Anyone else miss the old "Suggested Personality Traits, Ideals, ...." from 2015?

Imma let you in on a secret.

A lot of new players have a basic idea but need help filling in the gaps. Some of these personality tables helped them come up with fillers for those gaps, even if they don't pick one from the book. The number of times someone went from " i don't know, i don't know" to " I would do the opposite of this" when shown a personality table is in the high double digit from me just teaching the game. That isn't counting the "I would do this except in X circumstances" or times people took a personality from another list.
They weren't stuck just playing themselves with a different name, or going " I don't know, come back to me." or worse "I don't know, maybe i don't even belong in this game" when all they need was a scaffold or starting point for a personality. 

Notice how i am not going into the background features at all. They are often not used at the tables i play at, or used so infrequently as to not matter more than once. There are other reasons that people liked them than just "They give an advantage." The old way had some good starting points, even if I find the new way a little more flexible and to my taste when it comes to mechanics. 
The new way is superior mechanically, but gives less guidance to people trying to figure out a new character. It is what helps keep one Paladin acting different from another even if they are the same oath, and it doesn't take decades of practice making up little people in your head. The Guidence is helpful even when you have been making little people in you mind all your life. Lets you consider new angles. 

I have been playing this game a long time, and i have been teaching it for about half as long, and the new players sometimes need Guidance, and the old way provided it without it coming off like i am writing the character for them, because they get to look at a list and pick then modify. 

We need to do away with this notion that just because someone likes another thing, that it is only because it lets them powergame.

Quote from hollowtpm >>

 

Quote from Lightsmith >>

Again, these were optional, and it's nice to fill out the character. Personality traits, sure, but "flaws" I don't know a lot of players who actually quantify their flaws, rather just RP and maybe a flaw comes out, but they don't even know or have a plan for that. 

As I assumed in the 2014, and suggest now. These would be examples / optional choices. Nothing then involves a requirement, thus "nothing happens when" is not relevant. Just as the "well you're not acting like your alignment" argument people used to make. These have the option to be a guide to your character, they can be a reminder on how to RP your character, so many seem to devolve into "lets do the party quest" thus becoming a reactionary character progression. Secondly, "not acting like your flaw" would represent character development, but a DM could inquire to the player (on the side) if they want to do that knowing what the flaw is. If you make a flaw of "not trusting anyone" (whether you made it up or pulled it from a table) and suddenly you're acting very trustworthy the DM can make sure you want to make that shift, or did the player just forget their character design. The DM could also help progress the narrative so that a change in personality would make sense. i.e. a redemption arc, type thing. 

It seems so many against these tables look at it like they railroad a character, when all they do is offer an option. Honestly, at this point so much has been stripped away that why even have backgrounds in the first place. Why not just give characters the ability to choose 1 "Origin Feat" 
Why have races, when players can make up their own, why have X when players can make up their own. 
This idea of "just make up your own" seems an odd claim when it can be applied to so much in the game that DnD would really have no content. So, you just need the SRT and the rest you can "make up" since SRT includes the game mechanics and that's all that is needed for a structured game.

To me it just seems lazy for a game development aspect. Backgrounds that used to be a page, are just a tiny paragraph, why spend money on that in the first place? It seems more like the Apocalypse system, where 90% if just made up every time. which is also why you don't see a breadth of content for it. It seems like there are people who play DnD who want content but also those who seem resistant to it. Magic Items? no need, just make them up. Enemies, no need, just make them up. 

 If they were so "optional" then why is it a loss they are missing? You can still add flaws, bonds, etc to a sheet. There is still a section for it. Why is it such and issue that they removed the tables, let's be honest here, probably caused more issues by "It's what's on my character sheet" or "I never used the options there" so why continue to waste space in a book.

I never needed a list of random tables to decide how my Sailor background would play out.

 That's a pretty bad argument. Playing a Warlock is "OPTIONAL" but I'm pretty sure everyone would argue it would be loss if removed. 

Also, the options listed are nice jumping off points like "You don't trust people" a player could be like "Oh, that's good, I can incorporate that, but I'll do it this way" 

Having options, that are... optional, is always beneficial imo. People who have issues with it are more likely having issues with a player or DM forcing things using them as an excuse, than the options themselves, imo. 

Similar to what some other folks said, I liked using them as a jumping off point when making new characters. I almost never rolled on the tables. I preferred to pick out one that felt like it fit best with the character I was building. Sometimes if the fit wasn't quite right I would pick one and edit the text to tone it down or amp it up. Or I would cobble two together. I usually found them to be good narrative additions that helped pull together a character concept or inspired me to go in an unexpected direction if I was still trying to figure out the basics of the character. I came up with a handful of my own as well, but they ended up being hyper-specific to those characters.

My only real complaint about the old backgrounds was that the ones in the later books seemed to recycle or rehash the old traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws, if they even had them at all.