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?
(Assuming you meant 'not' instead of 'note' then yes to those three criteria)
Your proposed solution goes only part of the way, for me, since it still does nothing other than say 'work out a good story.' Instead, I would say
"The DM and player should work together to work out any lasting or ongoing benefits deriving from the background beyond just feat, skills, language, tool and starting gold. For example, what kinds of contacts they might have, including any affiliations with local organizations relevant to their background, or whether their years of experience in that background have given them any special background related knowledge. This would also include any lasting baggage from their background, for those players who like greater challenge or having some personal say in obstacles for their character to overcome. For example, former fisherman is likely better specifically at fishing than someone else with the same survival skill. A noble might have both allies and enemies related to their high birth and might also have both some level of authority, but also some additional level of responsibility related to said power. These are, of course, just two examples and how relevant they will be to your idea of your character or the DM's, of their world, will, of course, vary"
(I did, thank you)
Your example is precisely what is implied by the "this, this, and this" bit of the example, but I see what you want is more suggestive and more leading direction.
e.g. "kinds of contacts they might have, including any affiliations with local organizations" is a leading bit.
"whether their years of experience in that background have given them any special background" is presumed by the giving them a skill and/or kit.
"include any lasting baggage from their background" is another leading bit.
"A noble might have both allies and enemies related to their high birth and might also have both some level of authority" os also leading.
Leading material is more than merely guidance -- it is taken as direction. So that leading material, in a 4th to 7th grade level basis (which all the works are written in and is a standard custom for this kind of mass appeal work), is taken by readers to be direction. Therefore, your examples are creating more work for the Dms because they now have to have local organizations, lasting baggage tables, ally and enemy tables, degrees of authority, degrees of high birth, and more.
This is why you don't see leading statements of the sort you want to see in the work. Third party efforts (including my own) will often incorporate leading statements because they anticipate providing those tools, but it is unlikely they will do so because the example description is too much, from an editorial perspective and further introduces expectations that have proven thus far highly unpopular (given the use of them in prior UA's for classes, where they later had to provide explanations for the leading statements to correct misconceptions).
To sum this all up, the thing that would make you happy would require them to either offload more work onto a DM (and further limit creative possibilities) or crate that material themselves in a very limited form that would generally create further breakdown of the system's goals -- which is unfettered ability to generate that background without the assorted weight of specifics or the use of leading material.
All of that said, thank you. We now have a standard baseline, and we have an additional basis from which to operate from (you have a marked and strong preference for leading statements, as opposed to open ended ones -- and this makes sense given the many slight shifts).
The DM should not 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
Examples and direction should be leading, not open ended.
They should close with an acknowledgment of variability.
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
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?
One is backed up by samples showing how the answers can matter and the other is only backed up by "A feat, two skills, a tool, a language and some gold"
Incorrect. The UA questions are backed up (ignoring all mechanics) by 18 example backgrounds, each with a paragraph or so of narrative text. It even says, explicitly, "Here is a collection of sample Backgrounds that you can choose from when making a character. These Backgrounds were built using the rules in the “Build Your Background” section, and each of them contains story-oriented details that are meant inspire you as you think of your character’s backstory." And that's just the UA; who knows how many examples the PHB would contain, or how long each could be.
Each also includes examples for ASIs/proficiencies/tool/language/feat/equipment, which also serve to show the possible connections one can make between "story-oriented details" and mechanics choices. But, let's try not to hyperfixate on that.
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?
One is backed up by samples showing how the answers can matter and the other is only backed up by "A feat, two skills, a tool, a language and some gold"
This is a lot easier on the rules writers, but a lot emptier.
Can you elaborate on how you think the 2014 sample backgrounds show how these 2014 background questions:
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?
.. mattered whereas the UA sample backgrounds did not show how these questions matter?
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?
Because I don't understand. I mean I would think you did actually know that the UA had sample backgrounds, so it must be something else that I'm not getting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I 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?
(Assuming you meant 'not' instead of 'note' then yes to those three criteria)
Your proposed solution goes only part of the way, for me, since it still does nothing other than say 'work out a good story.' Instead, I would say
"The DM and player should work together to work out any lasting or ongoing benefits deriving from the background beyond just feat, skills, language, tool and starting gold. For example, what kinds of contacts they might have, including any affiliations with local organizations relevant to their background, or whether their years of experience in that background have given them any special background related knowledge. This would also include any lasting baggage from their background, for those players who like greater challenge or having some personal say in obstacles for their character to overcome. For example, former fisherman is likely better specifically at fishing than someone else with the same survival skill. A noble might have both allies and enemies related to their high birth and might also have both some level of authority, but also some additional level of responsibility related to said power. These are, of course, just two examples and how relevant they will be to your idea of your character or the DM's, of their world, will, of course, vary"
(I did, thank you)
Your example is precisely what is implied by the "this, this, and this" bit of the example, but I see what you want is more suggestive and more leading direction.
e.g. "kinds of contacts they might have, including any affiliations with local organizations" is a leading bit.
"whether their years of experience in that background have given them any special background" is presumed by the giving them a skill and/or kit.
"include any lasting baggage from their background" is another leading bit.
"A noble might have both allies and enemies related to their high birth and might also have both some level of authority" os also leading.
Leading material is more than merely guidance -- it is taken as direction. So that leading material, in a 4th to 7th grade level basis (which all the works are written in and is a standard custom for this kind of mass appeal work), is taken by readers to be direction. Therefore, your examples are creating more work for the Dms because they now have to have local organizations, lasting baggage tables, ally and enemy tables, degrees of authority, degrees of high birth, and more.
This is why you don't see leading statements of the sort you want to see in the work. Third party efforts (including my own) will often incorporate leading statements because they anticipate providing those tools, but it is unlikely they will do so because the example description is too much, from an editorial perspective and further introduces expectations that have proven thus far highly unpopular (given the use of them in prior UA's for classes, where they later had to provide explanations for the leading statements to correct misconceptions).
To sum this all up, the thing that would make you happy would require them to either offload more work onto a DM (and further limit creative possibilities) or crate that material themselves in a very limited form that would generally create further breakdown of the system's goals -- which is unfettered ability to generate that background without the assorted weight of specifics or the use of leading material.
All of that said, thank you. We now have a standard baseline, and we have an additional basis from which to operate from (you have a marked and strong preference for leading statements, as opposed to open ended ones -- and this makes sense given the many slight shifts).
The DM should not 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
Examples and direction should be leading, not open ended.
They should close with an acknowledgment of variability.
No, they only need to create the existence of such organizations and have a sense of what level of support the PC can expect from them. After all, they also have to create the existence of any given town the party enters. That does not mean they need to detail the entire population of the town, describing in any level of detail every man, woman and child.
This is a 1st level character from their background, not the head of the local thieve's guild or someone in a position to know everyone in any sizeable organisation (unless they are all that's left or something).
To me, when you see this as limiting a DM creatively, it makes me wonder if you feel a player should not have input into their character's background. Whatever they come up with, it does still have to fit the DM's world. If a DM really does feel any given idea is too much work (or too unbalanced), then yes, of course they have a veto, just as the player can decide whether the result is something they want to play and can choose to explore some completely different idea or pass on the campaign outright. No one is forced to do anything and really not sure how you feel any such forcing would be enforced...
Any guidance that is not leading is not actually guiding. It is right there in the word 'guidance.' It is fair to debate how much guidance is reasonable, though, I agree and agreed, not open ended.
Thank you for your admission that I was correct. Under your system the DM has to create the organizations and determine the level of support they offer.
"To me, when you see this as limiting a DM creatively, it makes me wonder if you feel a player should not have input into their character's background. "
For the record, I do in fact expect them to have input in the process. More explicitly, I expect them have more input than the DM, and for that input to be based in the setting as it stands at the time of creation.
"No one is forced to do anything and really not sure how you feel any such forcing would be enforced... "
I did not say forced. Since I did not say this, in any way shape or form, it is no wonder that you are puzzled about how I would think it should be enforced. You are, in this, addressing something I did not say as if I did -- and that is a strawman argument. You proffered other strawman arguments (which are always bad faith arguments and demonstrate a lack of respect) as well, but I that's yet another fallacy to add to the long list and why I opted to take this route.
What I said is that they are taken as direction. Which is why they are not used in this format of writing. What that means is not that people are forced, but that they will receive the information presented as a direction they must take. Therefore, they will see that and think "oh, I have to create these things", because they are leading statements, and the things your specific example would make them feel they have to create are:
local organizations,
lasting baggage tables,
ally and enemy tables,
degrees of authority,
degrees of high birth,
A way to provide for a Fisherman to have a higher fishing skill than someone who has the same skill) [this was the "and more"]
Because all of those things are specifically called out in your explanatory text. You never once mentioned anything else, so there isn't a need to create anything beyond those, but that is all a goodly amount of work to create in and of itself.
That is why they are called leading statements or leading questions.
Any guidance that is not leading is not actually guiding. It is right there in the word 'guidance.'
This is an interesting position. It is strictly opinion, and I believe I understand your basis for it, but I will continue with what I was doing previously and attempt to explain to you that it is an unrealistic expectation given the nature of what is involved in writing works such as this for the general market.
Guidance does not inherently include leading questions. Guidance can take many different forms: directive, leading, indirective, advice, advocacy, counseling, and both positive and negative admonishment. The 2024 statements of how to create a background are guidance. The issue then, for you, is that they chose to take a route that is a standard in the kind of writing and the kind of publishing that they are doing (as a business).
You disagree with the methodology they used to provide that guidance -- hence my bolding the statement. That, then, is the crux of the disagreement here as a whole.
You disagree with a choice that was made for business reasons and that is a standard because you do not feel that they provide enough leading guidance, and instead provide more open guidance (which you admit to).
This, then, leaves me with another question, as we have managed to reach a point where your specific, narrow concern has been identified and demonstrated.
Is there any way to change your mind about your position that the guidance should be leading, as opposed to some other form of guidance, such as the Open Guidance method they chose to use?
If your answer to that question is yes, I would have one additional follow up question:
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
You spend a lot of time in 'the castle,' but it says nothing about what castle, whose castle or who you know there. Your family are minor aristocrats, but at a minimum, wealthy enough to pay for education but exactly how much power and/or influence they have is not even hinted at. The only thing you seem to have learned observing court has been leadership (persuasion skill), but apparently, nothing about actual law or court etiquette (although that miiiight come under history, even though it was apparently ancient histories, in draconic, that you studied formally?). How people think of the aristocracy generally or your family specifically? Not mentioned at all. What authority a noble has, what separates nobility, legally, from commoners? Not mentioned at all. Not even "work out with the DM about what your nobility really means in practical terms."
Questions:
Do you presume that, if this background is allowed in a campaign, that Nobility there will be or have:
Minor Aristocrats are different from any other class of persons
That a first class education could be more than learning basic math, basic reading, and basic literacy?
That they would have power and influence?
That they would teach etiquette or law?
That people think of the aristocracy in general?
That they have Authority?
That they are separated, legally, from commoners?
Now lest you think I am simply blowing smoke, I will note that
Nobility on my new world is not different from any other class of persons and are not separated, legally, from them. They generally learn to write, as a feature of aristocracy, and that would be a first class education.
Unless they are a Titled Noble, they do not have power, authority, or influence unless they earn or are given a specific role -- and if they have that, then they are not an adventurer.
Unless they are appointed to have some role in the courts, they aren't going to be taught law more than any commoner would be. As you may already recall, they do learn etiquette, unless they choose a different skill.
People in general do not think of aristocracy as anything more important than "oh, yeah, these are lady Elena's lands".
None of which changes the nature of that description and its benefits.
Now, it does just so happen that I have all of those things figured out -- but as you previously pointed out, I am an experienced DM and then I am an experienced worldbuilder who pays a lot of attention to crap like this. FOr this new world.
For my last world, it would have meant that they were a great grand nephew of the Duke. That's all. One of a hundred or so. And the above would still apply, because I do not use an Earthly basis for nobility.
Which leads me to the next question: without looking, can you answer all of those questions about someone from Thay? FR is, after all, the baseline world to which all the rules refer. And a world where most of those presumptions would not apply in a significant number of cases as well.
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
You spend a lot of time in 'the castle,' but it says nothing about what castle, whose castle or who you know there. Your family are minor aristocrats, but at a minimum, wealthy enough to pay for education but exactly how much power and/or influence they have is not even hinted at. The only thing you seem to have learned observing court has been leadership (persuasion skill), but apparently, nothing about actual law or court etiquette (although that miiiight come under history, even though it was apparently ancient histories, in draconic, that you studied formally?). How people think of the aristocracy generally or your family specifically? Not mentioned at all. What authority a noble has, what separates nobility, legally, from commoners? Not mentioned at all. Not even "work out with the DM about what your nobility really means in practical terms."
Questions:
Do you presume that, if this background is allowed in a campaign, that Nobility there will be or have:
Minor Aristocrats are different from any other class of persons
That a first class education could be more than learning basic math, basic reading, and basic literacy?
That they would have power and influence?
That they would teach etiquette or law?
That people think of the aristocracy in general?
That they have Authority?
That they are separated, legally, from commoners?
Now lest you think I am simply blowing smoke, I will note that
Nobility on my new world is not different from any other class of persons and are not separated, legally, from them. They generally learn to write, as a feature of aristocracy, and that would be a first class education.
Unless they are a Titled Noble, they do not have power, authority, or influence unless they earn or are given a specific role -- and if they have that, then they are not an adventurer.
Unless they are appointed to have some role in the courts, they aren't going to be taught law more than any commoner would be. As you may already recall, they do learn etiquette, unless they choose a different skill.
People in general do not think of aristocracy as anything more important than "oh, yeah, these are lady Elena's lands".
None of which changes the nature of that description and its benefits.
Now, it does just so happen that I have all of those things figured out -- but as you previously pointed out, I am an experienced DM and then I am an experienced worldbuilder who pays a lot of attention to crap like this. FOr this new world.
For my last world, it would have meant that they were a great grand nephew of the Duke. That's all. One of a hundred or so. And the above would still apply, because I do not use an Earthly basis for nobility.
Which leads me to the next question: without looking, can you answer all of those questions about someone from Thay? FR is, after all, the baseline world to which all the rules refer. And a world where most of those presumptions would not apply in a significant number of cases as well.
Again from the narrative, itself:
This person growing up spent a lot of time watching their parents attend court. This is a place where etiquette and law are both in play pretty much constantly. Now it is possible they watched all that time and learned only how to be persuasive, but why?
There is a court to attend, and aristocracy is involved, so aristocracy does indeed seem to have real power. Now that it could be a democracy and that could be coincidental, but that is not hinted at at all and again, if nobles are the same as commoners, why call the background 'noble?' That entire background concept would seem to have zero relevance to your world.
Your world would presumably have an issue with the narrative text for that UA background. At which point it is back to the drawing board. However, the UA rules do not seem to treat any of the issues I raised to be of any relevance at all. By the way, all nobility is 'titled Nobility.' The title may no longer be recognized for some reason, but if they had no title, they would not be nobility.
And keep in mind, I did not write that narrative text.
So, rather than say 'This thing that is actually written in those rules does not apply to my campaign' (which is the accusation against the 2014 features), how about discuss a background that would?
All of those are presumptions about the nature of aristocracy. Not all aristocracy or nobility operates that way -- both in real life and in fantasy.
I did not assume you wrote that text -- I drew from what you stated, not from the text. Every single thing there -- the entire narrative you just wrote out, is exceptionally specific to a very narrow band of what it *could* mean to be aristocracy.
You previously wondered at my mentioning "limiting creativity" -- well, you just demonstrated it. In answer to a set of fairly basic questions and a note that my responses do not materially change the default text description (that is, it still works, even within the circumstances I offered as written, but none of your presumptions were involved in it), you stuck to a narrow band of thinking and creative thought.
You yourself state:
"Your world would presumably have an issue with the narrative text for that UA background"
Even though I showed that it doesn't. Not only that, but I showed how it doesn't. I even call this out by stating "None of which changes the nature of that description and its benefits."
You state:
"the UA rules do not seem to treat any of the issues I raised to be of any relevance at all."
This is correct. Because the person who is supposed to be figuring that out *is you*. And, just as importantly, if you do not want to figure them out, then you don't have to, because you can not use the example background in the 2024.
To further drive home another part of this:
"By the way, all nobility is 'titled Nobility.' The title may no longer be recognized for some reason, but if they had no title, they would not be nobility."
You assumed here that Nobility on my world operates the way *you* think of nobility as operating. Factually, on Wyrlde, it is entirely possible to be Nobility and notbe titled -- because titles come with a burden of responsibility and duty that those who are not titled do not have. I have some very specific rules about what Nobility. I had to describe them so that people know how it works. Takes up roughly 4 pages.
You did that, in part, because of leading textual clues that no matter who you are, will still have a similar result because they always rely on the individual biases of the person.
In this case, your bias is towards a very particular way of thinking about nobility. You didn't get creative in how you saw them because you tend to think -- without examining it -- that there is only one "right" answer to this -- and that's where the problem lies.
Your biases, your limited creativity, your fixed biases relating to what Nobility means and how it apparently should mean the same thing everywhere, in all possible fantasy world created by all people who play the game. (I will note that you may not intend it that way, but that's effectively what you are arguing.)
The UA designers didn't do that for the 2024 stuff.
"So, rather than say 'This thing that is actually written in those rules does not apply to my campaign' (which is the accusation against the 2014 features), how about discuss a background that would? "
Because I am not saying that. I even demonstrated how that passage and your considerations apply to my setting, but the way my setting operates is completely unlike the way you envision what Nobility means. I have no such limitation.
So I don't have a need to change -- for me, it is working as written. In both the 2014 and the 2024 versions, because I lack the preconception bias you have demonstrated. SO both of them do work -- I even have a distinction between being born and living as a young child (under 10) as a Noble and being a Noble when one is older (as a teen). I used the 2024 text for it -- and you can scroll back and see it (since it is the same example for both child and teen) as I posted it here.
I will ask again:
Is there any way to change your mind about your position that the guidance should be leading, as opposed to some other form of guidance, such as the Open Guidance method they chose to use?
If your answer to that question is yes, I would have one additional follow up question:
What would that argument be?
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
It might actually be vital for plot at some future point. They know some ancient hidden secret that they learned through years of isolation and meditation in a magical world where such revelations can be so triggered. It can be anything the DM thinks would be a cool plot hook.
Again... you don't need a coupon for that. Hell, you don't even need to be a Hermit - a Sage, Spy, Entertainer, Outlander, or even a Charlatan could start the game knowing some plot-critical secret just as easily. The coupon isn't just a waste of space, it's actively restrictive to other backgrounds by signaling to the DM that beginning the game with a plot-critical secret is Hermit's Unique Thing.
I honestly don't know what concerns you're even citing anymore at this point, other than dogmatic adherence to Background Features. I believe it was Rumloverum who asked for a Mission Statement, get the debate recentered on key points rather than endless tangents. Here. Let me start.
Mission Statement: Support implementation of the background construction rules presented in the Origins UA document, largely unaltered from a mechanical perspective. Furthermore, remove "Background Features" in favor of generic character building advice/questionnaires applicable to any character concept, in tandem with stronger 'How To Roleplay' guidance/instructions in the core book.
Does that help anyone? Can we get a similar goals statement from proponents of the 2014 rules?
The UA designers didn't do that for the 2024 stuff.
"So, rather than say 'This thing that is actually written in those rules does not apply to my campaign' (which is the accusation against the 2014 features), how about discuss a background that would? "
Because I am not saying that. I even demonstrated how that passage and your considerations apply to my setting, but the way my setting operates is completely unlike the way you envision what Nobility means. I have no such limitation.
So I don't have a need to change -- for me, it is working as written. In both the 2014 and the 2024 versions, because I lack the preconception bias you have demonstrated. SO both of them do work -- I even have a distinction between being born and living as a young child (under 10) as a Noble and being a Noble when one is older (as a teen). I used the 2024 text for it -- and you can scroll back and see it (since it is the same example for both child and teen) as I posted it here.
I will ask again:
Is there any way to change your mind about your position that the guidance should be leading, as opposed to some other form of guidance, such as the Open Guidance method they chose to use?
If your answer to that question is yes, I would have one additional follow up question:
What would that argument be?
So, you simply outright ignore what the narrative says, and substitute your own, unilaterally, seemingly without any discussion of consultation with your player as to something that would fit your campaign better? I am not saying that is what you actually meant to say or that is what you would actually do when running a campaign. I am merely saying that is how your response comes across to me.
Similarly, while I do believe that guidance should actually guide, and that is a form of leadership, I do not believe that your meaning of 'leading' and mine match. So, no, I am not sure that guidance should be leading in the sense of 'this and only this is the way to go' but rather 'here is a good idea of where to go, build on this, yourself.' Does that make any sense to you?
As for Nobles or Nobility, yes, there can be campaigns where Noble titles mean nothing. Are you not even able to discuss a world where they are relevant? Again, I did not include Noble on the background list. I did not write that that particular noble spends time in the castle or attends court. These were written by the 2024 writers.
You seem to put up these barriers, picking some key aspect and insisting on your own meaning or interpretation. It makes this discussion very difficult.
As for whether there is an argument to change my mind on this or on any other given thing, maybe. If I knew such an argument, I would already have changed my mind.
And note the 2024 rules also use the word 'Choose' with respect to a background. These are the options given:
• Build a Background by using the rules in the “Build Your Background” section. • Select a premade Background from the “Sample Backgrounds” section. • Select a premade Background from the “Sample Backgrounds” section and then customize it with the rules in the “Build Your Background” section.
None of those cover the concerns I have cited.
i'm not entirely sure what those concerns are anymore.
I honestly don't know what concerns you're even citing anymore at this point, other than dogmatic adherence to Background Features. I believe it was Rumloverum who asked for a Mission Statement, get the debate recentered on key points rather than endless tangents...
omigosh i just wasted the last hour on exactly this above post [edit: searching for opposition citations], but with extensive receipts/links. oh well, it's probably for the best. all the edits felt unhelpfully antagonistic. also i think i might not be seen by everyone in the conversation, if you get my raised eyebrow, since around the time i was informed that i was on the side of Big AI. still, i'm here hoping to get some cited citations. me and my robot buddies can't even see stoplights so how are we supposed to see why kids like cinnamon toast crunch without 3ft letters spelling it out for us.
[edited to include a more reasonable time-line of quoted text to better indicate whose mission statement i was most curious about.]
Mission Statement: Preserve the concept of backgrounds providing things beyond just 'learned some skills and a feat, a language and got some coin', ideally providing significantly improved guidance with respect to what makes sense from player, world (DM) and general play balance perspectives.
Personally I don't see our goals as being that far apart. We just seem to disagree on how to get there. I do notice, though, that you are phrasing your mission statement in terms of supporting the UA version rather than its contents. That could just be a phrasing issue, though.
I notice though that you have not responded to the fact the UA version still says to choose a background from this list. Or make one according to these rather tight rules.
I don't think backgrounds should give mechanical, push-a-button benefits outside of skills, tool/language, coin, and feat. if someone wants a mechanical-button benefit similar to one of the old Plot Coupons, they can do that via a homebrew feat. I also don't think that the lack of mechanical, push-a-button benefits means the character's story is somehow immaterial, the way you seem to. I've argued for thirty pages now that I think it's a bad idea to set the precedent that a player needs that sort of Plot Coupon in order for their background to have an impact. It causes problems that are only really resolved by disregarding the entire Plot Coupon system.
As for the wording of the UA document? I don't care for the word 'choose', no. I also acknowledge that the UA document was a preliminary one that had not gone through final language pass; I am concerned with the structure of the document and the rules it provides. I believe that a well-written background (note: 'well-written' does not necessarily mean extensive) allows questions concerning what a character can and cannot reasonably expect their background to gain them to be resolved when they come up, rather than trying to force an extensive, restrictiv e pre-game contract ennumerating the only things a character's background can allow them.
I understand that you see the Plot Coupons as merely examples, ways to rub someone's nose in the idea of soft benefits and get them thinking about soft benefits by turning one singular soft benefit into a hard one, but human brains don't work that way. If you turn one soft benefit into a hard benefit, the brain is naturally going to assume that this is how soft benefits work now, and any soft benefit that is not turned into a hard benefit is a soft benefit that doesn't matter/exist. It's why Ophidimancer has been arguing for the sharp demarcation between mechanical features like skills and feats and 'narrative', i.e. soft, benefits such as connections and contacts.
Mission Statement: Preserve the concept of backgrounds providing things beyond just 'learned some skills and a feat, a language and got some coin', ideally providing significantly improved guidance with respect to what makes sense from player, world (DM) and general play balance perspectives.
i remember hearing that the recently released books will be instantly compatible with 2024 5e. so then the Giant's book is a good reference. Foundling and Carver example backgrounds there both include a background-specific table and a personality traits table. seems like things beyond proficiencies, equipment, and feat have been preserved.
if Spelljammer counts as an instantly compatible book (and i'm actually a little hopeful it's not so they can take another longer revisory stab at it), the Wildspacer's feat is Tough but includes also a rider that the Wildspacer doesn't face disadvantage in zero-g melee. no Traits table, but you can be afraid of space clowns. that's not nothin. traits list are missing but i find it encouraging that the later Giants book included a Traits table.
so there is some hope of continued support for players. they might just maybe not be leaving us entirely high and dry with regards to lore-appropriate suggestions from their perspective.
The UA designers didn't do that for the 2024 stuff.
"So, rather than say 'This thing that is actually written in those rules does not apply to my campaign' (which is the accusation against the 2014 features), how about discuss a background that would? "
Because I am not saying that. I even demonstrated how that passage and your considerations apply to my setting, but the way my setting operates is completely unlike the way you envision what Nobility means. I have no such limitation.
So I don't have a need to change -- for me, it is working as written. In both the 2014 and the 2024 versions, because I lack the preconception bias you have demonstrated. SO both of them do work -- I even have a distinction between being born and living as a young child (under 10) as a Noble and being a Noble when one is older (as a teen). I used the 2024 text for it -- and you can scroll back and see it (since it is the same example for both child and teen) as I posted it here.
I will ask again:
Is there any way to change your mind about your position that the guidance should be leading, as opposed to some other form of guidance, such as the Open Guidance method they chose to use?
If your answer to that question is yes, I would have one additional follow up question:
What would that argument be?
So, you simply outright ignore what the narrative says, and substitute your own, unilaterally, seemingly without any discussion of consultation with your player as to something that would fit your campaign better? I am not saying that is what you actually meant to say or that is what you would actually do when running a campaign. I am merely saying that is how your response comes across to me.
Similarly, while I do believe that guidance should actually guide, and that is a form of leadership, I do not believe that your meaning of 'leading' and mine match. So, no, I am not sure that guidance should be leading in the sense of 'this and only this is the way to go' but rather 'here is a good idea of where to go, build on this, yourself.' Does that make any sense to you?
As for Nobles or Nobility, yes, there can be campaigns where Noble titles mean nothing. Are you not even able to discuss a world where they are relevant? Again, I did not include Noble on the background list. I did not write that that particular noble spends time in the castle or attends court. These were written by the 2024 writers.
You seem to put up these barriers, picking some key aspect and insisting on your own meaning or interpretation. It makes this discussion very difficult.
As for whether there is an argument to change my mind on this or on any other given thing, maybe. If I knew such an argument, I would already have changed my mind.
And note the 2024 rules also use the word 'Choose' with respect to a background. These are the options given:
• Build a Background by using the rules in the “Build Your Background” section. • Select a premade Background from the “Sample Backgrounds” section. • Select a premade Background from the “Sample Backgrounds” section and then customize it with the rules in the “Build Your Background” section.
None of those cover the concerns I have cited.
Good morning (my time).
So, you simply outright ignore what the narrative says, and substitute your own, unilaterally, seemingly without any discussion of consultation with your player as to something that would fit your campaign better?
I didn't ignore what the narrative says -- I was addressing your presumptions about the meaning of the narrative, not the narrative. As I pointed out, the narrative bit in the original works perfectly fine for my world. Which, I confess, was a bit of a shock to me, as this worldbuilding cycle I am changing the rules to fit the world -- and I didn't need to change the rules here.
Nor was it a unilateral change to the expectations -- it was a change to the expectations based in the world itself, because the way that nobility works on that world is not what someone may expect (as I used your presumptions to establish).
I have no player right now to consult with. That would all apply regardless of the player. The player would get to select from the skills, the tools and kits, and then get the joy of describing to some extent the Estate (the castle). And there is a reason for that -- technically, they could even be related to the Emperor, but they still wouldn't be in line of succession. They would, of course, have to read up on Nobility, but it turns out I have that whole section on it for them. From that would grow an exchange that would fill in a part of the world that is presently missing (assuming they opted not to be part of the Imperial Court, if they did then, well, that Estate is already covered as it sits in the heart of Sibola.)
THus, the consulting would happen and would bring the character more into the grander world, as I would then use that place in later adventures (much as I expect to use the Imperial Court at one point).
Thus, you are correct -- not only did I not mean it that way, that is not how I would do it. (I will now note that you can actually read all of this, as I have been posting the updates to the project online, so I am not merely making this up whole cloth as I go -- these are the real things I am using).
I do not believe that your meaning of 'leading' and mine match.
As I may not have properly describes the concept of a leading sentence previously, this is fair game. I do have to note that it is a phrase, and so used together (leading sentence, leading guidance, leading question, etc).
Of the different types of guidance noted, leading guidance is guidance that provides an implied end result on the part of the guidance. They are often framed in a particular way to elicit responses that encourage the respondent towards a particular response. Several examples of this are found in the suggested text you would have used, noted previously and described.
The problem is that your own expectations are shifting the goalposts on you. You want the guidance to be 'here is a good idea of where to go, build on this, yourself.' but if you do so with a leading question, then what you are going to get from most people is 'this and only this is the way to go', because leading guidance is received (read, understood, perceived) as directing that.
So it does make sense -- and it looks like the sticking point is that while we may share a similar understanding of the semantic import of guidance, the methodology used is the issue, and on your part there is a lack of understanding of how that system works in the larger world or socioculturally.
Which isn't a ding, by the way. I had to suffer through two years of course work on this precise topic and then 30 years of doing the work and having to pour over every word choice in every question. This is not something that is readily visible unless you have an interest in it. And as I wrote that, I suddenly thought of a great example.
So, here's a way to maybe explain this
Dragon or Unicorn?
Choose a between Dragon or Unicorn?
To a lot of folks, the two questions are the same on the surface. However, they are not.
When you ask question 1, people's brains are more likely to be open to exploring other possibilities, like gryphon or chimera, and they may give such an answer. When you ask question 2, they are much more likely to choose only one or the other. This is a principle commonly used when dealing with the social psychology of things such as what we are arguing about.
So, why do you think it is that Question 1 will generate 50% nonstandard answers (elicit more creative responses) and Question 2 will generate 13% nonstandard answers (less creative responses)?
The answer is that Question 2 is a leading question, because it asks the to choose, and they will read it or receive it or perceive it as saying these are your only options. Only 13% of respondents will choose something other than those two things.
(unrelated side note: I use question one in my interviews -- when hiring someone -- because Dragons will generally work better independently and Unicorns will generally work better cooperatively. Not even kidding.)
Are you not even able to discuss a world where they are relevant?
I am obviously able to discuss a world where they are relevant, because as I showed, they are relevant on my world. Just not in the same way as you thought they should be relevant. It isn't a question of are Noble Titles relevant or is Nobility relevant -- it is a question of how they are relevant and to what degree, in relation to the player characters and the setting (world) in use.
And while this is all still part of the off track (because I questioned your bias in your responses to a different post), it is key because we just noted that the more specific answer is about the methodology that is used, and how it may be that you don't understand the why they are moving away from questions which suggest that either the player or the DM create things and do more work and simply making it more loose and open, which bothers you because you prefer that they stay in a space that suggests that more work be done rather than being open and loose.
Finally, we come to this.
As for whether there is an argument to change my mind on this or on any other given thing, maybe.
This is not the best answer.
For one, I didn't ask bot any other given thing. That's a use of weasel words in the second phrase of the sentence ("or any other thing"), and that wasn't what was asked, as it was specifically asking about this one thing.
The combination of changing the question as you answered it, the use of weasel words, and the response of "maybe" all combine to demonstrate that you are not arguing in good faith.
I can say that my answer to all of this is an unequivocal yes. But I can say that to any argument I enter into, even when fighting for human rights. Because I do operate in good faith. I admit I may not always be able to argue from the other side, but that's usually early on, before I understand the nature of my opponent in the discourse. Once I have a grasp on their position, I shift gears and adopt a different approach, where I ask questions and use leading sentences, leading guidance, leading questions to draw out their position for greater clarity to others who are witnessing an exchange.
I am, perhaps, slightly more attuned to such things, because I have a long history of dealing with folks who seek to make policy and law in bad faith and with malice, and I am hired to untangle such stuff or to provide a basis before the effort is underway. There's no malice that I can see in anything, simply bad faith, and I cannot speculate further on motivation for doing so. I don't even think you are trying to argue in bad faith. I think you may be relying on rhetorical approaches that you have encountered and seen successful, and I am not certain you understand what bad faith is.
You are definitely committed (I saw the Mission statement, which comes down to stasis of the 2014 version over the 2024 version) and between the mission statement and prior narrowing of arguments, we can likely do some good discussion going forward.
But you must commit to being willing to change your mind. If you are not willing, then no argument anywhere will change it. ANd that would mean that the hours of other people's lives and your own have been wasted.
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
Mission Statement: Preserve the concept of backgrounds providing things beyond just 'learned some skills and a feat, a language and got some coin', ideally providing significantly improved guidance with respect to what makes sense from player, world (DM) and general play balance perspectives.
The DM should not 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
Examples and direction should be leading, not open ended.
They should close with an acknowledgment of variability.
Kotath, here's the positions you have staked out along with your mission statement, provided for reference.
Others could do the same.
Mission Statement: To ensure that the greatest possible level of creativity is encouraged, that lore is not linked to a published world, and to see that backgrounds have value to both players and DMs, without adding much to the workload of either in character creation beyond the setting development or character development.
DMs should provide setting specific examples using the 2024 rules.
Player's should have input and involvement on their specific character's version of the generic background.
I have a concern with the larger of issue of a lack of worldbuilding support.
Examples and guidance should be open ended, not leading.
Variability should be leading, not open ended.
Again, for reference.
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
Mission Statement: Preserve the concept of backgrounds providing things beyond just 'learned some skills and a feat, a language and got some coin', ideally providing significantly improved guidance with respect to what makes sense from player, world (DM) and general play balance perspectives.
i remember hearing that the recently released books will be instantly compatible with 2024 5e. so then the Giant's book is a good reference. Foundling and Carver example backgrounds there both include a background-specific table and a personality traits table. seems like things beyond proficiencies, equipment, and feat have been preserved.
if Spelljammer counts as an instantly compatible book (and i'm actually a little hopeful it's not so they can take another longer revisory stab at it), the Wildspacer's feat is Tough but includes also a rider that the Wildspacer doesn't face disadvantage in zero-g melee. no Traits table, but you can be afraid of space clowns. that's not nothin. traits list are missing but i find it encouraging that the later Giants book included a Traits table.
so there is some hope of continued support for players. they might just maybe not be leaving us entirely high and dry with regards to lore-appropriate suggestions from their perspective.
"Instantly compatible" with the current PHB and its character creation rules almost certainly being no longer in print and available as legacy only. Not holding my breath on any continued support for 5e, nor is, I think, the general consensus otherwise.
the 2014 PHB, DMG, and MM will go out of print and become legacy in 2024. i do not believe Spelljammer, Giants, Planescape, Book of Many Things, etc will become legacy in 2024. they've committed to putting into the SRD the continued compatibility of content outside the big three core rulebooks so that they remain relevant. for now. we both agree they'll become legacy at some point, but our levels of pessimism are different. and i'm okay with that. entropy is inevitable, but i think we both agree there's some fun to be had before all heat leaves this universe.
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!
Mission Statement: Preserve the concept of backgrounds providing things beyond just 'learned some skills and a feat, a language and got some coin', ideally providing significantly improved guidance with respect to what makes sense from player, world (DM) and general play balance perspectives.
The DM should not 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
Examples and direction should be leading, not open ended.
They should close with an acknowledgment of variability.
Kotath, here's the positions you have staked out along with your mission statement, provided for reference.
DMs should provide setting specific examples using the 2024 rules.
Player's should have input and involvement on their specific character's version of the generic background.
I have a concern with the larger of issue of a lack of worldbuilding support.
Examples and guidance should be open ended, not leading.
Variability should be leading, not open ended.
Again, for reference.
Correction, that is the position you wrote claiming to be mine. And when I stated that I disagreed with your interpretation of my position, you insisted that means I agree with you generally. Now you are bring that up again as if it was something I had said.
Not bothering to discuss this with you any further.
That is incorrect.
The mission statement is a direct unedited copy of your statement.
Quote: ... yes to those three criteria. This is the first three in the bullet points. [Full quote: (Assuming you meant 'not' instead of 'note' then yes to those three criteria)]
On the last two, you disagreed with the assertion I made *separate from the list* that it would require the DM to create several things, but explicitly agreed that yes, the direction should be leading and not open ended. Quote:It is fair to debate how much guidance is reasonable, though, I agree and agreed, not open ended."
On the fifth, I used your suggested wording [here, full quote: These are, of course, just two examples and how relevant they will be to your idea of your character or the DM's, of their world, will, of course, vary" ] to apply the ""of course, you can change this at any time as the DM" style final sentence (which is leading and not open ended).
So all of this is literally something you have done or said and agreed to.
That you suddenly say you do not agree, when the last three pages demonstrate that you did, in fact, agree to it, as a point of fact, is rather humorous given that you have consistently moved the goalposts previously, and now you do so again here.
So of course you won't bother "to discuss this with you any further". Because that would place you in a position of having to stick to what you have said previously. End of discussion.
Back in the day, when this happened, we used to say "busted".
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
Whether you believe it or not, some of us actually think of our characters as beings that had actual lives before the campaign started and are not literally dropped in to the campaign from some other dimension with no connections to or knowledge of the campaign world
Yes, pretty sure the rest of us like that, too. I certainly do. And that is what I think the UA does better than the 2014 PHB Backgrounds specifically because of how awkwardly written the 2014 PHB Background Features are, specifically.
If the background narrative is intended to be meaningless, then again, I ask you, what is the point to having it at all?
The plot and story part of the UA Backgrounds is not meaningless, in fact the meaning is supposed to be guided by the following eight 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?
I want to challenge this assertion of meaninglessness. Just because something doesn't have mechanical rules associated with it doesn't make it meaningless.
Meanwhile, it does not explicitly say the narrative text is meaningless. Anyone taking the "Select a premade Background from the 'Sample Backgrounds' section" is also choosing such a narrative. They are going to want to know, from the DM, how that narrative applies to the DM's world. If it does not at all, then they have not really chosen that background at all, but rather just that combination of options. That is arguably more restrictive, rather than less.
So what this critique comes down to is the quality of the writing in the specific sample Background story details, then? Because you're talking specifically about a player that has chosen to simply pick a completely premade Background rather than engage at all with the clear system default of creating one's own Background. Sure, I think I can agree that the individual narratives in each of the sample UA Backgrounds are very very bland and generic. If that's what your problem is with it, then yes I'll agree with you ... the individual sample background stories are fairly rudimentary.
I mean I don't think it's the job of the sample writers to integrate their stories into each DM's world. That's not feasible, that's part of the negotiation between the player and the DM. Even if the player decides to not alter anything from the sample, they would still have to present it to the DM for the negotiation process.
Luckily the system presented has a much more robust set of guidance questions to help the player get into the mindset of their character, including specific questions about their actual lives before the campaign. They refined the process of helping people build the narrative of their character since the 2014 PHB and it shows in the more in depth questions as well as how they standardized the mechanics so that the player has to worry less about bending their story around the mechanics and can instead mix and match the mechanics to fit their story instead.
I want to challenge this description of meaninglessness. Just because something doesn't have mechanical rules associated with it doesn't make it meaningless.
While I agree with that position, I also say that if it has no meaningful effect on gameplay, it is meaningless. Keep in mind that I do not see the 2014 features anywhere near so rigedly as opponents of them here seem to. And the 2024 backgrounds actually have similar descriptive text without any explanation or discussion what it really means in gameplay terms.
Opponents of the former paint the existing background features in absolute terms and dance around the question of the similar text of the 2024 versions. And at least some do seem to be saying that since they have no rules formally attached to them, they are, actually, meaningless.
But everything has a meaningful impact on gameplay. Role playing is part of game play. Role playing in a world that is created is gameplay. Details like far away and in the distance mountains that the players will never go to there is a monolith that will answer one question has a meaningful impact on gameplay (it is trivia).
The snacks consumed at the table that night, the lighting, the music, if Sandy had a bad day and Jack had a victory all have an impact on gameplay.
How can something not have an impact on gameplay?
What is your definition of gameplay?
What do you mean and include in the concept of gameplay?
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
... I also say that if it has no meaningful effect on gameplay, it is meaningless. ...
That's been our stance since the very beginning. Something does not need to be a hard-and-fast, locked-in, ironclad codified Hard Rule in order to have an effect on gameplay. Lots of things that aren't hard-coded Rules have an effect on gameplay. There's no rules I'm aware of for how to handle different weather conditions, but I guarantee weather will have an effect on games, especially games at sea. I don't know a single game where the DM doesn't take relationships with NPCs forged after Campaign Start into account, and yet prior to the UA cycle there was no real rules for how to do that, either. "Actions have consequences" extends to actions taken before the game, too - in the form of your background and the consequences that enrich/befall you based on what that background was.
If you're willing to trust the DM to handily resolve any consequences that befall the party's actions after the game starts - and you've repeatedly said "if you can't trust the DM you need a new game" - why is it impossible to trust the DM to resolve any consequences that befall the party's actions from before the game starting?
I want to challenge this description of meaninglessness. Just because something doesn't have mechanical rules associated with it doesn't make it meaningless.
While I agree with that position, I also say that if it has no meaningful effect on gameplay, it is meaningless.
But you'd be okay if the meaningful effect on gameplay were all based on the narrative truths established by the DM and player negotiating the integration into the DM's world? Or do you specifically think that only concrete mechanical benefits have meaningful effects on gameplay?
Keep in mind that I do not see the 2014 features anywhere near so rigedly as opponents of them here seem to.
Nor so rigidly as they are explicitly written. It is a sign that you are a good DM, that you take what is written and make it work for your players in game. But when it comes to critiquing the writing and the system, we cannot necessarily assume good DM skills. We instead should look for writing that is better, clearer, more organized, and more helpful to even complete newcomers while at the same time allowing for scaling with RP skill. I think the Origins UA system is a step in that direction compared to the 2014 PHB Background system.
And I would like to consider myself a detractor and critic rather than an opponent of the 2014 Background Features. I don't hate them, I have had plenty of fun with them. But they could be better as a system and I think the Origins UA is such a system.
Opponents of the former paint the existing background features in absolute terms and dance around the question of the similar text of the 2024 versions. And at least some do seem to be saying that since they have no rules formally attached to them, they are, actually, meaningless.
Again, critic and detractor rather than opponent. And I would like to say that I, at least, have done no such dancing. My point has remained pretty consistent. Feel free to go back and look at my posts.
I think the 2014 Background Features are explicitly designated as concrete benefits, which indicates something that is supposed to have rules and mechanics attached to them, but many of them have functions that are much more easily accomplished through narrative weight and that DM/player discussion rather than making them a mechanical rule. It's not that they are meaningless, but rather that they are pointlessly mechanized. They are definitely full of meaning, but they do not need to be made into concrete rules. Their meaning is in the wrong place and is better served being shifted to the portion of the character that is explicitly meant for that write-your-own collaboration with the DM. This is specifically about the Background Features that say "you know X group of people and they will aid you when you need it" which definitely should affect gameplay, but deserves to do so from the position of a DM/player established truth of the setting rather than a concrete mechanic. Making it into a mechanic hinders it's room to fully breathe and become a fully nuanced part of the character.
The Acolyte Background Feature, for instance, could benefit from being more freeform. Instead of just getting blanket assistance from any branch of this church you could, just as an example, say that you have an ally in the Mother Superior and her nuns will give you aid and shelter, but the High Priest actually disapproves of your membership in the clergy and anyone beholden to him will apply much stricter scrutiny to your requests for aid. That is possible and easier if it comes from the freeform story driven portion of the character sheet rather than from a concrete mechanic.
Would it be easy to DM fiat this detail and give it flexibility? Of course. But wouldn't it be better if the system were made so that it was relegated to the freeform portion of the character in the first place so that the DM wouldn't have to?
Just because something doesn't have mechanical rules associated with it doesn't make it meaningless.
While I agree with that position, I also say that if it has no meaningful effect on gameplay, it is meaningless.
Something does not have to have mechanical rules, but it does have to have a meaningful impact on gameplay.
What does "meaningful impact" describe, as precisely as possible?
How can something not have an impact on gameplay?
What is your definition of gameplay?
What do you mean and include in the concept of gameplay?
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
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
(I did, thank you)
Your example is precisely what is implied by the "this, this, and this" bit of the example, but I see what you want is more suggestive and more leading direction.
e.g. "kinds of contacts they might have, including any affiliations with local organizations" is a leading bit.
"whether their years of experience in that background have given them any special background" is presumed by the giving them a skill and/or kit.
"include any lasting baggage from their background" is another leading bit.
"A noble might have both allies and enemies related to their high birth and might also have both some level of authority" os also leading.
Leading material is more than merely guidance -- it is taken as direction. So that leading material, in a 4th to 7th grade level basis (which all the works are written in and is a standard custom for this kind of mass appeal work), is taken by readers to be direction. Therefore, your examples are creating more work for the Dms because they now have to have local organizations, lasting baggage tables, ally and enemy tables, degrees of authority, degrees of high birth, and more.
This is why you don't see leading statements of the sort you want to see in the work. Third party efforts (including my own) will often incorporate leading statements because they anticipate providing those tools, but it is unlikely they will do so because the example description is too much, from an editorial perspective and further introduces expectations that have proven thus far highly unpopular (given the use of them in prior UA's for classes, where they later had to provide explanations for the leading statements to correct misconceptions).
To sum this all up, the thing that would make you happy would require them to either offload more work onto a DM (and further limit creative possibilities) or crate that material themselves in a very limited form that would generally create further breakdown of the system's goals -- which is unfettered ability to generate that background without the assorted weight of specifics or the use of leading material.
All of that said, thank you. We now have a standard baseline, and we have an additional basis from which to operate from (you have a marked and strong preference for leading statements, as opposed to open ended ones -- and this makes sense given the many slight shifts).
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
Incorrect. The UA questions are backed up (ignoring all mechanics) by 18 example backgrounds, each with a paragraph or so of narrative text. It even says, explicitly, "Here is a collection of sample Backgrounds that you can choose from when making a character. These Backgrounds were built using the rules in the “Build Your Background” section, and each of them contains story-oriented details that are meant inspire you as you think of your character’s backstory." And that's just the UA; who knows how many examples the PHB would contain, or how long each could be.
Each also includes examples for ASIs/proficiencies/tool/language/feat/equipment, which also serve to show the possible connections one can make between "story-oriented details" and mechanics choices. But, let's try not to hyperfixate on that.
Can you elaborate on how you think the 2014 sample backgrounds show how these 2014 background questions:
.. mattered whereas the UA sample backgrounds did not show how these questions matter?
Because I don't understand. I mean I would think you did actually know that the UA had sample backgrounds, so it must be something else that I'm not getting.
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!
Thank you for your admission that I was correct. Under your system the DM has to create the organizations and determine the level of support they offer.
For the record, I do in fact expect them to have input in the process. More explicitly, I expect them have more input than the DM, and for that input to be based in the setting as it stands at the time of creation.
I did not say forced. Since I did not say this, in any way shape or form, it is no wonder that you are puzzled about how I would think it should be enforced. You are, in this, addressing something I did not say as if I did -- and that is a strawman argument. You proffered other strawman arguments (which are always bad faith arguments and demonstrate a lack of respect) as well, but I that's yet another fallacy to add to the long list and why I opted to take this route.
What I said is that they are taken as direction. Which is why they are not used in this format of writing. What that means is not that people are forced, but that they will receive the information presented as a direction they must take. Therefore, they will see that and think "oh, I have to create these things", because they are leading statements, and the things your specific example would make them feel they have to create are:
Because all of those things are specifically called out in your explanatory text. You never once mentioned anything else, so there isn't a need to create anything beyond those, but that is all a goodly amount of work to create in and of itself.
That is why they are called leading statements or leading questions.
This is an interesting position. It is strictly opinion, and I believe I understand your basis for it, but I will continue with what I was doing previously and attempt to explain to you that it is an unrealistic expectation given the nature of what is involved in writing works such as this for the general market.
Guidance does not inherently include leading questions. Guidance can take many different forms: directive, leading, indirective, advice, advocacy, counseling, and both positive and negative admonishment. The 2024 statements of how to create a background are guidance. The issue then, for you, is that they chose to take a route that is a standard in the kind of writing and the kind of publishing that they are doing (as a business).
You disagree with the methodology they used to provide that guidance -- hence my bolding the statement. That, then, is the crux of the disagreement here as a whole.
You disagree with a choice that was made for business reasons and that is a standard because you do not feel that they provide enough leading guidance, and instead provide more open guidance (which you admit to).
This, then, leaves me with another question, as we have managed to reach a point where your specific, narrow concern has been identified and demonstrated.
Is there any way to change your mind about your position that the guidance should be leading, as opposed to some other form of guidance, such as the Open Guidance method they chose to use?
If your answer to that question is yes, I would have one additional follow up question:
What would that argument be?
(edited to bullet point a line.)
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
Questions:
Do you presume that, if this background is allowed in a campaign, that Nobility there will be or have:
Now lest you think I am simply blowing smoke, I will note that
None of which changes the nature of that description and its benefits.
Now, it does just so happen that I have all of those things figured out -- but as you previously pointed out, I am an experienced DM and then I am an experienced worldbuilder who pays a lot of attention to crap like this. FOr this new world.
For my last world, it would have meant that they were a great grand nephew of the Duke. That's all. One of a hundred or so. And the above would still apply, because I do not use an Earthly basis for nobility.
Which leads me to the next question: without looking, can you answer all of those questions about someone from Thay? FR is, after all, the baseline world to which all the rules refer. And a world where most of those presumptions would not apply in a significant number of cases as well.
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
All of those are presumptions about the nature of aristocracy. Not all aristocracy or nobility operates that way -- both in real life and in fantasy.
I did not assume you wrote that text -- I drew from what you stated, not from the text. Every single thing there -- the entire narrative you just wrote out, is exceptionally specific to a very narrow band of what it *could* mean to be aristocracy.
You previously wondered at my mentioning "limiting creativity" -- well, you just demonstrated it. In answer to a set of fairly basic questions and a note that my responses do not materially change the default text description (that is, it still works, even within the circumstances I offered as written, but none of your presumptions were involved in it), you stuck to a narrow band of thinking and creative thought.
You yourself state:
Even though I showed that it doesn't. Not only that, but I showed how it doesn't. I even call this out by stating "None of which changes the nature of that description and its benefits."
You state:
This is correct. Because the person who is supposed to be figuring that out *is you*. And, just as importantly, if you do not want to figure them out, then you don't have to, because you can not use the example background in the 2024.
To further drive home another part of this:
You assumed here that Nobility on my world operates the way *you* think of nobility as operating. Factually, on Wyrlde, it is entirely possible to be Nobility and not be titled -- because titles come with a burden of responsibility and duty that those who are not titled do not have. I have some very specific rules about what Nobility. I had to describe them so that people know how it works. Takes up roughly 4 pages.
You did that, in part, because of leading textual clues that no matter who you are, will still have a similar result because they always rely on the individual biases of the person.
In this case, your bias is towards a very particular way of thinking about nobility. You didn't get creative in how you saw them because you tend to think -- without examining it -- that there is only one "right" answer to this -- and that's where the problem lies.
Your biases, your limited creativity, your fixed biases relating to what Nobility means and how it apparently should mean the same thing everywhere, in all possible fantasy world created by all people who play the game. (I will note that you may not intend it that way, but that's effectively what you are arguing.)
The UA designers didn't do that for the 2024 stuff.
Because I am not saying that. I even demonstrated how that passage and your considerations apply to my setting, but the way my setting operates is completely unlike the way you envision what Nobility means. I have no such limitation.
So I don't have a need to change -- for me, it is working as written. In both the 2014 and the 2024 versions, because I lack the preconception bias you have demonstrated. SO both of them do work -- I even have a distinction between being born and living as a young child (under 10) as a Noble and being a Noble when one is older (as a teen). I used the 2024 text for it -- and you can scroll back and see it (since it is the same example for both child and teen) as I posted it here.
I will ask again:
Is there any way to change your mind about your position that the guidance should be leading, as opposed to some other form of guidance, such as the Open Guidance method they chose to use?
If your answer to that question is yes, I would have one additional follow up question:
What would that argument be?
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
Again... you don't need a coupon for that. Hell, you don't even need to be a Hermit - a Sage, Spy, Entertainer, Outlander, or even a Charlatan could start the game knowing some plot-critical secret just as easily. The coupon isn't just a waste of space, it's actively restrictive to other backgrounds by signaling to the DM that beginning the game with a plot-critical secret is Hermit's Unique Thing.
I honestly don't know what concerns you're even citing anymore at this point, other than dogmatic adherence to Background Features. I believe it was Rumloverum who asked for a Mission Statement, get the debate recentered on key points rather than endless tangents. Here. Let me start.
Mission Statement: Support implementation of the background construction rules presented in the Origins UA document, largely unaltered from a mechanical perspective. Furthermore, remove "Background Features" in favor of generic character building advice/questionnaires applicable to any character concept, in tandem with stronger 'How To Roleplay' guidance/instructions in the core book.
Does that help anyone? Can we get a similar goals statement from proponents of the 2014 rules?
Please do not contact or message me.
i'm not entirely sure what those concerns are anymore.
omigosh i just wasted the last hour on exactly this above post [edit: searching for opposition citations], but with extensive receipts/links. oh well, it's probably for the best. all the edits felt unhelpfully antagonistic. also i think i might not be seen by everyone in the conversation, if you get my raised eyebrow, since around the time i was informed that i was on the side of Big AI. still, i'm here hoping to get some cited citations. me and my robot buddies can't even see stoplights so how are we supposed to see why kids like cinnamon toast crunch without 3ft letters spelling it out for us.
[edited to include a more reasonable time-line of quoted text to better indicate whose mission statement i was most curious about.]
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 don't think backgrounds should give mechanical, push-a-button benefits outside of skills, tool/language, coin, and feat. if someone wants a mechanical-button benefit similar to one of the old Plot Coupons, they can do that via a homebrew feat. I also don't think that the lack of mechanical, push-a-button benefits means the character's story is somehow immaterial, the way you seem to. I've argued for thirty pages now that I think it's a bad idea to set the precedent that a player needs that sort of Plot Coupon in order for their background to have an impact. It causes problems that are only really resolved by disregarding the entire Plot Coupon system.
As for the wording of the UA document? I don't care for the word 'choose', no. I also acknowledge that the UA document was a preliminary one that had not gone through final language pass; I am concerned with the structure of the document and the rules it provides. I believe that a well-written background (note: 'well-written' does not necessarily mean extensive) allows questions concerning what a character can and cannot reasonably expect their background to gain them to be resolved when they come up, rather than trying to force an extensive, restrictiv e pre-game contract ennumerating the only things a character's background can allow them.
I understand that you see the Plot Coupons as merely examples, ways to rub someone's nose in the idea of soft benefits and get them thinking about soft benefits by turning one singular soft benefit into a hard one, but human brains don't work that way. If you turn one soft benefit into a hard benefit, the brain is naturally going to assume that this is how soft benefits work now, and any soft benefit that is not turned into a hard benefit is a soft benefit that doesn't matter/exist. It's why Ophidimancer has been arguing for the sharp demarcation between mechanical features like skills and feats and 'narrative', i.e. soft, benefits such as connections and contacts.
Please do not contact or message me.
i remember hearing that the recently released books will be instantly compatible with 2024 5e. so then the Giant's book is a good reference. Foundling and Carver example backgrounds there both include a background-specific table and a personality traits table. seems like things beyond proficiencies, equipment, and feat have been preserved.
if Spelljammer counts as an instantly compatible book (and i'm actually a little hopeful it's not so they can take another longer revisory stab at it), the Wildspacer's feat is Tough but includes also a rider that the Wildspacer doesn't face disadvantage in zero-g melee. no Traits table, but you can be afraid of space clowns. that's not nothin. traits list are missing but i find it encouraging that the later Giants book included a Traits table.
so there is some hope of continued support for players. they might just maybe not be leaving us entirely high and dry with regards to lore-appropriate suggestions from their perspective.
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!
Good morning (my time).
I didn't ignore what the narrative says -- I was addressing your presumptions about the meaning of the narrative, not the narrative. As I pointed out, the narrative bit in the original works perfectly fine for my world. Which, I confess, was a bit of a shock to me, as this worldbuilding cycle I am changing the rules to fit the world -- and I didn't need to change the rules here.
Nor was it a unilateral change to the expectations -- it was a change to the expectations based in the world itself, because the way that nobility works on that world is not what someone may expect (as I used your presumptions to establish).
I have no player right now to consult with. That would all apply regardless of the player. The player would get to select from the skills, the tools and kits, and then get the joy of describing to some extent the Estate (the castle). And there is a reason for that -- technically, they could even be related to the Emperor, but they still wouldn't be in line of succession. They would, of course, have to read up on Nobility, but it turns out I have that whole section on it for them. From that would grow an exchange that would fill in a part of the world that is presently missing (assuming they opted not to be part of the Imperial Court, if they did then, well, that Estate is already covered as it sits in the heart of Sibola.)
THus, the consulting would happen and would bring the character more into the grander world, as I would then use that place in later adventures (much as I expect to use the Imperial Court at one point).
Thus, you are correct -- not only did I not mean it that way, that is not how I would do it. (I will now note that you can actually read all of this, as I have been posting the updates to the project online, so I am not merely making this up whole cloth as I go -- these are the real things I am using).
I do not believe that your meaning of 'leading' and mine match.
As I may not have properly describes the concept of a leading sentence previously, this is fair game. I do have to note that it is a phrase, and so used together (leading sentence, leading guidance, leading question, etc).
Of the different types of guidance noted, leading guidance is guidance that provides an implied end result on the part of the guidance. They are often framed in a particular way to elicit responses that encourage the respondent towards a particular response. Several examples of this are found in the suggested text you would have used, noted previously and described.
The problem is that your own expectations are shifting the goalposts on you. You want the guidance to be 'here is a good idea of where to go, build on this, yourself.' but if you do so with a leading question, then what you are going to get from most people is 'this and only this is the way to go', because leading guidance is received (read, understood, perceived) as directing that.
So it does make sense -- and it looks like the sticking point is that while we may share a similar understanding of the semantic import of guidance, the methodology used is the issue, and on your part there is a lack of understanding of how that system works in the larger world or socioculturally.
Which isn't a ding, by the way. I had to suffer through two years of course work on this precise topic and then 30 years of doing the work and having to pour over every word choice in every question. This is not something that is readily visible unless you have an interest in it. And as I wrote that, I suddenly thought of a great example.
So, here's a way to maybe explain this
To a lot of folks, the two questions are the same on the surface. However, they are not.
When you ask question 1, people's brains are more likely to be open to exploring other possibilities, like gryphon or chimera, and they may give such an answer. When you ask question 2, they are much more likely to choose only one or the other. This is a principle commonly used when dealing with the social psychology of things such as what we are arguing about.
So, why do you think it is that Question 1 will generate 50% nonstandard answers (elicit more creative responses) and Question 2 will generate 13% nonstandard answers (less creative responses)?
The answer is that Question 2 is a leading question, because it asks the to choose, and they will read it or receive it or perceive it as saying these are your only options. Only 13% of respondents will choose something other than those two things.
(unrelated side note: I use question one in my interviews -- when hiring someone -- because Dragons will generally work better independently and Unicorns will generally work better cooperatively. Not even kidding.)
Are you not even able to discuss a world where they are relevant?
I am obviously able to discuss a world where they are relevant, because as I showed, they are relevant on my world. Just not in the same way as you thought they should be relevant. It isn't a question of are Noble Titles relevant or is Nobility relevant -- it is a question of how they are relevant and to what degree, in relation to the player characters and the setting (world) in use.
And while this is all still part of the off track (because I questioned your bias in your responses to a different post), it is key because we just noted that the more specific answer is about the methodology that is used, and how it may be that you don't understand the why they are moving away from questions which suggest that either the player or the DM create things and do more work and simply making it more loose and open, which bothers you because you prefer that they stay in a space that suggests that more work be done rather than being open and loose.
Finally, we come to this.
As for whether there is an argument to change my mind on this or on any other given thing, maybe.
This is not the best answer.
For one, I didn't ask bot any other given thing. That's a use of weasel words in the second phrase of the sentence ("or any other thing"), and that wasn't what was asked, as it was specifically asking about this one thing.
The combination of changing the question as you answered it, the use of weasel words, and the response of "maybe" all combine to demonstrate that you are not arguing in good faith.
I can say that my answer to all of this is an unequivocal yes. But I can say that to any argument I enter into, even when fighting for human rights. Because I do operate in good faith. I admit I may not always be able to argue from the other side, but that's usually early on, before I understand the nature of my opponent in the discourse. Once I have a grasp on their position, I shift gears and adopt a different approach, where I ask questions and use leading sentences, leading guidance, leading questions to draw out their position for greater clarity to others who are witnessing an exchange.
I am, perhaps, slightly more attuned to such things, because I have a long history of dealing with folks who seek to make policy and law in bad faith and with malice, and I am hired to untangle such stuff or to provide a basis before the effort is underway. There's no malice that I can see in anything, simply bad faith, and I cannot speculate further on motivation for doing so. I don't even think you are trying to argue in bad faith. I think you may be relying on rhetorical approaches that you have encountered and seen successful, and I am not certain you understand what bad faith is.
You are definitely committed (I saw the Mission statement, which comes down to stasis of the 2014 version over the 2024 version) and between the mission statement and prior narrowing of arguments, we can likely do some good discussion going forward.
But you must commit to being willing to change your mind. If you are not willing, then no argument anywhere will change it. ANd that would mean that the hours of other people's lives and your own have been wasted.
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
Kotath, here's the positions you have staked out along with your mission statement, provided for reference.
Others could do the same.
Mission Statement: To ensure that the greatest possible level of creativity is encouraged, that lore is not linked to a published world, and to see that backgrounds have value to both players and DMs, without adding much to the workload of either in character creation beyond the setting development or character development.
Again, for reference.
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
the 2014 PHB, DMG, and MM will go out of print and become legacy in 2024. i do not believe Spelljammer, Giants, Planescape, Book of Many Things, etc will become legacy in 2024. they've committed to putting into the SRD the continued compatibility of content outside the big three core rulebooks so that they remain relevant. for now. we both agree they'll become legacy at some point, but our levels of pessimism are different. and i'm okay with that. entropy is inevitable, but i think we both agree there's some fun to be had before all heat leaves this universe.
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!
That is incorrect.
The mission statement is a direct unedited copy of your statement.
Quote: ... yes to those three criteria. This is the first three in the bullet points. [Full quote: (Assuming you meant 'not' instead of 'note' then yes to those three criteria)]
On the last two, you disagreed with the assertion I made *separate from the list* that it would require the DM to create several things, but explicitly agreed that yes, the direction should be leading and not open ended. Quote: It is fair to debate how much guidance is reasonable, though, I agree and agreed, not open ended."
On the fifth, I used your suggested wording [here, full quote: These are, of course, just two examples and how relevant they will be to your idea of your character or the DM's, of their world, will, of course, vary" ] to apply the ""of course, you can change this at any time as the DM" style final sentence (which is leading and not open ended).
So all of this is literally something you have done or said and agreed to.
That you suddenly say you do not agree, when the last three pages demonstrate that you did, in fact, agree to it, as a point of fact, is rather humorous given that you have consistently moved the goalposts previously, and now you do so again here.
So of course you won't bother "to discuss this with you any further". Because that would place you in a position of having to stick to what you have said previously. End of discussion.
Back in the day, when this happened, we used to say "busted".
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
Yes, pretty sure the rest of us like that, too. I certainly do. And that is what I think the UA does better than the 2014 PHB Backgrounds specifically because of how awkwardly written the 2014 PHB Background Features are, specifically.
The plot and story part of the UA Backgrounds is not meaningless, in fact the meaning is supposed to be guided by the following eight questions
I want to challenge this assertion of meaninglessness. Just because something doesn't have mechanical rules associated with it doesn't make it meaningless.
So what this critique comes down to is the quality of the writing in the specific sample Background story details, then? Because you're talking specifically about a player that has chosen to simply pick a completely premade Background rather than engage at all with the clear system default of creating one's own Background. Sure, I think I can agree that the individual narratives in each of the sample UA Backgrounds are very very bland and generic. If that's what your problem is with it, then yes I'll agree with you ... the individual sample background stories are fairly rudimentary.
I mean I don't think it's the job of the sample writers to integrate their stories into each DM's world. That's not feasible, that's part of the negotiation between the player and the DM. Even if the player decides to not alter anything from the sample, they would still have to present it to the DM for the negotiation process.
Luckily the system presented has a much more robust set of guidance questions to help the player get into the mindset of their character, including specific questions about their actual lives before the campaign. They refined the process of helping people build the narrative of their character since the 2014 PHB and it shows in the more in depth questions as well as how they standardized the mechanics so that the player has to worry less about bending their story around the mechanics and can instead mix and match the mechanics to fit their story instead.
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!
But everything has a meaningful impact on gameplay. Role playing is part of game play. Role playing in a world that is created is gameplay. Details like far away and in the distance mountains that the players will never go to there is a monolith that will answer one question has a meaningful impact on gameplay (it is trivia).
The snacks consumed at the table that night, the lighting, the music, if Sandy had a bad day and Jack had a victory all have an impact on gameplay.
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
That's been our stance since the very beginning. Something does not need to be a hard-and-fast, locked-in, ironclad codified Hard Rule in order to have an effect on gameplay. Lots of things that aren't hard-coded Rules have an effect on gameplay. There's no rules I'm aware of for how to handle different weather conditions, but I guarantee weather will have an effect on games, especially games at sea. I don't know a single game where the DM doesn't take relationships with NPCs forged after Campaign Start into account, and yet prior to the UA cycle there was no real rules for how to do that, either. "Actions have consequences" extends to actions taken before the game, too - in the form of your background and the consequences that enrich/befall you based on what that background was.
If you're willing to trust the DM to handily resolve any consequences that befall the party's actions after the game starts - and you've repeatedly said "if you can't trust the DM you need a new game" - why is it impossible to trust the DM to resolve any consequences that befall the party's actions from before the game starting?
Please do not contact or message me.
But you'd be okay if the meaningful effect on gameplay were all based on the narrative truths established by the DM and player negotiating the integration into the DM's world? Or do you specifically think that only concrete mechanical benefits have meaningful effects on gameplay?
Nor so rigidly as they are explicitly written. It is a sign that you are a good DM, that you take what is written and make it work for your players in game. But when it comes to critiquing the writing and the system, we cannot necessarily assume good DM skills. We instead should look for writing that is better, clearer, more organized, and more helpful to even complete newcomers while at the same time allowing for scaling with RP skill. I think the Origins UA system is a step in that direction compared to the 2014 PHB Background system.
And I would like to consider myself a detractor and critic rather than an opponent of the 2014 Background Features. I don't hate them, I have had plenty of fun with them. But they could be better as a system and I think the Origins UA is such a system.
Again, critic and detractor rather than opponent. And I would like to say that I, at least, have done no such dancing. My point has remained pretty consistent. Feel free to go back and look at my posts.
I think the 2014 Background Features are explicitly designated as concrete benefits, which indicates something that is supposed to have rules and mechanics attached to them, but many of them have functions that are much more easily accomplished through narrative weight and that DM/player discussion rather than making them a mechanical rule. It's not that they are meaningless, but rather that they are pointlessly mechanized. They are definitely full of meaning, but they do not need to be made into concrete rules. Their meaning is in the wrong place and is better served being shifted to the portion of the character that is explicitly meant for that write-your-own collaboration with the DM. This is specifically about the Background Features that say "you know X group of people and they will aid you when you need it" which definitely should affect gameplay, but deserves to do so from the position of a DM/player established truth of the setting rather than a concrete mechanic. Making it into a mechanic hinders it's room to fully breathe and become a fully nuanced part of the character.
The Acolyte Background Feature, for instance, could benefit from being more freeform. Instead of just getting blanket assistance from any branch of this church you could, just as an example, say that you have an ally in the Mother Superior and her nuns will give you aid and shelter, but the High Priest actually disapproves of your membership in the clergy and anyone beholden to him will apply much stricter scrutiny to your requests for aid. That is possible and easier if it comes from the freeform story driven portion of the character sheet rather than from a concrete mechanic.
Would it be easy to DM fiat this detail and give it flexibility? Of course. But wouldn't it be better if the system were made so that it was relegated to the freeform portion of the character in the first place so that the DM wouldn't have to?
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!
Something does not have to have mechanical rules, but it does have to have a meaningful impact on gameplay.
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