Man, I am spending so much of my time lately pissing out forum fires...
I've seen A LOT of confusion surrounding Backgrounds in the new playtest document, most of which revolves around a single hang-up I've seen repeated dozens of times since discussion of this document started up yesterday. Namely, the idea that the named sample backgrounds in the list are intended to be what you use, with only minor tweaks using the 'Customize Your Background' rules immediately preceding them. That much like current/modern 5e, backgrounds are supposed to come pre-packaged from Wizards of the Coast and you're intended to select a background, but if you don't like any of those you can tweak one or even create a whole new one.
This is false.
The intent of the new system is for every single player in D&D 5e 2024 RED to create their own background from scratch. The sample backgrounds given are examples of what players can create with the new rules. They are not truly intended to be generic, everyman things. A common complaint I've seen is "All guards speak Dwarvish now? Bullshit!", which misses the point. The 'Guard' background in the document does not reference every guard. It references your guard. That's why the background blurb is there - it speaks to the specific story of the specific Guard who assembled this background. That Guard knows Dwarvish because dwarves maintained their equipment and they wanted to be able to talk to them in their native tongue.
This same logic applies to every Sample background in the document. They're not describing a class of people, they're describing a specific person. Your background is no longer choosing a generic class of person that you are counted as a member of. Your background is specific to you and your circumstances, tuned to your individual character. Sample backgrounds are provided in the same way that DMs sometimes use pregenerated characters - to get someone into the game more quickly, or for people who can't be assed to think that hard and just want to play already.
Put it this way. The official way in D&D 2024 RED/One D&D to create your character's background is to assign a +2 to a score of your choice and a +1 to another score of your choice, or +1 to three separate scores of your choice. After that, select two skills and gain proficiency in them. Choose a tool to gain proficiency in, and then choose a language you know. Choose your first-level feat, and then acquire equipment up to 50gp in value, retaining any coin you don't spend. This process is supposed to be part of thinking through where your character came from and establishing their story, which in turn helps define Q/I/B/F and what they can call on in terms of pre-existing connections and resources.
Alternatively, as an optional variant rule, you can select one of the provided Sample backgrounds for your character in lieu of stepping through the process yourself.
Whether or not this is what any given player prefers is up to them. There's a legitimate argument to be made for the power of specific backgrounds to inspire stories, and Wizards would be foolish to abandon them entirely. That said, it's also very common for players to create characters that do not fit neatly into one of the game's pre-established generic backgrounds, and a current Custom Background character is often at a disadvantage since they do not gain any gear from their background the way someone else does. Existing Background Features can speak strongly to a given character's story, or they can be absolutely worthless, meaningless nonsense that any reasonable DM would simply give you.
However, in neither case are the Sample backgrounds as given supposed to be utterly inflexible, take-it-or-leave-it etched-in-steel Package Deals. Want to play a guard but have no idea whay your Guard knows Dwarvish? Change your language. Want to play a Laborer who worked in a shipyard instead of being a stonemason? Change your tool proficiency (and probably your language). It's all at your fingertips. Customize, tweak, rejigger, fidget - the system wants you to. Using a completely unmodified sample background should be the exception, not the rule.
Man, I am spending so much of my time lately pissing out forum fires...
I've seen A LOT of confusion surrounding Backgrounds in the new playtest document, most of which revolves around a single hang-up I've seen repeated dozens of times since discussion of this document started up yesterday. Namely, the idea that the named sample backgrounds in the list are intended to be what you use, with only minor tweaks using the 'Customize Your Background' rules immediately preceding them. That much like current/modern 5e, backgrounds are supposed to come pre-packaged from Wizards of the Coast and you're intended to select a background, but if you don't like any of those you can tweak one or even create a whole new one.
This is false.
The intent of the new system is for every single player in D&D 5e 2024 RED to create their own background from scratch. The sample backgrounds given are examples of what players can create with the new rules. They are not truly intended to be generic, everyman things. A common complaint I've seen is "All guards speak Dwarvish now? Bullshit!", which misses the point. The 'Guard' background in the document does not reference every guard. It references your guard. That's why the background blurb is there - it speaks to the specific story of the specific Guard who assembled this background. That Guard knows Dwarvish because dwarves maintained their equipment and they wanted to be able to talk to them in their native tongue.
This same logic applies to every Sample background in the document. They're not describing a class of people, they're describing a specific person. Your background is no longer choosing a generic class of person that you are counted as a member of. Your background is specific to you and your circumstances, tuned to your individual character. Sample backgrounds are provided in the same way that DMs sometimes use pregenerated characters - to get someone into the game more quickly, or for people who can't be assed to think that hard and just want to play already.
Put it this way. The official way in D&D 2024 RED/One D&D to create your character's background is to assign a +2 to a score of your choice and a +1 to another score of your choice, or +1 to three separate scores of your choice. After that, select two skills and gain proficiency in them. Choose a tool to gain proficiency in, and then choose a language you know. Choose your first-level feat, and then acquire equipment up to 50gp in value, retaining any coin you don't spend. This process is supposed to be part of thinking through where your character came from and establishing their story, which in turn helps define Q/I/B/F and what they can call on in terms of pre-existing connections and resources.
Alternatively, as an optional variant rule, you can select one of the provided Sample backgrounds for your character in lieu of stepping through the process yourself.
Whether or not this is what any given player prefers is up to them. There's a legitimate argument to be made for the power of specific backgrounds to inspire stories, and Wizards would be foolish to abandon them entirely. That said, it's also very common for players to create characters that do not fit neatly into one of the game's pre-established generic backgrounds, and a current Custom Background character is often at a disadvantage since they do not gain any gear from their background the way someone else does. Existing Background Features can speak strongly to a given character's story, or they can be absolutely worthless, meaningless nonsense that any reasonable DM would simply give you.
However, in neither case are the Sample backgrounds as given supposed to be utterly inflexible, take-it-or-leave-it etched-in-steel Package Deals. Want to play a guard but have no idea whay your Guard knows Dwarvish? Change your language. Want to play a Laborer who worked in a shipyard instead of being a stonemason? Change your tool proficiency (and probably your language). It's all at your fingertips. Customize, tweak, rejigger, fidget - the system wants you to. Using a completely unmodified sample background should be the exception, not the rule.
This means Backgrounds are poorly presented in one d&d.
I don't know how it could be clearer than a large underlined heading that says sample backgrounds followed immediately by a paragraph explaining they used the rules immediately before them in the document to build them.
Your character’s Background is a collection of characteristics that represent the place and occupation that were most formative for the character before they embarked on a life of adventure. When you choose a Background, you have three options:
• Build a Background by using the rules in the “Build Your Background” section.
• Select a premade Background from the “Sample Backgrounds” section.
• Select a premade Background from the “Sample Backgrounds” section and then customize it with the rules in the “Build Your Background” section.
SAMPLE BACKGROUNDS
Here is a collection of sample Backgrounds that you can choose from when making a character. These Backgrounds were built using the rules in the “Build Your Background” section, and each of them contains story-oriented details that are meant inspire you as you think of your character’s backstory.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Kotath, you've mentioned several times that you don't like the new background system and don't see what it does any differently than existing backgrounds.
May I ask why?
Release 5e provides a framework to customize backgrounds, yes. That framework is not emphasized, nor held up as an equal offering to choosing a generic background and forcing your character to adhere to it. R5e custom backgrounds prevent your character from gaining a single copper piece of Background Equipment and do not permit the use of background features not written in the books. Which is a shame, because background features as written in R5e are useless worthless pointless meaningless nothingburgers that do nothing whatsoever in almost all cases. Notice that almost every challenge I've seen to the idea that R5e "background features" provide absolutely no value is "my Outlander found food for us!" One background providing the means to simply turn off the game's logistics and exploration rules does not make the system good.
R5e discouragees background customization and tuning. The system, as written, expects players to use a fixed generic background and make it work. It allows for customization but does not want the players to do it, and the "custom background" system in the rules is half-baked at best. I contest and challenge your assertion that the new system "doesn't do anything different"; even if that were mechanically true (which it is not), the shift in emphasis is both stark and telling. You're no longer an autere wannabe-thespian jerk for not liking any of the generic backgrounds in the book and wanting to work up your own - you're just a player.
That's a benefit, no matter which way you slice it.
List of Backgrounds in R5e Whose Background Features Are Aggressively Pointless and are Things Any Good DM Should Just F@#$ing Let You Do:
Acolyte (what self-respecting temple is going to turn you away just because you didn't grow up there? Shelter of the Faithful is so piss-miserable it's almost offensive.)
Athlete (You have a 50% chance of being famous enough to earn extremely basic information or shelter by being a famous athlete? No. Bad. Try again.)
Archaeologist (Oh wow, I don't need to roll a history check to know basic f@#$ing history of a place! By Ogden's hammer what value!)
Celebrity Adventurer's Scion (this is LITERALLY saying "the DM might let you use your connections to get minor boons, or they might not". It's not even an actual feature!)
Charlatan ("You have disguises and forged papers letting you pretend to be someone else!" ...I have Disguise and Forgery kit proficiency with this background, I should f@#$ing hope my CHARLATAN can pretend to be someone else.)
City Watch/Investigator ("You know where lawmen and criminals both like to hang out." NOOO! Something I could get through one day's casing the town with a DC 10 at most Investigation check?! Incredible! Such feature! Much value! Wow!)
Clan Crafter (Another in the long, long, long list of background 'features' that say "people who know and like you will know and like you and may possibly help you!" THAT IS NOT A FEATURE THAT'S JUST D&D)
Cloistered Scholar (name me one single time a DM has not allowed players access to a library. One. One time. Nothing? Yeah, me either. Even Mercer let total rubes into the Cobalt Archives, if with supervision.)
Courtier (Another "this 'feature' simply describes what the DM should allow someone to do simply for being this thing" feature. Lovely.)
Criminal ("My criminal knows other criminals and can occasionally talk to them if the DM lets me!" Thrilling. Such feature. Much value. Wow.)
Entertainer (the epitome of "why can't I just do this?" Hell, this 'feature' TAKES AWAY from the player because it removes their ability to describe/declare how they perform! They just get minor room and board without getting to actually perform!)
Faction Agent (this should never have even been a background in the first place.)
Failed Merchant (Acq Inq. is good for a laugh, but bad for providing backgrounds with neaingful 'features'. This is just another "you know people it would make sense for you to know and can occasionally talk to them and maybe get stuff" feature. That's just playing D&D, it doesn't need a goddamn feature)
Far Traveler ("You're a weirdo and people might occasionally think enough of your novelty to throw you a dog biscuit." No. Bad. Try again.)
Feylost (AGAIN, this is something that should just happen if it makes sense for the Feylost character in question.)
Fisher (Almost want to give this one a pass because it at least tries. But it's still "you can do the thing your background says you can do". Fishermen can fish? No! It can't be!)
Folk Hero (Toss a coin to your Witcher, O valley of plenty, O valley of plenty, whooOOooaah!)
Gladiator (Entertainer in a Fight Club guise. Still easily the worst background "feature" in D&D)
Grinner (Sorry Mercer, you don't get a pass for Faction Agent Exandria Style any more than the Sword Coast does)
Guild Artisan/Merchant (holy ****, a background you have to PAY FOR in order to gain the privlege of ****-all! 5gp a month plus the compulsory donation of sums of coin and magical items so the guild can say "sorry, we can't help because the DM wants you to actually play D&D, go adventure now please". This is a pretty damn close contender to Entertainer for Worst Background Feature in D&D, and frankly it might even eclipse it. What an absolutely godawful feature.)
Haunted One (Toss a coin to your Witcher, a friend of humanityyyyy!!)
Investigator (oh wow, your background feature lets you investigate crime?! Who would have EVER guessed?!)
Knight of the Order (another 'people who like you might offer minor, modest help based on liking you!' feature. F@#$ING STOP IT, WIZARDS)
Mercenary Veteran (Mercenaries know mercenary things? Noo! Mercenaries can do mercenary work? YOU'RE AN ADVENTURER, YOU'RE ALREADY DOING MERCENARY WORK)
Noble (Another "I'm an [X], I can do [X] things" background that shouldn't require stating. This is ridiculous.)
Pirate (this one is just not f@#$ing true. DMs will find a way to make you pay for your crimes and actively ignore your background feature telling you they shouldn't, because that's how D&D works.)
Plaintiff ("You can roll Deception checks to try and screw with people." Gee, I'm so glad I picked the one background in all of D&D that allows me to roll Deception checks!)
Rival Intern (Man, Acq. Inq is very bad at this.)
Sage ("You can roll History checks to know things, and if you fail the check you might know where to go to get another chance to roll." Cool. So glad I picked the one background in all of D&D that lets me roll History checks!)
Sailor (I can get on boats and travel? HOLY CRAP, IT'S ALMOST LIKE I SPENT MY WHOLE LIFE DOING THAT AND SHOULD KNOW HOW IT WORKS!)
Soldier (can we PLEASE STOP with the "I'm an [X], I can do [X] things" background features? They're awful, PLEASE.)
Urban Bounty Hunter ("You can talk to people who're related to your profession and they might aid you if you roll well enough or can convince the DM." Well thanks for the permission to play D&D there, Mr. Pointless Background Feature.)
Urchin (at what point does travel time in a city matter, and even when it does, at what point is a DM going to allow a background feature to spoil their fancy Race Through The Streets or whatever else makes travel time through a city actually matter?)
Uthgardt Tribe member ("I'm a member of the Uthgardt Tribes and they will treat me like one." yes...yes, Background Feature, that is indeed what is implied by the name 'Uthgardt Tribe Member'...)
Waterdhavion Noble (Your nobleman can live like a nobleman? HOLY CAPTAIN OBVIOUS, BATMAN!)
Wicthlight Hand ("You joined the circus and have made friends in it while spending your life working there." Well I should bloody well hope so.)
Tell me, Kotath. Why would anyone ever want one of these backgrounds when there's five or six that actually do things? I've played a number of them for story purposes, but man - it's really just super obnoxious to see my Super Special Unique background Feature be "you can do the thing everybody expects you to be able to do and you will receive the expected compensation for it." That is not, and will never be, a "Feature."
List of Backgrounds in R5e Whose Background Features Are Aggressively Pointless and are Things Any Good DM Should Just F@#$ing Let You Do:
Acolyte (what self-respecting temple is going to turn you away just because you didn't grow up there? Shelter of the Faithful is so piss-miserable it's almost offensive.)
Athlete (You have a 50% chance of being famous enough to earn extremely basic information or shelter by being a famous athlete? No. Bad. Try again.)
Archaeologist (Oh wow, I don't need to roll a history check to know basic f@#$ing history of a place! By Ogden's hammer what value!)
Celebrity Adventurer's Scion (this is LITERALLY saying "the DM might let you use your connections to get minor boons, or they might not". It's not even an actual feature!)
Charlatan ("You have disguises and forged papers letting you pretend to be someone else!" ...I have Disguise and Forgery kit proficiency with this background, I should f@#$ing hope my CHARLATAN can pretend to be someone else.)
City Watch/Investigator ("You know where lawmen and criminals both like to hang out." NOOO! Something I could get through one day's casing the town with a DC 10 at most Investigation check?! Incredible! Such feature! Much value! Wow!)
Clan Crafter (Another in the long, long, long list of background 'features' that say "people who know and like you will know and like you and may possibly help you!" THAT IS NOT A FEATURE THAT'S JUST D&D)
Cloistered Scholar (name me one single time a DM has not allowed players access to a library. One. One time. Nothing? Yeah, me either. Even Mercer let total rubes into the Cobalt Archives, if with supervision.)
Courtier (Another "this 'feature' simply describes what the DM should allow someone to do simply for being this thing" feature. Lovely.)
Criminal ("My criminal knows other criminals and can occasionally talk to them if the DM lets me!" Thrilling. Such feature. Much value. Wow.)
Entertainer (the epitome of "why can't I just do this?" Hell, this 'feature' TAKES AWAY from the player because it removes their ability to describe/declare how they perform! They just get minor room and board without getting to actually perform!)
Faction Agent (this should never have even been a background in the first place.)
Failed Merchant (Acq Inq. is good for a laugh, but bad for providing backgrounds with neaingful 'features'. This is just another "you know people it would make sense for you to know and can occasionally talk to them and maybe get stuff" feature. That's just playing D&D, it doesn't need a goddamn feature)
Far Traveler ("You're a weirdo and people might occasionally think enough of your novelty to throw you a dog biscuit." No. Bad. Try again.)
Feylost (AGAIN, this is something that should just happen if it makes sense for the Feylost character in question.)
Fisher (Almost want to give this one a pass because it at least tries. But it's still "you can do the thing your background says you can do". Fishermen can fish? No! It can't be!)
Folk Hero (Toss a coin to your Witcher, O valley of plenty, O valley of plenty, whooOOooaah!)
Gladiator (Entertainer in a Fight Club guise. Still easily the worst background "feature" in D&D)
Grinner (Sorry Mercer, you don't get a pass for Faction Agent Exandria Style any more than the Sword Coast does)
Guild Artisan/Merchant (holy ****, a background you have to PAY FOR in order to gain the privlege of ****-all! 5gp a month plus the compulsory donation of sums of coin and magical items so the guild can say "sorry, we can't help because the DM wants you to actually play D&D, go adventure now please". This is a pretty damn close contender to Entertainer for Worst Background Feature in D&D, and frankly it might even eclipse it. What an absolutely godawful feature.)
Haunted One (Toss a coin to your Witcher, a friend of humanityyyyy!!)
Investigator (oh wow, your background feature lets you investigate crime?! Who would have EVER guessed?!)
Knight of the Order (another 'people who like you might offer minor, modest help based on liking you!' feature. F@#$ING STOP IT, WIZARDS)
Mercenary Veteran (Mercenaries know mercenary things? Noo! Mercenaries can do mercenary work? YOU'RE AN ADVENTURER, YOU'RE ALREADY DOING MERCENARY WORK)
Noble (Another "I'm an [X], I can do [X] things" background that shouldn't require stating. This is ridiculous.)
Pirate (this one is just not f@#$ing true. DMs will find a way to make you pay for your crimes and actively ignore your background feature telling you they shouldn't, because that's how D&D works.)
Plaintiff ("You can roll Deception checks to try and screw with people." Gee, I'm so glad I picked the one background in all of D&D that allows me to roll Deception checks!)
Rival Intern (Man, Acq. Inq is very bad at this.)
Sage ("You can roll History checks to know things, and if you fail the check you might know where to go to get another chance to roll." Cool. So glad I picked the one background in all of D&D that lets me roll History checks!)
Sailor (I can get on boats and travel? HOLY CRAP, IT'S ALMOST LIKE I SPENT MY WHOLE LIFE DOING THAT AND SHOULD KNOW HOW IT WORKS!)
Soldier (can we PLEASE STOP with the "I'm an [X], I can do [X] things" background features? They're awful, PLEASE.)
Urban Bounty Hunter ("You can talk to people who're related to your profession and they might aid you if you roll well enough or can convince the DM." Well thanks for the permission to play D&D there, Mr. Pointless Background Feature.)
Urchin (at what point does travel time in a city matter, and even when it does, at what point is a DM going to allow a background feature to spoil their fancy Race Through The Streets or whatever else makes travel time through a city actually matter?)
Uthgardt Tribe member ("I'm a member of the Uthgardt Tribes and they will treat me like one." yes...yes, Background Feature, that is indeed what is implied by the name 'Uthgardt Tribe Member'...)
Waterdhavion Noble (Your nobleman can live like a nobleman? HOLY CAPTAIN OBVIOUS, BATMAN!)
Wicthlight Hand ("You joined the circus and have made friends in it while spending your life working there." Well I should bloody well hope so.)
Tell me, Kotath. Why would anyone ever want one of these backgrounds when there's five or six that actually do things? I've played a number of them for story purposes, but man - it's really just super obnoxious to see my Super Special Unique background Feature be "you can do the thing everybody expects you to be able to do and you will receive the expected compensation for it." That is not, and will never be, a "Feature."
What if people in a group did not know what those backgrounds were/could do from the name alone?
What if people in a group did not know what those backgrounds were/could do from the name alone?
Most of those backgrounds are, effectively, job titles and/or social stations. "Noble", "Sailor", "Investigator", "Criminal" - those are all common, well-understood roles wherein most folks dialed in enough to play a game of D&D will be able to ascertain what they can/should be able to do. More offbeat stuff like everything in Acq. Inc. is the job of the book that provides it to explain, and specific in-world crap like the SCAG backgrounds are also the job of the book in question to obtain. Effectively, most of the PHB backgrounds are things you know how to do if you're a fantasy nerd (which almost all of us are), and if you and your table don't know what those things are/do? A.,) there's always Google, and B.) the background "features" aren't really going to help.
To be clear: I don't think Wizards should stop providing backgrounds in books, even with this new format. Providing a few sample backgrounds tuned to a given adventure, region, or setting, a'la the Wildspacer and Astral Drifter backgrounds in the Spelljammer book, is a great way to get players and DMs both started while still giving room for more advanced folks to invent their own origins without scorn, censure, or difficulty. Every adventure should come with an example background or two built using the new rules, and every setting book should probably list out half a dozen or more depending on, just to show how characters can be built grounded into that particular setting. Doesn't mean we need to keep shitty awful terrible "your background feature is you're allowed to do your actual job" nonsense.
Game deconstruction mechanics as backgrounds are presented in the playtest are always going to have this problem. Anytime you give people a game editor rather than a game, no one will ever agree on what is or isn't good, what is narratively or mechanically appropriate or not, or sufficiently justifiable or not. Static between the DM of any given game and his players is inevitable with this system.
Character creation rules should never ask a player to design mechanics, it's bad design.
You aren't designing the mechanic in the new way. The mechanic is hard defined, you are defining YOUR character with this mechanic. The old "custom background" was what made you design mechanics because there was no rules for creating or choosing an appropriate feature and there was no rules for background equipment. Your DM had to invent what kind of equipment and pocket cash you started with. Now it is put into mechanics it is made universal.
I'd also like to point out if you really love the idea of the feature from a specific background, the new system does have a built in mechanism to support AND improve it.
Talk to your DM and make it a 'Level 1 Feat'. Now in ALL the cases above, you're going to have to increase their value/capabilities significantly but there are plenty of samples to give you an idea of when too much is too much. Would doing this preemptively for all the background features be overkill and unnecessary? YES! Which is why they didn't do it.
For example.
Sage:Archival System - You have spent time professionally in libraries for years. You can find books and sources without any assistance from the owner or operator.
Mnemonics - as part of a long rest, you sort through your notes and focus your mind. Until your next long rest, you may choose to automatically succeed on any Intelligence based D20 test that involves the History, Religion, Nature, Arcana, or Investigation skill. You may do this a number of times per day equal to your proficiency bonus and you must declare this is done before you roll the dice.
This popped into my head based on the sage background in less than 10 minutes. Is it balanced? No clue. Is it good? Unlikely. Is it a starting spot? Absolutely.
Game deconstruction mechanics as backgrounds are presented in the playtest are always going to have this problem. Anytime you give people a game editor rather than a game, no one will ever agree on what is or isn't good, what is narratively or mechanically appropriate or not, or sufficiently justifiable or not. Static between the DM of any given game and his players is inevitable with this system.
Character creation rules should never ask a player to design mechanics, it's bad design.
You aren't designing the mechanic in the new way. The mechanic is hard defined, you are defining YOUR character with this mechanic. The old "custom background" was what made you design mechanics because there was no rules for creating or choosing an appropriate feature and there was no rules for background equipment. Your DM had to invent what kind of equipment and pocket cash you started with. Now it is put into mechanics it is made universal.
True, its definitely a very minor deconstruction, but it's still very much a sort of lego system where effectively any combinations are possible. The issue I see is that a player will invent a narrative concept and make selections that don't match in a way that the DM is happy with. The selections aren't restricted in any way or governed by any sort rules beyond the basics of selecting anything you want from certain categories which can easily lead to cognitive dissonance. Players are going to want to pick the benefits that give them the abilities they want (their best build), this is natural, DM's are going to want them to pick the abilities that make the most sense for their narrative definition.
Backgrounds aren't like classes, you define them, so there is no archetype or assumption about characters, backgrounds are freeform so the act of writing a background becomes the act of justifying your mechanical selections to the DM.
In a way this is always the case, when it comes to writing backstories.. but when backgrounds are a mechanic where the narrative elements are not defined, I think its going to end up that players will first pick what they want then write a background to justify those selections.
To me, mechanically and narratively you can't have it both ways. If you pick a class for example, the narrative of that class is defined for you by your selection and sub-selection. You want to be a fighter that can cast spells, you must pick fighter and the appropriate sub-class. Your making a choice that comes with a build in narrative definition.
Imagine the deconstruction on classes. If it worked like backgrounds. You would invent the name of your class and then pick from all available class abilities combining them to create a custom class. Then you would have to narratively define that class. To me, this sort of deconstruction is interesting mechanically, but quite a burden in practice.
Which is why samples exist. So both those that want something quick with minor tweaks and those that want something more specific built for their idea can both win. In my head your class is part of your background you had to learn those skills somewhere so if your ASI matches your class skills and your feats and skills match a background idea you should be fine.
Game deconstruction mechanics as backgrounds are presented in the playtest are always going to have this problem. Anytime you give people a game editor rather than a game, no one will ever agree on what is or isn't good, what is narratively or mechanically appropriate or not, or sufficiently justifiable or not. Static between the DM of any given game and his players is inevitable with this system.
Character creation rules should never ask a player to design mechanics, it's bad design.
You aren't designing the mechanic in the new way. The mechanic is hard defined, you are defining YOUR character with this mechanic. The old "custom background" was what made you design mechanics because there was no rules for creating or choosing an appropriate feature and there was no rules for background equipment. Your DM had to invent what kind of equipment and pocket cash you started with. Now it is put into mechanics it is made universal.
True, its definitely a very minor deconstruction, but it's still very much a sort of lego system where effectively any combinations are possible. The issue I see is that a player will invent a narrative concept and make selections that don't match in a way that the DM is happy with. The selections aren't restricted in any way or governed by any sort rules beyond the basics of selecting anything you want from certain categories which can easily lead to cognitive dissonance. Players are going to want to pick the benefits that give them the abilities they want (their best build), this is natural, DM's are going to want them to pick the abilities that make the most sense for their narrative definition.
Backgrounds aren't like classes, you define them, so there is no archetype or assumption about characters, backgrounds are freeform so the act of writing a background becomes the act of justifying your mechanical selections to the DM.
In a way this is always the case, when it comes to writing backstories.. but when backgrounds are a mechanic where the narrative elements are not defined, I think its going to end up that players will first pick what they want then write a background to justify those selections.
To me, mechanically and narratively you can't have it both ways. If you pick a class for example, the narrative of that class is defined for you by your selection and sub-selection. You want to be a fighter that can cast spells, you must pick fighter and the appropriate sub-class. Your making a choice that comes with a build in narrative definition.
Imagine the deconstruction on classes. If it worked like backgrounds. You would invent the name of your class and then pick from all available class abilities combining them to create a custom class. Then you would have to narratively define that class. To me, this sort of deconstruction is interesting mechanically, but quite a burden in practice.
I feel like this comes down to the player is going to know what makes sense for their specific character more than the DM ever will and the DM should butt out. If the player wants to pick from a premade combination of options to get their background, more power to them. If they want to select the individual aspects of their background, more power to them. I legitimately can't think of any actual situation where this type of background could ever be a real problem(especially compared to the previous system), so can you give me a hard example of how this might be a problem?
Which is why samples exist. So both those that want something quick with minor tweaks and those that want something more specific built for their idea can both win. In my head your class is part of your background you had to learn those skills somewhere so if your ASI matches your class skills and your feats and skills match a background idea you should be fine.
In that kind of lay's the crux of the issue. Who decides what's fine? The thing about DMing is that by and large when you do session 0 you set down your adaptations and limitations of the game. This then becomes a combination of all rules, adjusted by the DM's rules. This works because the rules are defined within their own limitations. Meaning that if you say pick Barbarian as a class, your sub-classes are then limited by that selection. You don't have to inform the players that if you pick a Barbarian class, you can't choose a Rogue sub-class.. the rules have their own definitions, limitations and instructions. These boundaries make it possible for a DM to predict and determine what works for their game, what's appropriate, preferable, narratively feasible ..etc.. For example you might eliminate Dwarfs because they don't fit in your setting or remove a Paladin sub-class because you feel its overpowered. As a DM you have that right and most players will respect it.
Backgrounds however have no such boundaries, its effectively a lego set with countless combinations possible and an even more dynamic element that is linked and justified by those choices (aka the description of the background). Now normally backgrounds (written one's without mechanics) are also approved by the DM to a degree, but in this, you are not affecting player's mechanical choices, you are typically fine-tuning narrative elements.
I suspect, though I will grant you testing is needed to prove it, that backgrounds are going to be a problem for DM's mechanically and narratively. There are no limits in this mechanic, its massively expansive and players, being players, are going to find ways to stretch these choices and the narrative inventions to justify them to the irritation of DM's trying to avoid cognitive dissonance.
Furthermore, I suspect and I think I will be proven right that this move towards deconstruction won't end with backgrounds. Races are already pushing in that direction and I think classes will come next.
If you have never played under a deconstructed system, have a look at a system like GURPS. This is the direction One D&D is signaling it's heading with this mechanic.
Again, can we do away with all the vagueness? What options or combination of options are you thinking might be problematic for a DM to handle? Like, give me something to work with other than 'deconstructed systems bad'. Show me an example of the sort of cognitive dissonance you're referring to.
Again, can we do away with all the vagueness? What options or combination of options are you thinking might be problematic for a DM to handle? Like, give me something to work with other than 'deconstructed systems bad'. Show me an example of the sort of cognitive dissonance you're referring to.
I can give you an example of what I would have a problem with, but every DM will have their own personal preferences and objections. That's the thing about deconstructed systems, every GM is going to have their own unique take on what is and isn't ok with some of course being ok with all of it.
To be honest, as a DM that'd give me soooo many ideas. Lemme give you the short and sweet of it. Magical demonic storms on the high seas. Like, it's definitely non-standard, but I could definitely see it working. And more than that, if gives me ideas of weird shit to include in a game that I might not have thought of without it. Honestly, this is the kind of background I think I'd love to see because of that.
Edit: So the long of it for those who might be interested. One of the seas has, for centuries, been ravaged by a constant, dangerous, and almost supernaturally malevolent storm of an arcane/demonic nature. That sea also happens to be between two or more major mercantile/industrial powerhouses, and would make one of the best possible trade routes if it were accessible. Sailors brave and foolish enough to dare to make the trip need to know special rites and rituals to ward off the more lethal aspects of the storms (and the creatures that reside therein), but a successful trip is guaranteed to pay off big. And anyone who might be able to figure out the true origins of the storms, or better yet, stop what is causing them would be sure to go down in history as some of the greatest adventurers to ever live. And likely some of the richest.
Yep, that's pretty awesome. Definitely using this at some point. Gonna make this a sample background for that game too.
The limits are you get a +2/+1 or a triple +1 to ability scores if you didn't gain them from another source, two skill proficiencies, a tool proficiency, a language proficiency, 50gp of Starting Bux to buy your starting equipment with, and a choice of first-level feat. The DM can restrict any of those choices as they see fit, especially the feat. They can impose the same restrictions on starting feat list as they do any other feat list, and if they're not playing with Ye Olden Tymes fixed species ASIs they can impose limits on what a background can do. Beyond the DM being just as able to curate background as they are everything else, backgrounds are also simply not that impactful compared to class. 1DD OPT backgrounds are more impactful than R5e backgrounds, to be sure, but they're still relatively minor boosts. Especially since most of the example first-level feats given are very much "Flavorful things that offer a cool perk" bit rather than heavily mechanically impactful.
Limits are as built in as they were with the old background system. A DM can be as hands on or hands off as they like. 1DD is far, far, far from being as "deconstructed" as GURPS. Frankly it doesn't even compare to stuff like Savage Worlds or Genesys. And one may note that those "deconstructed" systemns, i.e. point builder systems, are increasingly popular these days because they're simply better design than the on-rails restrictive systems of older games. Even when modern games use classes, they tend to allow a lot of point builder-style customizability within those classes to allow players to tailor their character to their liking.
Note: "tailor to their liking" does not always mean munchkinism. Sometimes somebody wants to play something other than a boring overplayed Standard Fantasy Dood trope, but R5e's background system as written doesn't easily allow that. All the PHB backgrounds are Boring Generic Fantasy Dood, and R5e's system for customizing backgrounds is sloppy, slipshod, and also frowned upon by DMs. My rich-girl archaeologist is a fantastic example - most DMs would say I could be a Rich Girl or an Archaeologist but not both, despite that making no bloody sense. Because in terms of Generic Fantasy Dood, there's no Gentleman Adventurer class of wealthy dilletantes - "Money Person" is strictly a Nobleman or a Merchant, neither of which bother with useful job/knowledge skills.
The new system simply lets you slip between the margins more easily, which serves narrative far more than it does munchkinry since the overall impact of the system is both mostly fixed and relatively minor.
Again, can we do away with all the vagueness? What options or combination of options are you thinking might be problematic for a DM to handle? Like, give me something to work with other than 'deconstructed systems bad'. Show me an example of the sort of cognitive dissonance you're referring to.
I can give you an example of what I would have a problem with, but every DM will have their own personal preferences and objections. That's the thing about deconstructed systems, every GM is going to have their own unique take on what is and isn't ok with some of course being ok with all of it.
To be honest, as a DM that'd give me soooo many ideas. Lemme give you the short and sweet of it. Magical demonic storms on the high seas. Like, it's definitely non-standard, but I could definitely see it working. And more than that, if gives me ideas of weird shit to include in a game that I might not have thought of without it. Honestly, this is the kind of background I think I'd love to see because of that.
Oh I don't doubt some DM's wouldn't have a problem with it, some might even like it, I'm just saying, some won't. The issue with the deconstruction is that I don't have any issue with any individual selection here, my issue is with certain combinations and I have no way to predict what combinations will bother me and there are too many combinations possible for me to make a list. Deconstructed mechanics boil down to handling it on a case-by-case basis and players hate that sort of GM fiated approach to having their characters approved which I totally understand.
Inevitably this will create static between me and my players, they won't agree with my objection, I won't like their justifications.
To be fair, it doesn't really matter because those DMs aren't playing those characters. Does it break the game that this character who is a sailor also happens to know Abyssal, and a few cantrips? I highly doubt it. I'm pretty sure there are no combinations of things that you can get from backgrounds that are going to mess up your game so who cares? Let the players have their strange characters. At best I'd ask for a token justification out of curiosity, and even answers like "The character doesn't know why they know X" is perfectly workable. So regardless of what is chosen, none of it is mechanically busted so I don't really see what the problem would be.
You know, the only real difference I am seeing here is that level 1 feat (level 1 power boost) in place of the features, which you consider to be still there because, to you, every character should have them from their background anyway.
Why wouldn't every PC declare their character Nobility with useful, friendly contacts everywhere, giving them authority and free food and lodging everywhere? Oh, and so respected as a craftsman that anything you make is in demand and you have no problems finding markets for anything you might want to sell, friends in both high and low places, never needing to worry about booking passage anywhere, that is always covered for free etc, etc, etc? You seem to be discounting the value of each and every one of these and speaking like they should all be taken for granted.
Sigh.
That's a ridiculous argument and you know it, Kotath. Ludicrous on the face of it. At no point does a tier 1 character have all the benefits of half a dozen backgrounds, nor should they ever. An R5e 'Noble' does not get to be an R5e criminal, and R5e clan crafter, an R5e sailor, and an R5e anything-else. Neither does a 1DD Noble. What you're suggesting is that you need a fixed, predefined Background Feature for every last single job and social station in D&D and nobody can ever be anything BUT those Background Features. By your line of reasoning here it's fundamentally impossible to be a Noble who is descended from a noble family with a strong naval and maritime trade tradition who grew up on both warships and merchant vessels and knows the ins and outs of sailing as well or better than they know the ins and outs of wealth and status. Nope. Can't do it - by BL/Kotath rules you can be a Noble or a Sailor, but there's absolutely no possible way you could ever be a Noble who is also a Sailor and has some-but-not-all traits of both origins. Can't do it. That's Munchkinism, there's no possible narrative justification for it, you just can't do it.
Which, I should hope, is as ridiculous to you as it is to the rest of us, because of bloody course there's noble families who have strong maritime connections/backgrounds that can produce adventurers with a mix of maritime knowledge and experience and noble connections. If you can't fathom the existence of such a critter, I don't know what to tell you.
Oh I don't doubt some DM's wouldn't have a problem with it, some might even like it, I'm just saying, some won't. The issue with the deconstruction is that I don't have any issue with any individual selection here, my issue is with certain combinations and I have no way to predict what combinations will bother me and there are too many combinations possible for me to make a list. Deconstructed mechanics boil down to handling it on a case-by-case basis and players hate that sort of GM fiated approach to having their characters approved which I totally understand.
Inevitably this will create static between me and my players, they won't agree with my objection, I won't like their justifications.
Uhhh...since when? As a player I routinely run ideas by the DM for a game and seek awareness/approval for anything that the DM might need to know for game purposes. That includes origin/background, any ideas for equipment or feats when applicable, even things like languages or aesthetic. I have no interest in playing a character the DM groans at every time she speaks, that sounds like a fantastic way to ruin my game before I even start it. Why would I want to swindle the DM and try to blindside them the way you're describing? it makes no sense at all.
And one may note that those "deconstructed" systemns, i.e. point builder systems, are increasingly popular these days because they're simply better design than the on-rails restrictive systems of older games. Even when modern games use classes, they tend to allow a lot of point builder-style customizability within those classes to allow players to tailor their character to their liking.
Better is subjective, I understand that there are popular deconstructed systems, I just don't like them. I like more restrictive systems that set boundaries, in particular ones where the restrictions (limitations) are built on a narrative premise, it's why I love D&D which notably has stayed away from deconstructed mechanics almost entirely.
What has always been great about D&D is that character generation did not require DM supervision. Players could simply make characters, the rules are clear and concise and you could sleep easy as a DM that the limitations and restrictions in place are governed by the core premise of the game. At least, it used to be more like that, it's less and less with each edition.
Still even with many restrictions lifted in modern editions like 5e, there are still quite a few and it's a very modular system so it's actually quite easy to adjust your restrictions to fit the premise of your game. This background setup is the first time that I have seen that D&D has created a mechanic where a players selections can't be restricted in advance (aka this x class and y class are not allowed) because its deconstructed. Meaning I don't have any issue with any specific element of the mechanic, but I do have issues with various potential combinations of it.
And I think that first part of the crux of the issue. There's nothing actually wrong with what they're doing, you just don't like it and prefer the old way of doing things. The problem with that is that generally, in my experience, most people kinda hate that style of game design and it's why most popular systems have been actively moving away from such things more and more over the years.
Again, can we do away with all the vagueness? What options or combination of options are you thinking might be problematic for a DM to handle? Like, give me something to work with other than 'deconstructed systems bad'. Show me an example of the sort of cognitive dissonance you're referring to.
I can give you an example of what I would have a problem with, but every DM will have their own personal preferences and objections. That's the thing about deconstructed systems, every GM is going to have their own unique take on what is and isn't ok with some of course being ok with all of it.
To be honest, as a DM that'd give me soooo many ideas. Lemme give you the short and sweet of it. Magical demonic storms on the high seas. Like, it's definitely non-standard, but I could definitely see it working. And more than that, if gives me ideas of weird shit to include in a game that I might not have thought of without it. Honestly, this is the kind of background I think I'd love to see because of that.
Oh I don't doubt some DM's wouldn't have a problem with it, some might even like it, I'm just saying, some won't. The issue with the deconstruction is that I don't have any issue with any individual selection here, my issue is with certain combinations and I have no way to predict what combinations will bother me and there are too many combinations possible for me to make a list. Deconstructed mechanics boil down to handling it on a case-by-case basis and players hate that sort of GM fiated approach to having their characters approved which I totally understand.
Inevitably this will create static between me and my players, they won't agree with my objection, I won't like their justifications.
To be fair, it doesn't really matter because those DMs aren't playing those characters. Does it break the game that this character who is a sailor also happens to know Abyssal, and a few cantrips? I highly doubt it. I'm pretty sure there are no combinations of things that you can get from backgrounds that are going to mess up your game so who cares? Let the players have their strange characters. At best I'd ask for a token justification out of curiosity, and even answers like "The character doesn't know why they know X" is perfectly workable. So regardless of what is chosen, none of it is mechanically busted so I don't really see what the problem would be.
My question is why have a one word title for it like that? They clearly are not primarily a sailor. If they were primarily a sailor, one would expect athletics, perhaps acrobatics, navigation...
Languages I am not so picky on. That is what ship they served on or what region they sailed in. They could have been sailing the Styx or something.
And the level 1 feats are purely power creep.
I think that is an example of a non-sensical background.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Man, I am spending so much of my time lately pissing out forum fires...
I've seen A LOT of confusion surrounding Backgrounds in the new playtest document, most of which revolves around a single hang-up I've seen repeated dozens of times since discussion of this document started up yesterday. Namely, the idea that the named sample backgrounds in the list are intended to be what you use, with only minor tweaks using the 'Customize Your Background' rules immediately preceding them. That much like current/modern 5e, backgrounds are supposed to come pre-packaged from Wizards of the Coast and you're intended to select a background, but if you don't like any of those you can tweak one or even create a whole new one.
This is false.
The intent of the new system is for every single player in D&D 5e 2024 RED to create their own background from scratch. The sample backgrounds given are examples of what players can create with the new rules. They are not truly intended to be generic, everyman things. A common complaint I've seen is "All guards speak Dwarvish now? Bullshit!", which misses the point. The 'Guard' background in the document does not reference every guard. It references your guard. That's why the background blurb is there - it speaks to the specific story of the specific Guard who assembled this background. That Guard knows Dwarvish because dwarves maintained their equipment and they wanted to be able to talk to them in their native tongue.
This same logic applies to every Sample background in the document. They're not describing a class of people, they're describing a specific person. Your background is no longer choosing a generic class of person that you are counted as a member of. Your background is specific to you and your circumstances, tuned to your individual character. Sample backgrounds are provided in the same way that DMs sometimes use pregenerated characters - to get someone into the game more quickly, or for people who can't be assed to think that hard and just want to play already.
Put it this way. The official way in D&D 2024 RED/One D&D to create your character's background is to assign a +2 to a score of your choice and a +1 to another score of your choice, or +1 to three separate scores of your choice. After that, select two skills and gain proficiency in them. Choose a tool to gain proficiency in, and then choose a language you know. Choose your first-level feat, and then acquire equipment up to 50gp in value, retaining any coin you don't spend. This process is supposed to be part of thinking through where your character came from and establishing their story, which in turn helps define Q/I/B/F and what they can call on in terms of pre-existing connections and resources.
Alternatively, as an optional variant rule, you can select one of the provided Sample backgrounds for your character in lieu of stepping through the process yourself.
Whether or not this is what any given player prefers is up to them. There's a legitimate argument to be made for the power of specific backgrounds to inspire stories, and Wizards would be foolish to abandon them entirely. That said, it's also very common for players to create characters that do not fit neatly into one of the game's pre-established generic backgrounds, and a current Custom Background character is often at a disadvantage since they do not gain any gear from their background the way someone else does. Existing Background Features can speak strongly to a given character's story, or they can be absolutely worthless, meaningless nonsense that any reasonable DM would simply give you.
However, in neither case are the Sample backgrounds as given supposed to be utterly inflexible, take-it-or-leave-it etched-in-steel Package Deals. Want to play a guard but have no idea whay your Guard knows Dwarvish? Change your language. Want to play a Laborer who worked in a shipyard instead of being a stonemason? Change your tool proficiency (and probably your language). It's all at your fingertips. Customize, tweak, rejigger, fidget - the system wants you to. Using a completely unmodified sample background should be the exception, not the rule.
Please do not contact or message me.
This means Backgrounds are poorly presented in one d&d.
I don't know how it could be clearer than a large underlined heading that says sample backgrounds followed immediately by a paragraph explaining they used the rules immediately before them in the document to build them.
Exactly. For reference:
Feature Requests || Homebrew FAQ || Pricing FAQ || Hardcovers FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
Kotath, you've mentioned several times that you don't like the new background system and don't see what it does any differently than existing backgrounds.
May I ask why?
Release 5e provides a framework to customize backgrounds, yes. That framework is not emphasized, nor held up as an equal offering to choosing a generic background and forcing your character to adhere to it. R5e custom backgrounds prevent your character from gaining a single copper piece of Background Equipment and do not permit the use of background features not written in the books. Which is a shame, because background features as written in R5e are useless worthless pointless meaningless nothingburgers that do nothing whatsoever in almost all cases. Notice that almost every challenge I've seen to the idea that R5e "background features" provide absolutely no value is "my Outlander found food for us!" One background providing the means to simply turn off the game's logistics and exploration rules does not make the system good.
R5e discouragees background customization and tuning. The system, as written, expects players to use a fixed generic background and make it work. It allows for customization but does not want the players to do it, and the "custom background" system in the rules is half-baked at best. I contest and challenge your assertion that the new system "doesn't do anything different"; even if that were mechanically true (which it is not), the shift in emphasis is both stark and telling. You're no longer an autere wannabe-thespian jerk for not liking any of the generic backgrounds in the book and wanting to work up your own - you're just a player.
That's a benefit, no matter which way you slice it.
Please do not contact or message me.
List of Backgrounds in R5e Whose Background Features Are Aggressively Pointless and are Things Any Good DM Should Just F@#$ing Let You Do:
Tell me, Kotath. Why would anyone ever want one of these backgrounds when there's five or six that actually do things? I've played a number of them for story purposes, but man - it's really just super obnoxious to see my Super Special Unique background Feature be "you can do the thing everybody expects you to be able to do and you will receive the expected compensation for it." That is not, and will never be, a "Feature."
Please do not contact or message me.
What if people in a group did not know what those backgrounds were/could do from the name alone?
Most of those backgrounds are, effectively, job titles and/or social stations. "Noble", "Sailor", "Investigator", "Criminal" - those are all common, well-understood roles wherein most folks dialed in enough to play a game of D&D will be able to ascertain what they can/should be able to do. More offbeat stuff like everything in Acq. Inc. is the job of the book that provides it to explain, and specific in-world crap like the SCAG backgrounds are also the job of the book in question to obtain. Effectively, most of the PHB backgrounds are things you know how to do if you're a fantasy nerd (which almost all of us are), and if you and your table don't know what those things are/do? A.,) there's always Google, and B.) the background "features" aren't really going to help.
To be clear: I don't think Wizards should stop providing backgrounds in books, even with this new format. Providing a few sample backgrounds tuned to a given adventure, region, or setting, a'la the Wildspacer and Astral Drifter backgrounds in the Spelljammer book, is a great way to get players and DMs both started while still giving room for more advanced folks to invent their own origins without scorn, censure, or difficulty. Every adventure should come with an example background or two built using the new rules, and every setting book should probably list out half a dozen or more depending on, just to show how characters can be built grounded into that particular setting. Doesn't mean we need to keep shitty awful terrible "your background feature is you're allowed to do your actual job" nonsense.
Please do not contact or message me.
You aren't designing the mechanic in the new way. The mechanic is hard defined, you are defining YOUR character with this mechanic. The old "custom background" was what made you design mechanics because there was no rules for creating or choosing an appropriate feature and there was no rules for background equipment. Your DM had to invent what kind of equipment and pocket cash you started with. Now it is put into mechanics it is made universal.
I'd also like to point out if you really love the idea of the feature from a specific background, the new system does have a built in mechanism to support AND improve it.
Talk to your DM and make it a 'Level 1 Feat'. Now in ALL the cases above, you're going to have to increase their value/capabilities significantly but there are plenty of samples to give you an idea of when too much is too much. Would doing this preemptively for all the background features be overkill and unnecessary? YES! Which is why they didn't do it.
For example.
This popped into my head based on the sage background in less than 10 minutes. Is it balanced? No clue. Is it good? Unlikely. Is it a starting spot? Absolutely.
Which is why samples exist. So both those that want something quick with minor tweaks and those that want something more specific built for their idea can both win. In my head your class is part of your background you had to learn those skills somewhere so if your ASI matches your class skills and your feats and skills match a background idea you should be fine.
I feel like this comes down to the player is going to know what makes sense for their specific character more than the DM ever will and the DM should butt out. If the player wants to pick from a premade combination of options to get their background, more power to them. If they want to select the individual aspects of their background, more power to them. I legitimately can't think of any actual situation where this type of background could ever be a real problem(especially compared to the previous system), so can you give me a hard example of how this might be a problem?
Again, can we do away with all the vagueness? What options or combination of options are you thinking might be problematic for a DM to handle? Like, give me something to work with other than 'deconstructed systems bad'. Show me an example of the sort of cognitive dissonance you're referring to.
To be honest, as a DM that'd give me soooo many ideas. Lemme give you the short and sweet of it. Magical demonic storms on the high seas. Like, it's definitely non-standard, but I could definitely see it working. And more than that, if gives me ideas of weird shit to include in a game that I might not have thought of without it. Honestly, this is the kind of background I think I'd love to see because of that.
Edit: So the long of it for those who might be interested. One of the seas has, for centuries, been ravaged by a constant, dangerous, and almost supernaturally malevolent storm of an arcane/demonic nature. That sea also happens to be between two or more major mercantile/industrial powerhouses, and would make one of the best possible trade routes if it were accessible. Sailors brave and foolish enough to dare to make the trip need to know special rites and rituals to ward off the more lethal aspects of the storms (and the creatures that reside therein), but a successful trip is guaranteed to pay off big. And anyone who might be able to figure out the true origins of the storms, or better yet, stop what is causing them would be sure to go down in history as some of the greatest adventurers to ever live. And likely some of the richest.
Yep, that's pretty awesome. Definitely using this at some point. Gonna make this a sample background for that game too.
Yes, there are.
The limits are you get a +2/+1 or a triple +1 to ability scores if you didn't gain them from another source, two skill proficiencies, a tool proficiency, a language proficiency, 50gp of Starting Bux to buy your starting equipment with, and a choice of first-level feat. The DM can restrict any of those choices as they see fit, especially the feat. They can impose the same restrictions on starting feat list as they do any other feat list, and if they're not playing with Ye Olden Tymes fixed species ASIs they can impose limits on what a background can do. Beyond the DM being just as able to curate background as they are everything else, backgrounds are also simply not that impactful compared to class. 1DD OPT backgrounds are more impactful than R5e backgrounds, to be sure, but they're still relatively minor boosts. Especially since most of the example first-level feats given are very much "Flavorful things that offer a cool perk" bit rather than heavily mechanically impactful.
Limits are as built in as they were with the old background system. A DM can be as hands on or hands off as they like. 1DD is far, far, far from being as "deconstructed" as GURPS. Frankly it doesn't even compare to stuff like Savage Worlds or Genesys. And one may note that those "deconstructed" systemns, i.e. point builder systems, are increasingly popular these days because they're simply better design than the on-rails restrictive systems of older games. Even when modern games use classes, they tend to allow a lot of point builder-style customizability within those classes to allow players to tailor their character to their liking.
Note: "tailor to their liking" does not always mean munchkinism. Sometimes somebody wants to play something other than a boring overplayed Standard Fantasy Dood trope, but R5e's background system as written doesn't easily allow that. All the PHB backgrounds are Boring Generic Fantasy Dood, and R5e's system for customizing backgrounds is sloppy, slipshod, and also frowned upon by DMs. My rich-girl archaeologist is a fantastic example - most DMs would say I could be a Rich Girl or an Archaeologist but not both, despite that making no bloody sense. Because in terms of Generic Fantasy Dood, there's no Gentleman Adventurer class of wealthy dilletantes - "Money Person" is strictly a Nobleman or a Merchant, neither of which bother with useful job/knowledge skills.
The new system simply lets you slip between the margins more easily, which serves narrative far more than it does munchkinry since the overall impact of the system is both mostly fixed and relatively minor.
Please do not contact or message me.
To be fair, it doesn't really matter because those DMs aren't playing those characters. Does it break the game that this character who is a sailor also happens to know Abyssal, and a few cantrips? I highly doubt it. I'm pretty sure there are no combinations of things that you can get from backgrounds that are going to mess up your game so who cares? Let the players have their strange characters. At best I'd ask for a token justification out of curiosity, and even answers like "The character doesn't know why they know X" is perfectly workable. So regardless of what is chosen, none of it is mechanically busted so I don't really see what the problem would be.
Sigh.
That's a ridiculous argument and you know it, Kotath. Ludicrous on the face of it. At no point does a tier 1 character have all the benefits of half a dozen backgrounds, nor should they ever. An R5e 'Noble' does not get to be an R5e criminal, and R5e clan crafter, an R5e sailor, and an R5e anything-else. Neither does a 1DD Noble. What you're suggesting is that you need a fixed, predefined Background Feature for every last single job and social station in D&D and nobody can ever be anything BUT those Background Features. By your line of reasoning here it's fundamentally impossible to be a Noble who is descended from a noble family with a strong naval and maritime trade tradition who grew up on both warships and merchant vessels and knows the ins and outs of sailing as well or better than they know the ins and outs of wealth and status. Nope. Can't do it - by BL/Kotath rules you can be a Noble or a Sailor, but there's absolutely no possible way you could ever be a Noble who is also a Sailor and has some-but-not-all traits of both origins. Can't do it. That's Munchkinism, there's no possible narrative justification for it, you just can't do it.
Which, I should hope, is as ridiculous to you as it is to the rest of us, because of bloody course there's noble families who have strong maritime connections/backgrounds that can produce adventurers with a mix of maritime knowledge and experience and noble connections. If you can't fathom the existence of such a critter, I don't know what to tell you.
Please do not contact or message me.
Uhhh...since when? As a player I routinely run ideas by the DM for a game and seek awareness/approval for anything that the DM might need to know for game purposes. That includes origin/background, any ideas for equipment or feats when applicable, even things like languages or aesthetic. I have no interest in playing a character the DM groans at every time she speaks, that sounds like a fantastic way to ruin my game before I even start it. Why would I want to swindle the DM and try to blindside them the way you're describing? it makes no sense at all.
Please do not contact or message me.
And I think that first part of the crux of the issue. There's nothing actually wrong with what they're doing, you just don't like it and prefer the old way of doing things. The problem with that is that generally, in my experience, most people kinda hate that style of game design and it's why most popular systems have been actively moving away from such things more and more over the years.
I think that is an example of a non-sensical background.