It's literally what you're there to do, which is play a character that is unique and different from other characters. And that uniqueness deserves to be in the customizable, write-your-own, collaborative storytelling, portion of a character sheet rather than a mechanical widget that could never do justice to the infinite creativity that players bring to a game.
You've literally, always been able to do this. The 2014 rules gave you examples, you've always been able to do your own thing, and the fact that you need the validation from a book to do so says a lot about what it's like to DM for you is my guess.
Your reply to me makes very little sense in context of the conversation that was taking place. If you're going to enter a forum conversation it would behoove you to read back a ways so you actually understand and can make relevant comments. Your point has been made and addressed several pages back.
No, they're making perfect sense.
Can you click on the little arrow next to my name in the quote that Toke clipped? Then read the whole post and maybe Kotath's post that I'm replying to? Kotath and I were at somewhere near QRST in the conversation and Toke brought up a point that was somewhere near EFG. It is literally a nonsensical reply to the comment that they clipped because it doesn't bear any relevance to the conversation that was happening.
What you two both want are not mutually exclusive from one another. Those background features, which you call mechanical widgets, do afford some uniqueness among the players. It's one more feature they have which they might share or not with someone else. To say they don't allow for uniqueness is to say two players cannot be the same class. It's asinine.
I see you are also taking your hand at replying while not following the thread of the conversation. What I was talking to Kotath about in the conversation that Toke quoted was about the write-your-own backstory section of the Origins UA and how it serves as the narrative function of a character, as distinct from the Background Features which in the UA includes only the mechanical parts of the Ability Scores, Skills, Tools, Languages, and Feat. Specifically how this separation of the narrative from the mechanical is a better way to do it than the 2014 style Background Features, which mix together aspects of both mechanics and narrative in arbitrary and wildly balanced ways, to the detriment of gameplay as well as contravening their very own intentions that the Background Feature was intended to be a mechanical and concrete benefit rather than a roleplaying suggestion.
Everyone's also allowed to write their character's backstory; including relationships with potential NPCs. That's never changed, either.
So, what's the problem?
Please start at THIS post to understand the thread of the conversation because you're not caught up on the conversation and you're not really making coherent sense. I literally don't know how to reply to this because I've never said or implied anywhere in this thread that either of the two systems disallowed the writing of back stories.
No need to puff yourself up any bigger than you really are. At the time Toke quoted you, it was your most recent response to Koltath. They weren't halfway back up the alphabet. What is it with people in this thread and misrepresenting both the literal text and other people's points?
If you want to have a conversation with people, anyone at all, then stop insulting their intelligence. I've been following the conversations, and I'll continue to point out rank hypocrisy wherever I see it.
Never have I ever seen players have the problems with their characters and backgrounds that people claim here to have had. I've never had them as a player, and no players have ever complained about imbalanced features. The worst example I ever came across was the Smuggler from Ghosts of Saltmarsh because "smuggler" is already one of the options for a Criminal career and it's missing either a language or a second tool proficiency. It broke the cardinal rule of the PH.
But if you don't care about actually talking with people, just at people and belittling them, you can start a YouTube channel like every other grifter.
Personally, I've often found the 2014 backgrounds to be incredibly inflexible. I often find my characters don't slot into any of the backgrounds very naturally, or they do so in a way as to make the attached background feature either mechanically useless or feel like a weird tag-on that is only there because the book insists I have one and I have a really hard time creating a fully custom feature because they're so incredibly ill-defined and can range anywhere between "knowing about maps" to "has literal guys following you around to wipe your bum for you".
The new system is far more intuitive. You choose a set of skills, tools, and languages you feel is appropriate for your character to have based on your backstory and you're done. You don't need to ponder about some special privilege you think your character deserves. That is handled by talking with the DM about your backstory. And because my backstories are often long and storied I often get many small benefits from them depending on the time and place of the game.
Pretty much anything the old features offer you can be gained by just talking with your DM about if they think it is appropriate for you to have it. I don't need a feature to tell me my character with +7 to Survival is good at navigating terrain or that my scholar character knows how libraries work.
Let's go over the guiding questions from the Origins UA and see how they can help us completely replace most of the 2014 Background Features, shall we?
How does your Background influence your current worldview?
What information do you know about the world? How did you learn that information? This establishes basically what kind of things you would know and possibly be able to recall using your various knowledge skills. Covers most of the Features for Backgrounds like Archaeologist, Investigator, Scholar, and Sage. Literally just makes them happen as a discussion with your DM rather than having to have a special superpower.
Do you embrace or reject your Background?
How connected are you still to the people, places, and things in your back story? Important question, but more for internal things like Personality, Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws. Could maybe explain things like the Far Traveler, Celebrity Scion, or Haunted One features.
Did you form any relationships during your Background that endure today?
Who do you know and how well connected are you to those people and groups? This replaces like half of all the 2014 Background Features all at once: Acolyte, Soldier, Noble, Guild Agent, Uthgardt Tribemember, Witchlight hand, etc, etc, etc.
Where did they spend most of their time?
Where did you grow up? This is like one of the more important questions to help integrate with the DM's world because it opens a conversation about what locales even exist in the DM's world. This could definitely replace things like Far Traveler, Hermit, or Outlander.
What did they do for a living?
Another important question to integrate with the DM's world because it established the truths of the economy of the setting. Can replaces all the job based Backgrounds: Soldier, Charlatan, Investigator, Mercenary, Gladiator, Fisher, Entertainer
What capabilities and possessions did they acquire?
This one basically takes care of linking the backstory to ability scores, feats, and all equipment. Want a mouse? Here you go.
What language did they learn from their family, associates, or studies?
Self explanatory.
How did their past affect their ability scores?
Maybe a bit redundant, but I guess they thought it bore more direct reference.
The only Backgrounds this guide has trouble recreating are the newer ones, the ones which have a Feat as a default and hey ... that's been moved to be a default.
But, according to the principle that in the current rules, only those things specifically granted have any relevance (which is what most if not all of the opponents of the 2014 features have been saying), the answers to those questions have zero relevance other than the skills, tool, feat and language granted by the UA rules.
I'm sorry what principle is this and who has been saying it? Because it seems new to me. I certainly haven't been saying it.
I remember from the very beginning that Yurei said that a lot of the things that the 2014 Background Features give can simply be granted through DM/Player negotiation, which is the same thing I'm saying here. Things like the 2014 Acolyte Feature and half of all the Background Features are pointless to have as a mechanical power because it is better accomplished through establishing it as a truth through discussion. The other half of the 2014 Background Features are awkward mechanical superpowers that are narrow and rigid superpowers designed only to evoke niche themes and don't have any sort of flexibility in concept. Don't you remember Yurei making that argument from the beginning?
So just to make it clear, I think these questions have a lot of relevance in that process of DM/Player negotiation to establish truths about the character and indeed the world. They replace many of the 2014 style Background Features because they simply establish things like the character's social connections as truths of the world through discussion with the DM. This is where they belong rather than being a specifically mechanical and concrete superpower like the 2014 PHB explicitly says that Background Features are.
If the answers to those questions matter, then clearly the 'DM fills in the blanks and fits the background into their world' applies to the 2014 features too.
Yes. They do matter and it applies to the 2014 Backgrounds as well, but the questions from 2014 are lacking in guidance compared to the Origins UA and the 2014 Background Features themselves are specifically and explicitly pointed out to be concrete mechanical benefits and thus not part of the negotiable roleplaying suggestions according to the 2014 PHB itself. Again, badly written and rectified by the changed proposed in the Origins UA.
It is a faulty argument for the principle only to apply to the new rules, and not at all to the current, especially since the current rules explicitly state that DM fiat applies.
Sure, but as you can see I have not applied any sort of double standard.
It's literally what you're there to do, which is play a character that is unique and different from other characters. And that uniqueness deserves to be in the customizable, write-your-own, collaborative storytelling, portion of a character sheet rather than a mechanical widget that could never do justice to the infinite creativity that players bring to a game.
You've literally, always been able to do this. The 2014 rules gave you examples, you've always been able to do your own thing, and the fact that you need the validation from a book to do so says a lot about what it's like to DM for you is my guess.
Your reply to me makes very little sense in context of the conversation that was taking place. If you're going to enter a forum conversation it would behoove you to read back a ways so you actually understand and can make relevant comments. Your point has been made and addressed several pages back.
And again, 'you're wrong' is not a meaningful counter-argument. 'I've already proven myself correct' is not a counter-argument (especially when you are clearly still being disputed).
"I can't understand your reply to me because it doesn't bear any relevance to the section of the conversation you have quoted" is not exactly "you're wrong."
Rule 0 and the basic game concept of DM and player working together on character creation to, together, come up with something that fits the player's concept but still makes sense for that DM's world really has been a key aspect of the game since day 1, 0e.... that is explicitly invoked in the custom backgrounds section of the 2014 PHB, before the reader even looks at any of the stock backgrounds.
If anything, the concept is stronger in 5e than it was 'back in the beginning.'
Unless, of course, your point there is to concede that the 2014 features are fine after all, based on acknowledging that....
Acknowledged and accounted for above and nope, the 2014 Background Features are still poorly written and improved upon by the Origins UA.
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!
Inflexibility is being simply stated as a fact, ignoring contrary evidence (the line saying feel free to change things or even come up with something not listed here at all, just work it out with your DM).
And backing up even further, right to the start of the backgrounds section of the PHB:
Choosing a background provides you with important story cues about your character’s identity. The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring? Where did you get the money to purchase your starting gear, or, if you come from a wealthy background, why don’t you have more money? How did you learn the skills of your class? What sets you apart from ordinary people who share your background?
The sample backgrounds in this chapter provide both concrete benefits (features, proficiencies, and languages) and roleplaying suggestions.
Those questions sound suspiciously like the ones in the 2024 version, don't they? The 'guidance' proponents of the latter claim is not there in the existing 2014 rules?
And they make it clear, right there, that the backgrounds listed are samples, which is not the same rhetoric as 'these are the only choices and anything else is forbidden or discouraged'
Kotath, I've already made this comparison between the questions asked in the 2014 PHB and the guiding questions asked in the Origins UA, HERE, remember?
1) They are still lacking in comparison, focusing pretty much only on the immediate past and why the character is adventuring. Yes it's a bit of guidance, which I've already acknowledged two days ago, but it's not as thorough. 2) It doesn't even apply to the Background Features in specific because those were designated as concrete mechanical benefits rather than the more flexible roleplaying suggestions. 3) Yes the 2014 Backgrounds as a whole are certainly samples, but the 2014 PHB provides no guidance with how to create new Background Features in specific, they just say "go out and make up a new one" with literally no other effort spent saying how.
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!
Inflexibility is being simply stated as a fact, ignoring contrary evidence (the line saying feel free to change things or even come up with something not listed here at all, just work it out with your DM).
And backing up even further, right to the start of the backgrounds section of the PHB:
Choosing a background provides you with important story cues about your character’s identity. The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring? Where did you get the money to purchase your starting gear, or, if you come from a wealthy background, why don’t you have more money? How did you learn the skills of your class? What sets you apart from ordinary people who share your background?
The sample backgrounds in this chapter provide both concrete benefits (features, proficiencies, and languages) and roleplaying suggestions.
Those questions sound suspiciously like the ones in the 2024 version, don't they? The 'guidance' proponents of the latter claim is not there in the existing 2014 rules?
And they make it clear, right there, that the backgrounds listed are samples, which is not the same rhetoric as 'these are the only choices and anything else is forbidden or discouraged'
Kotath, I've already made this comparison between the questions asked in the 2014 PHB and the guiding questions asked in the Origins UA, HERE, remember?
1) They are still lacking in comparison, focusing pretty much only on the immediate past and why the character is adventuring. Yes it's a bit of guidance, which I've already acknowledged two days ago, but it's not as thorough. 2) It doesn't even apply to the Background Features in specific because those were designated as concrete mechanical benefits rather than the more flexible roleplaying suggestions. 3) Yes the 2014 Backgrounds as a whole are certainly samples, but the 2014 PHB provides no guidance with how to create new Background Features in specific, they just say "go out and make up a new one" with literally no other effort spent saying how.
And the 2024 UA gives even less, since it only refers to anything like that in terms of flavour text.
I don't, and haven't, ever denigrated story oriented details as simply "flavor" and have been an advocate from the beginning for establishing truths through player/DM discussion. They have weight and importance and significance, they just belong on the narrative side of the equation rather than trying to be a mechanical superpower like the 2014 Background Features are trying to be. I have been consistent in all my replies here.
This is maddening. The samples themselves are the guidance. The clear indication is 'Make something along these lines.' That is the whole point of examples.
This advice works for the Background as a whole, but honestly and sincerely don't for the wildly variable Background Features from 2014.
It is a pretty weak argument to simultaneously insist that they do not give freedom and that they do not hold your hand tightly telling you exactly how and under what limits to create such features.
And yet you will find that this is basically what the design of the 2014 Background Features does. Because they don't give you any insight into the design process, they just give you finished products. Giving a bunch of finished products and just saying, "make something like that" without any further guidance IS both too little and too much all at once. Bad writing can do that.
On top of that, they've explicitly designated the Background Feature as a mechanical benefit, an area that DM's are less likely to try and homebrew as it is.
Note, Kotath, that even your own quote proves that the 2014 rules assume players are supposed to use a prebuilt, unmodified Wizards-supplied background. They don't say "Creating a background gives you important story cues...". They say "CHOOSING a background gives you important story cues..."
Choosing. Not creating. Because you're not supposed to create.
And no, the presence or absence of Plot Coupons does not indicate whether or not players can rely on their background for story beats. You seem to think that if the player doesn't have a rigid, inflexible, mechanically enforceable Plot Coupon they'll assume everything in their story is nothing but wasted air?
Why?
Why would someone who writes "I grew up in [X] town" NOT assume they'd have some hometown-style connections in that town? Why would someone who wrote that they're part of a guild NOT assume they could call on their guild for guild-related assistance - or that their guild could call on them for same? Why would someone who wrote that they're a nobleman NOT assume that title carries both privileges and responsibilities, and shirking the one means revocation of the other?
You don't need lame Plot Coupons to tell you these things. The Plot Coupons just get in the way. You know, in general, what sort of support you can expect from your background by having a brief conversation with your DM about whether your character idea fits their game. Sometimes you might have to roll for something at the fringes of your background's relevancy or reach. Sometimes your background may not be as useful as you'd hoped it would be in a single given circumstance. But at all times you'll have a better idea of what you can attempt than someone who's been told the entire sum totality of their whole-ass history is summed up solely and exclusively by this ONE mechanical Plot Coupon they're allowed to use whether it makes any damn sense or not.
And the 2024 UA gives even less, since it only refers to anything like that in terms of flavour text.
Wait hold up. How are the background questions from the UA any more or less flavor text than the ones from the 2014 PHB? What's the difference you're pointing out here?
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!
By not giving any indication that the answers have any meaning other than explaining how and why your character ended up with the skills, feat, language and tool choices plus the flat, applies equally to all backgrounds, 50 gp.
If the answers have no meaning then they're not worth asking. The game asks you to answer those questions, ergo the game expects them to have meaning. You're demanding that everybody be given a mechanical Plot Coupon as a "sign your background matters", while discarding the idea that anything else about the background should matter. By saying "this ONE thing about your background matters", you are stating by exclusion that nothing else matters, because nothing else gets a mechanical Plot Coupon. No Plot Coupon? No effect or impact, even when it would make sense, because that ain't your Plot Coupon.
And yes, everybody starts with the same fifty gold pieces worth of background coin. Because that's fair. Because that's better game design. Because someone doesn't get to start with hundreds of times more resources than someone else according to the basic, core, RAW game rules. If a specific table is fine with that? Bam diddie, have fun. But the RAW book gets to put players on an even footing and ask them to figure out why. If they're a nobleman, they get to figure out the story of why they have only 50gp to their name, and if they're a street rat they get to figure out why they have 50gp to adventure with. I find it to be an interesting prompt, figuring out how you come to the precise spot where you start your adventure.
And the 2024 UA gives even less, since it only refers to anything like that in terms of flavour text.
Wait hold up. How are the background questions from the UA any more or less flavor text than the ones from the 2014 PHB? What's the difference you're pointing out here?
By not giving any indication that the answers have any meaning other than explaining how and why your character ended up with the skills, feat, language and tool choices plus the flat, applies equally to all backgrounds, 50 gp.
gotta start somewhere. might as well be equal footing with the other players. the public pool goes from shallow to deep because it caters to a diverse population. olympic swimmers and splashpad enthusiast will branch out to find different inspiration or different products.
and like yurei says, "how did i get here" is a GREAT prompt. same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
I don't know what any of this has to do with what I said, other than the first question. And to answer the first question, I don't know what you mean by "whether that fits your vision of the character or not", but I am saying that when you give the DM your backstory and discuss it with them, you're trusting that they will make it relevant as they see fit.
If you cannot trust your DM, you are in the wrong campaign. Period. I am saying is that there is no suggestion in the 2024 UA that the DM is supposed to do anything at all with such, or at least to grant any abilities or privileges other than the feat, skills, tool, language and flat 50 gp.
you mean, other than the whole (paraphrased) 'work with your DM to come up with the reasons for this' bit, of course.
Some side questions:
Do you think that the DM should be the only one to write the stuff for the background material?
Do you think that players should have no input into that background?
Is your concern more about the lack of larger worldbuilding assistance in 5e as a whole or is it about this specific and singular problem you are seeing?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
And yes, everybody starts with the same fifty gold pieces worth of background coin. Because that's fair. Because that's better game design.
It's not just fair, and better design (though it's definitely those).
It's an example of how the new rules don't have you trying to game your backstory. Just like how you shouldn't have to game your ethnicity, or game your heritage... You get to choose urchin and not get screwed over by not choosing noble.
I don't know what any of this has to do with what I said, other than the first question. And to answer the first question, I don't know what you mean by "whether that fits your vision of the character or not", but I am saying that when you give the DM your backstory and discuss it with them, you're trusting that they will make it relevant as they see fit.
If you cannot trust your DM, you are in the wrong campaign. Period. I am saying is that there is no suggestion in the 2024 UA that the DM is supposed to do anything at all with such, or at least to grant any abilities or privileges other than the feat, skills, tool, language and flat 50 gp.
you mean, other than the whole (paraphrased) 'work with your DM to come up with the reasons for this' bit, of course.
Some side questions:
Do you think that the DM should be the only one to write the stuff for the background material?
Do you think that players should have no input into that background?
Is your concern more about the lack of larger worldbuilding assistance in 5e as a whole or is it about this specific and singular problem you are seeing?
What part of "Work with your DM" means "Ask your DM to write it all for you?"
I was pointing out exactly what seems to be being worked out with the DM, not questioning player input.
So, to clarify:
The DM should note be the only one to write the background.
Players should have input on the background.
Your concern here is with this specific issue, not with the larger issue of a lack of worldbuilding support.
So, for example, if they were to include a line that said something to the effect of "The DM should do this, this, and this in developing out the background aspects of the character with the player." that would solve your problem?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
since there functionally is no lull to this discussion, i'd like to manufacture one to briefly to say:
Kotath, you are a hard worker. you respond to so many things here. it might benefit the thread as a whole, however, if you could maybe stop feeding the ravenous opposition just for a few moments. those guys, sheesh, they'll bite at just about anything, right? the waters are so churned that i've completely lost track of what your hope and purpose are here. could you kindly deign to provide a mission statement? not asking for a big effort, maybe just that and a few bullet-points that summarize where this is going? like a "this is what is missing" and "this is what i want" sort of thing. shorter the better really (less for nit pickers to move goalposts about).
sincerely, thanks!
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!
Also, as a note, whenever someone uses the statement "semantics" in a dismissive way, or uses "rhetoric." in a dismissive way, what they are saying is that meaning and discussion do not matter in this context -- their intent is often to say that it comes down to saying the same thing two different ways, but in doing so they are agreeing.
Rhetoric is what this entire forum is constructed on. All arguments are based in rhetoric.
Semantics is the study of meaning -- so to dismiss it means to dismiss all meaning from all words (whose entire point is to convey a meaning), not merely the specific thing, because without a qualifications of the thing such as "This line is semantics, here's why the problem exists since we are using two different meanings" they are applying it to all statements.
So, using those terms is a way to state that one capitualtes -- that you surrender, or concede the point. Even if that isn't the goal in their doing so.
Pedantic, granted, but when you have a Pedant present, you can expect it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Note, Kotath, that even your own quote proves that the 2014 rules assume players are supposed to use a prebuilt, unmodified Wizards-supplied background. They don't say "Creating a background gives you important story cues...". They say "CHOOSING a background gives you important story cues..."
Choosing. Not creating. Because you're not supposed to create.
More semantics, again, hinging on a specific interpretation and ignoring any and all that contradicts your interpretation.
One makes choices when creating anything. The alternative would be that creations are completely arbitrary and out of the control of the creator. Creating inherently involves making choices.
When writing rules and instructions, semantics are incredibly important. Just reordering "X and Y" can make a huge difference to clarity, or even meaning.
Yurei is 100% right that that word choice is critical. You give people a list of examples, and say "choose one", and they will choose one. If none of them fit, they'll usually shrug and pick the closest.
Note, Kotath, that even your own quote proves that the 2014 rules assume players are supposed to use a prebuilt, unmodified Wizards-supplied background. They don't say "Creating a background gives you important story cues...". They say "CHOOSING a background gives you important story cues..."
Choosing. Not creating. Because you're not supposed to create.
And no, the presence or absence of Plot Coupons does not indicate whether or not players can rely on their background for story beats. You seem to think that if the player doesn't have a rigid, inflexible, mechanically enforceable Plot Coupon they'll assume everything in their story is nothing but wasted air?
Why?
Why would someone who writes "I grew up in [X] town" NOT assume they'd have some hometown-style connections in that town? Why would someone who wrote that they're part of a guild NOT assume they could call on their guild for guild-related assistance - or that their guild could call on them for same? Why would someone who wrote that they're a nobleman NOT assume that title carries both privileges and responsibilities, and shirking the one means revocation of the other?
You don't need lame Plot Coupons to tell you these things. The Plot Coupons just get in the way. You know, in general, what sort of support you can expect from your background by having a brief conversation with your DM about whether your character idea fits their game. Sometimes you might have to roll for something at the fringes of your background's relevancy or reach. Sometimes your background may not be as useful as you'd hoped it would be in a single given circumstance. But at all times you'll have a better idea of what you can attempt than someone who's been told the entire sum totality of their whole-ass history is summed up solely and exclusively by this ONE mechanical Plot Coupon they're allowed to use whether it makes any damn sense or not.
This line says create: If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one.
Here is the link in case you haven't read that far in the PHB.
Note, Kotath, that even your own quote proves that the 2014 rules assume players are supposed to use a prebuilt, unmodified Wizards-supplied background. They don't say "Creating a background gives you important story cues...". They say "CHOOSING a background gives you important story cues..."
Choosing. Not creating. Because you're not supposed to create.
And no, the presence or absence of Plot Coupons does not indicate whether or not players can rely on their background for story beats. You seem to think that if the player doesn't have a rigid, inflexible, mechanically enforceable Plot Coupon they'll assume everything in their story is nothing but wasted air?
Why?
Why would someone who writes "I grew up in [X] town" NOT assume they'd have some hometown-style connections in that town? Why would someone who wrote that they're part of a guild NOT assume they could call on their guild for guild-related assistance - or that their guild could call on them for same? Why would someone who wrote that they're a nobleman NOT assume that title carries both privileges and responsibilities, and shirking the one means revocation of the other?
You don't need lame Plot Coupons to tell you these things. The Plot Coupons just get in the way. You know, in general, what sort of support you can expect from your background by having a brief conversation with your DM about whether your character idea fits their game. Sometimes you might have to roll for something at the fringes of your background's relevancy or reach. Sometimes your background may not be as useful as you'd hoped it would be in a single given circumstance. But at all times you'll have a better idea of what you can attempt than someone who's been told the entire sum totality of their whole-ass history is summed up solely and exclusively by this ONE mechanical Plot Coupon they're allowed to use whether it makes any damn sense or not.
This line says create:
If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one.
Here is the link in case you haven't read that far in the PHB.
Customizing is a subheading under Backgrounds. "if you can't find a ... desired background" means choosing failed. if that then, creating a background is an alternative to choosing a background.
And the 2024 UA gives even less, since it only refers to anything like that in terms of flavour text.
Wait hold up. How are the background questions from the UA any more or less flavor text than the ones from the 2014 PHB? What's the difference you're pointing out here?
By not giving any indication that the answers have any meaning other than explaining how and why your character ended up with the skills, feat, language and tool choices plus the flat, applies equally to all backgrounds, 50 gp.
I'm still confused, are we talking about the same Background questions? These are the two lists of questions I'm thinking about:
2014 PHB Background Questions Choosing a background provides you with important story cues about your character’s identity. The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring? Where did you get the money to purchase your starting gear, or, if you come from a wealthy background, why don’t you have more money? How did you learn the skills of your class? What sets you apart from ordinary people who share your background?
and then ...
Origins UA Background Questions How does your Background influence your current worldview? Do you embrace or reject your Background? Did you form any relationships during your Background that endure today? Where did they spend most of their time? What did they do for a living? What capabilities and possessions did they acquire? What language did they learn from their family, associates, or studies? How did their past affect their ability scores?
These two lists of questions is what you're talking about and saying that one is more flavor text and the other isn't? Is that what you're trying to say?
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!
This line says create: If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one.
Here is the link in case you haven't read that far in the PHB.
That's an argument in favor of simple background features, not against. If the onus is on the DM to make one up, then having an easy and straightforward benchmark like "you can probably get free room and board in {thematically appropriate place}, and all the other mechanical benefits come from your feat/proficiencies/languages" that makes their life a hell of a lot easier. And if they want to go beyond that and give you a bunch of pet NPCs or a complicated intercontinental message delivery network or... whatever the hell Hermit gives you - that is their choice, rather than it being forced on them by the Plot Coupon.
And the Hermit's secret could be as simple as "The Shadow is, in reality, Lamont Cranston, mild mannered man about town" This 'Forced on them by the Plot Coupon' is simply not there. Players do not define the DM's world, at least not without their permission.
How would a Hermit know that? And if you're just going to give the Hermit a random campaign fact, why do you need a coupon for that?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No need to puff yourself up any bigger than you really are. At the time Toke quoted you, it was your most recent response to Koltath. They weren't halfway back up the alphabet. What is it with people in this thread and misrepresenting both the literal text and other people's points?
If you want to have a conversation with people, anyone at all, then stop insulting their intelligence. I've been following the conversations, and I'll continue to point out rank hypocrisy wherever I see it.
Never have I ever seen players have the problems with their characters and backgrounds that people claim here to have had. I've never had them as a player, and no players have ever complained about imbalanced features. The worst example I ever came across was the Smuggler from Ghosts of Saltmarsh because "smuggler" is already one of the options for a Criminal career and it's missing either a language or a second tool proficiency. It broke the cardinal rule of the PH.
But if you don't care about actually talking with people, just at people and belittling them, you can start a YouTube channel like every other grifter.
Personally, I've often found the 2014 backgrounds to be incredibly inflexible. I often find my characters don't slot into any of the backgrounds very naturally, or they do so in a way as to make the attached background feature either mechanically useless or feel like a weird tag-on that is only there because the book insists I have one and I have a really hard time creating a fully custom feature because they're so incredibly ill-defined and can range anywhere between "knowing about maps" to "has literal guys following you around to wipe your bum for you".
The new system is far more intuitive. You choose a set of skills, tools, and languages you feel is appropriate for your character to have based on your backstory and you're done. You don't need to ponder about some special privilege you think your character deserves. That is handled by talking with the DM about your backstory. And because my backstories are often long and storied I often get many small benefits from them depending on the time and place of the game.
Pretty much anything the old features offer you can be gained by just talking with your DM about if they think it is appropriate for you to have it. I don't need a feature to tell me my character with +7 to Survival is good at navigating terrain or that my scholar character knows how libraries work.
I'm sorry what principle is this and who has been saying it? Because it seems new to me. I certainly haven't been saying it.
I remember from the very beginning that Yurei said that a lot of the things that the 2014 Background Features give can simply be granted through DM/Player negotiation, which is the same thing I'm saying here. Things like the 2014 Acolyte Feature and half of all the Background Features are pointless to have as a mechanical power because it is better accomplished through establishing it as a truth through discussion. The other half of the 2014 Background Features are awkward mechanical superpowers that are narrow and rigid superpowers designed only to evoke niche themes and don't have any sort of flexibility in concept. Don't you remember Yurei making that argument from the beginning?
So just to make it clear, I think these questions have a lot of relevance in that process of DM/Player negotiation to establish truths about the character and indeed the world. They replace many of the 2014 style Background Features because they simply establish things like the character's social connections as truths of the world through discussion with the DM. This is where they belong rather than being a specifically mechanical and concrete superpower like the 2014 PHB explicitly says that Background Features are.
Yes. They do matter and it applies to the 2014 Backgrounds as well, but the questions from 2014 are lacking in guidance compared to the Origins UA and the 2014 Background Features themselves are specifically and explicitly pointed out to be concrete mechanical benefits and thus not part of the negotiable roleplaying suggestions according to the 2014 PHB itself. Again, badly written and rectified by the changed proposed in the Origins UA.
Sure, but as you can see I have not applied any sort of double standard.
"I can't understand your reply to me because it doesn't bear any relevance to the section of the conversation you have quoted" is not exactly "you're wrong."
Acknowledged and accounted for above and nope, the 2014 Background Features are still poorly written and improved upon by the Origins UA.
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!
Kotath, I've already made this comparison between the questions asked in the 2014 PHB and the guiding questions asked in the Origins UA, HERE, remember?
1) They are still lacking in comparison, focusing pretty much only on the immediate past and why the character is adventuring. Yes it's a bit of guidance, which I've already acknowledged two days ago, but it's not as thorough.
2) It doesn't even apply to the Background Features in specific because those were designated as concrete mechanical benefits rather than the more flexible roleplaying suggestions.
3) Yes the 2014 Backgrounds as a whole are certainly samples, but the 2014 PHB provides no guidance with how to create new Background Features in specific, they just say "go out and make up a new one" with literally no other effort spent saying how.
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 don't, and haven't, ever denigrated story oriented details as simply "flavor" and have been an advocate from the beginning for establishing truths through player/DM discussion. They have weight and importance and significance, they just belong on the narrative side of the equation rather than trying to be a mechanical superpower like the 2014 Background Features are trying to be. I have been consistent in all my replies here.
This advice works for the Background as a whole, but honestly and sincerely don't for the wildly variable Background Features from 2014.
And yet you will find that this is basically what the design of the 2014 Background Features does. Because they don't give you any insight into the design process, they just give you finished products. Giving a bunch of finished products and just saying, "make something like that" without any further guidance IS both too little and too much all at once. Bad writing can do that.
On top of that, they've explicitly designated the Background Feature as a mechanical benefit, an area that DM's are less likely to try and homebrew as it is.
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!
Note, Kotath, that even your own quote proves that the 2014 rules assume players are supposed to use a prebuilt, unmodified Wizards-supplied background. They don't say "Creating a background gives you important story cues...". They say "CHOOSING a background gives you important story cues..."
Choosing. Not creating. Because you're not supposed to create.
And no, the presence or absence of Plot Coupons does not indicate whether or not players can rely on their background for story beats. You seem to think that if the player doesn't have a rigid, inflexible, mechanically enforceable Plot Coupon they'll assume everything in their story is nothing but wasted air?
Why?
Why would someone who writes "I grew up in [X] town" NOT assume they'd have some hometown-style connections in that town? Why would someone who wrote that they're part of a guild NOT assume they could call on their guild for guild-related assistance - or that their guild could call on them for same? Why would someone who wrote that they're a nobleman NOT assume that title carries both privileges and responsibilities, and shirking the one means revocation of the other?
You don't need lame Plot Coupons to tell you these things. The Plot Coupons just get in the way. You know, in general, what sort of support you can expect from your background by having a brief conversation with your DM about whether your character idea fits their game. Sometimes you might have to roll for something at the fringes of your background's relevancy or reach. Sometimes your background may not be as useful as you'd hoped it would be in a single given circumstance. But at all times you'll have a better idea of what you can attempt than someone who's been told the entire sum totality of their whole-ass history is summed up solely and exclusively by this ONE mechanical Plot Coupon they're allowed to use whether it makes any damn sense or not.
Please do not contact or message me.
Wait hold up. How are the background questions from the UA any more or less flavor text than the ones from the 2014 PHB? What's the difference you're pointing out here?
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!
If the answers have no meaning then they're not worth asking. The game asks you to answer those questions, ergo the game expects them to have meaning. You're demanding that everybody be given a mechanical Plot Coupon as a "sign your background matters", while discarding the idea that anything else about the background should matter. By saying "this ONE thing about your background matters", you are stating by exclusion that nothing else matters, because nothing else gets a mechanical Plot Coupon. No Plot Coupon? No effect or impact, even when it would make sense, because that ain't your Plot Coupon.
And yes, everybody starts with the same fifty gold pieces worth of background coin. Because that's fair. Because that's better game design. Because someone doesn't get to start with hundreds of times more resources than someone else according to the basic, core, RAW game rules. If a specific table is fine with that? Bam diddie, have fun. But the RAW book gets to put players on an even footing and ask them to figure out why. If they're a nobleman, they get to figure out the story of why they have only 50gp to their name, and if they're a street rat they get to figure out why they have 50gp to adventure with. I find it to be an interesting prompt, figuring out how you come to the precise spot where you start your adventure.
Please do not contact or message me.
gotta start somewhere. might as well be equal footing with the other players. the public pool goes from shallow to deep because it caters to a diverse population. olympic swimmers and splashpad enthusiast will branch out to find different inspiration or different products.
and like yurei says, "how did i get here" is a GREAT prompt. same as it ever was, same as it ever was.
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!
you mean, other than the whole (paraphrased) 'work with your DM to come up with the reasons for this' bit, of course.
Some side questions:
Do you think that the DM should be the only one to write the stuff for the background material?
Do you think that players should have no input into that background?
Is your concern more about the lack of larger worldbuilding assistance in 5e as a whole or is it about this specific and singular problem you are seeing?
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
It's not just fair, and better design (though it's definitely those).
It's an example of how the new rules don't have you trying to game your backstory. Just like how you shouldn't have to game your ethnicity, or game your heritage... You get to choose urchin and not get screwed over by not choosing noble.
So, to clarify:
So, for example, if they were to include a line that said something to the effect of "The DM should do this, this, and this in developing out the background aspects of the character with the player." that would solve your problem?
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
since there functionally is no lull to this discussion, i'd like to manufacture one to briefly to say:
Kotath, you are a hard worker. you respond to so many things here. it might benefit the thread as a whole, however, if you could maybe stop feeding the ravenous opposition just for a few moments. those guys, sheesh, they'll bite at just about anything, right? the waters are so churned that i've completely lost track of what your hope and purpose are here. could you kindly deign to provide a mission statement? not asking for a big effort, maybe just that and a few bullet-points that summarize where this is going? like a "this is what is missing" and "this is what i want" sort of thing. shorter the better really (less for nit pickers to move goalposts about).
sincerely, thanks!
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!
Also, as a note, whenever someone uses the statement "semantics" in a dismissive way, or uses "rhetoric." in a dismissive way, what they are saying is that meaning and discussion do not matter in this context -- their intent is often to say that it comes down to saying the same thing two different ways, but in doing so they are agreeing.
Rhetoric is what this entire forum is constructed on. All arguments are based in rhetoric.
Semantics is the study of meaning -- so to dismiss it means to dismiss all meaning from all words (whose entire point is to convey a meaning), not merely the specific thing, because without a qualifications of the thing such as "This line is semantics, here's why the problem exists since we are using two different meanings" they are applying it to all statements.
So, using those terms is a way to state that one capitualtes -- that you surrender, or concede the point. Even if that isn't the goal in their doing so.
Pedantic, granted, but when you have a Pedant present, you can expect it.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
When writing rules and instructions, semantics are incredibly important. Just reordering "X and Y" can make a huge difference to clarity, or even meaning.
Yurei is 100% right that that word choice is critical. You give people a list of examples, and say "choose one", and they will choose one. If none of them fit, they'll usually shrug and pick the closest.
This line says create:
If you can’t find a feature that matches your desired background, work with your DM to create one.
Here is the link in case you haven't read that far in the PHB.
Customizing is a subheading under Backgrounds. "if you can't find a ... desired background" means choosing failed. if that then, creating a background is an alternative to choosing a background.
either way, is this a path leading to consensus or sharing information?
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!
I'm still confused, are we talking about the same Background questions? These are the two lists of questions I'm thinking about:
and then ...
These two lists of questions is what you're talking about and saying that one is more flavor text and the other isn't? Is that what you're trying to say?
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!
That's an argument in favor of simple background features, not against. If the onus is on the DM to make one up, then having an easy and straightforward benchmark like "you can probably get free room and board in {thematically appropriate place}, and all the other mechanical benefits come from your feat/proficiencies/languages" that makes their life a hell of a lot easier. And if they want to go beyond that and give you a bunch of pet NPCs or a complicated intercontinental message delivery network or... whatever the hell Hermit gives you - that is their choice, rather than it being forced on them by the Plot Coupon.
Reductio ad absurdum is a fallacy, not logic.
How would a Hermit know that? And if you're just going to give the Hermit a random campaign fact, why do you need a coupon for that?