I would've vastly preferred decoupling ASI from species AND backgrounds, to provide for a maximum of customization and personalization. Tying initial ASIs to background is, IMNSHO, a mistake.
Say you're building a melee-based warlock; you want to get your CHA score as high as possible. Unfortunately, none of the 2024 origin feats which boost CHA are all that handy for melee combat. Sage or Soldier make sense for this particular character - but neither one offers a boost to CHA.
And so on. It's odd to me that they went to great pains to get us thinking of initial ASIs as being separate from species in order to free up character customization....and turn around and tie specific Ability Score ASIs to specific backgrounds.
Yeah. The playtest version was good. If it tested poorly with new players, they could've done what they did, with custom backgrounds as an "advanced player" rule.
IIRC, they've said custom backgrounds will be in the DMG, but they should've been in the PHB.
I'm working under the assumption it's in the DMG to make it easier for DMs to not allow custom backgrounds if they don't want. Anything in the PHB tends to get viewed as fair game
I would've vastly preferred decoupling ASI from species AND backgrounds, to provide for a maximum of customization and personalization. Tying initial ASIs to background is, IMNSHO, a mistake.
Say you're building a melee-based warlock; you want to get your CHA score as high as possible. Unfortunately, none of the 2024 origin feats which boost CHA are all that handy for melee combat. Sage or Soldier make sense for this particular character - but neither one offers a boost to CHA.
And so on. It's odd to me that they went to great pains to get us thinking of initial ASIs as being separate from species in order to free up character customization....and turn around and tie specific Ability Score ASIs to specific backgrounds.
Yeah. The playtest version was good. If it tested poorly with new players, they could've done what they did, with custom backgrounds as an "advanced player" rule.
IIRC, they've said custom backgrounds will be in the DMG, but they should've been in the PHB.
I'm working under the assumption it's in the DMG to make it easier for DMs to not allow custom backgrounds if they don't want. Anything in the PHB tends to get viewed as fair game
Once you introduce custom backgrounds into the game you are essentially removing backgrounds from the game. They shouldn't have been part of the game to begin with at that point.
I would've vastly preferred decoupling ASI from species AND backgrounds, to provide for a maximum of customization and personalization. Tying initial ASIs to background is, IMNSHO, a mistake.
Say you're building a melee-based warlock; you want to get your CHA score as high as possible. Unfortunately, none of the 2024 origin feats which boost CHA are all that handy for melee combat. Sage or Soldier make sense for this particular character - but neither one offers a boost to CHA.
And so on. It's odd to me that they went to great pains to get us thinking of initial ASIs as being separate from species in order to free up character customization....and turn around and tie specific Ability Score ASIs to specific backgrounds.
Yeah. The playtest version was good. If it tested poorly with new players, they could've done what they did, with custom backgrounds as an "advanced player" rule.
IIRC, they've said custom backgrounds will be in the DMG, but they should've been in the PHB.
I'm working under the assumption it's in the DMG to make it easier for DMs to not allow custom backgrounds if they don't want. Anything in the PHB tends to get viewed as fair game
Once you introduce custom backgrounds into the game you are essentially removing backgrounds from the game. They shouldn't have been part of the game to begin with at that point.
They introduced custom species in Tasha’s, and here we are, still using off-the-shelf species.
Just have everything open for customisation and it fixes this.
Choose any stats improvements, same pattern of +2 for one and +1 for another, or +1 for 3.
choose any starting feat.
backgrounds have the rest for the stuff, tools, skills proficiencies and equipment, and the role playing theme of the background, that’s it,
Congratulations, you removed backgrounds from the game just to get some mechanical benefits, instead of choosing a background that fits your character, you choose mechanics that fits your build.
I do really wonder how much people would be commenting negatively on this change if it weren't for Tasha's. It does suck to have something (open ability score increases) to then have it taken away. That said, if you didn't have Tasha's you are probably not one of the people that have a problem with tying them to backgrounds.
Just have everything open for customisation and it fixes this.
Choose any stats improvements, same pattern of +2 for one and +1 for another, or +1 for 3.
choose any starting feat.
backgrounds have the rest for the stuff, tools, skills proficiencies and equipment, and the role playing theme of the background, that’s it,
Congratulations, you removed backgrounds from the game just to get some mechanical benefits, instead of choosing a background that fits your character, you choose mechanics that fits your build.
I'd rather that than every single farmer being tough or every single guide knowing druid spells. The new backgrounds are poorly thought out and take away customization and flavor from a campaign.
It's not just about optimization. It's also forcing a player to take things that may be contrary to what they feel their character might be good at or not good at. You want the guard background but maybe your character concept is that he actually isn't very perceptive as a character trait running contrary to the job. Stories are filled with guards who are bad at their job. Now you are automatically alert even though you wanted your character to have that as a flaw. There are just too many scenarios that get messed up because you are shoehorned into a limited list of backgrounds where each background determines too many things about your character. Yes there are custom backgrounds, but if a DM plays RAW without options or you are doing league play then you may not have any other options than those listed.
I do really wonder how much people would be commenting negatively on this change if it weren't for Tasha's. It does suck to have something (open ability score increases) to then have it taken away. That said, if you didn't have Tasha's you are probably not one of the people that have a problem with tying them to backgrounds.
It's more than just that. Backgrounds now control too many aspects of your character. In the past no one choice determined almost everything. They tried to make backgrounds do too much and then it becomes a bottleneck for creativity and customization.
Your stat increases should have stayed how Tasha's had it. You decoupled stat boosts from races and you got to choose what stats you wanted boosted. WOTC gets what they want and the players get what they wanted. Simple and easy.
Why wasn't the UA version of custom backgrounds kept? They were perfect to me and to everyone I talked to.
I think the main issue is that at some point the architecture of the game no longer has any link to the classification of things. We are rapidly approaching the point where narrative definitions no longer matter.
For example in 1e AD&D, you picked Thief as a class, because you wanted to be stealthy or perhaps good at picking locks or finding traps. You chose your race because there was a clear and distinct aesthetic, Dwarves were a stout race of miners, tough and non-magical folk for example. Classes leveled up at different rates, some race-class combinations had caps, these were choices you had to make. In later editions you picked feats that were part of a hierarchy, like in 3rd edition, if you wanted to be a two-weapon fighter, you chose related feats like Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and Ambidexterity, you chose a path and developed in a specific direction. You had things like class and cross-class skills which were impacted by choices you made.
We are rapidly approaching the point where defining things like race, class, skills and backgrounds has no narrative link of meaning anymore.
Why bother calling a background "Sailor", if you are just going to give all background open choices on feats, skills, tool proficiencies and ability scores? At that point, what is the difference between a Sailor background and a Sage background? Might as well just cut backgrounds out entirely and just give people 2 skills, 2 ability score modifications and a origin feat of their choice as part of mechanical creation. Why pretend like choosing a background is a choice?
To me the whole game is slowly marching towards narrative irrelevance. Are you a fighter, ranger or barbarian? Who cares what its called or how its described if the only depiction of it is the class mechanics which are all just variants on the same thing? You might as well just have a "Warrior" class and just put all martial class sub-classes under one roof..
The game is becoming so generic at this point, I don't think all of this flexibility is good for it. The game is really not about anything anymore, its a blob of generic fantasy themes that are barely connected to the mechanics.
This is my least favorite thing about modern D&D, its lack of unique and interesting and meaningful choices.
I think the main issue is that at some point the architecture of the game no longer has any link to the classification of things. We are rapidly approaching the point where narrative definitions no longer matter.
For example in 1e AD&D, you picked Thief as a class, because you wanted to be stealthy or perhaps good at picking locks or finding traps. You chose your race because there was a clear and distinct aesthetic, Dwarves were a stout race of miners, tough and non-magical folk for example. Classes leveled up at different rates, some race-class combinations had caps, these were choices you had to make. In later editions you picked feats that were part of a hierarchy, like in 3rd edition, if you wanted to be a two-weapon fighter, you chose related feats like Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and Ambidexterity, you chose a path and developed in a specific direction. You had things like class and cross-class skills which were impacted by choices you made.
We are rapidly approaching the point where defining things like race, class, skills and backgrounds has no narrative link of meaning anymore.
Why bother calling a background "Sailor", if you are just going to give all background open choices on feats, skills, tool proficiencies and ability scores? At that point, what is the difference between a Sailor background and a Sage background? Might as well just cut backgrounds out entirely and just give people 2 skills, 2 ability score modifications and a origin feat of their choice as part of mechanical creation. Why pretend like choosing a background is a choice?
To me the whole game is slowly marching towards narrative irrelevance. Are you a fighter, ranger or barbarian? Who cares what its called or how its described if the only depiction of it is the class mechanics which are all just variants on the same thing? You might as well just have a "Warrior" class and just put all martial class sub-classes under one roof..
The game is becoming so generic at this point, I don't think all of this flexibility is good for it. The game is really not about anything anymore, its a blob of generic fantasy themes that are barely connected to the mechanics.
This is my least favorite thing about modern D&D, its lack of unique and interesting and meaningful choices.
I kind of see what you’re saying, but you also get to a point where you are deconstructing the game too much. Really, names for things like classes, feats, species, etc. are, and have always been, a convenient shorthand label for a package of game mechanics. Being a sailor as opposed to a sage has always come down to a role play choice. Your character is a sailor, so you have them act like a sailor.
I think the main issue is that at some point the architecture of the game no longer has any link to the classification of things. We are rapidly approaching the point where narrative definitions no longer matter.
For example in 1e AD&D, you picked Thief as a class, because you wanted to be stealthy or perhaps good at picking locks or finding traps. You chose your race because there was a clear and distinct aesthetic, Dwarves were a stout race of miners, tough and non-magical folk for example. Classes leveled up at different rates, some race-class combinations had caps, these were choices you had to make. In later editions you picked feats that were part of a hierarchy, like in 3rd edition, if you wanted to be a two-weapon fighter, you chose related feats like Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and Ambidexterity, you chose a path and developed in a specific direction. You had things like class and cross-class skills which were impacted by choices you made.
We are rapidly approaching the point where defining things like race, class, skills and backgrounds has no narrative link of meaning anymore.
Why bother calling a background "Sailor", if you are just going to give all background open choices on feats, skills, tool proficiencies and ability scores? At that point, what is the difference between a Sailor background and a Sage background? Might as well just cut backgrounds out entirely and just give people 2 skills, 2 ability score modifications and a origin feat of their choice as part of mechanical creation. Why pretend like choosing a background is a choice?
To me the whole game is slowly marching towards narrative irrelevance. Are you a fighter, ranger or barbarian? Who cares what its called or how its described if the only depiction of it is the class mechanics which are all just variants on the same thing? You might as well just have a "Warrior" class and just put all martial class sub-classes under one roof..
The game is becoming so generic at this point, I don't think all of this flexibility is good for it. The game is really not about anything anymore, its a blob of generic fantasy themes that are barely connected to the mechanics.
This is my least favorite thing about modern D&D, its lack of unique and interesting and meaningful choices.
I kind of see what you’re saying, but you also get to a point where you are deconstructing the game too much. Really, names for things like classes, feats, species, etc. are, and have always been, a convenient shorthand label for a package of game mechanics. Being a sailor as opposed to a sage has always come down to a role play choice. Your character is a sailor, so you have them act like a sailor.
I'm not sure I fully agree with that. Yes, labels are indeed containers for mechanics, but in past editions of the game they were narratively fit for purpose. Meaning that there was a certain amount of logic between what you read narratively and what you got mechanically, creating benefits, drawbacks, restrictions and even narrative logic built into the mechanics to ensure a clear connection between the fantasy and how the mechanics behaved.
I think to an extent classes still do this in modern 5e, a lot less than ever, but at least you know that if you pick a Barbarian, you are going to get Barbarian rage and that is a unique "talent" of that class, but more and more with each rendition of the game there is cross over of these sorts of elements.
Expertise is a good example of that, once an exclusive thing for Rogues, now is something that has crossed over to other classes.
Your example of Sailor I think is a good foundation for the conversation. I agree that if you pick the sailor background you have chosen a sort of narrative path in terms of a guide to role-playing, but, I also think that it should have narrative logic that supports the background built into the mechanic. For example The Tool Proficiency is Navigator's Tool... that is a narrative link to mechanics, which makes sense. You are a Sailor and you know how to use Navigator Tools. Tavern Brawler, also makes narrative sense, you can imagine that Sailors commonly get into scuffles in pubs and have learned a bit of pugalism. The Skill selection also makes sense, you have Acrobatics (aka the swashbuckler archetype) and Perception. These are all narratively connected to the imagery of a Sailor. The same is true with the ability score selection, that makes perfect sense that Sailors would be strong and dexterous, I personally would have chosen Charisma for the Sailor instead of Wisdom, but I can see the connection.
All those things are narratively relevant. But now what we are saying is, well you could be a sailor and instead of Acrobatics have Athletics... Instead of Tavern Brawler maybe Alert could make sense, stead of STR, DEX, WIS, you could find justification for CON, INT and CHA? So why not just give players the option to shape it however they see fit?
The answer is that its a decision point, this is a type of background, with a narrative connection to the mechanics, fit for purpose. You pick it because you want to be a sailor background, not because you are trying to gain those mechanical benefits.
To me, if you eliminate this narrative box and you just open it up, you might as well eliminate the narrative component entirely. What purpose does choosing Sailor over Sage serve in the game, if there is no distinction between those two choices mechanically? I mean, without the mechanical link, I can just "proclaim" that I'm a sailor and a sage, because its just a non-mechanically related depiction of my character.
Does that make sense? Like to me if the choice does not matter, then why bother making it a choice?
Think of it this way. If you could pick the Wizard class but class abilities were chosen separately without any limitations or requirements, you could then decide not to select spell casting as an option, you could for example pick Combat Manuvers and effectively make a fighter. What would be the point of having a Wizard class at that stage?
Thats effectively what we are talking about doing with backgrounds. I mean, if backgrounds are just an arbitrary choice and you get to custom-pick everything anyway, there is no point to having backgrounds.
In past games components of the game, the choices we made, shaped the fantasy. Elves for example were often Druids and Magic-Users.. Why? Because their species/race abilities matched and fit those classes, there was mechanical logic for doing it to players and the result was supporting the idea that Elves were magical. This was the fantasy. Elves and Magic were closely nit ideas. In the same way Dwarves and Fighters were.
Today we see that as a weird "limit", an unwanted restriction but it was a very intentional design built around the lore and fantasy of the species/races. It said something about the story of the game. It was mechanics with narrative logic, fit for purpose.
What’s the point of backgrounds if you can custom-build them? The same point as having only a restricted choice of standard backgrounds: to reflect mechanically the character’s story prior to their becoming an adventurer. The developers have clearly set out their intent for Backgrounds, by providing the model of the standard backgrounds in the PHB: that the mechanics should be justified by the story.
By putting the option for custom backgrounds in the DMG, they’ve given the power to the DM to determine how much customisation they’ll allow and to determine whether the background a player proposes works for their setting. The might choose to stick strictly to the PHB backgrounds; they might not care at all about backstories and allow full customisation for purely mechanical optimisation; they might be open to any customisation but prefer to work with the player to help build an interesting character that’s coherent with their world-building.
What’s the point of backgrounds if you can custom-build them? The same point as having only a restricted choice of standard backgrounds: to reflect mechanically the character’s story prior to their becoming an adventurer. The developers have clearly set out their intent for Backgrounds, by providing the model of the standard backgrounds in the PHB: that the mechanics should be justified by the story.
By putting the option for custom backgrounds in the DMG, they’ve given the power to the DM to determine how much customisation they’ll allow and to determine whether the background a player proposes works for their setting. The might choose to stick strictly to the PHB backgrounds; they might not care at all about backstories and allow full customisation for purely mechanical optimisation; they might be open to any customisation but prefer to work with the player to help build an interesting character that’s coherent with their world-building.
I have no issue with that, anymore than I would have issue about instructions on how to create a new class, sub-class or species in the player's handbook.
Customization is the name of the game, but that power is reserved for the DM, designed to help them create narrative sense for their setting/world.
You turn that power over to the players, its not the same thing. It becomes just a mechanical means to an end, the word background attached to it has no meaning. No different if you just let players create their own classes and sub-classes however they like.
You turn that power over to the players, its not the same thing. It becomes just a mechanical means to an end, the word background attached to it has no meaning. No different if you just let players create their own classes and sub-classes however they like.
I think that depends on your players: some are just as committed to world-building as the DM.
So, I just happen to be awake, and I just happened to see Xalthu's comment and I did not just happen to stare at the screen for several minutes.
Really, names for things like classes, feats, species, etc. are, and have always been, a convenient shorthand label for a package of game mechanics.
This is totally coming from my TSR era approach and way of thinking about he game, but straight up, that's backwards. It is valid, mind you -- I am not saying that you are wrong, because in a practical sense, you are quit correct -- but it is also deeply, deeply hurtful to me.
Not in the sense of a personal attack or anything; no, it hurts because it points out something that has become far too true, and that remains the one thing I cannot sidestep or get around about the current design ethos that is promoted.
People talk about Archetypes a lot. An Archetype is notjust a shorthand for a bunch of mechanics. Or, more accurately, it should never be that. An archetype is far, far more, and is, ultimately, something that forms the mechanics of the game as a whole, instead of being formed by them. That is, the mechanics are a system that is packaged by an Archetype.
An Archetype can encompass a whole host of possible distinct Versions of Stereotypes. They are archetypes because they stand in place as a kind of mental template, a broad range or collection of attributes that are summoned up by them, recognized as such, and they cross the individual boundaries of separation into the common dialect of shared experience -- they are something you recognize because everyone else recognizes them. They are a path to the inner wonder in all of us, to the possibility inherent in our imaginations, and without the archetypes, there would be no mechanics to collect into something immediately recognizable.
Mage, Warrior, Priest, Outlaw, Minstrel, Savage, Investigator, Scholar, and Animist. Just seeing them can spark a whole host of different things in a person -- and while the details may differ (Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian), the Archetype remains behind them, above them, a prototypical, "ultimate version" of them.
When you get to a point that an term becomes a name you slap on a set of mechanics, you are no longer talking about an archetype. You are talking about a stereotype. You go from a universal pattern to a reductive generalization.
And my personal gripe with 5e -- and ultimately, part of why I hated 3.x and so much that WotC has put out during its stewardship of the game -- is that it has done exactly that (and done it and succeeded in doing so). I want to fight and use magic. Cool. I can pick any class and do that. I should not be able to do that. That's the old school me. If I choose to do both, I should have to pick which I can do better, and so the better I fight, the more I suck at magic, and the better I am at magic, the more I suck at fighting. Not because that's "balanced", but because that's the archetype.
They have blurred the lines so much that everything has lost what made it special, what made it unique. Wizards got a buff, Rogues got shafted, Fighters got ignored, etc. It is why in my main games I don't use any of the classes (well, part of it). The silly little dungeon crawl is RAW because those PCs don't matter. The main games have archetypes that come from the world, the setting, in and of itself, not from earth. They are not immediately recognizable as Archetypes to us because they come from a place that is not familiar to us. I had to translate them.
So when I read that, it was a stab in my little heart, because like all of the rest of us, I love this game, and I especially love the overarching approach that is so deeply embedded into it that I don't think the designers are really aware of it. The game is built one them! Other Archetypes in the game: Species, Spells, Equipment, Magical Items, Skills, Alignment, Armor, Weapons, The Planes, and, of course...
Backgrounds. If I say Sailor, there is one set of concepts that come to mind. If I say Marine, there is a different set. If I say Mariner,, yet a third set comes into play. The Archetype pulls the mechanics to it, they are assembled by it -- it is not created by the mechanics. It is given value in use by the mechanics.
Another way to say it is you start with the idea, and then try to make it work with the mechanics. Taking mechanics and then trying to create an idea from them is just wrong.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The odd thing about it is that D&D very specifically is the only RPG to abandon this core concept of narrative-archetyping mechanics.
Imagine what would happen if White Wolf put out a new edition of Vampire The Masquerade and decided that when you make a character you can choose any clan and then customize your domains however you like with no restrictions.
I couldn't agree more with you. When you play other RPG's, your narrative choices have deep and meaningful impact on your mechanics. When you decide to be a Ventrue in VtM, that says a lot about your character, there is an immediate reaction to it, it means something to make that choice, it defines a core attribute of what your point of view will be like in the game and how others will see you in the game.
This used to be true about D&D. In 1e when someone chose Paladin, that changed the dynamics of the game, there were built in narratives to having a Paladin in the group. Certain expectations from the player running the Paladin, certain ways you knew you would have to handle situations around the Paladin... There would inevitably be static and issues that creep up because of that choice. It was a meaningful choice and this had a narrative connection and clear mechanical implications for everyone not just the player playing the Paladin.
Modern gaming has all abandoned these ideas and I think the game is worse for it.
Diluting backgrounds which by the way were very specifically initially added to combat this very effect is just another in a long line of changes to turn D&D into a sort of faceless blog of generic fantasy, turning into a game about nothing in particular.
The difference between D&D and something like Vampire: the Masquerade is that V:tM is setting-specific whereas D&D is setting-agnostic. It’s not “a game about nothing in particular”; it’s a game about what the DM (and their players) decides it’s about. The archetypes in one setting might not necessarily translate directly into another.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm working under the assumption it's in the DMG to make it easier for DMs to not allow custom backgrounds if they don't want. Anything in the PHB tends to get viewed as fair game
Once you introduce custom backgrounds into the game you are essentially removing backgrounds from the game. They shouldn't have been part of the game to begin with at that point.
They introduced custom species in Tasha’s, and here we are, still using off-the-shelf species.
Just have everything open for customisation and it fixes this.
Choose any stats improvements, same pattern of +2 for one and +1 for another, or +1 for 3.
choose any starting feat.
backgrounds have the rest for the stuff, tools, skills proficiencies and equipment, and the role playing theme of the background, that’s it,
Congratulations, you removed backgrounds from the game just to get some mechanical benefits, instead of choosing a background that fits your character, you choose mechanics that fits your build.
I do really wonder how much people would be commenting negatively on this change if it weren't for Tasha's. It does suck to have something (open ability score increases) to then have it taken away. That said, if you didn't have Tasha's you are probably not one of the people that have a problem with tying them to backgrounds.
The PHB allows you to use backgrounds from the older book, an origin feat of your choice and the +2, +1 or +1, +1, +1 at 1st level.
I'd rather that than every single farmer being tough or every single guide knowing druid spells. The new backgrounds are poorly thought out and take away customization and flavor from a campaign.
It's not just about optimization. It's also forcing a player to take things that may be contrary to what they feel their character might be good at or not good at. You want the guard background but maybe your character concept is that he actually isn't very perceptive as a character trait running contrary to the job. Stories are filled with guards who are bad at their job. Now you are automatically alert even though you wanted your character to have that as a flaw. There are just too many scenarios that get messed up because you are shoehorned into a limited list of backgrounds where each background determines too many things about your character. Yes there are custom backgrounds, but if a DM plays RAW without options or you are doing league play then you may not have any other options than those listed.
It's more than just that. Backgrounds now control too many aspects of your character. In the past no one choice determined almost everything. They tried to make backgrounds do too much and then it becomes a bottleneck for creativity and customization.
Your stat increases should have stayed how Tasha's had it. You decoupled stat boosts from races and you got to choose what stats you wanted boosted. WOTC gets what they want and the players get what they wanted. Simple and easy.
Why wasn't the UA version of custom backgrounds kept? They were perfect to me and to everyone I talked to.
I think the main issue is that at some point the architecture of the game no longer has any link to the classification of things. We are rapidly approaching the point where narrative definitions no longer matter.
For example in 1e AD&D, you picked Thief as a class, because you wanted to be stealthy or perhaps good at picking locks or finding traps. You chose your race because there was a clear and distinct aesthetic, Dwarves were a stout race of miners, tough and non-magical folk for example. Classes leveled up at different rates, some race-class combinations had caps, these were choices you had to make. In later editions you picked feats that were part of a hierarchy, like in 3rd edition, if you wanted to be a two-weapon fighter, you chose related feats like Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, and Ambidexterity, you chose a path and developed in a specific direction. You had things like class and cross-class skills which were impacted by choices you made.
We are rapidly approaching the point where defining things like race, class, skills and backgrounds has no narrative link of meaning anymore.
Why bother calling a background "Sailor", if you are just going to give all background open choices on feats, skills, tool proficiencies and ability scores? At that point, what is the difference between a Sailor background and a Sage background? Might as well just cut backgrounds out entirely and just give people 2 skills, 2 ability score modifications and a origin feat of their choice as part of mechanical creation. Why pretend like choosing a background is a choice?
To me the whole game is slowly marching towards narrative irrelevance. Are you a fighter, ranger or barbarian? Who cares what its called or how its described if the only depiction of it is the class mechanics which are all just variants on the same thing? You might as well just have a "Warrior" class and just put all martial class sub-classes under one roof..
The game is becoming so generic at this point, I don't think all of this flexibility is good for it. The game is really not about anything anymore, its a blob of generic fantasy themes that are barely connected to the mechanics.
This is my least favorite thing about modern D&D, its lack of unique and interesting and meaningful choices.
I kind of see what you’re saying, but you also get to a point where you are deconstructing the game too much. Really, names for things like classes, feats, species, etc. are, and have always been, a convenient shorthand label for a package of game mechanics.
Being a sailor as opposed to a sage has always come down to a role play choice. Your character is a sailor, so you have them act like a sailor.
I'm not sure I fully agree with that. Yes, labels are indeed containers for mechanics, but in past editions of the game they were narratively fit for purpose. Meaning that there was a certain amount of logic between what you read narratively and what you got mechanically, creating benefits, drawbacks, restrictions and even narrative logic built into the mechanics to ensure a clear connection between the fantasy and how the mechanics behaved.
I think to an extent classes still do this in modern 5e, a lot less than ever, but at least you know that if you pick a Barbarian, you are going to get Barbarian rage and that is a unique "talent" of that class, but more and more with each rendition of the game there is cross over of these sorts of elements.
Expertise is a good example of that, once an exclusive thing for Rogues, now is something that has crossed over to other classes.
Your example of Sailor I think is a good foundation for the conversation. I agree that if you pick the sailor background you have chosen a sort of narrative path in terms of a guide to role-playing, but, I also think that it should have narrative logic that supports the background built into the mechanic. For example The Tool Proficiency is Navigator's Tool... that is a narrative link to mechanics, which makes sense. You are a Sailor and you know how to use Navigator Tools. Tavern Brawler, also makes narrative sense, you can imagine that Sailors commonly get into scuffles in pubs and have learned a bit of pugalism. The Skill selection also makes sense, you have Acrobatics (aka the swashbuckler archetype) and Perception. These are all narratively connected to the imagery of a Sailor. The same is true with the ability score selection, that makes perfect sense that Sailors would be strong and dexterous, I personally would have chosen Charisma for the Sailor instead of Wisdom, but I can see the connection.
All those things are narratively relevant. But now what we are saying is, well you could be a sailor and instead of Acrobatics have Athletics... Instead of Tavern Brawler maybe Alert could make sense, stead of STR, DEX, WIS, you could find justification for CON, INT and CHA? So why not just give players the option to shape it however they see fit?
The answer is that its a decision point, this is a type of background, with a narrative connection to the mechanics, fit for purpose. You pick it because you want to be a sailor background, not because you are trying to gain those mechanical benefits.
To me, if you eliminate this narrative box and you just open it up, you might as well eliminate the narrative component entirely. What purpose does choosing Sailor over Sage serve in the game, if there is no distinction between those two choices mechanically? I mean, without the mechanical link, I can just "proclaim" that I'm a sailor and a sage, because its just a non-mechanically related depiction of my character.
Does that make sense? Like to me if the choice does not matter, then why bother making it a choice?
Think of it this way. If you could pick the Wizard class but class abilities were chosen separately without any limitations or requirements, you could then decide not to select spell casting as an option, you could for example pick Combat Manuvers and effectively make a fighter. What would be the point of having a Wizard class at that stage?
Thats effectively what we are talking about doing with backgrounds. I mean, if backgrounds are just an arbitrary choice and you get to custom-pick everything anyway, there is no point to having backgrounds.
In past games components of the game, the choices we made, shaped the fantasy. Elves for example were often Druids and Magic-Users.. Why? Because their species/race abilities matched and fit those classes, there was mechanical logic for doing it to players and the result was supporting the idea that Elves were magical. This was the fantasy. Elves and Magic were closely nit ideas. In the same way Dwarves and Fighters were.
Today we see that as a weird "limit", an unwanted restriction but it was a very intentional design built around the lore and fantasy of the species/races. It said something about the story of the game. It was mechanics with narrative logic, fit for purpose.
What’s the point of backgrounds if you can custom-build them? The same point as having only a restricted choice of standard backgrounds: to reflect mechanically the character’s story prior to their becoming an adventurer. The developers have clearly set out their intent for Backgrounds, by providing the model of the standard backgrounds in the PHB: that the mechanics should be justified by the story.
By putting the option for custom backgrounds in the DMG, they’ve given the power to the DM to determine how much customisation they’ll allow and to determine whether the background a player proposes works for their setting. The might choose to stick strictly to the PHB backgrounds; they might not care at all about backstories and allow full customisation for purely mechanical optimisation; they might be open to any customisation but prefer to work with the player to help build an interesting character that’s coherent with their world-building.
I have no issue with that, anymore than I would have issue about instructions on how to create a new class, sub-class or species in the player's handbook.
Customization is the name of the game, but that power is reserved for the DM, designed to help them create narrative sense for their setting/world.
You turn that power over to the players, its not the same thing. It becomes just a mechanical means to an end, the word background attached to it has no meaning. No different if you just let players create their own classes and sub-classes however they like.
I think that depends on your players: some are just as committed to world-building as the DM.
So, I just happen to be awake, and I just happened to see Xalthu's comment and I did not just happen to stare at the screen for several minutes.
This is totally coming from my TSR era approach and way of thinking about he game, but straight up, that's backwards. It is valid, mind you -- I am not saying that you are wrong, because in a practical sense, you are quit correct -- but it is also deeply, deeply hurtful to me.
Not in the sense of a personal attack or anything; no, it hurts because it points out something that has become far too true, and that remains the one thing I cannot sidestep or get around about the current design ethos that is promoted.
People talk about Archetypes a lot. An Archetype is not just a shorthand for a bunch of mechanics. Or, more accurately, it should never be that. An archetype is far, far more, and is, ultimately, something that forms the mechanics of the game as a whole, instead of being formed by them. That is, the mechanics are a system that is packaged by an Archetype.
An Archetype can encompass a whole host of possible distinct Versions of Stereotypes. They are archetypes because they stand in place as a kind of mental template, a broad range or collection of attributes that are summoned up by them, recognized as such, and they cross the individual boundaries of separation into the common dialect of shared experience -- they are something you recognize because everyone else recognizes them. They are a path to the inner wonder in all of us, to the possibility inherent in our imaginations, and without the archetypes, there would be no mechanics to collect into something immediately recognizable.
Mage, Warrior, Priest, Outlaw, Minstrel, Savage, Investigator, Scholar, and Animist. Just seeing them can spark a whole host of different things in a person -- and while the details may differ (Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian), the Archetype remains behind them, above them, a prototypical, "ultimate version" of them.
When you get to a point that an term becomes a name you slap on a set of mechanics, you are no longer talking about an archetype. You are talking about a stereotype. You go from a universal pattern to a reductive generalization.
And my personal gripe with 5e -- and ultimately, part of why I hated 3.x and so much that WotC has put out during its stewardship of the game -- is that it has done exactly that (and done it and succeeded in doing so). I want to fight and use magic. Cool. I can pick any class and do that. I should not be able to do that. That's the old school me. If I choose to do both, I should have to pick which I can do better, and so the better I fight, the more I suck at magic, and the better I am at magic, the more I suck at fighting. Not because that's "balanced", but because that's the archetype.
They have blurred the lines so much that everything has lost what made it special, what made it unique. Wizards got a buff, Rogues got shafted, Fighters got ignored, etc. It is why in my main games I don't use any of the classes (well, part of it). The silly little dungeon crawl is RAW because those PCs don't matter. The main games have archetypes that come from the world, the setting, in and of itself, not from earth. They are not immediately recognizable as Archetypes to us because they come from a place that is not familiar to us. I had to translate them.
So when I read that, it was a stab in my little heart, because like all of the rest of us, I love this game, and I especially love the overarching approach that is so deeply embedded into it that I don't think the designers are really aware of it. The game is built one them! Other Archetypes in the game: Species, Spells, Equipment, Magical Items, Skills, Alignment, Armor, Weapons, The Planes, and, of course...
Backgrounds. If I say Sailor, there is one set of concepts that come to mind. If I say Marine, there is a different set. If I say Mariner,, yet a third set comes into play. The Archetype pulls the mechanics to it, they are assembled by it -- it is not created by the mechanics. It is given value in use by the mechanics.
Another way to say it is you start with the idea, and then try to make it work with the mechanics. Taking mechanics and then trying to create an idea from them is just wrong.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
@AEDorsay
The odd thing about it is that D&D very specifically is the only RPG to abandon this core concept of narrative-archetyping mechanics.
Imagine what would happen if White Wolf put out a new edition of Vampire The Masquerade and decided that when you make a character you can choose any clan and then customize your domains however you like with no restrictions.
I couldn't agree more with you. When you play other RPG's, your narrative choices have deep and meaningful impact on your mechanics. When you decide to be a Ventrue in VtM, that says a lot about your character, there is an immediate reaction to it, it means something to make that choice, it defines a core attribute of what your point of view will be like in the game and how others will see you in the game.
This used to be true about D&D. In 1e when someone chose Paladin, that changed the dynamics of the game, there were built in narratives to having a Paladin in the group. Certain expectations from the player running the Paladin, certain ways you knew you would have to handle situations around the Paladin... There would inevitably be static and issues that creep up because of that choice. It was a meaningful choice and this had a narrative connection and clear mechanical implications for everyone not just the player playing the Paladin.
Modern gaming has all abandoned these ideas and I think the game is worse for it.
Diluting backgrounds which by the way were very specifically initially added to combat this very effect is just another in a long line of changes to turn D&D into a sort of faceless blog of generic fantasy, turning into a game about nothing in particular.
The difference between D&D and something like Vampire: the Masquerade is that V:tM is setting-specific whereas D&D is setting-agnostic. It’s not “a game about nothing in particular”; it’s a game about what the DM (and their players) decides it’s about. The archetypes in one setting might not necessarily translate directly into another.