Sorry, but I find all this talk of "Narrative" to be BS. Everytime someone comes on to these forums saying "I wish there was X class or Y subclass" there are a plethora of people saying "You don't need X or Y because we already have Q, just pretend that Q is X or Y. Reskin! Pretend!" That is what creates the idea that everything is a package of mechanics that you can add what ever narrative you want to them. According to the poll recently posted here the number of "old school" players is fairly high. They are also the ones giving out the "Use your imagination" and "Pretend" advice. You can not demand set narratives for classes and such and then tell people to remove that narrative and reskin everything and then act shocked that the stock narrative no longer matters.
Sorry, but I find all this talk of "Narrative" to be BS. Everytime someone comes on to these forums saying "I wish there was X class or Y subclass" there are a plethora of people saying "You don't need X or Y because we already have Q, just pretend that Q is X or Y. Reskin! Pretend!" That is what creates the idea that everything is a package of mechanics that you can add what ever narrative you want to them. According to the poll recently posted here the number of "old school" players is fairly high. They are also the ones giving out the "Use your imagination" and "Pretend" advice. You can not demand set narratives for classes and such and then tell people to remove that narrative and reskin everything and then act shocked that the stock narrative no longer matters.
As one of those old schoolers, let me assure that we don’t all feel that way. It is both fascinating and mystifying to observe that, to some, more choice feels restrictive and the idea that a dwarf might be a druid or wizard is a constraint.
Sorry, but I find all this talk of "Narrative" to be BS. Everytime someone comes on to these forums saying "I wish there was X class or Y subclass" there are a plethora of people saying "You don't need X or Y because we already have Q, just pretend that Q is X or Y. Reskin! Pretend!" That is what creates the idea that everything is a package of mechanics that you can add what ever narrative you want to them. According to the poll recently posted here the number of "old school" players is fairly high. They are also the ones giving out the "Use your imagination" and "Pretend" advice. You can not demand set narratives for classes and such and then tell people to remove that narrative and reskin everything and then act shocked that the stock narrative no longer matters.
Well I'm one of the ancient old skoolers, but I'm with you on this. There is a place for using the imagination and flavor and there are tables where everything is generalized with only how you view yourself as the main outlet of creativity. I do like a solid set of mechanics that allow a very nice robust framework for creativity. The thing is, having all the baked in options doesn't limit the "old school' players from re skinning things and basing their character all around pretend fluff, but it does interfere with those that want to theory craft, synergize, create a narrative around mechanical representations. Let's make the tent big enough that everyone is happy.
The archetypes in one setting might not necessarily translate directly into another.
This is absolutely and always true. More importantly, what is an archetype in one cultural basis is not in another.
in terms of "D&D", There are only five archetypes that can touch on nearly every culture -- and no single culture will have all five of them. At least, not on Earth. But with a game, there is no limitation there, if the mechanics are built to meet the archetypes.
As for the "reskin it" crowd, well...
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
ok, sorry, I was laughing. had to get that under control. Anyone who's read enough of my posts will know that I love my archetypes, but I place setting as a primary in the true old school worldbuilder style. I create a world of possibility, of risk and reward, of challenges and mysteries. And then I sit back and let the PCs wreck it, change it, alter it.
I create worlds that do not have a story built into them, or that are about a single story. I have, mind you -- my last campaign (which was created to have something to run while I worked on my current, likely final, world) was that way, but it didn't feel like it at least.
Wyrlde does not have the same Archetypes that Earth has. that, right there, gives some folks who think about it pause. Telling me to "reskin" an existing class to work is not only laughable, it goes against the premise of the world itself. And it is a premise that defined everything about the world.
That Premise was to create a "generic, pseudo-medieval fantasy world for D&D that does not draw from any of the inspirations and influences that were used to create D&D". in practice, it meant cutting out anything from stuff written between 1920 and 1980(ish). Because all mechanics have a world-based effect, and exist for narrative purpose, that meant killing some golden bulls and laying out the barbeque.
Alignment, the underlying magic system, all the classes, all the core species, all the derived stuff. Gone. All the lore, poof.
Now, onto that I had to add in everything my players asked for. They knew the premise, and they respected it, but I have a lot of players, and they had a mountain of ideas, and I worked hard to put all those ideas in place -- and that's from people who range in age from 12 to 60 right now, but this was 6 years ago.
And then I added more stuff over the years of working on it.
What I have now is a planet where the central part is the focus, and it alone has wild west, gangster, and all the usual stuff. Then I have a continent that is akin to the hardscrabble survival style, low magic, space. A land that time forgot space that has no sentient inhabitants. A continent where things are very much like all the traditional Disney movies with a few more Grimm surprises thrown in. You can cast the spell fly and head up into space, where there is air, and great ships sail the solar winds and brave the cosmic storms and travel in parsecs between space stations and outposts and have great battle among the stars. You can then travel to a dying colony sheltered in great domes, or a different colony with entirely different cultures that is moving in an entirely different direction as a whole from the core space.
I can't reskin a damned thing. Everything has to be crafted.And it all still works on the same core ruleset.
The thing that I did that makes it possible is I went back to Archetypes for Classes, and dropped the entire idea of subclasses (but truthfully, those are still there, I just didn't see it at first).
I still have a Paladin, still have a Wizard, still have a bunch of things. I don't really have a warlock, and in a real sense everyone is a sorcerer. There's no one to really make a pact with -- only the deities have that kind of power. THere are still deals with devils, but how the devils make that possible is not with a snap of a finger or a wish type spell -- no, they go an make it happen.
But all of it exists to support any story my players and I come up with. In D&D, in 5e -- but a lot of the folks who have grown up with D&D, who are the sort that do that whole reskin it thing -- they think of the stuff I changed as the heart of D&D. To them, what I have done is a "waste of time, you could have done better in a different game" except that's strictly opinion and have yet to find another fantasy game we like, and being old school, we (and especially I) are folks who hew to the old ethos that the DMs job is supposed to be about creating all that stuff and doing all that work.
I would find it boring if I didn't do that. And no other game we that do play has escaped that hoary horror of our tinkering and touching and tweaking and twisting.
Narrative is hugely important -- and narrative is built on immersion, on consistency, on the willing suspension of disbelief in a setting where an adventure is possible, and in a game where that adventure can take you anywhere within the confines of the trillion and a half mile diameter of the space created.
You can't play in this world without the books. You need them for the rules, for the tables, for the spells, for some of the monsters/animals/critters. I added combat options, but didn't change the wa combat works. I added spells and made some spells fit the new ethos (like spells doing only one thing, so prestidigitation becomes a bunch of spells, etc), and we added a ton of options that all look shockingly familiar. Because they are still 5e things. We just "reskinned them", lol.
Players need options, need choices, and they need a framework in which to enjoy them without becoming overwhelmed by them. An archetype is still an always just a starting place -- difference should come from the character itself, not the archetype -- they ae meant to be distinct, but the character is meant to be something else.
An extension of the player's imagination, a way into a world.
5e may have started to lose some of that importance around the Classes, but the backgrounds are still archetypes -- and they are still examples of them, because the goal is to have them fit the setting, not define it.
I would even say that in a lot of ways 5e is more dependent on archetypes that previously, simply because of how they "simplified" the rules and the systems. Base D&D has 48 subclasses -- I only have 20. But I have space for more to be created, and boundaries for it, just as the base game has a way to add on more. I have plans to add in more PC species as my players change the world -- there's a dozen more waiting. But I have no limits on how to do it that aren't inherent in the lore and premise of my world.
Because I use Archetypes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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
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 don't understand that argument. It doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense whatsoever. This is the Entire, Complete text for the Criminal background.
You eked out a living in dark alleyways, cutting purses or burgling shops. Perhaps you were part of a small gang of like-minded wrongdoers who looked out for each other. Or maybe you were a lone wolf, fending for yourself against the local thieves’ guild and more fearsome lawbreakers.
That's it. That's the whole thing. If anyone sees that and thinks "yes, this is all the background I need," then they aren't playing in a game which will have much roleplaying. The word "Criminal" and three sentences do not a background make. A background is the specifics of Your Character's history. The details it has, even if it follows the generic concept of "Criminal" will be relevant to that character in a way that three ambiguous sentences never will be.
The skills Your Character is proficient in should be relevant to Your Character, as should the Tool Proficiency and the Origin feat. Being able to choose things which are relevant is the exact opposite of removing a background. It's making a background your own in a way the "one size fits some" nature of the 16 pre-chosen packages could never possibly do.
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?
Good question and the answer is "you don't," because the 16 backgrounds are so limited and have so little flavor that the only thing they do is give mechanical benefits. Disregarding the label and flavor is the only thing which makes sense. I will happily make a "Sailor" monk from the mountains who has never seen a lake or ocean, and if anyone complains about the lack of sailor flavor, I'll tell them to shut it, because the PHB explicitly says you can rewrite the "flavor" text however you want:
Each background includes a brief narrative of what your character’s past might have been like. Alter the details of this narrative however you like.
And of course you should alter the details, because the flavor of the Sailor and other backgrounds which is provided is so non-existent that I already have to write my own anyway.
So, the one area of common criticism in the new Player’s Handbook has mainly centred on the way in which Backgrounds now work. That is, some players feel that the mechanical constraints of Backgrounds now determining Ability Score bonuses, Origin Feats and Proficiency choices are restrictive.
You say it is common, but then say only "some" players complain. Regardless, the fact is you can use the backgrounds from the old books, but you have to use the ASI grants in the 2024 version.
Sorry, but I find all this talk of "Narrative" to be BS. Everytime someone comes on to these forums saying "I wish there was X class or Y subclass" there are a plethora of people saying "You don't need X or Y because we already have Q, just pretend that Q is X or Y. Reskin! Pretend!" That is what creates the idea that everything is a package of mechanics that you can add what ever narrative you want to them. According to the poll recently posted here the number of "old school" players is fairly high. They are also the ones giving out the "Use your imagination" and "Pretend" advice. You can not demand set narratives for classes and such and then tell people to remove that narrative and reskin everything and then act shocked that the stock narrative no longer matters.
I think you might have missed the point a bit, not by much, but by a little. This is a question distinguishing a difference between what the "Sailor" label for example defines narratively compared to what it does mechanically.
If you say "I'm a sailor", you are defining for yourself and other players that you can actually do something that someone who is not a sailor can't. You know about sailing stuff, you can navigate, raise a sail, you know how fast ships can travel, you know the etiquette among sailors. Your mechanics should support and reflect that so when you go to act, when you do something "sailor" related be it a skill check or an action, its something you know how to do, but people who aren't sailors would not.
This is not a setting thing, it's not even a fantasy thing, it's a logic thing. This is called design with purpose. If a choice is narratively arbitrary to the mechanics, what is the point of it? We aren't playing a tactical miniature game, narrative definitions matter.
The same is true for Species and Classes, its true for skills and feats. If you pick something, it says something about your character narratively and that should match up with the mechanics. If you're a fighter, you should be better at melee fighting than other classes, if you pick Ranger, you should know how to survive in the wilderness better than someone who is not a Ranger.. and so on.
These archetypes are not setting-specific, and I understand there are grey areas (to what extent is something true?), but these are fantasy genre-specific things. If I tell you I'm a Ranger, you and the other players know what that means, it's a narrative definition that comes with expectations, it doesn't matter what fantasy setting you pick, the same logic will apply.
So its not about re-skinning and while again, there is a grey area within these definitions, for example a Ranger might be presumed to be a great dual wielder or you might assume they know how to use a bow really well, or you might assume they have a pet companion. These are all in the wheelhouse of a Ranger definition. But if you suddenly decide the Rogue is also great at surviving in the forest and the Ranger is more knowable about the Arcane than a Wizard... then it's just a free for all and while that might make sense in some settings, by adding it as an option, you dilute the core game.
In a word, D&D needs to decide what a Ranger is. That definition, even though it might apply to many settings, inevitably their are boundaries that define all the things a Ranger is not. The same is true for backgrounds, species.. feats.. all of it.
If there are no boundaries, no definitions, no commitment to any sort of fantasy idea, its just open season.. than why not add super heroes to the game? Can I be an Avenger or an X-Men? How about a race car driver from the future? A terminator cyborg from the future?
D&D is very setting-specific, there are variants on the setting, but wether your playing in Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Eberron or Forgotten Realms... a Ranger is a Ranger, a Sailor is a Sailor... these things mean something.
Sorry, but I find all this talk of "Narrative" to be BS. Everytime someone comes on to these forums saying "I wish there was X class or Y subclass" there are a plethora of people saying "You don't need X or Y because we already have Q, just pretend that Q is X or Y. Reskin! Pretend!" That is what creates the idea that everything is a package of mechanics that you can add what ever narrative you want to them. According to the poll recently posted here the number of "old school" players is fairly high. They are also the ones giving out the "Use your imagination" and "Pretend" advice. You can not demand set narratives for classes and such and then tell people to remove that narrative and reskin everything and then act shocked that the stock narrative no longer matters.
I think you might have missed the point a bit, not by much, but by a little. This is a question distinguishing a difference between what the "Sailor" label for example defines narratively compared to what it does mechanically.
If you say "I'm a sailor", you are defining for yourself and other players that you can actually do something that someone who is not a sailor can't. You know about sailing stuff, you can navigate, raise a sail, you know how fast ships can travel, you know the etiquette among sailors. Your mechanics should support and reflect that so when you go to act, when you do something "sailor" related be it a skill check or an action, its something you know how to do, but people who aren't sailors would not.
Some problems here:
There are just 16 named backgrounds. A lot of players are probably not going to find a perfect "I'm a [X]" match for what they think of as their character.
The second problem is that even if a player does actually find an "I'm an [X]" match for the name of the background they think of for their character, that background package of two fixed skill proficiencies, one fixed origin feat, three possible ASI's, and one tool proficiency still might not fit with the background they think of for their character.
Adding benefits for being an X was tried in 2014, but they rarely came up in campaigns. And adding them in doesn't work for this reason: You might be a "sailor," because you worked on a ship, but what if you were the ship's cook? Should you still be expected to know how to hoist sails, navigate by the stars, and patch leaks below the waterline, because that one word of "sailor" is the closest to your background?
So its not about re-skinning and while again, there is a grey area within these definitions, for example a Ranger might be presumed to be a great dual wielder or you might assume they know how to use a bow really well, or you might assume they have a pet companion. These are all in the wheelhouse of a Ranger definition. But if you suddenly decide the Rogue is also great at surviving in the forest and the Ranger is more knowable about the Arcane than a Wizard... then it's just a free for all and while that might make sense in some settings, by adding it as an option, you dilute the core game.
There is in fact a Rogue which is supposed to be great at surviving in the forest, it's the Scout Archtype.
It's also funny that you're using the Ranger as an example. The Ranger, which is notorious for trying to put one label on so many different core fantasies that the result is a mashup which no two players can agree on what the core fantasy of the ranger is even supposed to be at all.
You're complaining about a lack of boundaries and definitions. Of course there are boundaries and definitions. Those are in the Classes and Subclasses, not the background. You're mixing them up.
Why CAN'T you play a Rogue who is great at surviving in the forest?
If there are no boundaries, no definitions, no commitment to any sort of fantasy idea, its just open season.. than why not add super heroes to the game? Can I be an Avenger or an X-Men? How about a race car driver from the future? A terminator cyborg from the future?
Yes, you can, absolutely 100% - if that's the kind of game the Game Master has created and set up, made custom things to support. If the game master does not want you to be a superhero or race car driver or future cyborg, then you can't be. I don't see any problem here.
There are just 16 named backgrounds. A lot of players are probably not going to find a perfect "I'm a [X]" match for what they think of as their character.
The second problem is that even if a player does actually find an "I'm an [X]" match for the name of the background they think of for their character, that background package of two fixed skill proficiencies, one fixed origin feat, three possible ASI's, and one tool proficiency still might not fit with the background they think of for their character.
Adding benefits for being an X was tried in 2014, but they rarely came up in campaigns. And adding them in doesn't work for this reason: You might be a "sailor," because you worked on a ship, but what if you were the ship's cook? Should you still be expected to know how to hoist sails, navigate by the stars, and patch leaks below the waterline, because that one word of "sailor" is the closest to your background?
I don't disagree with you that the mechanic is very poorly designed, in fact, I would make an argument that the change in purpose for backgrounds between 2014 and 2024 is just outright terrible. I understand what they were trying to do, but they have turned backgrounds into another character optimization mechanic, but its one without any D&D traditions built into it, so fans are ripping it apart because there is no assumptions or built-in history with it to preserve.
It used to be that a mechanic would provide you with a couple of narratively related skill proficiencies and a tool proficiencies which are both such generic choices that they matched up with the generic backgrounds. The main point of the Background in 2014 was to define your character's personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws, which made sense as the background was defined as something to establish a narrative definition of your character, not a mechanical one.
With Backgrounds replacing mechanical features that used to be linked to your species selection, they have opened up a new can of worms and the only answer to fix it is clearly to go for open design but all open design is driven by DM fiats (Decision). The rules say pick a background, and now in the DM there is an optional rule that says "you can design it yourself"... which sounds great, until you realize that players are going to abuse it-stretch it, because they will simply use backgrounds as another way to break the game and optimize/min-max and DM's are simply going to say "no you can't use it". You have to remember that not all things are created equal, so in an open "do it yourself" environment, 80% of things will never be chosen and only the optimal selections used.
They have created a mechanic people will argue about for the next 10 years and at this point there is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent that. The damage is done.
There is in fact a Rogue which is supposed to be great at surviving in the forest, it's the Scout Archtype.
It's also funny that you're using the Ranger as an example. The Ranger, which is notorious for trying to put one label on so many different core fantasies that the result is a mashup which no two players can agree on what the core fantasy of the ranger is even supposed to be at all.
You're complaining about a lack of boundaries and definitions. Of course there are boundaries and definitions. Those are in the Classes and Subclasses, not the background. You're mixing them up.
Why CAN'T you play a Rogue who is great at surviving in the forest?
If you're not going to adhere to gaming traditions, D&D culture, D&D cliche's and D&D fantasy, then what is the point of D&D?
Archetypes is one of the most established traditions/cliche cores of the game. Lots of other games break these traditions, but we play D&D BECAUSE of them... At least I do. I want the Wizard to be the best at Arcane things, I want the Rogue to be the best at sneaky things, I want the Ranger to be the best at Wilderness things... these are traditions going back 50 years. This is why there are classes, its what makes D&D ... D&D.
Is that good design? Perhaps not, but its D&D design and that's what counts here.
I understand your argument, I don't even necessarily disagree with it, but the answer to your question as to Why a Rogue can't be better at surviving in a Forest than a Ranger is ... because it's D&D.. that's why.
Its really that simple. This game has been around for 50 years and its still the most popular RPG in the world by a huge margin. You have to ask the question why is that? What is it about D&D compared to say Pathfinder 2e or DC20 or any other fantasy RPG based on D&D that keeps this game on top? I think the answer is in the traditions, the cliche's, the culture and all of the little quirks and sacred cows. If we are going to design a better game, the only way to do that is to abandon those things because many of these things from a game design perspective are really ... not great. But its precisely these oddities that make D&D what it is.
Its weird and easy to argue against, but consider 4e as an example of what happens when you stray from these traditions. We have already tried this and its a proven road to catastrophic failure.
I don't disagree with you that the mechanic is very poorly designed, in fact, I would make an argument that the change in purpose for backgrounds between 2014 and 2024 is just outright terrible.
This is the problem. The whole 2024 background system is terrible.
I don't disagree with you that the mechanic is very poorly designed, in fact, I would make an argument that the change in purpose for backgrounds between 2014 and 2024 is just outright terrible. I understand what they were trying to do, but they have turned backgrounds into another character optimization mechanic, but its one without any D&D traditions built into it, so fans are ripping it apart because there is no assumptions or built-in history with it to preserve.
It used to be that a mechanic would provide you with a couple of narratively related skill proficiencies and a tool proficiencies which are both such generic choices that they matched up with the generic backgrounds. The main point of the Background in 2014 was to define your character's personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws, which made sense as the background was defined as something to establish a narrative definition of your character, not a mechanical one.
I don't understand what D&D Traditions ever had to do with backgrounds? Classes, yes. Backgrounds, no.
I also disagree that the main point of 2014 backgrounds was the Ideals, Bonds, Flaws tables. Those tables were good in that they were examples of ways to think of giving your character those things, but a d6 table is never going to replace something the player specifically tailored to their character.
I considered the main point of backgrounds as a way to give a more personal spin on a character. You're not just a Class, you're a Class which has a pre-adventurer Background which informs their outlook on life.
With Backgrounds replacing mechanical features that used to be linked to your species selection, they have opened up a new can of worms and the only answer to fix it is clearly to go for open design but all open design is driven by DM fiats (Decision). The rules say pick a background, and now in the DM there is an optional rule that says "you can design it yourself"... which sounds great, until you realize that players are going to abuse it-stretch it, because they will simply use backgrounds as another way to break the game and optimize/min-max and DM's are simply going to say "no you can't use it". You have to remember that not all things are created equal, so in an open "do it yourself" environment, 80% of things will never be chosen and only the optimal selections used.
They have created a mechanic people will argue about for the next 10 years and at this point there is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent that. The damage is done.
How can allowing a custom background possibly be abused? I absolutely don't understand how that's even possible? The GM might say "hey, players, some of your character concepts may be stepping on each other's toes a bit, which could be unsatisfying," but other than that...
Here's the problem. Some players will find that their PC concepts line up perfectly with a background package with no tweaks. You'll have your Farmer Barbarian. Other players will have PC concepts, but the 16 pre-made PC concepts will require them to take things in the package which don't fit. If you're sticking with the 16 pre-mades, you won't be able to make the character you have in mind, or will be forced to take things you do not want and do not fit your character concept. Some players will be starting off from a place of disappointment - for no good reason.
For instance, I want to make a Warlock whose background was a charismatic Bounty Hunter. The closest fit in existing backgrounds is the Guide, which has almost everything I want... except it has no CHA boost option. Would the game break if I took a +2 CHA/+1 DEX instead?
If you're not going to adhere to gaming traditions, D&D culture, D&D cliche's and D&D fantasy, then what is the point of D&D?
Archetypes is one of the most established traditions/cliche cores of the game. Lots of other games break these traditions, but we play D&D BECAUSE of them... At least I do. I want the Wizard to be the best at Arcane things, I want the Rogue to be the best at sneaky things, I want the Ranger to be the best at Wilderness things... these are traditions going back 50 years. This is why there are classes, its what makes D&D ... D&D.
Is that good design? Perhaps not, but its D&D design and that's what counts here.
I understand your argument, I don't even necessarily disagree with it, but the answer to your question as to Why a Rogue can't be better at surviving in a Forest than a Ranger is ... because it's D&D.. that's why.
Its really that simple. This game has been around for 50 years and its still the most popular RPG in the world by a huge margin. You have to ask the question why is that? What is it about D&D compared to say Pathfinder 2e or DC20 or any other fantasy RPG based on D&D that keeps this game on top? I think the answer is in the traditions, the cliche's, the culture and all of the little quirks and sacred cows. If we are going to design a better game, the only way to do that is to abandon those things because many of these things from a game design perspective are really ... not great. But its precisely these oddities that make D&D what it is.
Its weird and easy to argue against, but consider 4e as an example of what happens when you stray from these traditions. We have already tried this and its a proven road to catastrophic failure.
You ask why is this 50 year old system the most popular? It's this:
Different people can have ideas of fun which are different from yours, and - this is important - they're not having their fun wrong just because it's not how you'd do it! You can play at your table which sticks to traditional archtypes and be happy, and ignore all the other tables not playing the same way. The system has longevity and popularity because it's so flexible. You can adapt it to all kinds of settings and with all manner of homebrew rules.
The new background system's problem is that it is NOT flexible. Too many things tied together into one "take-it-or-leave-it" package.
I don't understand what D&D Traditions ever had to do with backgrounds? Classes, yes. Backgrounds, no.
I also disagree that the main point of 2014 backgrounds was the Ideals, Bonds, Flaws tables. Those tables were good in that they were examples of ways to think of giving your character those things, but a d6 table is never going to replace something the player specifically tailored to their character.
I considered the main point of backgrounds as a way to give a more personal spin on a character. You're not just a Class, you're a Class which has a pre-adventurer Background which informs their outlook on life.
I can see that you don't understand from your response. My point was that Backgrounds are not part of the D&D traditions, it's essentially a new thing in D&D, at least in the way that they are mechanical architecture. The reason people are disputing it and demanding it be an open system is because they don't have any preconceived notions about it being a closed system as is the case with ability scores, hit points, AC, and Classes.... all of these things are D&D traditions, cliches and sacred cows. They define D&D and so it's clear what the design must be, not because it's good design (not suggesting that) but because it's a design that makes D&D... D&D.
Without a tradition to give us any direction as to what it should be, we are left with an endless debate about what it could be, a red flag for the D&D eco-system. The issue with that is that open systems are always broken by default, it's the crux of an open system. The short of it is "Do whatever you want" is not game design. You give players rules and they can alter them however they see fit, as you point out... have fun your way. I'm not trying to tell you what to do in your game, I'm telling you that a game mechanic has to be confined to rules that allow and restrict things in the rulebook, the game must be a game... meaning it must have a defined design with purpose.
Right now the only purpose of the background mechanic, which was not the case in 2014, is to use it to claim mechanical benefits. Nothing else exists. The label sailor and the narrative description is meaningless and worthless in the context of the game. It supports nothing and offers nothing, all backgrounds are good for is to get your bag of goodies. Again, this was not the case in the old systems. The personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws of the old backgrounds were a system, they served a purpose in the game. The d6 charts were just suggestions, its clear in the rulebook that players were allowed to create their own descriptions, but these weren't just meaningless labels or narratives, they had a mechanical purpose. Acting according to your personality traits earned you inspiration.
How can allowing a custom background possibly be abused?
Well that is easy. Not all skills, tools proficiencies, abilities scores and origin feats are created equal. There are winners and losers in each category. If players can simply choose any combination, your class selection will 100% of the time result in your picking the single most optimal thing for that class. What motivation would there be suboptimal if you can pick whatever you want and then create a generic narrative to quasi-justify it.
Given such a system, why attach it to backgrounds at all? Just give players the benefits at character creation and call it a day. Backgrounds provide nothing else.
Different people can have ideas of fun which are different from yours, and - this is important - they're not having their fun wrong just because it's not how you'd do it! You can play at your table which sticks to traditional archtypes and be happy, and ignore all the other tables not playing the same way. The system has longevity and popularity because it's so flexible. You can adapt it to all kinds of settings and with all manner of homebrew rules.
I think you are drawing meaning and assumed opinion from an observation. I'm not even entirely disagreeing with you but we have clear evidence that supports the idea that D&D's traditions, cliche's and sacred cows cannot be altered and for the game to still be successful. 4th edition tried it, it almost ended the franchise. Most of these game designs based on these traditions I would argue are not good design, even go so far as to say they are objectively bad and even Wizards of the Coasts knows it.. but they are stuck with it. D&D is only D&D as long as these traditions are in place... its what makes the game successful, this is indisputable.
You can play your home game and have fun however you like, but in order for the D&D franchise to survive they have to stick to the D&D traditions in the core rules, these things are not negotiable and that's not my opinion, that is an objective observation. I have no stake in the fight, I just know that if they alter to much, just like most of the community, I will simply not play the game anymore. I play as long as D&D ...remains.. D&D. Its that simple.
This idea your talking about where you have "fun your way", is an abstract one, that is D&D tradition, its not a mechanical one. WotC creating system that is "do anything you want"... will not survive because that's not what D&D is and we know this from its history. Its not an opinion, its literary me just describing what happened when they tried it before and it did not go well.
Sorry, but I find all this talk of "Narrative" to be BS. Everytime someone comes on to these forums saying "I wish there was X class or Y subclass" there are a plethora of people saying "You don't need X or Y because we already have Q, just pretend that Q is X or Y. Reskin! Pretend!" That is what creates the idea that everything is a package of mechanics that you can add what ever narrative you want to them. According to the poll recently posted here the number of "old school" players is fairly high. They are also the ones giving out the "Use your imagination" and "Pretend" advice. You can not demand set narratives for classes and such and then tell people to remove that narrative and reskin everything and then act shocked that the stock narrative no longer matters.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
As one of those old schoolers, let me assure that we don’t all feel that way. It is both fascinating and mystifying to observe that, to some, more choice feels restrictive and the idea that a dwarf might be a druid or wizard is a constraint.
#notalloldskool
Well I'm one of the ancient old skoolers, but I'm with you on this. There is a place for using the imagination and flavor and there are tables where everything is generalized with only how you view yourself as the main outlet of creativity. I do like a solid set of mechanics that allow a very nice robust framework for creativity. The thing is, having all the baked in options doesn't limit the "old school' players from re skinning things and basing their character all around pretend fluff, but it does interfere with those that want to theory craft, synergize, create a narrative around mechanical representations. Let's make the tent big enough that everyone is happy.
This is absolutely and always true. More importantly, what is an archetype in one cultural basis is not in another.
in terms of "D&D", There are only five archetypes that can touch on nearly every culture -- and no single culture will have all five of them. At least, not on Earth. But with a game, there is no limitation there, if the mechanics are built to meet the archetypes.
As for the "reskin it" crowd, well...
-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-
ok, sorry, I was laughing. had to get that under control. Anyone who's read enough of my posts will know that I love my archetypes, but I place setting as a primary in the true old school worldbuilder style. I create a world of possibility, of risk and reward, of challenges and mysteries. And then I sit back and let the PCs wreck it, change it, alter it.
I create worlds that do not have a story built into them, or that are about a single story. I have, mind you -- my last campaign (which was created to have something to run while I worked on my current, likely final, world) was that way, but it didn't feel like it at least.
Wyrlde does not have the same Archetypes that Earth has. that, right there, gives some folks who think about it pause. Telling me to "reskin" an existing class to work is not only laughable, it goes against the premise of the world itself. And it is a premise that defined everything about the world.
That Premise was to create a "generic, pseudo-medieval fantasy world for D&D that does not draw from any of the inspirations and influences that were used to create D&D". in practice, it meant cutting out anything from stuff written between 1920 and 1980(ish). Because all mechanics have a world-based effect, and exist for narrative purpose, that meant killing some golden bulls and laying out the barbeque.
Alignment, the underlying magic system, all the classes, all the core species, all the derived stuff. Gone. All the lore, poof.
Now, onto that I had to add in everything my players asked for. They knew the premise, and they respected it, but I have a lot of players, and they had a mountain of ideas, and I worked hard to put all those ideas in place -- and that's from people who range in age from 12 to 60 right now, but this was 6 years ago.
And then I added more stuff over the years of working on it.
What I have now is a planet where the central part is the focus, and it alone has wild west, gangster, and all the usual stuff. Then I have a continent that is akin to the hardscrabble survival style, low magic, space. A land that time forgot space that has no sentient inhabitants. A continent where things are very much like all the traditional Disney movies with a few more Grimm surprises thrown in. You can cast the spell fly and head up into space, where there is air, and great ships sail the solar winds and brave the cosmic storms and travel in parsecs between space stations and outposts and have great battle among the stars. You can then travel to a dying colony sheltered in great domes, or a different colony with entirely different cultures that is moving in an entirely different direction as a whole from the core space.
I can't reskin a damned thing. Everything has to be crafted.And it all still works on the same core ruleset.
The thing that I did that makes it possible is I went back to Archetypes for Classes, and dropped the entire idea of subclasses (but truthfully, those are still there, I just didn't see it at first).
I still have a Paladin, still have a Wizard, still have a bunch of things. I don't really have a warlock, and in a real sense everyone is a sorcerer. There's no one to really make a pact with -- only the deities have that kind of power. THere are still deals with devils, but how the devils make that possible is not with a snap of a finger or a wish type spell -- no, they go an make it happen.
But all of it exists to support any story my players and I come up with. In D&D, in 5e -- but a lot of the folks who have grown up with D&D, who are the sort that do that whole reskin it thing -- they think of the stuff I changed as the heart of D&D. To them, what I have done is a "waste of time, you could have done better in a different game" except that's strictly opinion and have yet to find another fantasy game we like, and being old school, we (and especially I) are folks who hew to the old ethos that the DMs job is supposed to be about creating all that stuff and doing all that work.
I would find it boring if I didn't do that. And no other game we that do play has escaped that hoary horror of our tinkering and touching and tweaking and twisting.
Narrative is hugely important -- and narrative is built on immersion, on consistency, on the willing suspension of disbelief in a setting where an adventure is possible, and in a game where that adventure can take you anywhere within the confines of the trillion and a half mile diameter of the space created.
You can't play in this world without the books. You need them for the rules, for the tables, for the spells, for some of the monsters/animals/critters. I added combat options, but didn't change the wa combat works. I added spells and made some spells fit the new ethos (like spells doing only one thing, so prestidigitation becomes a bunch of spells, etc), and we added a ton of options that all look shockingly familiar. Because they are still 5e things. We just "reskinned them", lol.
Players need options, need choices, and they need a framework in which to enjoy them without becoming overwhelmed by them. An archetype is still an always just a starting place -- difference should come from the character itself, not the archetype -- they ae meant to be distinct, but the character is meant to be something else.
An extension of the player's imagination, a way into a world.
5e may have started to lose some of that importance around the Classes, but the backgrounds are still archetypes -- and they are still examples of them, because the goal is to have them fit the setting, not define it.
I would even say that in a lot of ways 5e is more dependent on archetypes that previously, simply because of how they "simplified" the rules and the systems. Base D&D has 48 subclasses -- I only have 20. But I have space for more to be created, and boundaries for it, just as the base game has a way to add on more. I have plans to add in more PC species as my players change the world -- there's a dozen more waiting. But I have no limits on how to do it that aren't inherent in the lore and premise of my world.
Because I use Archetypes.
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
I don't understand that argument. It doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense whatsoever. This is the Entire, Complete text for the Criminal background.
That's it. That's the whole thing. If anyone sees that and thinks "yes, this is all the background I need," then they aren't playing in a game which will have much roleplaying. The word "Criminal" and three sentences do not a background make. A background is the specifics of Your Character's history. The details it has, even if it follows the generic concept of "Criminal" will be relevant to that character in a way that three ambiguous sentences never will be.
The skills Your Character is proficient in should be relevant to Your Character, as should the Tool Proficiency and the Origin feat. Being able to choose things which are relevant is the exact opposite of removing a background. It's making a background your own in a way the "one size fits some" nature of the 16 pre-chosen packages could never possibly do.
Good question and the answer is "you don't," because the 16 backgrounds are so limited and have so little flavor that the only thing they do is give mechanical benefits. Disregarding the label and flavor is the only thing which makes sense. I will happily make a "Sailor" monk from the mountains who has never seen a lake or ocean, and if anyone complains about the lack of sailor flavor, I'll tell them to shut it, because the PHB explicitly says you can rewrite the "flavor" text however you want:
And of course you should alter the details, because the flavor of the Sailor and other backgrounds which is provided is so non-existent that I already have to write my own anyway.
You say it is common, but then say only "some" players complain. Regardless, the fact is you can use the backgrounds from the old books, but you have to use the ASI grants in the 2024 version.
I think you might have missed the point a bit, not by much, but by a little. This is a question distinguishing a difference between what the "Sailor" label for example defines narratively compared to what it does mechanically.
If you say "I'm a sailor", you are defining for yourself and other players that you can actually do something that someone who is not a sailor can't. You know about sailing stuff, you can navigate, raise a sail, you know how fast ships can travel, you know the etiquette among sailors. Your mechanics should support and reflect that so when you go to act, when you do something "sailor" related be it a skill check or an action, its something you know how to do, but people who aren't sailors would not.
This is not a setting thing, it's not even a fantasy thing, it's a logic thing. This is called design with purpose. If a choice is narratively arbitrary to the mechanics, what is the point of it? We aren't playing a tactical miniature game, narrative definitions matter.
The same is true for Species and Classes, its true for skills and feats. If you pick something, it says something about your character narratively and that should match up with the mechanics. If you're a fighter, you should be better at melee fighting than other classes, if you pick Ranger, you should know how to survive in the wilderness better than someone who is not a Ranger.. and so on.
These archetypes are not setting-specific, and I understand there are grey areas (to what extent is something true?), but these are fantasy genre-specific things. If I tell you I'm a Ranger, you and the other players know what that means, it's a narrative definition that comes with expectations, it doesn't matter what fantasy setting you pick, the same logic will apply.
So its not about re-skinning and while again, there is a grey area within these definitions, for example a Ranger might be presumed to be a great dual wielder or you might assume they know how to use a bow really well, or you might assume they have a pet companion. These are all in the wheelhouse of a Ranger definition. But if you suddenly decide the Rogue is also great at surviving in the forest and the Ranger is more knowable about the Arcane than a Wizard... then it's just a free for all and while that might make sense in some settings, by adding it as an option, you dilute the core game.
In a word, D&D needs to decide what a Ranger is. That definition, even though it might apply to many settings, inevitably their are boundaries that define all the things a Ranger is not. The same is true for backgrounds, species.. feats.. all of it.
If there are no boundaries, no definitions, no commitment to any sort of fantasy idea, its just open season.. than why not add super heroes to the game? Can I be an Avenger or an X-Men? How about a race car driver from the future? A terminator cyborg from the future?
D&D is very setting-specific, there are variants on the setting, but wether your playing in Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Eberron or Forgotten Realms... a Ranger is a Ranger, a Sailor is a Sailor... these things mean something.
Some problems here:
There is in fact a Rogue which is supposed to be great at surviving in the forest, it's the Scout Archtype.
It's also funny that you're using the Ranger as an example. The Ranger, which is notorious for trying to put one label on so many different core fantasies that the result is a mashup which no two players can agree on what the core fantasy of the ranger is even supposed to be at all.
You're complaining about a lack of boundaries and definitions. Of course there are boundaries and definitions. Those are in the Classes and Subclasses, not the background. You're mixing them up.
Why CAN'T you play a Rogue who is great at surviving in the forest?
Yes, you can, absolutely 100% - if that's the kind of game the Game Master has created and set up, made custom things to support. If the game master does not want you to be a superhero or race car driver or future cyborg, then you can't be. I don't see any problem here.
I don't disagree with you that the mechanic is very poorly designed, in fact, I would make an argument that the change in purpose for backgrounds between 2014 and 2024 is just outright terrible. I understand what they were trying to do, but they have turned backgrounds into another character optimization mechanic, but its one without any D&D traditions built into it, so fans are ripping it apart because there is no assumptions or built-in history with it to preserve.
It used to be that a mechanic would provide you with a couple of narratively related skill proficiencies and a tool proficiencies which are both such generic choices that they matched up with the generic backgrounds. The main point of the Background in 2014 was to define your character's personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws, which made sense as the background was defined as something to establish a narrative definition of your character, not a mechanical one.
With Backgrounds replacing mechanical features that used to be linked to your species selection, they have opened up a new can of worms and the only answer to fix it is clearly to go for open design but all open design is driven by DM fiats (Decision). The rules say pick a background, and now in the DM there is an optional rule that says "you can design it yourself"... which sounds great, until you realize that players are going to abuse it-stretch it, because they will simply use backgrounds as another way to break the game and optimize/min-max and DM's are simply going to say "no you can't use it". You have to remember that not all things are created equal, so in an open "do it yourself" environment, 80% of things will never be chosen and only the optimal selections used.
They have created a mechanic people will argue about for the next 10 years and at this point there is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent that. The damage is done.
If you're not going to adhere to gaming traditions, D&D culture, D&D cliche's and D&D fantasy, then what is the point of D&D?
Archetypes is one of the most established traditions/cliche cores of the game. Lots of other games break these traditions, but we play D&D BECAUSE of them... At least I do. I want the Wizard to be the best at Arcane things, I want the Rogue to be the best at sneaky things, I want the Ranger to be the best at Wilderness things... these are traditions going back 50 years. This is why there are classes, its what makes D&D ... D&D.
Is that good design? Perhaps not, but its D&D design and that's what counts here.
I understand your argument, I don't even necessarily disagree with it, but the answer to your question as to Why a Rogue can't be better at surviving in a Forest than a Ranger is ... because it's D&D.. that's why.
Its really that simple. This game has been around for 50 years and its still the most popular RPG in the world by a huge margin. You have to ask the question why is that? What is it about D&D compared to say Pathfinder 2e or DC20 or any other fantasy RPG based on D&D that keeps this game on top? I think the answer is in the traditions, the cliche's, the culture and all of the little quirks and sacred cows. If we are going to design a better game, the only way to do that is to abandon those things because many of these things from a game design perspective are really ... not great. But its precisely these oddities that make D&D what it is.
Its weird and easy to argue against, but consider 4e as an example of what happens when you stray from these traditions. We have already tried this and its a proven road to catastrophic failure.
This is the problem. The whole 2024 background system is terrible.
I don't understand what D&D Traditions ever had to do with backgrounds? Classes, yes. Backgrounds, no.
I also disagree that the main point of 2014 backgrounds was the Ideals, Bonds, Flaws tables. Those tables were good in that they were examples of ways to think of giving your character those things, but a d6 table is never going to replace something the player specifically tailored to their character.
I considered the main point of backgrounds as a way to give a more personal spin on a character. You're not just a Class, you're a Class which has a pre-adventurer Background which informs their outlook on life.
How can allowing a custom background possibly be abused? I absolutely don't understand how that's even possible? The GM might say "hey, players, some of your character concepts may be stepping on each other's toes a bit, which could be unsatisfying," but other than that...
Here's the problem. Some players will find that their PC concepts line up perfectly with a background package with no tweaks. You'll have your Farmer Barbarian. Other players will have PC concepts, but the 16 pre-made PC concepts will require them to take things in the package which don't fit. If you're sticking with the 16 pre-mades, you won't be able to make the character you have in mind, or will be forced to take things you do not want and do not fit your character concept. Some players will be starting off from a place of disappointment - for no good reason.
For instance, I want to make a Warlock whose background was a charismatic Bounty Hunter. The closest fit in existing backgrounds is the Guide, which has almost everything I want... except it has no CHA boost option. Would the game break if I took a +2 CHA/+1 DEX instead?
You ask why is this 50 year old system the most popular? It's this:
Different people can have ideas of fun which are different from yours, and - this is important - they're not having their fun wrong just because it's not how you'd do it! You can play at your table which sticks to traditional archtypes and be happy, and ignore all the other tables not playing the same way. The system has longevity and popularity because it's so flexible. You can adapt it to all kinds of settings and with all manner of homebrew rules.
The new background system's problem is that it is NOT flexible. Too many things tied together into one "take-it-or-leave-it" package.
I can see that you don't understand from your response. My point was that Backgrounds are not part of the D&D traditions, it's essentially a new thing in D&D, at least in the way that they are mechanical architecture. The reason people are disputing it and demanding it be an open system is because they don't have any preconceived notions about it being a closed system as is the case with ability scores, hit points, AC, and Classes.... all of these things are D&D traditions, cliches and sacred cows. They define D&D and so it's clear what the design must be, not because it's good design (not suggesting that) but because it's a design that makes D&D... D&D.
Without a tradition to give us any direction as to what it should be, we are left with an endless debate about what it could be, a red flag for the D&D eco-system. The issue with that is that open systems are always broken by default, it's the crux of an open system. The short of it is "Do whatever you want" is not game design. You give players rules and they can alter them however they see fit, as you point out... have fun your way. I'm not trying to tell you what to do in your game, I'm telling you that a game mechanic has to be confined to rules that allow and restrict things in the rulebook, the game must be a game... meaning it must have a defined design with purpose.
Right now the only purpose of the background mechanic, which was not the case in 2014, is to use it to claim mechanical benefits. Nothing else exists. The label sailor and the narrative description is meaningless and worthless in the context of the game. It supports nothing and offers nothing, all backgrounds are good for is to get your bag of goodies. Again, this was not the case in the old systems. The personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws of the old backgrounds were a system, they served a purpose in the game. The d6 charts were just suggestions, its clear in the rulebook that players were allowed to create their own descriptions, but these weren't just meaningless labels or narratives, they had a mechanical purpose. Acting according to your personality traits earned you inspiration.
Well that is easy. Not all skills, tools proficiencies, abilities scores and origin feats are created equal. There are winners and losers in each category. If players can simply choose any combination, your class selection will 100% of the time result in your picking the single most optimal thing for that class. What motivation would there be suboptimal if you can pick whatever you want and then create a generic narrative to quasi-justify it.
Given such a system, why attach it to backgrounds at all? Just give players the benefits at character creation and call it a day. Backgrounds provide nothing else.
I think you are drawing meaning and assumed opinion from an observation. I'm not even entirely disagreeing with you but we have clear evidence that supports the idea that D&D's traditions, cliche's and sacred cows cannot be altered and for the game to still be successful. 4th edition tried it, it almost ended the franchise. Most of these game designs based on these traditions I would argue are not good design, even go so far as to say they are objectively bad and even Wizards of the Coasts knows it.. but they are stuck with it. D&D is only D&D as long as these traditions are in place... its what makes the game successful, this is indisputable.
You can play your home game and have fun however you like, but in order for the D&D franchise to survive they have to stick to the D&D traditions in the core rules, these things are not negotiable and that's not my opinion, that is an objective observation. I have no stake in the fight, I just know that if they alter to much, just like most of the community, I will simply not play the game anymore. I play as long as D&D ...remains.. D&D. Its that simple.
This idea your talking about where you have "fun your way", is an abstract one, that is D&D tradition, its not a mechanical one. WotC creating system that is "do anything you want"... will not survive because that's not what D&D is and we know this from its history. Its not an opinion, its literary me just describing what happened when they tried it before and it did not go well.