Nor have I been arguing 'change nothing.' Arguing for keeping the features, even if they review and rewrite/revamp them does not equal "everything is perfect."
Having features like the old backgrounds undermines the free-form design of the new rules. Even a more generic thing like:
Allies: choose a group of people (such as clergy of your god, peasants, sailors, etc.) that you have a connection to. You may call on members of this group for hospitality and aid.
Still pushes backgrounds to try to make them fit with that, and away from the more antisocial concepts.
They could create a "pick one" list, but they cannot cover everything, and it's a lot of work and page space for a bunch of features that (if they're anything like the current ones) just don't matter almost all of the time.
The "old" 2014 "features" weren't balanced. A few of them were way too powerful (like how Outlander basically removed the need for most Survival and Nature proficiences), a few of them were meaningless ribbons, and most of them were handwavey mechanics without much thought to their own consequences, much less to how they compared to others. It was sloppy. (As it happens, exactly the kind of sloppy that some D&D traditionalists really like, because they have fond memories of exploiting the sloppiness when playing a game of "gotcha" with the players/DM.)
The One D&D background rules are the single best thing in all of the playtests: 1) they start with a system for making custom backgrounds front-and-center, 2) they include a big, helpful list of example backgrounds that all completely obey that system, 3) they give everyone a feat at first level, which puts more variety and uniqueness into the game, and 4) they let the feat/proficiencies/etc cover all the mechancs of the background, so the description is free from crunch, making it much easier to come up with cool ideas.
The new background rules are a better game design.
Perhaps that's the "problem": in the other thread, it's completely wrong to say the new backgrounds are all about combat, or are ignoring social/exploration/roleplay elements, or are wargamey. But they are more game-like, because they are a better game design. As it happens, they're also more free-form, because there's no expectation (or allowance) that the non-mechanical "features" will have power.
Just as a general trend, having Backgrounds get more clear and systematic is better design. Of course DM adjudication is always going to be a key component of how a game is run, but containing the areas where that kind of adjudication is necessary to the Write-Your-Own portion of character creation rather than having a hodgepodge of mechanical features with highly varying levels power and utility and one easily missable sentence to "create your own version" and no other guidance is clearly better game design.
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!
Outlander just needed to be re-written. ... That specific complaint comes across to me as "If any section of the rules contains badly written portions, the entirety of the section should be tossed out entirely." It feels like a massive overreaction.
They aren't throwing out the entire section; they're rewriting it, like you suggest. (And Outlander was just one example that's already come up.) You can very easily write a new version of Outlander with the custom rules (and the writeup for "Guide" is already pretty close), and pick Athletics/Survival/musical instrument of choice or whatever best suits your character...
The vast majority of backgrounds are essentially getting an upgrade, with an actual feat (a "1st level" feat, but some of those are very nice and flexible).
Re-writing the section, replacing features (which have considerable RP relevance) with far more purely mechanical feats is the specific change we are talking about. I am saying that bad features could be re-written, rather than tossed out and replaced with something much more shallow (feats)
I think you are confused by what is happening. The old features are being split in two, separated into roleplaying and crunch components. This frees the roleplaying parts from the need for game balance, and frees the crunch parts from systematic frustration and argument.
All this from Outlander need not change:
You grew up in the wilds, far from the comforts of town and technology. You’ve witnessed the migration of herds larger than forests, survived weather more extreme than any city-dweller could comprehend, and enjoyed the solitude of being the only thinking creature for miles in any direction. The wilds are in your blood, whether you were a nomad, an explorer, a recluse, a hunter-gatherer, or even a marauder. Even in places where you don’t know the specific features of the terrain, you know the ways of the wild.
You’ve been to strange places and seen things that others cannot begin to fathom. Consider some of the distant lands you have visited, and how they impacted you. You can roll on the following table to determine your occupation during your time in the wild, or choose one that best fits your character.
Often considered rude and uncouth, outlanders have little respect for the niceties of life in the cities. The ties of tribe, clan, family, and the natural world of which they are a part are the most important bonds to most outlanders.
[die-roll tables omitted for brevity]
The only thing being "lost" is
You have an excellent memory for maps and geography, and you can always recall the general layout of terrain, settlements, and other features around you. In addition, you can find food and fresh water for yourself and up to five other people each day, provided that the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth.
You yourself suggested rewriting that part. The "lost" material isn't roleplaying; it's a very poor attempt at crunch. It's getting replaced by better, more systemized, crunch. Besides, if you just remove the word "always" it's practically a description of what you can do with rolling for Survival.
(The "Guide" example chooses Magic Initiate (Primal), which could be used, for example, to get Druidcraft, Guidance, and Goodberry (or whatever), which cover outlander/survival stuff plenty well.)
And here you are condemning that entire system on one specific example...
I am doing no such thing. Concluding that requires ignoring not only what I've written in the same thread, but your own messages that I've replied to. You know better. Be better.
I think every single 2014 background is improved by the new system. I've explained why at length. I would be happy to work any of them as an example.
Besides. Have you tried using the Homebrew Background tools here in Beyond? They're awful. Thoroughly awful. It's a twitchy finicky morass of nonsense that can take hours or even days to get right, and that's for one Background, once. Why should a DM have to spend days and days fighting a terrible software tool just so their player can try and be a little more creative than your average Friday Night AL yaybo?
Have you tried making a School of Transmutation wizard? There's nothing for the Transmuter's Stone feature at 5th-level. Not even a toggle for a self-buff. And you can forget about passing this nonexistent item around a party to other players.
How about a forest gnome School of Illusion wizard? Despite the clear wording of the Improved Minor Illusion feature, they have two versions of the cantrip from two different sources. There's no replacement wizard cantrip.
Or what about an artificer? Have you played those in a campaign on this site? Have you figured out a way to share your infusions with party members? Because I sure haven't, not for my players' sakes.
Oh, here's a goodie. If you make a barbarian with an Unarmored Defense AC is higher than their armored AC, and I don't mean a shield, they still use their Unarmored Defense.
My point, dear Yurei, is you shouldn't be using what this website can and cannot do as the sole barometer for what you can or cannot do as player or DM.
That simple bolded phrase highlights the difference.
Yes, it does. It indicates that the DM is running the world in such a way that they're reacting appropriately to who the PCs are, what they've done, and what the world knows of them. As a good DM should.
That acolytes automatically get that level of support, does not mean that others cannot, regardless of situation. Nor does it mean the aid is necessarily of the same level.
1.) yes it does. That's the entire point of "Background Features", and you know it. 2.) Does the Acolyte still get automatic support if they turn apostate? Renounce and denounce their religion, even kill higher-ranking members of the clergy? Do they get their automatic support if their god's enemy manages to wheedle them into a new deal and they turn traitor? No? Gee - I wonder if running the world in such a way that it's reacting appropriately to who the PCs are, what they've done, and what the world knows of them is better than leaning on dumb stupid choking restrictive always-on-no-matter-what "Background Features" that simple shackle the game and often make no god damned sense.
That a city guard has certain standard rights and authority does not prohibit that city from situationally deputizing others. Nor does it need any skill checks on the part of those others, if the DM feels it plot worthy.
Under your espoused system, yes it does. If there are no Guards in the party, the party cannot do any sort of police or police-adjacent work for the city because nobody in the party has a "City Guard/Police" Background Feature. Doesn't matter that this is the story the DM wants to run, or the one the players want to play - if they adhere properly to your system they cannot do it.
You're doubltess going to hit me with your favorite little "Citation needed" bit. You don't get one. Because reason and logic dictate that if you want a system where Background Features are front and center in Backgrounds - which you have said repeatedly that you do - and if those features are supposed to Matter - which you have repeatedly said they must - then this is the only logical way for these damn rules to work. If you don't have the Feature, YOU CAN'T DO THE THING. Elsewise there's no god damned point in having the "Feature" in the first place.
"Background" does not equal "the only thing that will ever apply to a character."
In your version of the 2014 rules? Yes it does.
It does not mean so for the character with any given background that might be relevant, nor does it mean so for the character without such a background. The situation you gave was a wandering demon hunter in the course of an active hunt for undead, an activity that specific church cares about and supports. That church would likely offer aid due to that current plot element (dangerous undead in the area).
The problem is that according to your rules, the temple of Kelemvor offering any aid, of any sort, to this demon hunter would be a horrible breach of trust with the Acolyte player, because now you're giving someone else who didn't pay for it with their sole and entire background the benefit of Shelter of the Faithful. This is absolutely not tolerable and cannot be permitted, therefore the hunter is out of luck. Doesn't matter that this makes absolutely no goddamn sense for the world, or that it means the demon hunter can't have her cool moment. Letting any temple offer any aid to any player that isn't an Acolyte means the Acolyte background instantly becomes worthless and you've betrayed the trust of any Acolyte players at your table.
The fact that you're not reading it that way doesn't mean it's not meant that way, or that a large percentage of players aren't reading it that way. Hell, look at Relyk's latest thread where he complains that the loss of the Knight background's "Retainers" feature means it's fundamentally impossible for him to have any retainers now, and also that he can't force his character to have retainers even if the DM strenuously does not want to have to manage three party-pet NPCs in that game. How is that anything but proof that this system is broken, bad, cloying, restrictive, awful, and in need of a serious update?
Ok look, I agree with you that the new system is way better and the original backgrounds were by and large useless ribbons that didn't give players enough flexibility, but you're being completely unreasonable here. You are literally making shit up that Kotath never said.
The point of the old background features is not to limit what other players can do, and to say so is ridiculous. I disagree with Kotath in almost all of their comments in this thread, but when they said that an acolyte getting room and board for free at a temple doesn't mean that non-acolytes can't ask for help from temples they were objectively correct. All acolyte does is it guarantees that you can get room and board from temples of your faith. Nowhere does it say that nobody else can ask for anything from a temple ever. To say that it does is incredibly stupid and childish.
Obviously if a player starts murdering temple officials the temple will be hostile to them. The rules aren't in conflict with this. The acolyte feature specifically references your faith and I would argue that if you turn apostate and start murdering priests then it isn't your faith anymore, so even if your dm was an inflexible computer this wouldn't be an issue.
You declare that under Kotath's espoused rules backgrounds would work in the incredibly narrow way you describe, despite the fact that for this entire thread they have explicitly said the opposite. This is clearly bad faith. You justify this by saying it is the only logical way for the rules to work. This is false. Acolytes get room and board for free =/= ONLY acolytes can EVER ask a temple for ANYTHING EVER. Those are different things. The acolyte gets aid without rolling. They get it for free. Non-acolytes do not get aid from temples for free because they do not have the feature that allows them to get aid from temples for free. That does not mean they can NEVER EVER ask for ANY aid from temples. If that were the case then nobody could ever make survival checks to hunt or gather because an outlander gets to find food and water for free with their background. You are being obtuse.
The new background system is far and away better than the old system. We can make the case for it being better without being dishonest.
And here you are condemning that entire system on one specific example that, based on threads on that very background, DM's do not normally use verbatim anyway.
My re-write would be:
"You have an excellent memory for maps and geography, and you can quickly learn and, once learned, easily remember the general layout of terrain, settlements, and other features around you. In addition, you can find food and fresh water for yourself and up to five other people each day, provided that the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth."
This way they do not simply know where everything is, they just remember where it is and how to get back after finding any given thing, basically having a good enough memory for such matters not to have to have a formal map.
In real life, the ability to find water in the wild is not that hard to learn. Food is a little trickier, but also very learnable and this is a fantasy setting so leeway and you want to trade it out for brute force magical solutions that do the same, whether player wants the character to deal with magic or not.
The nonmagical solution already exists for that. It's called the Survival skill.
So, then, you are saying that the feature is not actually OP (which is the complaint against it) but rather UP, since the simple survival skill, which it grants, does all included in that feature?
I don't think that is the complaint against it...
I'm saying there is already something in the game that determines how good you are at finding provisions in the wild, but the Outlander feature removes that niche of the skill, which is something I don't really approve of.
With all due respect, no. In my experience, the people who say that don't fully understand the role the ability check plays. And, to be fair, it's all part of rather dry rules in the DMG that ought to be in the PH.
Wisdom Survival serves three main purposes: tracking targets, foraging for food and water, and navigating from one location to the next. The general thrust of these niches can be found under Activities While Traveling. The long and short is each party member takes on a role for the interval of time and either rolls an ability check or doesn't. All this part of the feature does is remove the need for up to four, specific die rolls for the day if the party size is six or less. Larger parties are at least partially reliant on rations or spellcasting. The takeaway here is it solves a problem in a fairly risk-averse way; which much of the game already does.
And what's the actual check? Beating a DC of 10, 15, or 20; followed by 1d6 + Wisdom modifier pounds of food or gallons of water on a success. Six is a middle-of-the-road result, or the absolute floor for 20 Wisdom. And this can only be done at a normal or slow pace, meaning the Wanderer feature allows for food collection at even a fast pace. So, parties can travel faster without needing to worry quite as much about their resources. A single travel day is maybe minutes at the table, and this is a choice the player is making. They're electing to save themselves up to four die rolls by engaging with a set of mechanics they don't even know about on their terms.
So, what exactly is the issue here? Is it bad because the player can opt out of rolling dice some of the time? Are the minutia of foraging honestly that good and interesting? Because, by engaging in this activity, they're still denying the party their passive Wisdom Perception to be wary of threats. They're literally just exchanging one non-die roll for another.
Are we now going to take a shot at passive Wisdom Perception?
Ok look, I agree with you that the new system is way better and the original backgrounds were by and large useless ribbons that didn't give players enough flexibility, but you're being completely unreasonable here. You are literally making shit up that Kotath never said.
The point of the old background features is not to limit what other players can do, and to say so is ridiculous. I disagree with Kotath in almost all of their comments in this thread, but when they said that an acolyte getting room and board for free at a temple doesn't mean that non-acolytes can't ask for help from temples they were objectively correct. All acolyte does is it guarantees that you can get room and board from temples of your faith. Nowhere does it say that nobody else can ask for anything from a temple ever. To say that it does is incredibly stupid and childish.
Obviously if a player starts murdering temple officials the temple will be hostile to them. The rules aren't in conflict with this. The acolyte feature specifically references your faith and I would argue that if you turn apostate and start murdering priests then it isn't your faith anymore, so even if your dm was an inflexible computer this wouldn't be an issue.
You declare that under Kotath's espoused rules backgrounds would work in the incredibly narrow way you describe, despite the fact that for this entire thread they have explicitly said the opposite. This is clearly bad faith. You justify this by saying it is the only logical way for the rules to work. This is false. Acolytes get room and board for free =/= ONLY acolytes can EVER ask a temple for ANYTHING EVER. Those are different things. The acolyte gets aid without rolling. They get it for free. Non-acolytes do not get aid from temples for free because they do not have the feature that allows them to get aid from temples for free. That does not mean they can NEVER EVER ask for ANY aid from temples. If that were the case then nobody could ever make survival checks to hunt or gather because an outlander gets to find food and water for free with their background. You are being obtuse.
The new background system is far and away better than the old system. We can make the case for it being better without being dishonest.
Do you allow sorcerers to make multiple dagger attacks with a single Attack action?
Do you allow fighters to give their allies Inspiration dice to bolster their checks?
Do you allow rogues to enter a battle rage?
The answer is almost certainly 'of course not' because Extra Attack, Bardic Inspiration, and Rage are class features. If you don't get those class features because you're a different class, you can't use those features.
The argument Kotath and the rest are (constantly) making is that Background "Features" should have the same weight and force of rules as Class Features. That your 'Shelter of the Faithful' is as important - and exclusive - to you as Inspiration or Rage is. Your ability to garner aid from temples is a distinct and exclusive feature of your background, like your ability to deliver inspiration or enter a rage is a distinct and exclusive feature of your class. If anyone else were allowed to garner aid from temples? The DM would be giving that player the benefit of your Background Feature, which is as big a no-no in the Koath/Jou version of background rules as allowing a barbarian to inspire, or a bard to rage.
And no, the "you get it for free, that doesn't mean nobody else can roll for it" thing is a complete ******* nothingburger and everybody knows it. It's a nonanswer, a nonargument. You wouldn't allow a bard to enter a battle rage if they rolled a high enough Strength check, would you? You wouldn't allow a sorcerer to make three or four attacks in a single action if they rolled high enough on their Dexterity check, ne? It's ludicrous on the face of it.
Which is what I keep trying to show people. For Kotath, Jounichi, and the rest to get what they want, 2014 Background Features have to have the weight and force of rules behind them that class features do. Which means that each and every Background Feature becomes something nobody without that feature can do, elsewise the DM is Running The Game Wrong. And it also means that every new background Wizards prints is removing something else from the pool of possible things players should be able to do, elsewise they're gaining unearned benefits from 'class' features they don't have.
It's incredibly harmful to the game as a whole, which is why almost no one bothers with 2014 Background "Features" as written. Because you're right, players should be able top make their case for aid from a temple, or the mayor's office, or the local constabulary, or whatever else makes sense for them to seek aid from. But under 2014 Background Feature rules as written, THEY GOD DAMNED CAN'T because it's the equivalent of the barbarian casting a bunch of Divine magic in a pinch just because he'd really like to be able to just then.
So those rules need to bloody leave. Entirely, wholesale, cut them out with a chainsaw. Roleplaying prompts do not need the weight and force of combat rules.
There's the philosophy in game design about Permissive Rules or Prohibitive Rules. The first states when you are allowed to do something. The second declares when you can't do something.
The games in the D&D genealogy seems to favour the permissive line. When a new feature is added, it declares the circumstances in which you are permitted to take that action. This is what I believe Yurei is referring to: if a previously "free" course of action (like asking for aid from an allied faith) was given as a feature to a specific character option, then there is a very real argument that only characters WITH that option can now pursue that action.
Paraphrasing her argument above: whenever a new option is added - bearing the full constraints of the rules in this way - it is also taken away from the rest of the game. Because doing otherwise would devalue that option. And that's why some things really oughtn't be codified in hard rules, and instead left as forms of guidance in soft rules.
Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding your stance here, Yureibeans. :)
Kotath, you sweet cinnamonbun in human form, you get that Yurei's hyperbole is (mostly) satirical, right? Held up to the light to illustrate how ridiculous a position is when taken to its extreme?
Now, I fully accept that I may be wildly misconstruing everyone's arguments here, but I honestly feel that everyone is basically promoting the same idea - albeit from different angles and bias. "I want the game to support me in expressing my character the way I want them to be."
But how is the game permitting you to do so, and how is it prohibiting you from doing so? And what to do when your interpretation meets different expectations from your other players (including the DM)? Is a (ironically restrictive) permissive template model preferable to being provided tools with which to better communicate expectations? Such as a set of generalised options that can be adapted to the player's concept. Like the above mentioned Allies or Contacts, but also things like Status or Affiliations, Heritage or Identity, and so on. And they would all just be prompts and scenery. Conversation starters. Colour and flavour. Like (and I'm echoing previous speakers again) Bonds and Flaws and ... whatever that last one was.
kinda sounds like the dungeon master's guide needs a new optional rule for literal "plot coupons." a dm who was into it could issue one or more tokens to players to spend on background-ish items that pop up during the adventure. then some people could spend theirs early on a pet mouse or comfort chicken (hatch a plot?), while others might hold theirs until later when it would be cool if a certain guard was actually their favorite second cousin (get out of plot free card?). not sure how to word that to keep someone from inheriting a suit of full plate (plot armor?), but there's always rust and roleplay. for everything else: pay gold, squire.
yeah, no way to balance that monetarily. use and implementation is obviously up to dm.
and, sure, you could do this now without it being written down. i'd certainly watch a stream of d-list celebrities dropping their main character token down at the height of drama as the dm scrambles telegenicly to adjust. but, if it was RAW then maybe "it's in the book, ask your dm" would end more arguments like this more quickly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
But how is the game permitting you to do so, and how is it prohibiting you from doing so? And what to do when your interpretation meets different expectations from your other players (including the DM)? Is a (ironically restrictive) permissive template model preferable to being provided tools with which to better communicate expectations?
Thinking of things in permissive/prohibitive terms can be really useful here, though since there's a "decoupling" happening I think that things are both more permissive and more prohibitive, at the same time.
The narrative/flavor parts of backgrounds (the "roleplaying" parts if you will) are getting more permissive. That's more freedom to the players to play what they want, more freedom to the DMs to build worlds the way they want.
The mechanical/crunch parts of backgrounds (the "rollplaying" parts if you will) are more prohibitive, or at least feel that way, because a more established system (feats) is replacing a comparitively ad-hoc system (background "features").
in terms of actual capability, it's a wash, since the bigger system (feats, including spells and other stuff*) has just as much capability and variety as the ad-hoc one. It's still a more designed, balanced system.
* I'd like to think that, if they keep this system for the actual release, feats like Fighting Initiate, Eldritch Adept, Martial Adept, etc would get declared 1st level feats and thus be eligible.
Again, you are dismissing the 'automatically' aspect. Now you are treating 'roll for it' or 'not at all' being the only alternatives to 'automatically.' You still are acting like DM's are some sort of automations who cannot make any rulings of their own, based on the specific situation in that campaign at that moment.
Kotath, even if every table views 2014 Background features the way you do - i.e. they are only "bypass roll" coupons for those specific characters that have them, but they don't actually prevent characters who lack them from rolling - that's still bad!Whether a given character gets to bypass a roll or not should be based on that character, and the connections they have or forged within that specific campaign - not on a wholly disconnected choice they made during chargen. And that is how both players and DMs should be encouraged to think - approaching social and exploration challenges and their resolution mechanisms from the situation first, not from the coupons listed on the player's sheet.
The Noble's "gain an audience" feature should not bypass a roll to gain an audience in every single circumstance'; me being a noble from Baldur's Gate doesn't mean jack squat on Evermeet or Sigil. But no such exceptions are given in the feature itself, Similarly, Pirate saying "no matter where I go, people are afraid of me and don't report my criminal offenses" makes no sense somewhere like Dis or Mechanus or even Barovia, but again, no distinction is made in the feature.
And if you agree that, "well of course players' ability to just accomplish something without rolling should be evaluated by their DM on a case by case basis!" then I'm left once again asking you why do these ribbon features need to exist in the first place? Especially given the 20-page real-estate they currently take up from a printed perspective?
Ok look, I agree with you that the new system is way better and the original backgrounds were by and large useless ribbons that didn't give players enough flexibility, but you're being completely unreasonable here. You are literally making shit up that Kotath never said.
The point of the old background features is not to limit what other players can do, and to say so is ridiculous. I disagree with Kotath in almost all of their comments in this thread, but when they said that an acolyte getting room and board for free at a temple doesn't mean that non-acolytes can't ask for help from temples they were objectively correct. All acolyte does is it guarantees that you can get room and board from temples of your faith. Nowhere does it say that nobody else can ask for anything from a temple ever. To say that it does is incredibly stupid and childish.
Obviously if a player starts murdering temple officials the temple will be hostile to them. The rules aren't in conflict with this. The acolyte feature specifically references your faith and I would argue that if you turn apostate and start murdering priests then it isn't your faith anymore, so even if your dm was an inflexible computer this wouldn't be an issue.
You declare that under Kotath's espoused rules backgrounds would work in the incredibly narrow way you describe, despite the fact that for this entire thread they have explicitly said the opposite. This is clearly bad faith. You justify this by saying it is the only logical way for the rules to work. This is false. Acolytes get room and board for free =/= ONLY acolytes can EVER ask a temple for ANYTHING EVER. Those are different things. The acolyte gets aid without rolling. They get it for free. Non-acolytes do not get aid from temples for free because they do not have the feature that allows them to get aid from temples for free. That does not mean they can NEVER EVER ask for ANY aid from temples. If that were the case then nobody could ever make survival checks to hunt or gather because an outlander gets to find food and water for free with their background. You are being obtuse.
The new background system is far and away better than the old system. We can make the case for it being better without being dishonest.
Do you allow sorcerers to make multiple dagger attacks with a single Attack action?
Do you allow fighters to give their allies Inspiration dice to bolster their checks?
Do you allow rogues to enter a battle rage?
The answer is almost certainly 'of course not' because Extra Attack, Bardic Inspiration, and Rage are class features. If you don't get those class features because you're a different class, you can't use those features.
The argument Kotath and the rest are (constantly) making is that Background "Features" should have the same weight and force of rules as Class Features. That your 'Shelter of the Faithful' is as important - and exclusive - to you as Inspiration or Rage is. Your ability to garner aid from temples is a distinct and exclusive feature of your background, like your ability to deliver inspiration or enter a rage is a distinct and exclusive feature of your class. If anyone else were allowed to garner aid from temples? The DM would be giving that player the benefit of your Background Feature, which is as big a no-no in the Koath/Jou version of background rules as allowing a barbarian to inspire, or a bard to rage.
And no, the "you get it for free, that doesn't mean nobody else can roll for it" thing is a complete ******* nothingburger and everybody knows it. It's a nonanswer, a nonargument. You wouldn't allow a bard to enter a battle rage if they rolled a high enough Strength check, would you? You wouldn't allow a sorcerer to make three or four attacks in a single action if they rolled high enough on their Dexterity check, ne? It's ludicrous on the face of it.
Which is what I keep trying to show people. For Kotath, Jounichi, and the rest to get what they want, 2014 Background Features have to have the weight and force of rules behind them that class features do. Which means that each and every Background Feature becomes something nobody without that feature can do, elsewise the DM is Running The Game Wrong. And it also means that every new background Wizards prints is removing something else from the pool of possible things players should be able to do, elsewise they're gaining unearned benefits from 'class' features they don't have.
It's incredibly harmful to the game as a whole, which is why almost no one bothers with 2014 Background "Features" as written. Because you're right, players should be able top make their case for aid from a temple, or the mayor's office, or the local constabulary, or whatever else makes sense for them to seek aid from. But under 2014 Background Feature rules as written, THEY GOD DAMNED CAN'T because it's the equivalent of the barbarian casting a bunch of Divine magic in a pinch just because he'd really like to be able to just then.
So those rules need to bloody leave. Entirely, wholesale, cut them out with a chainsaw. Roleplaying prompts do not need the weight and force of combat rules.
Yes, Yurei, you are making a nonargument.
You strike me as one of those people who thinks that someone else getting a bigger piece of the economic pie means there's less for everyone else; completely forgetting the pie's size isn't fixed and can grow larger.
Saying one character gets something for free, without the need for an ability check that literally anyone can attempt, somehow precludes others from attempting to gain the same thing via a check in utterly bananas. That's the point of ability checks. It's not equivalent to class features, and you know it.
For once, stop arguing in bad faith and actually engage with the rules.
Kotath, you sweet cinnamonbun in human form, you get that Yurei's hyperbole is (mostly) satirical, right? Held up to the light to illustrate how ridiculous a position is when taken to its extreme?
At this point I'm reasonably sure no one on this board realizes that. Or even if they do, they hate it. "But Yurei, nobody ever takes things to these weird extremes you keep proposing, it's nothing but strawman and hyperbole!"
Oh my dear sweet innocent child, have you MET the Internet?
I GUARANTEE that people are being exactly as stupid as I'm outlining them being, if not stupider. The entire Rules & Game Mechanics forum is packed to the brim with semantic arguments far worse than this one. The Internet is overflowing with small-minded rules lawyers who will use the wording of any rule to try and get one over on the DM and their fellow players. Me pointing out the extremes in rules/situations is not 'strawman' at all, it's me shoving someone's nose in how ******* dumb something is without giving them the wiggle room of Ambiguity or Grey Area to try and cling to their stupidity. And no, "the DM can always say no"/Rule Zero is NOT a reasonable response. Rule Zero does not excuse the rest of the core books being written poorly, or in ways that give the rules [Godwin's Law]s more ammunition than they have to.
And as Psyren said, if the background ribbons aren't always-on Ignore Plot Buttons players can push regardless of the circumstances of the game - if those "abilities" are taking into account the players' conduct and history within the game - why are they bloody there? It's dumb. It's stupid. It's trying to give shitty roleplaying prompts the weight and force of hard combat rules and there's neither a need for that nor any good goddamn reason to do it.
You strike me as one of those people who thinks that someone else getting a bigger piece of the economic pie means there's less for everyone else; completely forgetting the pie's size isn't fixed and can grow larger.
Saying one character gets something for free, without the need for an ability check that literally anyone can attempt, somehow precludes others from attempting to gain the same thing via a check in utterly bananas. That's the point of ability checks. It's not equivalent to class features, and you know it.
For once, stop arguing in bad faith and actually engage with the rules.
I'll be nice and actually ask, then.
Why do these abilities need to exist, if "anyone" can get them just by throwing a d20 at the DM's head? What benefit do they have? What do they do for the game as hard-coded capital-R RUUUURRUUS rather than simply roleplaying prompts? What game-design value does it have to give players a Magic Free Get-Out-Of-Plot Button they can press but then telling them "if you just roleplay gud, you can also push the Get Out Of Plot Free button, but ooooonly if you roll reeeeaaaaaally well!"
Spoilers: the answer is zero. Zero value. There is no value whatsoever that these stupid "Features" have as Hard Coded Ultrarules that they wouldn't have as a simple list of roleplaying prompts or a few examples of how a DM can respond to a player's background. You're giving a DM a fish rather than teaching him to fish - you're saying that if the DM finds himself in this specific situation he's supposed to just let the player have an unearned gimme, but in any other situation he's given no guidance on what to do.
"Yes, you are completely correct, I am merely being satirical and hyperbolic" .... "But I am not actually because stupid people exist."
Just because I'm being 'satirical and hyperbolic' doesn't mean I'm wrong.
You don't like arguing extreme positions because you don't find them relevant or meaningful.
I don't like arguing mild positions because I find them pointless and unworthy of consideration. There's no point in arguing the most basic, milquetoast version of something, that's never going to be what anyone does or uses. Mild milquetoast people with mild milquetoast opinions are never going to be worth talking about because they have no backbone in the first place.
The test cycle so far has shown us there's no point in arguing for or against minor, milquetoast modifications to proposed content. Either the content goes through as proposed in the document or it's revoked completely, a'la UA7. There IS no god damned middle ground.People who argue for The Middle Ground are pointless and unworthy of consideration. Either you're arguing for the retention of the Origins document rules governing background creation or you're arguing for the complete destruction of those rules and the 100% retention of the 2014 rules, completely and utterly unmodified. Any other opinion is pointless and unworthy of consideration because it will not happen, there will be no mixy-mixy "we want to keep just a little bit of the new rules but also we want to keep background Features because we think players and DMs both are super stupid and can't figure out how to ropleplay if we don't smack them across the mouth with a Button they can push to bypass the game whenever they want one" edition of the Origin rules.
Origins document rules, or unmodified 2014 crap rules. Pick. One. Because arguing towards the median is utterly pointless and completely unworthy of consideration.
People who argue for The Middle Ground are pointless and unworthy of consideration.
Ouch! I'm happy I've got some sunscreen to go with my umbrella, because I feel hit by that burn, optimistic middle-ground enthusiast as I am :)
Luckily, I also get great lumbar support from my beach chair here even without a spine. But that's okay. It's pretty comfy here anyway.
Now, where can we find a common ground for these viewpoints..? Actually, I'm just happy that people are so passionate about the game. It'd be terrible if there was just no discussion at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Having features like the old backgrounds undermines the free-form design of the new rules. Even a more generic thing like:
Allies: choose a group of people (such as clergy of your god, peasants, sailors, etc.) that you have a connection to. You may call on members of this group for hospitality and aid.
Still pushes backgrounds to try to make them fit with that, and away from the more antisocial concepts.
They could create a "pick one" list, but they cannot cover everything, and it's a lot of work and page space for a bunch of features that (if they're anything like the current ones) just don't matter almost all of the time.
The "old" 2014 "features" weren't balanced. A few of them were way too powerful (like how Outlander basically removed the need for most Survival and Nature proficiences), a few of them were meaningless ribbons, and most of them were handwavey mechanics without much thought to their own consequences, much less to how they compared to others. It was sloppy. (As it happens, exactly the kind of sloppy that some D&D traditionalists really like, because they have fond memories of exploiting the sloppiness when playing a game of "gotcha" with the players/DM.)
The One D&D background rules are the single best thing in all of the playtests: 1) they start with a system for making custom backgrounds front-and-center, 2) they include a big, helpful list of example backgrounds that all completely obey that system, 3) they give everyone a feat at first level, which puts more variety and uniqueness into the game, and 4) they let the feat/proficiencies/etc cover all the mechancs of the background, so the description is free from crunch, making it much easier to come up with cool ideas.
The new background rules are a better game design.
Perhaps that's the "problem": in the other thread, it's completely wrong to say the new backgrounds are all about combat, or are ignoring social/exploration/roleplay elements, or are wargamey. But they are more game-like, because they are a better game design. As it happens, they're also more free-form, because there's no expectation (or allowance) that the non-mechanical "features" will have power.
Just as a general trend, having Backgrounds get more clear and systematic is better design. Of course DM adjudication is always going to be a key component of how a game is run, but containing the areas where that kind of adjudication is necessary to the Write-Your-Own portion of character creation rather than having a hodgepodge of mechanical features with highly varying levels power and utility and one easily missable sentence to "create your own version" and no other guidance is clearly better game design.
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!
They aren't throwing out the entire section; they're rewriting it, like you suggest. (And Outlander was just one example that's already come up.) You can very easily write a new version of Outlander with the custom rules (and the writeup for "Guide" is already pretty close), and pick Athletics/Survival/musical instrument of choice or whatever best suits your character...
The vast majority of backgrounds are essentially getting an upgrade, with an actual feat (a "1st level" feat, but some of those are very nice and flexible).
I think you are confused by what is happening. The old features are being split in two, separated into roleplaying and crunch components. This frees the roleplaying parts from the need for game balance, and frees the crunch parts from systematic frustration and argument.
All this from Outlander need not change:
You grew up in the wilds, far from the comforts of town and technology. You’ve witnessed the migration of herds larger than forests, survived weather more extreme than any city-dweller could comprehend, and enjoyed the solitude of being the only thinking creature for miles in any direction. The wilds are in your blood, whether you were a nomad, an explorer, a recluse, a hunter-gatherer, or even a marauder. Even in places where you don’t know the specific features of the terrain, you know the ways of the wild.
You’ve been to strange places and seen things that others cannot begin to fathom. Consider some of the distant lands you have visited, and how they impacted you. You can roll on the following table to determine your occupation during your time in the wild, or choose one that best fits your character.
Often considered rude and uncouth, outlanders have little respect for the niceties of life in the cities. The ties of tribe, clan, family, and the natural world of which they are a part are the most important bonds to most outlanders.
[die-roll tables omitted for brevity]
The only thing being "lost" is
You have an excellent memory for maps and geography, and you can always recall the general layout of terrain, settlements, and other features around you. In addition, you can find food and fresh water for yourself and up to five other people each day, provided that the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth.
You yourself suggested rewriting that part. The "lost" material isn't roleplaying; it's a very poor attempt at crunch. It's getting replaced by better, more systemized, crunch. Besides, if you just remove the word "always" it's practically a description of what you can do with rolling for Survival.
(The "Guide" example chooses Magic Initiate (Primal), which could be used, for example, to get Druidcraft, Guidance, and Goodberry (or whatever), which cover outlander/survival stuff plenty well.)
I am doing no such thing. Concluding that requires ignoring not only what I've written in the same thread, but your own messages that I've replied to. You know better. Be better.
I think every single 2014 background is improved by the new system. I've explained why at length. I would be happy to work any of them as an example.
Have you tried making a School of Transmutation wizard? There's nothing for the Transmuter's Stone feature at 5th-level. Not even a toggle for a self-buff. And you can forget about passing this nonexistent item around a party to other players.
How about a forest gnome School of Illusion wizard? Despite the clear wording of the Improved Minor Illusion feature, they have two versions of the cantrip from two different sources. There's no replacement wizard cantrip.
Or what about an artificer? Have you played those in a campaign on this site? Have you figured out a way to share your infusions with party members? Because I sure haven't, not for my players' sakes.
Oh, here's a goodie. If you make a barbarian with an Unarmored Defense AC is higher than their armored AC, and I don't mean a shield, they still use their Unarmored Defense.
My point, dear Yurei, is you shouldn't be using what this website can and cannot do as the sole barometer for what you can or cannot do as player or DM.
Ok look, I agree with you that the new system is way better and the original backgrounds were by and large useless ribbons that didn't give players enough flexibility, but you're being completely unreasonable here. You are literally making shit up that Kotath never said.
The point of the old background features is not to limit what other players can do, and to say so is ridiculous. I disagree with Kotath in almost all of their comments in this thread, but when they said that an acolyte getting room and board for free at a temple doesn't mean that non-acolytes can't ask for help from temples they were objectively correct. All acolyte does is it guarantees that you can get room and board from temples of your faith. Nowhere does it say that nobody else can ask for anything from a temple ever. To say that it does is incredibly stupid and childish.
Obviously if a player starts murdering temple officials the temple will be hostile to them. The rules aren't in conflict with this. The acolyte feature specifically references your faith and I would argue that if you turn apostate and start murdering priests then it isn't your faith anymore, so even if your dm was an inflexible computer this wouldn't be an issue.
You declare that under Kotath's espoused rules backgrounds would work in the incredibly narrow way you describe, despite the fact that for this entire thread they have explicitly said the opposite. This is clearly bad faith. You justify this by saying it is the only logical way for the rules to work. This is false. Acolytes get room and board for free =/= ONLY acolytes can EVER ask a temple for ANYTHING EVER. Those are different things. The acolyte gets aid without rolling. They get it for free. Non-acolytes do not get aid from temples for free because they do not have the feature that allows them to get aid from temples for free. That does not mean they can NEVER EVER ask for ANY aid from temples. If that were the case then nobody could ever make survival checks to hunt or gather because an outlander gets to find food and water for free with their background. You are being obtuse.
The new background system is far and away better than the old system. We can make the case for it being better without being dishonest.
With all due respect, no. In my experience, the people who say that don't fully understand the role the ability check plays. And, to be fair, it's all part of rather dry rules in the DMG that ought to be in the PH.
Wisdom Survival serves three main purposes: tracking targets, foraging for food and water, and navigating from one location to the next. The general thrust of these niches can be found under Activities While Traveling. The long and short is each party member takes on a role for the interval of time and either rolls an ability check or doesn't. All this part of the feature does is remove the need for up to four, specific die rolls for the day if the party size is six or less. Larger parties are at least partially reliant on rations or spellcasting. The takeaway here is it solves a problem in a fairly risk-averse way; which much of the game already does.
And what's the actual check? Beating a DC of 10, 15, or 20; followed by 1d6 + Wisdom modifier pounds of food or gallons of water on a success. Six is a middle-of-the-road result, or the absolute floor for 20 Wisdom. And this can only be done at a normal or slow pace, meaning the Wanderer feature allows for food collection at even a fast pace. So, parties can travel faster without needing to worry quite as much about their resources. A single travel day is maybe minutes at the table, and this is a choice the player is making. They're electing to save themselves up to four die rolls by engaging with a set of mechanics they don't even know about on their terms.
So, what exactly is the issue here? Is it bad because the player can opt out of rolling dice some of the time? Are the minutia of foraging honestly that good and interesting? Because, by engaging in this activity, they're still denying the party their passive Wisdom Perception to be wary of threats. They're literally just exchanging one non-die roll for another.
Are we now going to take a shot at passive Wisdom Perception?
Do you allow sorcerers to make multiple dagger attacks with a single Attack action?
Do you allow fighters to give their allies Inspiration dice to bolster their checks?
Do you allow rogues to enter a battle rage?
The answer is almost certainly 'of course not' because Extra Attack, Bardic Inspiration, and Rage are class features. If you don't get those class features because you're a different class, you can't use those features.
The argument Kotath and the rest are (constantly) making is that Background "Features" should have the same weight and force of rules as Class Features. That your 'Shelter of the Faithful' is as important - and exclusive - to you as Inspiration or Rage is. Your ability to garner aid from temples is a distinct and exclusive feature of your background, like your ability to deliver inspiration or enter a rage is a distinct and exclusive feature of your class. If anyone else were allowed to garner aid from temples? The DM would be giving that player the benefit of your Background Feature, which is as big a no-no in the Koath/Jou version of background rules as allowing a barbarian to inspire, or a bard to rage.
And no, the "you get it for free, that doesn't mean nobody else can roll for it" thing is a complete ******* nothingburger and everybody knows it. It's a nonanswer, a nonargument. You wouldn't allow a bard to enter a battle rage if they rolled a high enough Strength check, would you? You wouldn't allow a sorcerer to make three or four attacks in a single action if they rolled high enough on their Dexterity check, ne? It's ludicrous on the face of it.
Which is what I keep trying to show people. For Kotath, Jounichi, and the rest to get what they want, 2014 Background Features have to have the weight and force of rules behind them that class features do. Which means that each and every Background Feature becomes something nobody without that feature can do, elsewise the DM is Running The Game Wrong. And it also means that every new background Wizards prints is removing something else from the pool of possible things players should be able to do, elsewise they're gaining unearned benefits from 'class' features they don't have.
It's incredibly harmful to the game as a whole, which is why almost no one bothers with 2014 Background "Features" as written. Because you're right, players should be able top make their case for aid from a temple, or the mayor's office, or the local constabulary, or whatever else makes sense for them to seek aid from. But under 2014 Background Feature rules as written, THEY GOD DAMNED CAN'T because it's the equivalent of the barbarian casting a bunch of Divine magic in a pinch just because he'd really like to be able to just then.
So those rules need to bloody leave. Entirely, wholesale, cut them out with a chainsaw. Roleplaying prompts do not need the weight and force of combat rules.
Please do not contact or message me.
There's the philosophy in game design about Permissive Rules or Prohibitive Rules. The first states when you are allowed to do something. The second declares when you can't do something.
The games in the D&D genealogy seems to favour the permissive line. When a new feature is added, it declares the circumstances in which you are permitted to take that action. This is what I believe Yurei is referring to: if a previously "free" course of action (like asking for aid from an allied faith) was given as a feature to a specific character option, then there is a very real argument that only characters WITH that option can now pursue that action.
Paraphrasing her argument above: whenever a new option is added - bearing the full constraints of the rules in this way - it is also taken away from the rest of the game. Because doing otherwise would devalue that option. And that's why some things really oughtn't be codified in hard rules, and instead left as forms of guidance in soft rules.
Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding your stance here, Yureibeans. :)
Kotath, you sweet cinnamonbun in human form, you get that Yurei's hyperbole is (mostly) satirical, right? Held up to the light to illustrate how ridiculous a position is when taken to its extreme?
Now, I fully accept that I may be wildly misconstruing everyone's arguments here, but I honestly feel that everyone is basically promoting the same idea - albeit from different angles and bias. "I want the game to support me in expressing my character the way I want them to be."
But how is the game permitting you to do so, and how is it prohibiting you from doing so? And what to do when your interpretation meets different expectations from your other players (including the DM)? Is a (ironically restrictive) permissive template model preferable to being provided tools with which to better communicate expectations? Such as a set of generalised options that can be adapted to the player's concept. Like the above mentioned Allies or Contacts, but also things like Status or Affiliations, Heritage or Identity, and so on. And they would all just be prompts and scenery. Conversation starters. Colour and flavour. Like (and I'm echoing previous speakers again) Bonds and Flaws and ... whatever that last one was.
And wouldn't that just be fine? :)
I wish there were a place to express guidance from the experience of others - example situations and different means to resolve them.
kinda sounds like the dungeon master's guide needs a new optional rule for literal "plot coupons." a dm who was into it could issue one or more tokens to players to spend on background-ish items that pop up during the adventure. then some people could spend theirs early on a pet mouse or comfort chicken (hatch a plot?), while others might hold theirs until later when it would be cool if a certain guard was actually their favorite second cousin (get out of plot free card?). not sure how to word that to keep someone from inheriting a suit of full plate (plot armor?), but there's always rust and roleplay. for everything else: pay gold, squire.
yeah, no way to balance that monetarily. use and implementation is obviously up to dm.
and, sure, you could do this now without it being written down. i'd certainly watch a stream of d-list celebrities dropping their main character token down at the height of drama as the dm scrambles telegenicly to adjust. but, if it was RAW then maybe "it's in the book, ask your dm" would end more arguments like this more quickly.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Thinking of things in permissive/prohibitive terms can be really useful here, though since there's a "decoupling" happening I think that things are both more permissive and more prohibitive, at the same time.
Kotath, even if every table views 2014 Background features the way you do - i.e. they are only "bypass roll" coupons for those specific characters that have them, but they don't actually prevent characters who lack them from rolling - that's still bad! Whether a given character gets to bypass a roll or not should be based on that character, and the connections they have or forged within that specific campaign - not on a wholly disconnected choice they made during chargen. And that is how both players and DMs should be encouraged to think - approaching social and exploration challenges and their resolution mechanisms from the situation first, not from the coupons listed on the player's sheet.
The Noble's "gain an audience" feature should not bypass a roll to gain an audience in every single circumstance'; me being a noble from Baldur's Gate doesn't mean jack squat on Evermeet or Sigil. But no such exceptions are given in the feature itself, Similarly, Pirate saying "no matter where I go, people are afraid of me and don't report my criminal offenses" makes no sense somewhere like Dis or Mechanus or even Barovia, but again, no distinction is made in the feature.
And if you agree that, "well of course players' ability to just accomplish something without rolling should be evaluated by their DM on a case by case basis!" then I'm left once again asking you why do these ribbon features need to exist in the first place? Especially given the 20-page real-estate they currently take up from a printed perspective?
Yes, Yurei, you are making a nonargument.
You strike me as one of those people who thinks that someone else getting a bigger piece of the economic pie means there's less for everyone else; completely forgetting the pie's size isn't fixed and can grow larger.
Saying one character gets something for free, without the need for an ability check that literally anyone can attempt, somehow precludes others from attempting to gain the same thing via a check in utterly bananas. That's the point of ability checks. It's not equivalent to class features, and you know it.
For once, stop arguing in bad faith and actually engage with the rules.
At this point I'm reasonably sure no one on this board realizes that. Or even if they do, they hate it. "But Yurei, nobody ever takes things to these weird extremes you keep proposing, it's nothing but strawman and hyperbole!"
Oh my dear sweet innocent child, have you MET the Internet?
I GUARANTEE that people are being exactly as stupid as I'm outlining them being, if not stupider. The entire Rules & Game Mechanics forum is packed to the brim with semantic arguments far worse than this one. The Internet is overflowing with small-minded rules lawyers who will use the wording of any rule to try and get one over on the DM and their fellow players. Me pointing out the extremes in rules/situations is not 'strawman' at all, it's me shoving someone's nose in how ******* dumb something is without giving them the wiggle room of Ambiguity or Grey Area to try and cling to their stupidity. And no, "the DM can always say no"/Rule Zero is NOT a reasonable response. Rule Zero does not excuse the rest of the core books being written poorly, or in ways that give the rules [Godwin's Law]s more ammunition than they have to.
And as Psyren said, if the background ribbons aren't always-on Ignore Plot Buttons players can push regardless of the circumstances of the game - if those "abilities" are taking into account the players' conduct and history within the game - why are they bloody there? It's dumb. It's stupid. It's trying to give shitty roleplaying prompts the weight and force of hard combat rules and there's neither a need for that nor any good goddamn reason to do it.
EDIT:
I'll be nice and actually ask, then.
Why do these abilities need to exist, if "anyone" can get them just by throwing a d20 at the DM's head? What benefit do they have? What do they do for the game as hard-coded capital-R RUUUURRUUS rather than simply roleplaying prompts? What game-design value does it have to give players a Magic Free Get-Out-Of-Plot Button they can press but then telling them "if you just roleplay gud, you can also push the Get Out Of Plot Free button, but ooooonly if you roll reeeeaaaaaally well!"
Spoilers: the answer is zero. Zero value. There is no value whatsoever that these stupid "Features" have as Hard Coded Ultrarules that they wouldn't have as a simple list of roleplaying prompts or a few examples of how a DM can respond to a player's background. You're giving a DM a fish rather than teaching him to fish - you're saying that if the DM finds himself in this specific situation he's supposed to just let the player have an unearned gimme, but in any other situation he's given no guidance on what to do.
Teach people to fish, Jou. Don't give them fish.
Please do not contact or message me.
Just because I'm being 'satirical and hyperbolic' doesn't mean I'm wrong.
You don't like arguing extreme positions because you don't find them relevant or meaningful.
I don't like arguing mild positions because I find them pointless and unworthy of consideration. There's no point in arguing the most basic, milquetoast version of something, that's never going to be what anyone does or uses. Mild milquetoast people with mild milquetoast opinions are never going to be worth talking about because they have no backbone in the first place.
The test cycle so far has shown us there's no point in arguing for or against minor, milquetoast modifications to proposed content. Either the content goes through as proposed in the document or it's revoked completely, a'la UA7. There IS no god damned middle ground.People who argue for The Middle Ground are pointless and unworthy of consideration. Either you're arguing for the retention of the Origins document rules governing background creation or you're arguing for the complete destruction of those rules and the 100% retention of the 2014 rules, completely and utterly unmodified. Any other opinion is pointless and unworthy of consideration because it will not happen, there will be no mixy-mixy "we want to keep just a little bit of the new rules but also we want to keep background Features because we think players and DMs both are super stupid and can't figure out how to ropleplay if we don't smack them across the mouth with a Button they can push to bypass the game whenever they want one" edition of the Origin rules.
Origins document rules, or unmodified 2014 crap rules. Pick. One. Because arguing towards the median is utterly pointless and completely unworthy of consideration.
Please do not contact or message me.
Ouch! I'm happy I've got some sunscreen to go with my umbrella, because I feel hit by that burn, optimistic middle-ground enthusiast as I am :)
Luckily, I also get great lumbar support from my beach chair here even without a spine. But that's okay. It's pretty comfy here anyway.
Now, where can we find a common ground for these viewpoints..? Actually, I'm just happy that people are so passionate about the game. It'd be terrible if there was just no discussion at all.