Backgrounds have gone from being presented as really nice open ended questions, sparking ideas about your character's backstory in the 2014 PHB (many of the backgrounds had a full page of text, take a look at Sailor on pg 139 for example), to a single generalised paragraph along with a "narratively" uninspiring package of mandatory mechanical benefits that stereotype that background (sticking with sailors; they're all tavern brawlers with telescopes, got it). It is such a stark contraction in written guidance in what can be quite a meaningful narrative choice in a roleplaying game, that it's a little surprising to me how little guidance is provided in this section about that narrative choice. The art is beautiful, but it does take up half of the page count and doesn't replace the effectiveness or weight of the written guidance offered in the 2014 book. I think this lack of narrative support hurts new players, which in a book heralded to be new player friendly; feels a little odd.
This was, imo, too streamlined.
Despite my opinion of the lack of substance in this section; for my group's taste, there are just too many mechanical things bundled into that single Background choice (ASI, Tool prof., x2 Skills, O. Feat) and so after a chat with my players, we'll be unbundling all of it. None of my players want anything to do with the standard backgrounds as written in the new PHB. We've instead agreed on the following: Make up any background your imagination can come up with - call it what you like, choose a tool proficiency that makes sense to that background (or anachronistically not if you've got a better idea), then choose 2 skills your class doesn't have and finally pick an Origin Feat (as there are only 10 at the moment, hardly an onerous task). And as for the Ability Score increase; choose any 2 and add +2/+1 or choose any 3 and add +1/+1/+1.
As an aside: A player in my group did the birthday problem maths for the likelihood of choosing the same background. With 16 backgrounds, the chance of 2 players picking the same one is: 4 players (32%); 5 players (48%); 6 players (62%). This is of course higher with fewer backgrounds in the 2014 edition (w/o supplements), but one would also have to pick the same race, same free 1st level feat choice* and same background in the 2014 rules to have the same mechanical overlap as another player making the same background choice in 2024 (*obviously no free feat unless your character was also human in 2014's rules). As a group, this feels quite odd to us – how readily this might occur, with many agreeing that in a Session 0 (if we were to use the new backgrounds as written) they'd be be motivated to choose different backgrounds from other players, regardless of optimal class combinations or pre-existing narrative concepts — just so as to not mechanically overlap as much with another player. I don't think that's very good design in a game where players (usually) want to be their own character with few to little overlap in skills and abilities of another player in the group.
Thanks OP for the topic. I came here looking to post the same and ended up reading the entire thread before putting my thoughts to words.
Honestly, I think you are 100% right, but in the end, I think the reason for the design choice was simply to be more streamlined. For better or worse that was the call.
It's not a completely noticeable design choice, but the Revised Players Handbook has no optional rules in it at all anymore. All rules in the Players Handbook are core, standard rules. Every D&D game that plays RAW using the Players Handbook will be mechanically identical. I think this was a conscious design choice and I think they didn't want to have the more complex (design your own) backgrounds as a standard rule and they didn't want any optional rules in the PHB, so the result is you get the standard backgrounds in the PHB and the optional rules in the DMG.
It actually kind of makes a lot of sense from an organizational, editing and design perspective. I'm not saying it's good or bad, mainly because I'm like you, if I don't like a rule, I change it. There is nothing unusual or unexpected about that, every D&D group not only can but absolutely should change the rules to fit their preferences, this is one of the oldest traditions in the game.
2. It is relevant. Because one of his points about how THAC0 was "bad game design" was that higher numbers are better representatives of better numbers. Do you hate reading so much you can't even be bothered to read what would have provided you the context for why I mentioned roll under systems?
Higher numbers are in fact better in roll-under systems. Higher die rolls are not, but, for example, in BRP a skill of 84% is better than a skill of 43%.
What you call "objectively bad design" some prefer. Not me personally. But some do. Many still play earlier editions or variations on them that use descending AC. Because they prefer this. Short of your showing us your game design credentials you aren't going to convince me yours is a head wiser than those who first developed the game least of all than those of those whose who prefer it. Your subjective view is not objective reality.
There is absolutely no question that Monte Cook and Tweet Williams had more RPG experience than the original designers of D&D, for the simple reason that it wasn't possible to have more than a couple of years experience at the time original D&D was written, and moving D&D to a 'roll and add vs a target number' wasn't a new thing they came up with, it's a thing people had been experimenting with in other game systems for years. It really comes down to the types of math humans do easily, and how human intuition works.
First, the way THAC0 is computed is unintuitive, because bonuses are inverted: a +2 magic weapon is actually -2 THAC0. This isn't actually hard math... but it's opposite to people's intuition for how things should work. The same applies to armor bonuses. In 3.0 and above, +x really is addition.
Secondly, THAC0 requires you to do subtraction, and often results in dealing with negative numbers. For example, if you're attacking a target with unknown AC
In AD&D2e, you start with your THAC0, and subtract 1d20 -- i.e. if you have a THAC0 of 10 and you roll an 11, you hit an AC of (10 - 11) = -1.
In D&D 3e, you start with your attack bonus, and add 1d20 -- i.e. if you have an attack bonus of +10 and you roll an 11, you hit an AC of (10+11) = 21.
To a computer, these are both the same number of operations, but humans are (a) worse at subtraction than addition, and (b) don't handle negative numbers well.
I have said it wasn't as intuitive as ascending AC. And done so more than once. The math however was so simple children could pick up the game and play. I won't be as harsh as someone else who said those who struggle to wrap their heads around THAC0 are "dum" but neither would I trust them to do my taxes.
I said that and it was self deprecating humor as I misspelled a couple words to make myself the butt of the joke.
It’s not a problem because you are all on the same page. Min/maxing is only a problem when you’re the only one who wants to play that way at a table full of people who don’t and vice versa. Like I clearly stated at the end of the passage you quoted.
FWIW, “role in the party” does not necessarily mean combat capabilities. Talking to people is not combat. Sneaking is not combat. Having the answers to the party’s knowledge related questions is not combat. Finding and disabling traps is not combat. Opening locks is not combat. Tracking people or monsters is not combat. There’s all kinds of things a character can be expected to do that have nothing to with combat but are a part of telling a good story.
Insisting that min/maxers are obsessed with combat is nothing but a strawman. I’m not sure what you even think role play is when all you do is keep referring to stats. Stats don’t define who your character is as a person. What kind of childhood they had does, how they deal with conflict, their relationship preferences, how educated they are, what their favourite foods are, whether they are a cat or dog person and other such things do actually define a personality and make people individuals. I have no idea what my stats are. You have no idea what your stats are. No person on the planet knows what their stats are yet we all have personalities—how can stats possibly define personalities??
Correct. It is only a problem when it is going to cause some friction at the table. Hence why I have said repeatedly I don't care if people like to play that way. I have simply said it is disallowed AT SOME TABLES. And people began to protest just a little too much. As if it's "not fair" that every table in the universe won't accommodate their preferred playstyle.
It doesn't "necessarily" mean how effective the character will be in combat. But let's be serious. Show me a rogue of yours who is primarily about thief-like abilities. One who isn't equipped with a Finesse weapon and a high DEX to ensure they hit and damage things as efficiently as any fighter. Show me a wizard of yours who is primarily equipped with utility spells and isn't capable of spamming damage every round. I'll wait.
Min maxing or powergaming or call it what you want has a history. You can't just pretend criticisms of the approach arose out of nowhere. That tables who disallow it are just "not fair." When even the bloody Wikipedia page about it is far from flattering you might ask yourself if you're being just a little too defensive and refusing to understand the actual criticisms.
As I asked someone else:
But would you ever play a character who has a reasonably low non-dump stat to reflect any physical impediment (DEX say) the character might have or aging (CON) or illness (CON)? Would you not call it shortsighted of a player to refuse to ever do such a thing because that player cares more about how optimal their performance will be in combat?
You can have a 100-page backstory for your character. But you are still prioritizing rules over the spirit of the rules and homogenizing characters in term of physical and mental prowess in pursuit of optimal performance over possibilities of characterization and story.
Min and max. Knock yourself out. But it is what it is. You don't get to redefine it to defend it.
EDIT: Notice how in most editions of the game rolling ability scores is the first step in character creation? When it was 3d6 in order there was no bringing a concept to the table and a four-page backstory in tow. You rolled your ability scores. Then and only then did you decide your class. You then gave some thought to any ability scores that were quite low and what that might mean—not just be like Well I have a [ ] DEX but actually use what pulses between your ears to wonder why that wizardisn't the most nimble of people like perhaps he is corpulent or clumsy—and gave some thought to uncharacteristically high ability scores—not just be like Well my fighter has a really high INT but again use what pulses between your ears to wonder why someone who might have had a career in the academy or pursued the arcane arts instead chose a life of fighting.
Which is to say things like "What kind of childhood they had," et cetera, et cetera, were conceived with all the creativity and spontaneity of a good storyteller.
You know what this meant?
It meant people could come to a game and roll up a character and within moments breathe life into it.
It was a method that was much more conducive to introducing newcomers to the hobby. 1. They didn't have to read the rules. (Many of us back then didn't even own a copy of the rules. Because it only took one of us—typically the DM—to do so and a whole group of friends could play.) 2. I can think of few things more off-putting for a new player than having someone telling them they are making a "bad" character because the character they are making isn't putting the numbers in the optimal position or picking the optimal weapon or choosing the optimal spells and so on and so on. It is one thing for a player to want to build the "perfect" character for themselves. But their ruining the experience for others is something far too many tables had to witness.
And it was in and of itself a skill. Being able to come up with a character on the spot. Games today like DCC and ShadowDark require this skill. But so is min maxing. A skill. I will grant it that much. But personally—as a writer—I find it much more rewarding to be someone capable of producing a fun and interesting character within a matter of moments than learning the rules back to front and basically trying to "beat" the DM.
Not that you’ll believe me but my singular wizard was a half orc who did not have Int as their highest stat. (I don’t care for wizards—never have). I do like rogues though and have played Str rogues and Int rogues over the years, that is to say rogues whose highest stat and main focus was not dexterity. Was this by chance, I just used the dice as they fell, or was this by choice? You don’t know. You have no way of knowing by simply looking at the character sheet. Because I don’t play a jumble of numbers on a piece of paper and, since the method by which I assign my stats has no bearing on who the character is as a person or how I play them, the answer would change nothing on my end. As soon as I told you though, you would make pronouncements regarding my creativity, or lack thereof, based upon how I settled on low Dex, as you have continually done in post after post in this thread.
Do you think that an artist who approaches their work with pre-conceived idea of what they want to create is somehow not creative? Only the ones who begin with a completely blank mind and allow the materials to “speak” to them are creative? Do you really imagine that artists never plan ahead?? Not all do but having and following a plan for what they want to create doesn’t diminish the fact that they are being creative and that they are creating something! Chucking paint at the canvas didn’t make Jackson Pollock more creative or a better artist than any of the masters who blocked out their painting beforehand and applied their paint with brushes, it just made him different.
I wish they had just "borrowed" from Pathfinder and said you get a choice of +1 from your species, a choice of +1 from your class (solving the "my [x] needs a 16 in [y] problem), and a choice of +1 from your background.
I wish they had just "borrowed" from Pathfinder and said you get a choice of +1 from your species, a choice of +1 from your class (solving the "my [x] needs a 16 in [y] problem), and a choice of +1 from your background.
This is a fantastic solution. I think I still prefer the ASIs coming from class but the above is a very good compromise, and seems to allow for a maximum of creativity and flexibility.
Many systems are roll under. In case you need another reminder why your suggestion higher numbers just make more sense to be representative of better numbers—not to mention again how rankings number things [...]THAC0 ain't at all as intuitive as ascending AC. But the reasons you provided for why it is "bad game design" are not at all convincing.
"Not as intuitive" is quite sufficient on its own to make it bad design when there is no systemic reason to do it that way.
Now, why is it not as intuitive? Because, as I actually said (as one of several reasons), we associate bigger numbers with more. More armor. More magic. More defense.
"Bigger numbers imply better", which isn't the argument I made, is also largely the case. (I'm less confident in its broad applicability cross-culturally, but still think it's pretty likely.) The only good counterargument I've noticed you give is ordered rankings, where the fixed point of the system is "the best", and there's an arbitrary number of lower places. Ranking systems are an extremely atypical way of doing RPG mechanics. I'm not prepared to claim there's only one, but only because there's probably a number of games whose initial design impetus was "What if Amber, but with mechanics?" But setting up an AC system so that there is a single, best, armor class would definitely be a choice.
Roll-under systems are usually, likely always, a case of "bigger numbers are better". They're roll-under because the relevant number is not the roll, but the character's ability. Now, they usually have lower is better on the die roll, but there are systemic reasons for that -- it's easier to work with a fixed point for comparisons. When your skill goes up and down due to modifiers, 01-05 crit is a lot easier to figure than "between current skill - 5 and current skill".
(The only exception I can immediately think of (Unknown Armies 1st ed) has unusual secondary dice mechanics that may have made "as high as possible but not over" a better choice for them.)
The reason original D&D used the increasing AC is "first class armor", "second class armor", etc, where first class is the best, is a standard terminology. It's just that it breaks if you ever have anything better than first class.
The reason original D&D used the increasing AC is "first class armor", "second class armor", etc, where first class is the best, is a standard terminology. It's just that it breaks if you ever have anything better than first class.
I don't think I've ever seen that explanation before, but it's not implausible.
Which doesn't mean they shouldn't have tossed it by the point they reached "+1 armor makes your AC go down".
I'd always assumed it was systemic hangover (there was a mechanical reason, but they changed the mechanic, and decided it was better for them to leave it that way than go back and change it everywhere).
Backgrounds have gone from being presented as really nice open ended questions, sparking ideas about your character's backstory in the 2014 PHB (many of the backgrounds had a full page of text, take a look at Sailor on pg 139 for example), to a single generalised paragraph along with a "narratively" uninspiring package of mandatory mechanical benefits that stereotype that background (sticking with sailors; they're all tavern brawlers with telescopes, got it).
This was, imo, too streamlined.
Despite my opinion of the lack of substance in this section; for my group's taste, there are just too many mechanical things bundled into that single Background choice (ASI, Tool prof., x2 Skills, O. Feat) and so after a chat with my players, we'll be unbundling all of it. None of my players want anything to do with the standard backgrounds as written in the new PHB.
I think you hit on some things here that I really agree with and hadn't quite put to words. The backgrounds seem to be tied up with too much mechanics. In other words, even if I _liked_ the concept that background forces some tradeoffs: it's too many eggs in one basket. Picking one background decides several mechanical paths all at once. And so, yeah, those who like one aspect of, say, the Sailor? Those people are going to have much more overlap than they would if those mechanics were not bundled together.
I've talked earlier about how disappointed I was at a table where my character struggled to be as effective at his role than others who had taken advantage of synergies, etc. Another aspect of that is simply uniqueness. I avoid at all costs making a character who does very similar things to other characters. The new backgrounds seems like its going to create more overlap.
And, yeah, the lack of narrative prompts for the backgrounds is fairly disappointing.
2. It is relevant. Because one of his points about how THAC0 was "bad game design" was that higher numbers are better representatives of better numbers. Do you hate reading so much you can't even be bothered to read what would have provided you the context for why I mentioned roll under systems?
Higher numbers are in fact better in roll-under systems. Higher die rolls are not, but, for example, in BRP a skill of 84% is better than a skill of 43%.
Higher the ability score. But not what you roll. And lest I remind you almost universally the number 1 does tend to rank as what is best.
I am not making a case for the return of descending AC. I find ascending AC superior and much more intuitive than I do descending AC. I simply find it absurd for someone who claims to be an award-winning game designer to "argue" that THAC0 is "objectively bad game design" and to "argue" this point by saying high numbers represent better numbers cross-culturally when this is simply not true and that it was "bad" because it did not match the way other things in the game worked—a charge that can leveled against 5th. Edition provided magic no longer has a singular streamlined rule but different ones for different types of even just arcane spellcasters—and the math was "hard" when it was no such thing and there no "no reason" to do it that way. These are not "arguments" for why it is "bad" any more than people's personal grievances about 5th. is proof infallible that it is "bad."
It’s not a problem because you are all on the same page. Min/maxing is only a problem when you’re the only one who wants to play that way at a table full of people who don’t and vice versa. Like I clearly stated at the end of the passage you quoted.
FWIW, “role in the party” does not necessarily mean combat capabilities. Talking to people is not combat. Sneaking is not combat. Having the answers to the party’s knowledge related questions is not combat. Finding and disabling traps is not combat. Opening locks is not combat. Tracking people or monsters is not combat. There’s all kinds of things a character can be expected to do that have nothing to with combat but are a part of telling a good story.
Insisting that min/maxers are obsessed with combat is nothing but a strawman. I’m not sure what you even think role play is when all you do is keep referring to stats. Stats don’t define who your character is as a person. What kind of childhood they had does, how they deal with conflict, their relationship preferences, how educated they are, what their favourite foods are, whether they are a cat or dog person and other such things do actually define a personality and make people individuals. I have no idea what my stats are. You have no idea what your stats are. No person on the planet knows what their stats are yet we all have personalities—how can stats possibly define personalities??
Correct. It is only a problem when it is going to cause some friction at the table. Hence why I have said repeatedly I don't care if people like to play that way. I have simply said it is disallowed AT SOME TABLES. And people began to protest just a little too much. As if it's "not fair" that every table in the universe won't accommodate their preferred playstyle.
It doesn't "necessarily" mean how effective the character will be in combat. But let's be serious. Show me a rogue of yours who is primarily about thief-like abilities. One who isn't equipped with a Finesse weapon and a high DEX to ensure they hit and damage things as efficiently as any fighter. Show me a wizard of yours who is primarily equipped with utility spells and isn't capable of spamming damage every round. I'll wait.
Min maxing or powergaming or call it what you want has a history. You can't just pretend criticisms of the approach arose out of nowhere. That tables who disallow it are just "not fair." When even the bloody Wikipedia page about it is far from flattering you might ask yourself if you're being just a little too defensive and refusing to understand the actual criticisms.
As I asked someone else:
But would you ever play a character who has a reasonably low non-dump stat to reflect any physical impediment (DEX say) the character might have or aging (CON) or illness (CON)? Would you not call it shortsighted of a player to refuse to ever do such a thing because that player cares more about how optimal their performance will be in combat?
You can have a 100-page backstory for your character. But you are still prioritizing rules over the spirit of the rules and homogenizing characters in term of physical and mental prowess in pursuit of optimal performance over possibilities of characterization and story.
Min and max. Knock yourself out. But it is what it is. You don't get to redefine it to defend it.
EDIT: Notice how in most editions of the game rolling ability scores is the first step in character creation? When it was 3d6 in order there was no bringing a concept to the table and a four-page backstory in tow. You rolled your ability scores. Then and only then did you decide your class. You then gave some thought to any ability scores that were quite low and what that might mean—not just be like Well I have a [ ] DEX but actually use what pulses between your ears to wonder why that wizardisn't the most nimble of people like perhaps he is corpulent or clumsy—and gave some thought to uncharacteristically high ability scores—not just be like Well my fighter has a really high INT but again use what pulses between your ears to wonder why someone who might have had a career in the academy or pursued the arcane arts instead chose a life of fighting.
Which is to say things like "What kind of childhood they had," et cetera, et cetera, were conceived with all the creativity and spontaneity of a good storyteller.
You know what this meant?
It meant people could come to a game and roll up a character and within moments breathe life into it.
It was a method that was much more conducive to introducing newcomers to the hobby. 1. They didn't have to read the rules. (Many of us back then didn't even own a copy of the rules. Because it only took one of us—typically the DM—to do so and a whole group of friends could play.) 2. I can think of few things more off-putting for a new player than having someone telling them they are making a "bad" character because the character they are making isn't putting the numbers in the optimal position or picking the optimal weapon or choosing the optimal spells and so on and so on. It is one thing for a player to want to build the "perfect" character for themselves. But their ruining the experience for others is something far too many tables had to witness.
And it was in and of itself a skill. Being able to come up with a character on the spot. Games today like DCC and ShadowDark require this skill. But so is min maxing. A skill. I will grant it that much. But personally—as a writer—I find it much more rewarding to be someone capable of producing a fun and interesting character within a matter of moments than learning the rules back to front and basically trying to "beat" the DM.
Not that you’ll believe me but my singular wizard was a half orc who did not have Int as their highest stat. (I don’t care for wizards—never have). I do like rogues though and have played Str rogues and Int rogues over the years, that is to say rogues whose highest stat and main focus was not dexterity. Was this by chance, I just used the dice as they fell, or was this by choice? You don’t know. You have no way of knowing by simply looking at the character sheet. Because I don’t play a jumble of numbers on a piece of paper and, since the method by which I assign my stats has no bearing on who the character is as a person or how I play them, the answer would change nothing on my end. As soon as I told you though, you would make pronouncements regarding my creativity, or lack thereof, based upon how I settled on low Dex, as you have continually done in post after post in this thread.
Do you think that an artist who approaches their work with pre-conceived idea of what they want to create is somehow not creative? Only the ones who begin with a completely blank mind and allow the materials to “speak” to them are creative? Do you really imagine that artists never plan ahead?? Not all do but having and following a plan for what they want to create doesn’t diminish the fact that they are being creative and that they are creating something! Chucking paint at the canvas didn’t make Jackson Pollock more creative or a better artist than any of the masters who blocked out their painting beforehand and applied their paint with brushes, it just made him different.
To answer your series of questions: No. Of course many artists plan. And the works of many of them are among the most beautiful we will ever see. I personally just find it a sign of greater proficiency at what one does when one needn't. You could be the best song writer in the universe and have ten Grammies on your mantelpiece for popular tunes you have written that will remain among the most beloved of songs for centuries to come. And that's no small thing. It too is a skill in and of itself. But if you can't get up on stage and play that guitar of yours along with other musicians with whom have never before played and without having had to rehearse with them you are not the most proficient of guitar players. It is that simple. You could write the most memorable bass lines in human history. But that doesn't make you Geddy Lee.
I believe you. And I thank you for sharing.
It doesn't really answer my question though: would you ever play a character who has a reasonably low non-dump stat to reflect any physical impediment (DEX say) the character might have or aging (CON) or illness (CON)?
A wizard whose INT is "not their highest" ability score or a rogue for whom DEX isn't theirs isn't really what I am getting at. It's not min maxing at least.
What I am talking about is playing a fighter whose CON is not even above average or even average.
An array someone else in this thread rolled saw them having to play a fighter with a 14 STR and a 6 CON. And they said this was "unplayable." It isn't. It is like I have said a seed for some good characterization and story. A veteran. A warrior who is sickly for due to something in its past.
Many systems are roll under. In case you need another reminder why your suggestion higher numbers just make more sense to be representative of better numbers—not to mention again how rankings number things [...]THAC0 ain't at all as intuitive as ascending AC. But the reasons you provided for why it is "bad game design" are not at all convincing.
"Not as intuitive" is quite sufficient on its own to make it bad design when there is no systemic reason to do it that way.
Now, why is it not as intuitive? Because, as I actually said (as one of several reasons), we associate bigger numbers with more. More armor. More magic. More defense.
"Bigger numbers imply better", which isn't the argument I made, is also largely the case. (I'm less confident in its broad applicability cross-culturally, but still think it's pretty likely.) The only good counterargument I've noticed you give is ordered rankings, where the fixed point of the system is "the best", and there's an arbitrary number of lower places. Ranking systems are an extremely atypical way of doing RPG mechanics. I'm not prepared to claim there's only one, but only because there's probably a number of games whose initial design impetus was "What if Amber, but with mechanics?" But setting up an AC system so that there is a single, best, armor class would definitely be a choice.
Roll-under systems are usually, likely always, a case of "bigger numbers are better". They're roll-under because the relevant number is not the roll, but the character's ability. Now, they usually have lower is better on the die roll, but there are systemic reasons for that -- it's easier to work with a fixed point for comparisons. When your skill goes up and down due to modifiers, 01-05 crit is a lot easier to figure than "between current skill - 5 and current skill".
(The only exception I can immediately think of (Unknown Armies 1st ed) has unusual secondary dice mechanics that may have made "as high as possible but not over" a better choice for them.)
"There is no reason to do it" is not an argument for why something is bad. They had their reasons. Or it wouldn't have been designed that way in the first place. It did not begin with THAC0. It began with those tables that predate THAC0. THAC0 simplified that process. You act as if one day someone sat down and just dreamed up THAC0. No. It was a system put in place to replace one that meant a lot of consulting tables. That older system but for the page-turning made perfect sense. And recently reading OLD-SCHOOL ESSENTIALS which uses it I see nothing wrong with it. It provides more variation in characters' capabilities in combat. With fighters actually being better at it. As they would be. Not having a wizard as proficient as a fighter at wielding at weapon both are permitted to use. "There was no reason to do it"? There was. But I am sure you can think of an infinite number of things you do in any given day you needn't do. All "bad" by virtue of this?
5th. Edition suffers from some of the most terrible decisions in modern game design. What I have just said among them. Making combat so streamlined a wizard can now wield a staff just as proficiently as a fighter. It streamlines things. makes things simpler. But it is not what I would call good game design. It's lazy game design.
I don't think I've ever seen that explanation before, but it's not implausible.
Never seen that explanation before? I practically gave it earlier in the thread. Mentioning rankings with 1 being better than 2 and so on. A point I had made you kept ignoring to sustain your mantra about how such "bad game design" it was and how there was "no reason" for it.
Backgrounds have gone from being presented as really nice open ended questions, sparking ideas about your character's backstory in the 2014 PHB (many of the backgrounds had a full page of text, take a look at Sailor on pg 139 for example), to a single generalised paragraph along with a "narratively" uninspiring package of mandatory mechanical benefits that stereotype that background (sticking with sailors; they're all tavern brawlers with telescopes, got it).
This was, imo, too streamlined.
Despite my opinion of the lack of substance in this section; for my group's taste, there are just too many mechanical things bundled into that single Background choice (ASI, Tool prof., x2 Skills, O. Feat) and so after a chat with my players, we'll be unbundling all of it. None of my players want anything to do with the standard backgrounds as written in the new PHB.
I think you hit on some things here that I really agree with and hadn't quite put to words. The backgrounds seem to be tied up with too much mechanics. In other words, even if I _liked_ the concept that background forces some tradeoffs: it's too many eggs in one basket. Picking one background decides several mechanical paths all at once. And so, yeah, those who like one aspect of, say, the Sailor? Those people are going to have much more overlap than they would if those mechanics were not bundled together.
I've talked earlier about how disappointed I was at a table where my character struggled to be as effective at his role than others who had taken advantage of synergies, etc. Another aspect of that is simply uniqueness. I avoid at all costs making a character who does very similar things to other characters. The new backgrounds seems like its going to create more overlap.
And, yeah, the lack of narrative prompts for the backgrounds is fairly disappointing.
As with most things 5e, the solution is to separate the mechanics from the flavor
If you want a character with a nautical background but don't want to be "a brawler with a telescope", then find a background with a package you like, and re-name/re-flavor it. The Artisan background could easily be a Ship's Carpenter background, for instance, or you could turn Guard into Sailor Who Spent a Lot of Time In the Crow's Nest
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
5th. Edition suffers from some of the most terrible decisions in modern game design. What I have just said among them. Making combat so streamlined a wizard can now wield a staff just as proficiently as a fighter.
What?
In 5e, a staff (quarterstaff) is wielded with Strength. Most wizards, even with simple weapons proficiency (which appears to be what you are complaining about), will have a lower STR than most fighters. They will not be as proficient. (Though, they could use the new True Strike cantrip to essentially attack with INT...but that's a magic spell built explicitly for that now.)
Edit: not to mention extra attacks, weapon mastery, and all the other class/subclass features fighters get that make them better with weapons...
"There is no reason to do it" is not an argument for why something is bad. They had their reasons.
Oh? What were they?
And note that I'm talking about mechanical reasons. Historical reasons explain how they got there, but they do not actually make the mechanic better.
If you go back and rewrite old D&D so that AC goes up, literally nothing changes. The numbers go up. That's it. No part of the system changes for the better or worse, except that AC is now more intuitive.
That's why I say "there's no reason to do it".
Are there mechanics that could justify it? Sure, but D&D didn't have them, and it'd be a weird mechanic where turning it around couldn't be done. ("We complicated the simple calculation to simplify the complex one" would be a reason.)
Or it wouldn't have been designed that way in the first place. It did not begin with THAC0.
The only time I recall mentioning THAC0 here was to comment that it was backported to the extant system, and also that you could do a THAC0-style calculation for any linear system.
5th. Edition suffers from some of the most terrible decisions in modern game design.
I mean, it's got some bad decisions, but it's reasonably good at what it sets out to do. It also wasn't a modern design ten years ago, and wasn't trying to be. Also, the baggage required by the goal of "be a D&D" probably precludes modern design.
I don't think I've ever seen that explanation before, but it's not implausible.
Never seen that explanation before? I practically gave it earlier in the thread. Mentioning rankings with 1 being better than 2 and so on. A point I had made you kept ignoring to sustain your mantra about how such "bad game design" it was and how there was "no reason" for it.
If you'd ever heard that explanation before, you'd've been arguing it with vigor. And it's still a historical reason why it ended up that way.
Original D&D is both a revolutionary invention and also a mess of a system with lots of bad, questionable, and just plain weird design decisions. Many can be explained by the fact that they were way out in uncharted territory. We've learned a lot since then, and some of the choices that may have made sense at the time turn out to have been bad. They also may well have known some of them were bad at the time, but they didn't have a better idea. Once they started publishing, the choices they made get inertia. They may be bad, but that doesn't mean it's worth the discontinuity of fixing them.
Also, for somebody who wrote:
You will get no such "impassioned defense" from me. I think ascending AC is a thing of beauty.
As with most things 5e, the solution is to separate the mechanics from the flavor
If you want a character with a nautical background but don't want to be "a brawler with a telescope", then find a background with a package you like, and re-name/re-flavor it. The Artisan background could easily be a Ship's Carpenter background, for instance, or you could turn Guard into Sailor Who Spent a Lot of Time In the Crow's Nest
I agree that you can always replace whatever flavor you want, for the most part. I love coming up with stuff like that. But I think my specific gripe here was about the _bundling of mechanics_.
If two players want the Tough origin feat, no matter what their classes and species are, they will both end up boosting approximately the same stats (str, con, wis) and get the same skill and tool prof. It's not the end of the world, but bundling those things together makes several choices all at once. To some, that's an interesting and generally sensible tradeoff; to me, it's bad design because it takes choices away from me necessarily. (And that was how I felt when stat increases were bundled with species mechanics.)
As with most things 5e, the solution is to separate the mechanics from the flavor
If you want a character with a nautical background but don't want to be "a brawler with a telescope", then find a background with a package you like, and re-name/re-flavor it. The Artisan background could easily be a Ship's Carpenter background, for instance, or you could turn Guard into Sailor Who Spent a Lot of Time In the Crow's Nest
I agree that you can always replace whatever flavor you want, for the most part. I love coming up with stuff like that. But I think my specific gripe here was about the _bundling of mechanics_.
If two players want the Tough origin feat, no matter what their classes and species are, they will both end up boosting approximately the same stats (str, con, wis) and get the same skill and tool prof. It's not the end of the world, but bundling those things together makes several choices all at once. To some, that's an interesting and generally sensible tradeoff; to me, it's bad design because it takes choices away from me necessarily. (And that was how I felt when stat increases were bundled with species mechanics.)
In a lot of ways, this is what the DM Guild is for. You have a lot of very creative people who are creating and posting stuff all the time. At the end of the day what is in the Players Handbook so far as options go, be it Backgrounds, Species, Classes, Sub-Classes or even core rules are just one players house rules, one designers "version" of Dungeons and Dragons.
The concept of "official D&D" or "Official published"... These are just marketing ploys that allow Wizards of the Coast to charge 60 bucks for something that really isn't worth a whole lot more than the stuff you buy for pennies on the dollar on the DM Guild. In fact, I find that most of the fan made stuff is far superior to anything Wizards of the Coasts comes up with.
Yes, it's good to have a base game, a core set of rules that we all use as the basis for our games, it gives it structure and organization and that is important. This is why we all buy the Players Handbook. But in the end if you don't like something about the game and you're not up for designing something yourself, you have a literal treasure trove of highly creative people publishing amazing alternatives. The amount of options for the game is basically infinite, think of something you need and odds are someone has not only already created it, but it's highly likely to be far better than anything Wizards of the Coast can come up with as it's not tethered to old sacred cows or bound by some design philosophy.
People's sense that the official rules are the only legitimate option is the result of extremely good marketing, but it's a completely false sense of security. Chris Perkins is not a better game designer than the hundreds of fans out there who play this game religiously and create content. I'm 100% certain I have more practical experience designing for Dungeons and Dragons than 90% of the people that work at Wizards of the Coast simply by the fact that most of these people weren't even born when I was creating for D&D.
If there is something you don't like about 5e, go to the DM guild and start searching. It's a magical resource.
As with most things 5e, the solution is to separate the mechanics from the flavor
If you want a character with a nautical background but don't want to be "a brawler with a telescope", then find a background with a package you like, and re-name/re-flavor it. The Artisan background could easily be a Ship's Carpenter background, for instance, or you could turn Guard into Sailor Who Spent a Lot of Time In the Crow's Nest
I agree that you can always replace whatever flavor you want, for the most part. I love coming up with stuff like that. But I think my specific gripe here was about the _bundling of mechanics_.
If two players want the Tough origin feat, no matter what their classes and species are, they will both end up boosting approximately the same stats (str, con, wis) and get the same skill and tool prof. It's not the end of the world, but bundling those things together makes several choices all at once. To some, that's an interesting and generally sensible tradeoff; to me, it's bad design because it takes choices away from me necessarily. (And that was how I felt when stat increases were bundled with species mechanics.)
There are limited combinations right now, yeah, but I expect that will cease to be an issue soon enough, especially if the PHB backgrounds are just the equivalent of sample/starter packs
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
As with most things 5e, the solution is to separate the mechanics from the flavor If you want a character with a nautical background but don't want to be "a brawler with a telescope", then find a background with a package you like, and re-name/re-flavor it. The Artisan background could easily be a Ship's Carpenter background, for instance, or you could turn Guard into Sailor Who Spent a Lot of Time In the Crow's Nest.
Absolutely true. One can do this for every single of those background options; file off the name and reflavour it to suit your backstory to make every kind of "Sailor". But why stop there? For my table we see the issue in the picking of a package that forces unwanted mechanical options that don't reinforce the fantasy of the character one is building. It's as if, a package is only a single example of how that background could be represented mechanically in the sweeping vistas of one's imagination (#not all sailors) and even if you replace the name of Guard with Crow's Nest Watchman, even then those preselected bundled features are still perhaps a little off to what's in the player's head ("I don't want a deck of cards as my tool, thanks"), and so... just don't stick to just the 16 printed backgrounds: use them as examples of what one could do, follow the mechanical template and Build Your Own.
I agree that you can always replace whatever flavor you want, for the most part. I love coming up with stuff like that. But I think my specific gripe here was about the _bundling of mechanics_.
100% this. It's hugely fun to come up with a backstory/concept and build your character as mechanically as one can to reflect that. That's the fantasy right. :)
As an example of Build Your Own that one of my players came up with:
Background: Ship's cook Ability Scores: Charisma, Dexterity, Intelligence(her class/species choice is Sorcerer Rock Gnome so she's looking to be good in her primary casting stat (and Persuasion), be a little more dextrous but also a little smart from mixing all those ingredients and eventually for the Arcana skill she'll be taking; so +1/+1/+1) Feat: Cook(Just like Musician: but instead of needing a musical instrument, it's food related... think "Pocket Bacon") -> she'll most likely take the Chef general feat at level 4 as cooking is in her character's blood. Skill Proficiencies: Acrobatics and Perception (she liked these choices from Sailor as she definitely scrambled deftly around on the ship and Perception is useful everywhere) Tool Proficiency: Cook's Utensils
Her backstory involves being raised aboard a privateer ship, too small as a gnome child to be a deckhand she was placed in the galley to help the cook. She never learnt how to sail or navigate the boat herself, keeping her focus on helping the ship's cook keep the crew happily fed, but being a Rock Gnome gave her a natural ability to tinker and make little clockworks from odds and ends collected off of pirates that she created that kept food warm, kept a pot stirred or measured out spoonfuls of whatever. The ship's cook found these little inventions delightfully helpful over the years and so, promised to teach her everything he knew about cooking; which admittedly wasn't all that much. Life at sea was both brutal and beautiful, work as a privateer meant chasing down the worst of the seas for coin and glory, introducing ideas of both violence and honour. Her teen years pass, and in her twenties she eventually replaced the ship's cook. She would've stayed on that boat forever, but fate had other plans. In her last voyage, in the middle of the ocean, a sudden dark magical storm sprang up, a huge whirlpool opened and the ship was entirely swallowed. She only remembers snatches of that bluey-green watery gyre before blackness. She woke up alone, washed up on a beach hundreds of miles away unharmed... no sign of the vessel or her crew... but with new Sorcerous Powers (she plans to take the Aberrant subclass as something in the deep has touched her mind and may have a mission for her...). She has only recently gotten her life back together on land before meeting the party.
These choices are not going to break the game. Moreover, these are all her choices... so she's attached to this character and we haven't even had a session yet. And hey, to be fair... this doesn't suggest that a player cannot find one of the 16 backgrounds to be a perfect fit in every mechanical decision and not be inspired to write a paragraph of fluff that makes them excited to play, totally — but, I would suggest that allowing them to make their own (even if they don't) would always allow them to have their mechanical features match their head canon, and bonus: not match anyone else's. As an exercise we did go through all the backgrounds to see if there was anything that could mechanically represent what was in her head... and the only thing that perfectly fit were the skill proficiencies of Sailor.
The disappointment doesn't come from having to do this, the player had tons of fun fitting the mechanical pieces together with their fluff. Even asking if they could repurpose Musician as she liked the effect of the feat, but didn't see herself with 3 musical instruments (In her words: "My hot pan is my instrument and I'm a nurturer!") and I thought that was great. The fluff came first though, then the mechanics followed.
Instead, the disappointment of backgrounds as written in the PHB comes from the design direction not being "Build Your Own" as standard, instead suggesting to players (especially to brand new players) "Take one off the shelf, it's easier. Here's a bunch of mechanics, fit your fluff around it." Sure, it is easier, but it's (arguably) not as much fun nor as tailored to a specific backstory. I'd go as far to say that the efficiency gain is not only not worth it, I think it's detrimental; this is exactly where you want a little design friction to slow down your players to think a little more on their background/backstory and then pay that off by allowing them to select each mechanical bit that make sense of their fluff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rule for drama. Roll for memories. If there isn't a meaningful failure condition, do not roll. Ever. (Perception checks, I'm .... clunk, roll, roll, roll, stop... 14, looking at you... maybe?)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Honestly, I think you are 100% right, but in the end, I think the reason for the design choice was simply to be more streamlined. For better or worse that was the call.
It's not a completely noticeable design choice, but the Revised Players Handbook has no optional rules in it at all anymore. All rules in the Players Handbook are core, standard rules. Every D&D game that plays RAW using the Players Handbook will be mechanically identical. I think this was a conscious design choice and I think they didn't want to have the more complex (design your own) backgrounds as a standard rule and they didn't want any optional rules in the PHB, so the result is you get the standard backgrounds in the PHB and the optional rules in the DMG.
It actually kind of makes a lot of sense from an organizational, editing and design perspective. I'm not saying it's good or bad, mainly because I'm like you, if I don't like a rule, I change it. There is nothing unusual or unexpected about that, every D&D group not only can but absolutely should change the rules to fit their preferences, this is one of the oldest traditions in the game.
Higher numbers are in fact better in roll-under systems. Higher die rolls are not, but, for example, in BRP a skill of 84% is better than a skill of 43%.
I said that and it was self deprecating humor as I misspelled a couple words to make myself the butt of the joke.
Not that you’ll believe me but my singular wizard was a half orc who did not have Int as their highest stat. (I don’t care for wizards—never have). I do like rogues though and have played Str rogues and Int rogues over the years, that is to say rogues whose highest stat and main focus was not dexterity. Was this by chance, I just used the dice as they fell, or was this by choice? You don’t know. You have no way of knowing by simply looking at the character sheet. Because I don’t play a jumble of numbers on a piece of paper and, since the method by which I assign my stats has no bearing on who the character is as a person or how I play them, the answer would change nothing on my end. As soon as I told you though, you would make pronouncements regarding my creativity, or lack thereof, based upon how I settled on low Dex, as you have continually done in post after post in this thread.
Do you think that an artist who approaches their work with pre-conceived idea of what they want to create is somehow not creative? Only the ones who begin with a completely blank mind and allow the materials to “speak” to them are creative? Do you really imagine that artists never plan ahead?? Not all do but having and following a plan for what they want to create doesn’t diminish the fact that they are being creative and that they are creating something! Chucking paint at the canvas didn’t make Jackson Pollock more creative or a better artist than any of the masters who blocked out their painting beforehand and applied their paint with brushes, it just made him different.
I wish they had just "borrowed" from Pathfinder and said you get a choice of +1 from your species, a choice of +1 from your class (solving the "my [x] needs a 16 in [y] problem), and a choice of +1 from your background.
This is a fantastic solution. I think I still prefer the ASIs coming from class but the above is a very good compromise, and seems to allow for a maximum of creativity and flexibility.
"Not as intuitive" is quite sufficient on its own to make it bad design when there is no systemic reason to do it that way.
Now, why is it not as intuitive? Because, as I actually said (as one of several reasons), we associate bigger numbers with more. More armor. More magic. More defense.
"Bigger numbers imply better", which isn't the argument I made, is also largely the case. (I'm less confident in its broad applicability cross-culturally, but still think it's pretty likely.) The only good counterargument I've noticed you give is ordered rankings, where the fixed point of the system is "the best", and there's an arbitrary number of lower places. Ranking systems are an extremely atypical way of doing RPG mechanics. I'm not prepared to claim there's only one, but only because there's probably a number of games whose initial design impetus was "What if Amber, but with mechanics?" But setting up an AC system so that there is a single, best, armor class would definitely be a choice.
Roll-under systems are usually, likely always, a case of "bigger numbers are better". They're roll-under because the relevant number is not the roll, but the character's ability. Now, they usually have lower is better on the die roll, but there are systemic reasons for that -- it's easier to work with a fixed point for comparisons. When your skill goes up and down due to modifiers, 01-05 crit is a lot easier to figure than "between current skill - 5 and current skill".
(The only exception I can immediately think of (Unknown Armies 1st ed) has unusual secondary dice mechanics that may have made "as high as possible but not over" a better choice for them.)
The reason original D&D used the increasing AC is "first class armor", "second class armor", etc, where first class is the best, is a standard terminology. It's just that it breaks if you ever have anything better than first class.
I don't think I've ever seen that explanation before, but it's not implausible.
Which doesn't mean they shouldn't have tossed it by the point they reached "+1 armor makes your AC go down".
I'd always assumed it was systemic hangover (there was a mechanical reason, but they changed the mechanic, and decided it was better for them to leave it that way than go back and change it everywhere).
I think you hit on some things here that I really agree with and hadn't quite put to words. The backgrounds seem to be tied up with too much mechanics. In other words, even if I _liked_ the concept that background forces some tradeoffs: it's too many eggs in one basket. Picking one background decides several mechanical paths all at once. And so, yeah, those who like one aspect of, say, the Sailor? Those people are going to have much more overlap than they would if those mechanics were not bundled together.
I've talked earlier about how disappointed I was at a table where my character struggled to be as effective at his role than others who had taken advantage of synergies, etc. Another aspect of that is simply uniqueness. I avoid at all costs making a character who does very similar things to other characters. The new backgrounds seems like its going to create more overlap.
And, yeah, the lack of narrative prompts for the backgrounds is fairly disappointing.
Higher the ability score. But not what you roll. And lest I remind you almost universally the number 1 does tend to rank as what is best.
I am not making a case for the return of descending AC. I find ascending AC superior and much more intuitive than I do descending AC. I simply find it absurd for someone who claims to be an award-winning game designer to "argue" that THAC0 is "objectively bad game design" and to "argue" this point by saying high numbers represent better numbers cross-culturally when this is simply not true and that it was "bad" because it did not match the way other things in the game worked—a charge that can leveled against 5th. Edition provided magic no longer has a singular streamlined rule but different ones for different types of even just arcane spellcasters—and the math was "hard" when it was no such thing and there no "no reason" to do it that way. These are not "arguments" for why it is "bad" any more than people's personal grievances about 5th. is proof infallible that it is "bad."
To answer your series of questions: No. Of course many artists plan. And the works of many of them are among the most beautiful we will ever see. I personally just find it a sign of greater proficiency at what one does when one needn't. You could be the best song writer in the universe and have ten Grammies on your mantelpiece for popular tunes you have written that will remain among the most beloved of songs for centuries to come. And that's no small thing. It too is a skill in and of itself. But if you can't get up on stage and play that guitar of yours along with other musicians with whom have never before played and without having had to rehearse with them you are not the most proficient of guitar players. It is that simple. You could write the most memorable bass lines in human history. But that doesn't make you Geddy Lee.
I believe you. And I thank you for sharing.
It doesn't really answer my question though: would you ever play a character who has a reasonably low non-dump stat to reflect any physical impediment (DEX say) the character might have or aging (CON) or illness (CON)?
A wizard whose INT is "not their highest" ability score or a rogue for whom DEX isn't theirs isn't really what I am getting at. It's not min maxing at least.
What I am talking about is playing a fighter whose CON is not even above average or even average.
An array someone else in this thread rolled saw them having to play a fighter with a 14 STR and a 6 CON. And they said this was "unplayable." It isn't. It is like I have said a seed for some good characterization and story. A veteran. A warrior who is sickly for due to something in its past.
"There is no reason to do it" is not an argument for why something is bad. They had their reasons. Or it wouldn't have been designed that way in the first place. It did not begin with THAC0. It began with those tables that predate THAC0. THAC0 simplified that process. You act as if one day someone sat down and just dreamed up THAC0. No. It was a system put in place to replace one that meant a lot of consulting tables. That older system but for the page-turning made perfect sense. And recently reading OLD-SCHOOL ESSENTIALS which uses it I see nothing wrong with it. It provides more variation in characters' capabilities in combat. With fighters actually being better at it. As they would be. Not having a wizard as proficient as a fighter at wielding at weapon both are permitted to use. "There was no reason to do it"? There was. But I am sure you can think of an infinite number of things you do in any given day you needn't do. All "bad" by virtue of this?
5th. Edition suffers from some of the most terrible decisions in modern game design. What I have just said among them. Making combat so streamlined a wizard can now wield a staff just as proficiently as a fighter. It streamlines things. makes things simpler. But it is not what I would call good game design. It's lazy game design.
Never seen that explanation before? I practically gave it earlier in the thread. Mentioning rankings with 1 being better than 2 and so on. A point I had made you kept ignoring to sustain your mantra about how such "bad game design" it was and how there was "no reason" for it.
As with most things 5e, the solution is to separate the mechanics from the flavor
If you want a character with a nautical background but don't want to be "a brawler with a telescope", then find a background with a package you like, and re-name/re-flavor it. The Artisan background could easily be a Ship's Carpenter background, for instance, or you could turn Guard into Sailor Who Spent a Lot of Time In the Crow's Nest
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
What?
In 5e, a staff (quarterstaff) is wielded with Strength. Most wizards, even with simple weapons proficiency (which appears to be what you are complaining about), will have a lower STR than most fighters. They will not be as proficient. (Though, they could use the new True Strike cantrip to essentially attack with INT...but that's a magic spell built explicitly for that now.)
Edit: not to mention extra attacks, weapon mastery, and all the other class/subclass features fighters get that make them better with weapons...
Oh? What were they?
And note that I'm talking about mechanical reasons. Historical reasons explain how they got there, but they do not actually make the mechanic better.
If you go back and rewrite old D&D so that AC goes up, literally nothing changes. The numbers go up. That's it. No part of the system changes for the better or worse, except that AC is now more intuitive.
That's why I say "there's no reason to do it".
Are there mechanics that could justify it? Sure, but D&D didn't have them, and it'd be a weird mechanic where turning it around couldn't be done. ("We complicated the simple calculation to simplify the complex one" would be a reason.)
The only time I recall mentioning THAC0 here was to comment that it was backported to the extant system, and also that you could do a THAC0-style calculation for any linear system.
I mean, it's got some bad decisions, but it's reasonably good at what it sets out to do. It also wasn't a modern design ten years ago, and wasn't trying to be. Also, the baggage required by the goal of "be a D&D" probably precludes modern design.
If you'd ever heard that explanation before, you'd've been arguing it with vigor. And it's still a historical reason why it ended up that way.
Original D&D is both a revolutionary invention and also a mess of a system with lots of bad, questionable, and just plain weird design decisions. Many can be explained by the fact that they were way out in uncharted territory. We've learned a lot since then, and some of the choices that may have made sense at the time turn out to have been bad. They also may well have known some of them were bad at the time, but they didn't have a better idea. Once they started publishing, the choices they made get inertia. They may be bad, but that doesn't mean it's worth the discontinuity of fixing them.
Also, for somebody who wrote:
You're certainly doing your best to defend it.
I agree that you can always replace whatever flavor you want, for the most part. I love coming up with stuff like that. But I think my specific gripe here was about the _bundling of mechanics_.
If two players want the Tough origin feat, no matter what their classes and species are, they will both end up boosting approximately the same stats (str, con, wis) and get the same skill and tool prof. It's not the end of the world, but bundling those things together makes several choices all at once. To some, that's an interesting and generally sensible tradeoff; to me, it's bad design because it takes choices away from me necessarily. (And that was how I felt when stat increases were bundled with species mechanics.)
In a lot of ways, this is what the DM Guild is for. You have a lot of very creative people who are creating and posting stuff all the time. At the end of the day what is in the Players Handbook so far as options go, be it Backgrounds, Species, Classes, Sub-Classes or even core rules are just one players house rules, one designers "version" of Dungeons and Dragons.
The concept of "official D&D" or "Official published"... These are just marketing ploys that allow Wizards of the Coast to charge 60 bucks for something that really isn't worth a whole lot more than the stuff you buy for pennies on the dollar on the DM Guild. In fact, I find that most of the fan made stuff is far superior to anything Wizards of the Coasts comes up with.
Yes, it's good to have a base game, a core set of rules that we all use as the basis for our games, it gives it structure and organization and that is important. This is why we all buy the Players Handbook. But in the end if you don't like something about the game and you're not up for designing something yourself, you have a literal treasure trove of highly creative people publishing amazing alternatives. The amount of options for the game is basically infinite, think of something you need and odds are someone has not only already created it, but it's highly likely to be far better than anything Wizards of the Coast can come up with as it's not tethered to old sacred cows or bound by some design philosophy.
People's sense that the official rules are the only legitimate option is the result of extremely good marketing, but it's a completely false sense of security. Chris Perkins is not a better game designer than the hundreds of fans out there who play this game religiously and create content. I'm 100% certain I have more practical experience designing for Dungeons and Dragons than 90% of the people that work at Wizards of the Coast simply by the fact that most of these people weren't even born when I was creating for D&D.
If there is something you don't like about 5e, go to the DM guild and start searching. It's a magical resource.
There are limited combinations right now, yeah, but I expect that will cease to be an issue soon enough, especially if the PHB backgrounds are just the equivalent of sample/starter packs
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Absolutely true. One can do this for every single of those background options; file off the name and reflavour it to suit your backstory to make every kind of "Sailor". But why stop there? For my table we see the issue in the picking of a package that forces unwanted mechanical options that don't reinforce the fantasy of the character one is building. It's as if, a package is only a single example of how that background could be represented mechanically in the sweeping vistas of one's imagination (#not all sailors) and even if you replace the name of Guard with Crow's Nest Watchman, even then those preselected bundled features are still perhaps a little off to what's in the player's head ("I don't want a deck of cards as my tool, thanks"), and so... just don't stick to just the 16 printed backgrounds: use them as examples of what one could do, follow the mechanical template and Build Your Own.
100% this. It's hugely fun to come up with a backstory/concept and build your character as mechanically as one can to reflect that. That's the fantasy right. :)
As an example of Build Your Own that one of my players came up with:
Background: Ship's cook
Ability Scores: Charisma, Dexterity, Intelligence (her class/species choice is Sorcerer Rock Gnome so she's looking to be good in her primary casting stat (and Persuasion), be a little more dextrous but also a little smart from mixing all those ingredients and eventually for the Arcana skill she'll be taking; so +1/+1/+1)
Feat: Cook (Just like Musician: but instead of needing a musical instrument, it's food related... think "Pocket Bacon") -> she'll most likely take the Chef general feat at level 4 as cooking is in her character's blood.
Skill Proficiencies: Acrobatics and Perception (she liked these choices from Sailor as she definitely scrambled deftly around on the ship and Perception is useful everywhere)
Tool Proficiency: Cook's Utensils
Her backstory involves being raised aboard a privateer ship, too small as a gnome child to be a deckhand she was placed in the galley to help the cook. She never learnt how to sail or navigate the boat herself, keeping her focus on helping the ship's cook keep the crew happily fed, but being a Rock Gnome gave her a natural ability to tinker and make little clockworks from odds and ends collected off of pirates that she created that kept food warm, kept a pot stirred or measured out spoonfuls of whatever. The ship's cook found these little inventions delightfully helpful over the years and so, promised to teach her everything he knew about cooking; which admittedly wasn't all that much. Life at sea was both brutal and beautiful, work as a privateer meant chasing down the worst of the seas for coin and glory, introducing ideas of both violence and honour. Her teen years pass, and in her twenties she eventually replaced the ship's cook. She would've stayed on that boat forever, but fate had other plans. In her last voyage, in the middle of the ocean, a sudden dark magical storm sprang up, a huge whirlpool opened and the ship was entirely swallowed. She only remembers snatches of that bluey-green watery gyre before blackness. She woke up alone, washed up on a beach hundreds of miles away unharmed... no sign of the vessel or her crew... but with new Sorcerous Powers (she plans to take the Aberrant subclass as something in the deep has touched her mind and may have a mission for her...). She has only recently gotten her life back together on land before meeting the party.
These choices are not going to break the game. Moreover, these are all her choices... so she's attached to this character and we haven't even had a session yet. And hey, to be fair... this doesn't suggest that a player cannot find one of the 16 backgrounds to be a perfect fit in every mechanical decision and not be inspired to write a paragraph of fluff that makes them excited to play, totally — but, I would suggest that allowing them to make their own (even if they don't) would always allow them to have their mechanical features match their head canon, and bonus: not match anyone else's. As an exercise we did go through all the backgrounds to see if there was anything that could mechanically represent what was in her head... and the only thing that perfectly fit were the skill proficiencies of Sailor.
The disappointment doesn't come from having to do this, the player had tons of fun fitting the mechanical pieces together with their fluff. Even asking if they could repurpose Musician as she liked the effect of the feat, but didn't see herself with 3 musical instruments (In her words: "My hot pan is my instrument and I'm a nurturer!") and I thought that was great. The fluff came first though, then the mechanics followed.
Instead, the disappointment of backgrounds as written in the PHB comes from the design direction not being "Build Your Own" as standard, instead suggesting to players (especially to brand new players) "Take one off the shelf, it's easier. Here's a bunch of mechanics, fit your fluff around it." Sure, it is easier, but it's (arguably) not as much fun nor as tailored to a specific backstory. I'd go as far to say that the efficiency gain is not only not worth it, I think it's detrimental; this is exactly where you want a little design friction to slow down your players to think a little more on their background/backstory and then pay that off by allowing them to select each mechanical bit that make sense of their fluff.
Rule for drama. Roll for memories.
If there isn't a meaningful failure condition, do not roll. Ever. (Perception checks, I'm .... clunk, roll, roll, roll, stop... 14, looking at you... maybe?)