At this point I honestly feel like you're equivocating.
- Do you or do you not think that the character histories presented in the 1DD playtest are meant to be irrelevant to any sort of current in game connections to the people, places, and things mentioned in their histories?
If yes, how do you think a character history should be written to detail current relevance?
If no, then do you see how the background provides ample detail as to the roleplay connections with the world and provides narrative permission to draw upon or affect the world in those respects?
Meant to be irrelevant assumes intent, which assumes they put that level of thought into them. I am highly sceptical that they put that level of thought into them.
And whether formally written or merely discussed between player and DM, I do believe that the current relevance is by definition, currently relevant.
All I am doing is suggesting that there should be some guidance, particularly to new players and new DM's in that regard.
And for the record, with such guidance, I have no problem with reducing the list to only being two or three examples. I see the 1DD list to be not that much different from the current list, an attempt to provide a wide enough cross section so people can avoid the custom background rules and just grab something stock. Even though it could be worded better, the current system does allow full background customization, including of 'features,' which means 'including that discussion with the DM about current relevance of the background above and beyond proficiencies learned from it.'
Ok so your point about the language being in past tense was a non sequitur.
The 1DD rules include guidance on how to make backgrounds connected to the setting and the world. It is written as a conversation with the DM. I think this accomplishes what you're asking, if maybe not in perfect thoroughness.
The samples themselves are written with just a much connection to the world of the DM as the current 5E backgrounds, including the current background features.
You are making disagreeing noises about the playtest, but aren't actually saying anything coherently enough to be any sort of legitimate criticism. You are making arguments for the sake of arguing and they are honestly just silly. I mean come on, remarking as if writing something in past tense detracts from its relevance?
And now you're refusing to even address my point by effectively ignoring it and going back to your thesis. This does not speak well of the strength or coherence of your point. Please try and actually engage with the conversation and not just get defensive and argue just to argue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I think this would be very easily resolved if they just treated the existing background features exactly how they treat for Bonds/Flaws/Personality Traits, since both are completely non-mechanical (in most cases) and serve the same purpose of being there for players/DMs looking for inspiration on how to roleplay.
"Here are some examples of how someone of a certain background could have access to certain abilities and places that others might struggle to reach."
Granted I have no clue how they plan on handling Bonds/Flaws/Personality Traits. I'd personally include them as part of the sample backgrounds, in my opinion it'd probably help reduce confusion on what the D&D sample backgrounds are supposed to be if they all read like premade character sheets anyways.
Adding Contacts as a requisite thing in character creation seems both to general and too specific at the same time. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, but it sits oddly among the rest of the character sheet.
I've always defined Bonds as the people, places, and things that you feel connected to. Wouldn't that work?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
It also seems like a really big hassle to try to list out every single person your character has ever known, unless you're looking for things like 'Everyone in this particular town', 'My entire family', 'All the guards stationed at X outpost during Y time', and be ok with all of that. It legitimately is easier to just say you have contact with who it makes sense for you to have contact with and leave it at that.
Adding Contacts as a requisite thing in character creation seems both to general and too specific at the same time. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, but it sits oddly among the rest of the character sheet.
I've always defined Bonds as the people, places, and things that you feel connected to. Wouldn't that work?
The difference between a bond and a contact is that a bond is someone or something that you are attached to, but it is not necessarily so that they are attached to you too. You might feel a bond to an ex, but they not the same towards you. They may even hate your guts and may even hate your guts even more when you keep showing up to save them, no matter how much danger they were in.
I get that, but Bonds are "people, places, and things I have a connection to and feel strongly about" which is a general classification of relationships, all narratively worthy of story hooks in many different ways; positive, negative, reciprocal and one sided. Why do we need one specific classification only geared toward positive reciprocal relationships?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
A bit of a side note: People I talk to and play with sometimes include culture as a skill, but after giving it some thought I think treating culture a skill is too broad and instead culture should be more like tools. Thus your background/place where your grew up would provide a culture as well as maybe your class and maybe your race and then when the GM gave you one and or if there was a feat that gave culture you could just add it to the list also.
Example: If you grew up in salt marsh as a sailor and you took the background for it, then you would get under the culture section: salt marsh and sailor (maybe defined by sea or area you you sail in because sailors in different seas might have different cultures). The after some adventuring the GM says everyone in the group gets 1/2 proficiency in culture: City A since they spent a lot of time there and had a lot of interaction with the local populace.
The drawbacks I see are: another box on the sheet, another thing to track, may or may not be used by groups (but I do think it would be an easy and helpful tool to those groups who do use culture vs a very broad skill).
It also seems like a really big hassle to try to list out every single person your character has ever known, unless you're looking for things like 'Everyone in this particular town', 'My entire family', 'All the guards stationed at X outpost during Y time', and be ok with all of that. It legitimately is easier to just say you have contact with who it makes sense for you to have contact with and leave it at that.
Note I did not say 'every single person your character has ever known.' No one has so wide a contact list. Even among those you went to high school with who still remember you, how many could you rely on if you needed their help? How many former co-workers? Close relatives, likely but distant ones?
Now among those who could potentially be willing to help you, how many are in any real position to do so in any meaningful way? And even if there are significant numbers, they could likely be condensed down into 'Veterans from my unit' or 'Former shipmates' or 'The Carpenter's Guild.' It shouldn't be that big a list.
Think in terms of regular supporting cast of any given TV series or book series. There are not going to be that many of them. And those mentioned also need not be an exclusive list, just the most prominent two or three, the ones you and the DM know exist and agree exist, right from session 0.
Saying "you have contact with who it makes sense for you to have contact with" is like saying "you have the equipment it makes sense for you to have" and conveniently having whatever equipment you think is useful for plot, on demand. Otherwise, what happens if you say 'I go to my old military unit to replenish my arrow supply' and the DM says 'No?' Or even says 'You mustered out, you no longer have clearance to expect anything from them?' At some point, player and DM have to get on the same page with these things.
Of close friends? Probably most of them tbh. And family, direct blood relation family? All of them, and I've got a pretty big family. And it depends on what you mean by able to help? Able to fight to the death? Not many (but to be fair I don't usually participate in circles where fighting and killing shit is an expectation). Able and willing to provide helpful information regarding things in their circle of knowledge, a place to crash for a bit if times are hard, able to give me a ride somewhere, and things like that? Well the number jumps right back up there. Definitely a lot more than the two or three you seem to be leaning towards. A lot closer to 20 or 30.
And as for equipment, it kind of does that already. Oh sure it has you pick out your starting adventurer equipment, the stuff you carry around with you all day, but do you really think that that is literally all any starting dnd character owns? You still own generally anything that makes sense for you to own, be that a house of your own somewhere, whatever stuff you use to take care of your kids if your character has children, a wagon in a merchant caravan, etc. Like, you didn't think every character was some homeless bum did you?
As for what happens when you go to ask for things, the same thing that happens in real life when your 'contacts' can't provide you with things. 'Sorry man, fresh out of arrows, we used up all the spare ammunition in a training exercise yesterday', or some such. Or hell, let em have them even, they're just arrows, and I've yet to run into a group that legitimately tracks arrow usage when not in some hardcore wilderness survival campaign where you don't have access to much civilization anyways.
I argue that contacts are mechanics. The DM has to have them actually exist for them to matter at all. Same with any ranks, privileges or anything else that continues to provide current benefits deriving from one's background.
To say they are 'just roleplaying' is like saying that anything other than pure combat is 'just roleplaying' as if it is not a real part of the game.
I do agree that they are similar to bonds, but personally I don't like the bonds/flaws/personality traits as they currently are implemented, just because they are presented as 'these are the personality choices' lists.
My personal opinion is that just like personality traits are designed to help new players roleplay their characters, background features are designed to help new DMs roleplay how others react to that character.
In that manner, saying a background feature is mechanical is to me the same thing as saying a personality trait is mechanical because both effects how your character will play in game.
Like, if you're playing a character who has a personality trait where "When [they] set my mind to something, [they] follow through no matter what gets in my way." At some point that will make a difference mechanically, just as much so as if you have a background trait that states that you know someone who can help you find information or jobs will make a difference mechanically.
Edit: I don't have a definite definition of what level of mechanical impact is considered a "mechanic" and what isn't. But for whatever reason character details like traits, bonds, flaws, background, while they have a huge impact on that character, I don't consider them to be mechanics.
I have no opinion on how well the trait table list things are implemented. I don't ever fill those out, I just use them as inspiration sometimes.
It also seems like a really big hassle to try to list out every single person your character has ever known, unless you're looking for things like 'Everyone in this particular town', 'My entire family', 'All the guards stationed at X outpost during Y time', and be ok with all of that. It legitimately is easier to just say you have contact with who it makes sense for you to have contact with and leave it at that.
Note I did not say 'every single person your character has ever known.' No one has so wide a contact list. Even among those you went to high school with who still remember you, how many could you rely on if you needed their help? How many former co-workers? Close relatives, likely but distant ones?
Now among those who could potentially be willing to help you, how many are in any real position to do so in any meaningful way? And even if there are significant numbers, they could likely be condensed down into 'Veterans from my unit' or 'Former shipmates' or 'The Carpenter's Guild.' It shouldn't be that big a list.
Think in terms of regular supporting cast of any given TV series or book series. There are not going to be that many of them. And those mentioned also need not be an exclusive list, just the most prominent two or three, the ones you and the DM know exist and agree exist, right from session 0.
Saying "you have contact with who it makes sense for you to have contact with" is like saying "you have the equipment it makes sense for you to have" and conveniently having whatever equipment you think is useful for plot, on demand. Otherwise, what happens if you say 'I go to my old military unit to replenish my arrow supply' and the DM says 'No?' Or even says 'You mustered out, you no longer have clearance to expect anything from them?' At some point, player and DM have to get on the same page with these things.
Of close friends? Probably most of them tbh. And family, direct blood relation family? All of them, and I've got a pretty big family. And it depends on what you mean by able to help? Able to fight to the death? Not many (but to be fair I don't usually participate in circles where fighting and killing shit is an expectation). Able and willing to provide helpful information regarding things in their circle of knowledge, a place to crash for a bit if times are hard, able to give me a ride somewhere, and things like that? Well the number jumps right back up there. Definitely a lot more than the two or three you seem to be leaning towards. A lot closer to 20 or 30.
And as for equipment, it kind of does that already. Oh sure it has you pick out your starting adventurer equipment, the stuff you carry around with you all day, but do you really think that that is literally all any starting dnd character owns? You still own generally anything that makes sense for you to own, be that a house of your own somewhere, whatever stuff you use to take care of your kids if your character has children, a wagon in a merchant caravan, etc. Like, you didn't think every character was some homeless bum did you?
As for what happens when you go to ask for things, the same thing that happens in real life when your 'contacts' can't provide you with things. 'Sorry man, fresh out of arrows, we used up all the spare ammunition in a training exercise yesterday', or some such. Or hell, let em have them even, they're just arrows, and I've yet to run into a group that legitimately tracks arrow usage when not in some hardcore wilderness survival campaign where you don't have access to much civilization anyways.
Before I continue, I just want to say I am not trying to call anyone out here. I do believe this entire debate to be in good faith, despite some strong opinions floating about.
"Of close friends" feels like a bit of a straw man, since then you get into the question of how many close friends you have. And in particular, you are now going from "Every single person your character has known' to 'every single close friend.' You are no longer even saying 'every friend,' but rather 'every close friend.'
And it might well be that you are very well known and loved to your entire extended family, no matter where they be. Would you have been in the days when you might never have even seen them before due to a lack of internet and much more difficult travel? Plus, even if they are, that can be summarized as 'comes from a large extended family who help each other to the best of their ability, within reason, no matter how distant the relation.'
As for equipment, my point was that you have what you have, be it in equipment or coin. Characters do not normally get to make field purchases on the spot, even if they do spend the coin, without there being any appropriate shop anywhere near.
Arrows were an example. What if it was 'Hey man, can we borrow one of the catapults? We'll bring it right back' or 'We need fresh warhorses. You don't mind, right?'
One of the pluses to this set of new rules is that everyone starts with the same amount of coin, but contacts are also a form of coin. Any contact that will provide material help is effectively additional coin. There is no point to worrying about everyone starting with the same 50 gp to spend on equipment and one character having nothing more than that while another gets to walk over to the local militia day 0 and get a used set of normally expensive armour from them. Or has a house worth several thousand gold or a keep worth tens of thousands. You will have players doing things like 'Well, we are going adventuring, so I sell the house. Not going to be able to look after it while I am gone and may never even be coming back....' This was exactly the kind of issue they were talking about in the video about people looking at the total coin value, choosing the highest and then selling the stuff.
Well since we were talking about me specifically, I only have close friends. I don't do half hearted fair weather friendships, and I'm pretty good at picking people with similar dispositions. So in this particular case, it's the same thing really.
Definitely, because we don't do much in the ways of texting/emailing/etc. anyways. And for the ones that live far away, we don't travel to see each other very often anyways. But you don't have to be in constant contact with someone to be very close to them and to be willing to help them out at the drop of a hat if needs be. That's how family is supposed to be imo, and how mine is. Honestly, I'm getting the feeling that your life experience might be quite different from mine, but that's definitely the kind of environment some people grow up in. And even if it can be summarized as that, that's still definitely more than the 2-3 people you were talking about previously. And if you're just counting that as one group that could still apply to the other groups. Everyone trained as part of X batch of soldiers trained in the Y military. That's another potentially big group of people that could be summarized into a similar category. Same with the other example I gave of 'Everyone from this one particular town'. If we're counting groups as one thing again we start to end up with a lot of people from various walks of life and in various stations, and we get back to my point that this is a roleplay consideration that's probably best handled as such rather than trying to constrain it to some inevitably poorly designed mechanic.
Characters purchase whatever it makes sense for them to purchase, yes. They own whatever it makes sense for them to own.
Let me ask you this. If a player of yours had whatever company they served under as a contact for this proposed mechanic of yours, would you let them have a catapult whenever they asked for it?
Contacts are not a form of coin. Contacts are a roleplay consideration, that works as well and as often as it makes sense to. Unless you're going to tell me it makes sense for your military contact to continually give you military grade siege equipment it really isn't an issue. As for selling things off, guess who controls who is willing to buy stuff and for what price? This is why roleplay considerations are best left to being roleplay considerations. they are pretty much never a problem until you try to tie it down with rules.
It also seems like a really big hassle to try to list out every single person your character has ever known, unless you're looking for things like 'Everyone in this particular town', 'My entire family', 'All the guards stationed at X outpost during Y time', and be ok with all of that. It legitimately is easier to just say you have contact with who it makes sense for you to have contact with and leave it at that.
Note I did not say 'every single person your character has ever known.' No one has so wide a contact list. Even among those you went to high school with who still remember you, how many could you rely on if you needed their help? How many former co-workers? Close relatives, likely but distant ones?
Now among those who could potentially be willing to help you, how many are in any real position to do so in any meaningful way? And even if there are significant numbers, they could likely be condensed down into 'Veterans from my unit' or 'Former shipmates' or 'The Carpenter's Guild.' It shouldn't be that big a list.
Think in terms of regular supporting cast of any given TV series or book series. There are not going to be that many of them. And those mentioned also need not be an exclusive list, just the most prominent two or three, the ones you and the DM know exist and agree exist, right from session 0.
Saying "you have contact with who it makes sense for you to have contact with" is like saying "you have the equipment it makes sense for you to have" and conveniently having whatever equipment you think is useful for plot, on demand. Otherwise, what happens if you say 'I go to my old military unit to replenish my arrow supply' and the DM says 'No?' Or even says 'You mustered out, you no longer have clearance to expect anything from them?' At some point, player and DM have to get on the same page with these things.
Of close friends? Probably most of them tbh. And family, direct blood relation family? All of them, and I've got a pretty big family. And it depends on what you mean by able to help? Able to fight to the death? Not many (but to be fair I don't usually participate in circles where fighting and killing shit is an expectation). Able and willing to provide helpful information regarding things in their circle of knowledge, a place to crash for a bit if times are hard, able to give me a ride somewhere, and things like that? Well the number jumps right back up there. Definitely a lot more than the two or three you seem to be leaning towards. A lot closer to 20 or 30.
And as for equipment, it kind of does that already. Oh sure it has you pick out your starting adventurer equipment, the stuff you carry around with you all day, but do you really think that that is literally all any starting dnd character owns? You still own generally anything that makes sense for you to own, be that a house of your own somewhere, whatever stuff you use to take care of your kids if your character has children, a wagon in a merchant caravan, etc. Like, you didn't think every character was some homeless bum did you?
As for what happens when you go to ask for things, the same thing that happens in real life when your 'contacts' can't provide you with things. 'Sorry man, fresh out of arrows, we used up all the spare ammunition in a training exercise yesterday', or some such. Or hell, let em have them even, they're just arrows, and I've yet to run into a group that legitimately tracks arrow usage when not in some hardcore wilderness survival campaign where you don't have access to much civilization anyways.
Before I continue, I just want to say I am not trying to call anyone out here. I do believe this entire debate to be in good faith, despite some strong opinions floating about.
"Of close friends" feels like a bit of a straw man, since then you get into the question of how many close friends you have. And in particular, you are now going from "Every single person your character has known' to 'every single close friend.' You are no longer even saying 'every friend,' but rather 'every close friend.'
And it might well be that you are very well known and loved to your entire extended family, no matter where they be. Would you have been in the days when you might never have even seen them before due to a lack of internet and much more difficult travel? Plus, even if they are, that can be summarized as 'comes from a large extended family who help each other to the best of their ability, within reason, no matter how distant the relation.'
As for equipment, my point was that you have what you have, be it in equipment or coin. Characters do not normally get to make field purchases on the spot, even if they do spend the coin, without there being any appropriate shop anywhere near.
Arrows were an example. What if it was 'Hey man, can we borrow one of the catapults? We'll bring it right back' or 'We need fresh warhorses. You don't mind, right?'
One of the pluses to this set of new rules is that everyone starts with the same amount of coin, but contacts are also a form of coin. Any contact that will provide material help is effectively additional coin. There is no point to worrying about everyone starting with the same 50 gp to spend on equipment and one character having nothing more than that while another gets to walk over to the local militia day 0 and get a used set of normally expensive armour from them. Or has a house worth several thousand gold or a keep worth tens of thousands. You will have players doing things like 'Well, we are going adventuring, so I sell the house. Not going to be able to look after it while I am gone and may never even be coming back....' This was exactly the kind of issue they were talking about in the video about people looking at the total coin value, choosing the highest and then selling the stuff.
Well since we were talking about me specifically, I only have close friends. I don't do half hearted fair weather friendships, and I'm pretty good at picking people with similar dispositions. So in this particular case, it's the same thing really.
Definitely, because we don't do much in the ways of texting/emailing/etc. anyways. And for the ones that live far away, we don't travel to see each other very often anyways. But you don't have to be in constant contact with someone to be very close to them and to be willing to help them out at the drop of a hat if needs be. That's how family is supposed to be imo, and how mine is. Honestly, I'm getting the feeling that your life experience might be quite different from mine, but that's definitely the kind of environment some people grow up in. And even if it can be summarized as that, that's still definitely more than the 2-3 people you were talking about previously. And if you're just counting that as one group that could still apply to the other groups. Everyone trained as part of X batch of soldiers trained in the Y military. That's another potentially big group of people that could be summarized into a similar category. Same with the other example I gave of 'Everyone from this one particular town'. If we're counting groups as one thing again we start to end up with a lot of people from various walks of life and in various stations, and we get back to my point that this is a roleplay consideration that's probably best handled as such rather than trying to constrain it to some inevitably poorly designed mechanic.
Characters purchase whatever it makes sense for them to purchase, yes. They own whatever it makes sense for them to own.
Let me ask you this. If a player of yours had whatever company they served under as a contact for this proposed mechanic of yours, would you let them have a catapult whenever they asked for it?
Contacts are not a form of coin. Contacts are a roleplay consideration, that works as well and as often as it makes sense to. Unless you're going to tell me it makes sense for your military contact to continually give you military grade siege equipment it really isn't an issue. As for selling things off, guess who controls who is willing to buy stuff and for what price? This is why roleplay considerations are best left to being roleplay considerations. they are pretty much never a problem until you try to tie it down with rules.
I have no trouble believing that the close friends of any given person are close friends. And it may well be that you have an exceptional number of them. And it may well be, that even without the internet, without modern vehicles, without so much as telephones, all your extended family would still know and love you no matter where they be. For your particular example to be relevant, that would have to be the norm.
Even look at most war movies. Most enlisted men are not close friends with everyone in the unit, especially after they muster out. They might be, but it is far more often a plot point that they are not. Because if the veteran has that much support after mustering out, then their is a heck of a lot less room for conflicts they need to overcome.
You similarly seem to be deliberately dodging my point about equipment. Your point on contacts seems to be 'well make it up as you go along.' (and occasionally 'none of it is of any use at all anyway' but we'll get to that in a minute). You do not get to leave the feat blank and choose it later. You do not get to leave the equipment blank and buy things in the middle of the wilderness as you feel the need for them. Why should contacts be any different?
As for the catapult, maybe, depending on circumstances and nature of the contact. At the very least they would have a lot easier time making an argument than if they were a complete stranger or on bad terms with the military. A complete stranger would likely not even get the chance to ask anyone with the authority to grant the request. Someone on bad terms might get beaten.
"Works as well and as often as it makes sense to" applies to every aspect of the game. It makes sense for someone of a given level of martial proficiency to have this chance of landing a damaging blow against someone of a given level of armour and agility. It makes sense for someone of a given level of persuasiveness to have this chance of convincing someone with a given level of stubbornness.
How well one is known and more importantly, liked or respected affects that level of stubbornness.
"Continually give military equipment".... the issue with starting cash was always a one time thing, not 'continually.' However, it was still seen as an issue and rightly so. And yes, maybe the housing market is lousy. Maybe there is no market for used armour. But if so, you know players will be asking "So does this mean we can buy housing cheap?" or "Does this mean we can get serious discounts on used gear purchases?" And then you either agree and suddenly have a very different local economy or throw a completely arbitrary DM fiat and say you do not care if it makes no sense. At which point, why does it matter that much 5e vs 1DnD pdf?
And if contacts never give PC's access to anything of value, then they are not anything I would put in a 'close friends or contacts' category at all. If they do give access to anything of value and a player insists their PC comes from a close knit family spread wide geographically, as well has having a network of 20 to 30 very useful 'close friends' also all willing to support them in tangible, meaningful ways, I would likely simply tell that PC 'no.' And the fact you seem to be suggesting that latter being 'normal' is exactly why I feel this is something that should formally be written up and worked out with the DM. Perhaps that does fit fine with their campaign. Personally, I am sceptical that many DM's would go for that.
Who said anything about leaving it blank? You seem to not be understanding that the way people use backgrounds isn't a blank check. You keep ignoring the part about it applying only if it makes sense. That's a pretty solid qualifier as to when and where it would be appropriate. Literally there are only two questions that a reasonable DM would have to ask themselves, 'Would this make sense?', and 'Would this be interesting?'. That's pretty much all you need to do to handle contacts. You introduce a soldier, the soldier character asks 'Do I know this person?' The DM asks themselves, 'Does it make sense for them to know them?', and 'Would it be interesting if they knew each other?' That's it. If they ask, 'Can I find anyone from my old platoon stationed here?'. 'Would this make sense?', 'Would it be interesting?'. If it wouldn't make sense, or it wouldn't be interesting, you can just say 'No, you don't recognize this particular soldier, or 'Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like anyone you knew from the military is stationed here.' Roleplay considerations handled as roleplay considerations. Simple.
And the way things are portrayed in movies doesn't dictate how an individuals PC is involved in the story. They are the ones who decide what their characters life was like before the game starts (within reason). If they want to have been close with the other members of their military division, then they get to be close with the other members of their military division. If they want to be close to their family who owns a farm, then they're close to their family who owns a farm. And yes, my point is make it up and go along with it, because that's what a background is. Something you make up and go along with. The fictitious back story of a fictitious character that a player creates so that that character can better interact with the fictitious setting that said character exists in.
As for equipment, you are again ignoring the general assumption of 'if it makes sense to have it'. Would it make sense for them to just have an item they didn't have before while in the middle of nowhere? Sure, as long as it makes sense. They pick up a big sturdy stick laying on the ground in a forest and presto, they now have a club. So if they want to leave equipment blank and scavenge shit then it's perfectly acceptable.
Oh, so you're saying that it depends? So it isn't a mechanic. It isn't definite or reliable. It's a roleplay consideration. It's not a hard rule, or something you can depend on, it's just something you feel like makes sense so you'll allow it, essentially doing exactly as I've been saying to do this entire time.
Sure it does. Everything works as well and as often as makes sense. That's the best part of the game. It's what DC's are for. But for the things that make sense being so easy that the chance to fail is fairly nonexistent, the book tells you not to bother rolling for it. So theoretically you could roll for everything under the sun as long as it makes sense for you to be able to do it. You could roll to walk. You could roll to speak. You could roll to wake up. But most of these things are so basic that the book essentially says don't bother rolling because it would bog down the game. This is also one of those things. Don't bother rolling to see if you have a loving family. Don't bother rolling to see how many of your former squad mates like you. Essentially, you don't need mechanics and rules for roleplay mechanics. It has rules for combat resolution, and meaningful skill checks made throughout the game, but most things are indeed left up to make it up and roll with it as long as it makes sense.
You do realize those aren't your only options right? You don't have to pick between two silly answers you don't like. Pick a reasonable answer and move on.
And it depends on what you consider valuable, and what they could reasonably provide. If your family is a bunch of farmers they aren't going to be able to give you a bunch of magic weapons (unless you and the DM find it reasonable that they can). If your friends are a bunch of soldiers actively serving your countries military they aren't going to be able to go off gallivanting with you providing extra muscle (again, unless you and the DM agree otherwise). Your 'contacts' can and should only be able to do what is reasonable for them to be able to do. They're roleplay considerations, and like all roleplay considerations, they only work when it makes sense.
Who said anything about leaving it blank? You seem to not be understanding that the way people use backgrounds isn't a blank check. You keep ignoring the part about it applying only if it makes sense. That's a pretty solid qualifier as to when and where it would be appropriate. Literally there are only two questions that a reasonable DM would have to ask themselves, 'Would this make sense?', and 'Would this be interesting?'. That's pretty much all you need to do to handle contacts. You introduce a soldier, the soldier character asks 'Do I know this person?' The DM asks themselves, 'Does it make sense for them to know them?', and 'Would it be interesting if they knew each other?' That's it. If they ask, 'Can I find anyone from my old platoon stationed here?'. 'Would this make sense?', 'Would it be interesting?'. If it wouldn't make sense, or it wouldn't be interesting, you can just say 'No, you don't recognize this particular soldier, or 'Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like anyone you knew from the military is stationed here.' Roleplay considerations handled as roleplay considerations. Simple.
And the way things are portrayed in movies doesn't dictate how an individuals PC is involved in the story. They are the ones who decide what their characters life was like before the game starts (within reason). If they want to have been close with the other members of their military division, then they get to be close with the other members of their military division. If they want to be close to their family who owns a farm, then they're close to their family who owns a farm. And yes, my point is make it up and go along with it, because that's what a background is. Something you make up and go along with. The fictitious back story of a fictitious character that a player creates so that that character can better interact with the fictitious setting that said character exists in.
As for equipment, you are again ignoring the general assumption of 'if it makes sense to have it'. Would it make sense for them to just have an item they didn't have before while in the middle of nowhere? Sure, as long as it makes sense. They pick up a big sturdy stick laying on the ground in a forest and presto, they now have a club. So if they want to leave equipment blank and scavenge shit then it's perfectly acceptable.
Oh, so you're saying that it depends? So it isn't a mechanic. It isn't definite or reliable. It's a roleplay consideration. It's not a hard rule, or something you can depend on, it's just something you feel like makes sense so you'll allow it, essentially doing exactly as I've been saying to do this entire time.
Sure it does. Everything works as well and as often as makes sense. That's the best part of the game. It's what DC's are for. But for the things that make sense being so easy that the chance to fail is fairly nonexistent, the book tells you not to bother rolling for it. So theoretically you could roll for everything under the sun as long as it makes sense for you to be able to do it. You could roll to walk. You could roll to speak. You could roll to wake up. But most of these things are so basic that the book essentially says don't bother rolling because it would bog down the game. This is also one of those things. Don't bother rolling to see if you have a loving family. Don't bother rolling to see how many of your former squad mates like you. Essentially, you don't need mechanics and rules for roleplay mechanics. It has rules for combat resolution, and meaningful skill checks made throughout the game, but most things are indeed left up to make it up and roll with it as long as it makes sense.
You do realize those aren't your only options right? You don't have to pick between two silly answers you don't like. Pick a reasonable answer and move on.
And it depends on what you consider valuable, and what they could reasonably provide. If your family is a bunch of farmers they aren't going to be able to give you a bunch of magic weapons (unless you and the DM find it reasonable that they can). If your friends are a bunch of soldiers actively serving your countries military they aren't going to be able to go off gallivanting with you providing extra muscle (again, unless you and the DM agree otherwise). Your 'contacts' can and should only be able to do what is reasonable for them to be able to do. They're roleplay considerations, and like all roleplay considerations, they only work when it makes sense.
You say 'Do I know him?' like PC's cannot or should not proactively seek anyone out. Or should have some idea what and whom they know, so they can make informed choices. When you talk to your friends and acquaintances, you do not just randomly pick one, you talk to whom you desire to talk to. And again, negotiating all that with the DM during play is taking time out of the session.
How things are in any given movie or book does not 'dictate' how things are for any given PC, but how things are generally in movies and books is the way it is for a reason. And that 'within reason' is what you keep trying to equivocate around. Why so vehement against there being some discussion of that in character creation? And that 'within reason' applies on both sides. Yes, it can be elaborated on in play. However, the character would have a sense of what circles they have ties with, just as you or I know our lists of friends and family IRL.
Not going to even reply to your other comments.
The DM is the one who chooses where the story takes place. If they choose for it to take place where one of the player characters 'contacts' are then they should be prepared for the players to want to interact with them. If it isn't in a place where they're stated to have someone they know, then you once again come to the questions of does it make sense for them to be there and is it interesting. If you choose yes to both then as a DM you are absolutely allowing it to happen and shouldn't have any complaints.
How things go in movies only matters if that's what the players want to happen in their backstory. Whatever reasons that exist for it to happen in a movie is irrelevant unless the player is interested in that type of trope for their background. And how do you keep misunderstanding my argument so consistently? I've never said there shouldn't be talk at character creation. There should always be talk at character creation. How else do you think anyone knows what anyone elses background even is? What I don't want are a bunch of inevitably terrible hard rules attached to this talk.
In other words you have no argument to them. That's fine.
And I left feedback indicating, in both "Satisfaction" bars and in words, that I didn't even bother engaging with the samples because the custom background system was so much better than being stuck with a prebuilt. We'll see if the majority of players agree with me when this is revisited in the future.
Too bad there won’t be any more ready to select from lists of Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws to choose from anymore. Those were convenient.
I'm reasonably certain those weren't in the document to save space. Remember - this isn't the full intended/planned text from the 1DD PHBe, it's a test document designed to get the core idea out in front of people to monkey with. There will be more written in the PHB than was presented in the OPT document.
And I left feedback indicating, in both "Satisfaction" bars and in words, that I didn't even bother engaging with the samples because the custom background system was so much better than being stuck with a prebuilt. We'll see if the majority of players agree with me when this is revisited in the future.
Yep, pretty much this. Absolutely no one at my table has used them as written. At best I'm personally using what is kind of a heavily modified Artisan.
Too bad there won’t be any more ready to select from lists of Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws to choose from anymore. Those were convenient.
I'm reasonably certain those weren't in the document to save space. Remember - this isn't the full intended/planned text from the 1DD PHBe, it's a test document designed to get the core idea out in front of people to monkey with. There will be more written in the PHB than was presented in the OPT document.
Take a look at all the recent Backgrounds that have come out. For a little while they only had Traits, not Ideals, Bonds, or Flaws… but the last batches haven’t even had that.
And I left feedback indicating, in both "Satisfaction" bars and in words, that I didn't even bother engaging with the samples because the custom background system was so much better than being stuck with a prebuilt. We'll see if the majority of players agree with me when this is revisited in the future.
Yep, pretty much this. Absolutely no one at my table has used them as written. At best I'm personally using what is kind of a heavily modified Artisan.
And nearly no one at my tables uses the existing ones strictly as written. The current rules do actually make it clear that modifying them is ok, just work with your DM on that. Which should be done on backgrounds anyway.
That goes without saying. I doubt many tables go strictly by the example backgrounds.
And I left feedback indicating, in both "Satisfaction" bars and in words, that I didn't even bother engaging with the samples because the custom background system was so much better than being stuck with a prebuilt. We'll see if the majority of players agree with me when this is revisited in the future.
Yep, pretty much this. Absolutely no one at my table has used them as written. At best I'm personally using what is kind of a heavily modified Artisan.
And nearly no one at my tables uses the existing ones strictly as written. The current rules do actually make it clear that modifying them is ok, just work with your DM on that. Which should be done on backgrounds anyway.
That goes without saying. I doubt many tables go strictly by the example backgrounds.
Which is why I am arguing for scrapping the list in favour of walking the reader through creation of a couple backgrounds, with the list of questions in mind: Where do they come from, what did they do, what did they learn there, what resources did they gain and whom did they form strong connections with?
Oh sure, I'm all for talking out character background before play. As long as they don't try to codify things into half-baked mechanics like, 'you know exactly X number of people who you are close' to or whatever I'm all for that.
And I left feedback indicating, in both "Satisfaction" bars and in words, that I didn't even bother engaging with the samples because the custom background system was so much better than being stuck with a prebuilt. We'll see if the majority of players agree with me when this is revisited in the future.
Yep, pretty much this. Absolutely no one at my table has used them as written. At best I'm personally using what is kind of a heavily modified Artisan.
And nearly no one at my tables uses the existing ones strictly as written. The current rules do actually make it clear that modifying them is ok, just work with your DM on that. Which should be done on backgrounds anyway.
That goes without saying. I doubt many tables go strictly by the example backgrounds.
Which is why I am arguing for scrapping the list in favour of walking the reader through creation of a couple backgrounds, with the list of questions in mind: Where do they come from, what did they do, what did they learn there, what resources did they gain and whom did they form strong connections with?
Oh sure, I'm all for talking out character background before play. As long as they don't try to codify things into half-baked mechanics like, 'you know exactly X number of people who you are close' to or whatever I'm all for that.
Another straw man. I never said 'exactly X people.' No matter what number you use for X.
And I left feedback indicating, in both "Satisfaction" bars and in words, that I didn't even bother engaging with the samples because the custom background system was so much better than being stuck with a prebuilt. We'll see if the majority of players agree with me when this is revisited in the future.
I did the same.
I went so far as to suggest they walk through the process of making a single background and not have any other prebuilts.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok so your point about the language being in past tense was a non sequitur.
The 1DD rules include guidance on how to make backgrounds connected to the setting and the world. It is written as a conversation with the DM. I think this accomplishes what you're asking, if maybe not in perfect thoroughness.
The samples themselves are written with just a much connection to the world of the DM as the current 5E backgrounds, including the current background features.
You are making disagreeing noises about the playtest, but aren't actually saying anything coherently enough to be any sort of legitimate criticism. You are making arguments for the sake of arguing and they are honestly just silly. I mean come on, remarking as if writing something in past tense detracts from its relevance?
And now you're refusing to even address my point by effectively ignoring it and going back to your thesis. This does not speak well of the strength or coherence of your point. Please try and actually engage with the conversation and not just get defensive and argue just to argue.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I think this would be very easily resolved if they just treated the existing background features exactly how they treat for Bonds/Flaws/Personality Traits, since both are completely non-mechanical (in most cases) and serve the same purpose of being there for players/DMs looking for inspiration on how to roleplay.
"Here are some examples of how someone of a certain background could have access to certain abilities and places that others might struggle to reach."
Granted I have no clue how they plan on handling Bonds/Flaws/Personality Traits. I'd personally include them as part of the sample backgrounds, in my opinion it'd probably help reduce confusion on what the D&D sample backgrounds are supposed to be if they all read like premade character sheets anyways.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Adding Contacts as a requisite thing in character creation seems both to general and too specific at the same time. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, but it sits oddly among the rest of the character sheet.
I've always defined Bonds as the people, places, and things that you feel connected to. Wouldn't that work?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
It also seems like a really big hassle to try to list out every single person your character has ever known, unless you're looking for things like 'Everyone in this particular town', 'My entire family', 'All the guards stationed at X outpost during Y time', and be ok with all of that. It legitimately is easier to just say you have contact with who it makes sense for you to have contact with and leave it at that.
I get that, but Bonds are "people, places, and things I have a connection to and feel strongly about" which is a general classification of relationships, all narratively worthy of story hooks in many different ways; positive, negative, reciprocal and one sided. Why do we need one specific classification only geared toward positive reciprocal relationships?
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
A bit of a side note: People I talk to and play with sometimes include culture as a skill, but after giving it some thought I think treating culture a skill is too broad and instead culture should be more like tools. Thus your background/place where your grew up would provide a culture as well as maybe your class and maybe your race and then when the GM gave you one and or if there was a feat that gave culture you could just add it to the list also.
Example: If you grew up in salt marsh as a sailor and you took the background for it, then you would get under the culture section: salt marsh and sailor (maybe defined by sea or area you you sail in because sailors in different seas might have different cultures). The after some adventuring the GM says everyone in the group gets 1/2 proficiency in culture: City A since they spent a lot of time there and had a lot of interaction with the local populace.
The drawbacks I see are: another box on the sheet, another thing to track, may or may not be used by groups (but I do think it would be an easy and helpful tool to those groups who do use culture vs a very broad skill).
Of close friends? Probably most of them tbh. And family, direct blood relation family? All of them, and I've got a pretty big family. And it depends on what you mean by able to help? Able to fight to the death? Not many (but to be fair I don't usually participate in circles where fighting and killing shit is an expectation). Able and willing to provide helpful information regarding things in their circle of knowledge, a place to crash for a bit if times are hard, able to give me a ride somewhere, and things like that? Well the number jumps right back up there. Definitely a lot more than the two or three you seem to be leaning towards. A lot closer to 20 or 30.
And as for equipment, it kind of does that already. Oh sure it has you pick out your starting adventurer equipment, the stuff you carry around with you all day, but do you really think that that is literally all any starting dnd character owns? You still own generally anything that makes sense for you to own, be that a house of your own somewhere, whatever stuff you use to take care of your kids if your character has children, a wagon in a merchant caravan, etc. Like, you didn't think every character was some homeless bum did you?
As for what happens when you go to ask for things, the same thing that happens in real life when your 'contacts' can't provide you with things. 'Sorry man, fresh out of arrows, we used up all the spare ammunition in a training exercise yesterday', or some such. Or hell, let em have them even, they're just arrows, and I've yet to run into a group that legitimately tracks arrow usage when not in some hardcore wilderness survival campaign where you don't have access to much civilization anyways.
My personal opinion is that just like personality traits are designed to help new players roleplay their characters, background features are designed to help new DMs roleplay how others react to that character.
In that manner, saying a background feature is mechanical is to me the same thing as saying a personality trait is mechanical because both effects how your character will play in game.
Like, if you're playing a character who has a personality trait where "When [they] set my mind to something, [they] follow through no matter what gets in my way." At some point that will make a difference mechanically, just as much so as if you have a background trait that states that you know someone who can help you find information or jobs will make a difference mechanically.
Edit: I don't have a definite definition of what level of mechanical impact is considered a "mechanic" and what isn't. But for whatever reason character details like traits, bonds, flaws, background, while they have a huge impact on that character, I don't consider them to be mechanics.
I have no opinion on how well the trait table list things are implemented. I don't ever fill those out, I just use them as inspiration sometimes.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Well since we were talking about me specifically, I only have close friends. I don't do half hearted fair weather friendships, and I'm pretty good at picking people with similar dispositions. So in this particular case, it's the same thing really.
Definitely, because we don't do much in the ways of texting/emailing/etc. anyways. And for the ones that live far away, we don't travel to see each other very often anyways. But you don't have to be in constant contact with someone to be very close to them and to be willing to help them out at the drop of a hat if needs be. That's how family is supposed to be imo, and how mine is. Honestly, I'm getting the feeling that your life experience might be quite different from mine, but that's definitely the kind of environment some people grow up in. And even if it can be summarized as that, that's still definitely more than the 2-3 people you were talking about previously. And if you're just counting that as one group that could still apply to the other groups. Everyone trained as part of X batch of soldiers trained in the Y military. That's another potentially big group of people that could be summarized into a similar category. Same with the other example I gave of 'Everyone from this one particular town'. If we're counting groups as one thing again we start to end up with a lot of people from various walks of life and in various stations, and we get back to my point that this is a roleplay consideration that's probably best handled as such rather than trying to constrain it to some inevitably poorly designed mechanic.
Characters purchase whatever it makes sense for them to purchase, yes. They own whatever it makes sense for them to own.
Let me ask you this. If a player of yours had whatever company they served under as a contact for this proposed mechanic of yours, would you let them have a catapult whenever they asked for it?
Contacts are not a form of coin. Contacts are a roleplay consideration, that works as well and as often as it makes sense to. Unless you're going to tell me it makes sense for your military contact to continually give you military grade siege equipment it really isn't an issue. As for selling things off, guess who controls who is willing to buy stuff and for what price? This is why roleplay considerations are best left to being roleplay considerations. they are pretty much never a problem until you try to tie it down with rules.
Who said anything about leaving it blank? You seem to not be understanding that the way people use backgrounds isn't a blank check. You keep ignoring the part about it applying only if it makes sense. That's a pretty solid qualifier as to when and where it would be appropriate. Literally there are only two questions that a reasonable DM would have to ask themselves, 'Would this make sense?', and 'Would this be interesting?'. That's pretty much all you need to do to handle contacts. You introduce a soldier, the soldier character asks 'Do I know this person?' The DM asks themselves, 'Does it make sense for them to know them?', and 'Would it be interesting if they knew each other?' That's it. If they ask, 'Can I find anyone from my old platoon stationed here?'. 'Would this make sense?', 'Would it be interesting?'. If it wouldn't make sense, or it wouldn't be interesting, you can just say 'No, you don't recognize this particular soldier, or 'Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like anyone you knew from the military is stationed here.' Roleplay considerations handled as roleplay considerations. Simple.
And the way things are portrayed in movies doesn't dictate how an individuals PC is involved in the story. They are the ones who decide what their characters life was like before the game starts (within reason). If they want to have been close with the other members of their military division, then they get to be close with the other members of their military division. If they want to be close to their family who owns a farm, then they're close to their family who owns a farm. And yes, my point is make it up and go along with it, because that's what a background is. Something you make up and go along with. The fictitious back story of a fictitious character that a player creates so that that character can better interact with the fictitious setting that said character exists in.
As for equipment, you are again ignoring the general assumption of 'if it makes sense to have it'. Would it make sense for them to just have an item they didn't have before while in the middle of nowhere? Sure, as long as it makes sense. They pick up a big sturdy stick laying on the ground in a forest and presto, they now have a club. So if they want to leave equipment blank and scavenge shit then it's perfectly acceptable.
Oh, so you're saying that it depends? So it isn't a mechanic. It isn't definite or reliable. It's a roleplay consideration. It's not a hard rule, or something you can depend on, it's just something you feel like makes sense so you'll allow it, essentially doing exactly as I've been saying to do this entire time.
Sure it does. Everything works as well and as often as makes sense. That's the best part of the game. It's what DC's are for. But for the things that make sense being so easy that the chance to fail is fairly nonexistent, the book tells you not to bother rolling for it. So theoretically you could roll for everything under the sun as long as it makes sense for you to be able to do it. You could roll to walk. You could roll to speak. You could roll to wake up. But most of these things are so basic that the book essentially says don't bother rolling because it would bog down the game. This is also one of those things. Don't bother rolling to see if you have a loving family. Don't bother rolling to see how many of your former squad mates like you. Essentially, you don't need mechanics and rules for roleplay mechanics. It has rules for combat resolution, and meaningful skill checks made throughout the game, but most things are indeed left up to make it up and roll with it as long as it makes sense.
You do realize those aren't your only options right? You don't have to pick between two silly answers you don't like. Pick a reasonable answer and move on.
And it depends on what you consider valuable, and what they could reasonably provide. If your family is a bunch of farmers they aren't going to be able to give you a bunch of magic weapons (unless you and the DM find it reasonable that they can). If your friends are a bunch of soldiers actively serving your countries military they aren't going to be able to go off gallivanting with you providing extra muscle (again, unless you and the DM agree otherwise). Your 'contacts' can and should only be able to do what is reasonable for them to be able to do. They're roleplay considerations, and like all roleplay considerations, they only work when it makes sense.
The DM is the one who chooses where the story takes place. If they choose for it to take place where one of the player characters 'contacts' are then they should be prepared for the players to want to interact with them. If it isn't in a place where they're stated to have someone they know, then you once again come to the questions of does it make sense for them to be there and is it interesting. If you choose yes to both then as a DM you are absolutely allowing it to happen and shouldn't have any complaints.
How things go in movies only matters if that's what the players want to happen in their backstory. Whatever reasons that exist for it to happen in a movie is irrelevant unless the player is interested in that type of trope for their background. And how do you keep misunderstanding my argument so consistently? I've never said there shouldn't be talk at character creation. There should always be talk at character creation. How else do you think anyone knows what anyone elses background even is? What I don't want are a bunch of inevitably terrible hard rules attached to this talk.
In other words you have no argument to them. That's fine.
And I left feedback indicating, in both "Satisfaction" bars and in words, that I didn't even bother engaging with the samples because the custom background system was so much better than being stuck with a prebuilt. We'll see if the majority of players agree with me when this is revisited in the future.
Please do not contact or message me.
Too bad there won’t be any more ready to select from lists of Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws to choose from anymore. Those were convenient.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm reasonably certain those weren't in the document to save space. Remember - this isn't the full intended/planned text from the 1DD PHBe, it's a test document designed to get the core idea out in front of people to monkey with. There will be more written in the PHB than was presented in the OPT document.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yep, pretty much this. Absolutely no one at my table has used them as written. At best I'm personally using what is kind of a heavily modified Artisan.
Take a look at all the recent Backgrounds that have come out. For a little while they only had Traits, not Ideals, Bonds, or Flaws… but the last batches haven’t even had that.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That goes without saying. I doubt many tables go strictly by the example backgrounds.
Oh sure, I'm all for talking out character background before play. As long as they don't try to codify things into half-baked mechanics like, 'you know exactly X number of people who you are close' to or whatever I'm all for that.
I literally never said you did.
I did the same.
I went so far as to suggest they walk through the process of making a single background and not have any other prebuilts.