random system like tossing coins, you had a more tactical system where the player had to choose whether or not to spend a resource? Or played "Rock-Paper-Scissors" against their opponent to see who succeeded?
This is mostly about short games and mini-games, not necessarily full-sized games for campaigning: is the trade off in the simplicity & speed of the rules worth it for the lack of definition between characters?