And I think that first part of the crux of the issue. There's nothing actually wrong with what they're doing, you just don't like it and prefer the old way of doing things. The problem with that is that generally, in my experience, most people kinda hate that style of game design and it's why most popular systems have been actively moving away from such things more and more over the years.
That really isn't the case. Systems are becoming more, not less restrictive, in fact really reverting back to the way 1e approach to design. 1e was made with very specific narrative and conceptual restrictions and this is how modern RPG's are being built. It just goes unnoticed because the vast majority of systems being published today are designed for a very specific setting. Alien RPG, Star Trek Adventures, Dune, Forbidden Lands, Vampir the Masquerade etc. etc.. The restrictions are extremely stiff as these games work in a single specific setting.
I get the feeling we're talking about different types of restrictions. I'm not talking about the difference in restrictions between setting specific rpgs and generalist rpgs. I'm talking about the difference in restrictions between a player being able to play what they want that exists within the system in question. For example, lets use languages in 5e as an example. Languages can all be learned the same, correct? There's no rule, mechanical or narrative, that would indicate that one language would require more to learn given equal opportunity than another (not counting settings where the language literally does not exist), right? So, in a general setting, the only thing stopping a character from learning a specific language is opportunity. But opportunity is decided by the player when it comes to background.
If a sailor knows abyssal, that indicates that at some point in that characters life, the opportunity to learn abyssal has come up. Assuming that abyssal is a language that exists in the setting, and that there is even the slightest chance that it could be learned, the player has the freedom to decide that their character, who is just a sailor, has happened upon that opportunity to learn the language. Unless you are going to say that in setting nothing that speak abyssal has the ability to pass on that information. As in is literally incapable of ever under any circumstance passing on the meaning of the things it says, and that given sufficient time and study no one is ever under any circumstance able to figure it out through any means be they mundane or mystical what the language means. If that is not the case then this sailor that the player is making should be free to contrive a situation in which their character has had to opportunity to do so.
And this applies generally to every other part of the things that backgrounds give access to. So, this isn't saying that you can't ban things from your game that doesn't make sense in your game world. If demons don't exist, or if they and no one else speaks abyssal that's fine, that's a reason to ban any of your characters from taking that specific language. But if abyssal is just some exotic language that just exists out in the world, and there are people who can learn, know, and/or teach it, then saying that a specific character can't take it because they are a sailor is the type of restriction that people generally hate and are moving away from.
Ultimately different tables are different. It is up to a gm to work with the players to make what works. There are samples for a reason. Use them, allow small tweaks as needed. Some tables are going to want crazier things. DnD has expanded so much that we are both playing DnD but my table and players are nothing like yours, and that is a good thing. The background rules facilitates this. If you have a problem with the way one of your players made their background, work with them to refine it and you can both have a better game.
Again, can we do away with all the vagueness? What options or combination of options are you thinking might be problematic for a DM to handle? Like, give me something to work with other than 'deconstructed systems bad'. Show me an example of the sort of cognitive dissonance you're referring to.
I can give you an example of what I would have a problem with, but every DM will have their own personal preferences and objections. That's the thing about deconstructed systems, every GM is going to have their own unique take on what is and isn't ok with some of course being ok with all of it.
And this is a perfectly good, coherent, set of background abilities. The only problem with it is that, to make it look absurd, you gave it the name "sailor", which requires some explanation, whereas "apprentice demon hunter" or something wouldn't make anyone blink.
If all first-level characters just started with 50gp for gear, stat boosts, a couple of skills, a tool proficiency, another language, and a feat, all of the player's choice, but it was just part of base-line character generation, with no mention of background, would you have a problem with that? How about if that list, with slight variations, was built into the race and class definitions?
Because all the new background rules are is a combination of "all first-level characters start with this set of stuff" and "use that stuff to tell a quick story about what your character did with their life so far.".
It's not "deconstructing" character creation at all. It's standardizing it.
Again, can we do away with all the vagueness? What options or combination of options are you thinking might be problematic for a DM to handle? Like, give me something to work with other than 'deconstructed systems bad'. Show me an example of the sort of cognitive dissonance you're referring to.
I can give you an example of what I would have a problem with, but every DM will have their own personal preferences and objections. That's the thing about deconstructed systems, every GM is going to have their own unique take on what is and isn't ok with some of course being ok with all of it.
Again, can we do away with all the vagueness? What options or combination of options are you thinking might be problematic for a DM to handle? Like, give me something to work with other than 'deconstructed systems bad'. Show me an example of the sort of cognitive dissonance you're referring to.
I can give you an example of what I would have a problem with, but every DM will have their own personal preferences and objections. That's the thing about deconstructed systems, every GM is going to have their own unique take on what is and isn't ok with some of course being ok with all of it.
Honestly, even just looking at it, there were several ways that I could make Sailor that I thought made sense. When I was thinking of a sailor character i wanted to play I came up with something like this. Ability Score +2 Wisdom, +1 Con Skill Proficiency Perception and Religion Tool Proficiency: Cartographer tools Language: Abyssal Feat: Alert.
Easy their job was manning the crows nest under most days and worked as the ship's navigator. He is a bit religious so he learned Abyssal out of paranoia mostly. But even the other, +con is not bad for sailors, +wisdom depends on what their job was and considering they have a herbalism kit that is an easy ship's witch doctor. They need abyssal to tell demons who have possessed their crew to piss off in their own language and spot curses as the ship's witch doctor. Which also is why they are proficient in both Religion AND Arcane skills and what sailor witch doctor isn't complete without magic with magic initiate.
Just saying there are a lot of jobs on a ship, so it makes sense to me.
Again, can we do away with all the vagueness? What options or combination of options are you thinking might be problematic for a DM to handle? Like, give me something to work with other than 'deconstructed systems bad'. Show me an example of the sort of cognitive dissonance you're referring to.
I can give you an example of what I would have a problem with, but every DM will have their own personal preferences and objections. That's the thing about deconstructed systems, every GM is going to have their own unique take on what is and isn't ok with some of course being ok with all of it.
Honestly, even just looking at it, there were several ways that I could make Sailor that I thought made sense. When I was thinking of a sailor character i wanted to play I came up with something like this. Ability Score +2 Wisdom, +1 Con Skill Proficiency Perception and Religion Tool Proficiency: Cartographer tools Language: Abyssal Feat: Alert.
Easy their job was manning the crows nest under most days and worked as the ship's navigator. He is a bit religious so he learned Abyssal out of paranoia mostly. But even the other, +con is not bad for sailors, +wisdom depends on what their job was and considering they have a herbalism kit that is an easy ship's witch doctor. They need abyssal to tell demons who have possessed their crew to piss off in their own language and spot curses as the ship's witch doctor. Which also is why they are proficient in both Religion AND Arcane skills and what sailor witch doctor isn't complete without magic with magic initiate.
Just saying there are a lot of jobs on a ship, so it makes sense to me.
And does not know knots (survival), not proficient at swimming or climbing rigging (athletics)... Cartographers are map makers, not navigators. They are two different sets of tools... and skills. There is overlap, but one measures terrain and draws maps and the other reads maps and determines positions, usually from sun or stars. It helps a lot for a cartographer to also be a navigator, but a navigator does not need most of a cartographer's skills.
And this right here is a conversation I would have with my DM and might make me go. "Hmmm, maybe drop perception for survival or drop cartographers for navigators tools" to make myself either more "explorer type" or to become more the navigator thing that I was going for. The GM literally helping me flesh out my character to get the fantasy I want to play better.
Again, can we do away with all the vagueness? What options or combination of options are you thinking might be problematic for a DM to handle? Like, give me something to work with other than 'deconstructed systems bad'. Show me an example of the sort of cognitive dissonance you're referring to.
I can give you an example of what I would have a problem with, but every DM will have their own personal preferences and objections. That's the thing about deconstructed systems, every GM is going to have their own unique take on what is and isn't ok with some of course being ok with all of it.
Honestly, even just looking at it, there were several ways that I could make Sailor that I thought made sense. When I was thinking of a sailor character i wanted to play I came up with something like this. Ability Score +2 Wisdom, +1 Con Skill Proficiency Perception and Religion Tool Proficiency: Cartographer tools Language: Abyssal Feat: Alert.
Easy their job was manning the crows nest under most days and worked as the ship's navigator. He is a bit religious so he learned Abyssal out of paranoia mostly. But even the other, +con is not bad for sailors, +wisdom depends on what their job was and considering they have a herbalism kit that is an easy ship's witch doctor. They need abyssal to tell demons who have possessed their crew to piss off in their own language and spot curses as the ship's witch doctor. Which also is why they are proficient in both Religion AND Arcane skills and what sailor witch doctor isn't complete without magic with magic initiate.
Just saying there are a lot of jobs on a ship, so it makes sense to me.
And does not know knots (survival), not proficient at swimming or climbing rigging (athletics)... Cartographers are map makers, not navigators. They are two different sets of tools... and skills. There is overlap, but one measures terrain and draws maps and the other reads maps and determines positions, usually from sun or stars. It helps a lot for a cartographer to also be a navigator, but a navigator does not need most of a cartographer's skills.
And this right here is a conversation I would have with my DM and might make me go. "Hmmm, maybe drop perception for survival or drop cartographers for navigators tools" to make myself either more "explorer type" or to become more the navigator thing that I was going for. The GM literally helping me flesh out my character to get the fantasy I want to play better.
Thing is, other than the feat, one can do that with the existing rules....
Well that and the DM has an easier time setting up equipment for me, and so do I. And if it works either way, why not just do it. It is more satisfying you can more easily personalize it. The current rules don't let you personalize sailor nearly to this degree. This was a case of "hey you might like this better" to fit the concept better not. "We can work around a custom background to make this work for you." Which is much different. Having rules for customizing and modifying backgrounds is better than what we currently have.
Honestly I wanted to try my hand at redoing the background of the Archfey Warlock Trixie Vagabaughn. Lost from the fey wilds as a small child trixie grew up on the streets. She learned quick that she didn't have the strength to survive through might or intimidation, she needed to use her charms and develop skills to beg, borrow and steal for survival. She used what she could to trick people out of money through her charms or through skills she developed from a need to eat. When caught the townsfolk would call her horrid things, but the people she saw as friends simply called her tricksy for all the lies and magic tricks that some saw as real magic, and others just saw as a quick hand. She liked the sound of that and took it for her name. After a time she became curious about where she came from and who her real family was longing for someplace far away from the streets. When she had beg, borrowed and stolen enough and saved up, she set forth on her journey to find her home.
Current: Urchin Skills: Sleight of hand, Stealth Tools: Disguise kit, Thieves' tools no Language Feature: City Secrets
Honestly, a pretty big win for concept. I never needed Disguise kit because I liked mask of many faces, and too me, the city secrets feature never made much sense once I left the city I grew up in to go on adventures, but the skills I would have developed from using my charms and social skills to get what I want, and when that failed to steal it or scrounge for it, being taken outside the city makes more sense. As far as equipment I get to start with commoner's cloths, I can now actually start with thieves tools and an explorer's pack. Could already to the pack, but starting with thieves tools out the gate is huge.
(as for the warlock bargain, that was something done long ago without her knowledge when she was first born into the fey wilds, the terms may very well be why she was ejected from the wilds herself at such a young age, but as far as she knows, she simply has a book that shows her how to do a few magic tricks from time to time, when she can make heads or tails of it, but the book and the bargain may be the key to the past that she is missing.)
Honestly I wanted to try my hand at redoing the background of the Archfey Warlock Trixie Vagabaughn. Lost from the fey wilds as a small child trixie grew up on the streets. She learned quick that she didn't have the strength to survive through might or intimidation, she needed to use her charms and develop skills to beg, borrow and steal for survival. She used what she could to trick people out of money through her charms or through skills she developed from a need to eat. When caught the townsfolk would call her horrid things, but the people she saw as friends simply called her tricksy for all the lies and magic tricks that some saw as real magic, and others just saw as a quick hand. She liked the sound of that and took it for her name. After a time she became curious about where she came from and who her real family was longing for someplace far away from the streets. When she had beg, borrowed and stolen enough and saved up, she set forth on her journey to find her home.
Current: Urchin Skills: Sleight of hand, Stealth Tools: Disguise kit, Thieves' tools no Language Feature: City Secrets
Honestly, a pretty big win for concept. I never needed Disguise kit because I liked mask of many faces, and too me, the city secrets feature never made much sense once I left the city I grew up in to go on adventures, but the skills I would have developed from using my charms and social skills to get what I want, and when that failed to steal it or scrounge for it, being taken outside the city makes more sense. As far as equipment I get to start with commoner's cloths, I can now actually start with thieves tools and an explorer's pack. Could already to the pack, but starting with thieves tools out the gate is huge.
(as for the warlock bargain, that was something done long ago without her knowledge when she was first born into the fey wilds, the terms may very well be why she was ejected from the wilds herself at such a young age, but as far as she knows, she simply has a book that shows her how to do a few magic tricks from time to time, when she can make heads or tails of it, but the book and the bargain may be the key to the past that she is missing.)
With the existing rules, custom background you can already trade out a tool for a language. That is easy and even has no interface problems.
Personally I do not like handing out Thieves Cant because, in theory, that is a guild specific communications method. If it is simply standardized and learnable, why wouldn't the watch teach it to every watch member? It would lose the entire point and value to it quickly.
Well the problem with NOT having thieves cant NOT being among people with criminal backgrounds and the like then it isn't much of a language for thieves. Sure Rogues know it, but rogues need a way to communicate discreetly with other criminal organizations beyond just a "Rogue class", so either those organizations need to know it, or it isn't really a functioning tool of communication in those circles. Not every guild member is a rogue and shouldn't be they need a diverse group of abilities to succeed if they are all rogues in a world of magic, than I am surprised the guild hasn't already collapsed. (Of course not every campaign setting has a "thieves GUILD" and thus Theives cant doesnt even represent a thieves guild thing and is just how certain people within certain circles communicate). This is also why druidic only being for druids doesn't exactly work either. Oh look a language, that no one speaks outside of your home, and you are adventurers that are specifically left your home.
And custom background ALSO makes you lose out on the starting items, AND once again the feature not only doesn't really help, but also fails to work for the concept, especially when a big part of the concept is the character is leaving the city and taking the skills they learned with them.
Again it is an outright win for my character concept over the old way. The feature before was useless for the concept of my character LEAVING the city to adventure. And the custom background rules hurt more than they help in 5e. AND the current Urchin doesn't allow for the kind of Urchin I want to play. It is all stealth and sleight of hand, which is fine for a pure thief, but for someone that is a thief or a con person or even just a charmer willing to do anything to survive stealth just doesn't fit either. Again I know you will point to custom background, which again takes away the items and once again still leaves me with a feature that is literally either nonsensical or useless for the concept.
Again, can we do away with all the vagueness? What options or combination of options are you thinking might be problematic for a DM to handle? Like, give me something to work with other than 'deconstructed systems bad'. Show me an example of the sort of cognitive dissonance you're referring to.
I can give you an example of what I would have a problem with, but every DM will have their own personal preferences and objections. That's the thing about deconstructed systems, every GM is going to have their own unique take on what is and isn't ok with some of course being ok with all of it.
Honestly, even just looking at it, there were several ways that I could make Sailor that I thought made sense. When I was thinking of a sailor character i wanted to play I came up with something like this. Ability Score +2 Wisdom, +1 Con Skill Proficiency Perception and Religion Tool Proficiency: Cartographer tools Language: Abyssal Feat: Alert.
Easy their job was manning the crows nest under most days and worked as the ship's navigator. He is a bit religious so he learned Abyssal out of paranoia mostly. But even the other, +con is not bad for sailors, +wisdom depends on what their job was and considering they have a herbalism kit that is an easy ship's witch doctor. They need abyssal to tell demons who have possessed their crew to piss off in their own language and spot curses as the ship's witch doctor. Which also is why they are proficient in both Religion AND Arcane skills and what sailor witch doctor isn't complete without magic with magic initiate.
Just saying there are a lot of jobs on a ship, so it makes sense to me.
And does not know knots (survival), not proficient at swimming or climbing rigging (athletics)... Cartographers are map makers, not navigators. They are two different sets of tools... and skills. There is overlap, but one measures terrain and draws maps and the other reads maps and determines positions, usually from sun or stars. It helps a lot for a cartographer to also be a navigator, but a navigator does not need most of a cartographer's skills.
And this right here is a conversation I would have with my DM and might make me go. "Hmmm, maybe drop perception for survival or drop cartographers for navigators tools" to make myself either more "explorer type" or to become more the navigator thing that I was going for. The GM literally helping me flesh out my character to get the fantasy I want to play better.
Thing is, other than the feat, one can do that with the existing rules....
Well that and the DM has an easier time setting up equipment for me, and so do I. And if it works either way, why not just do it. It is more satisfying you can more easily personalize it. The current rules don't let you personalize sailor nearly to this degree. This was a case of "hey you might like this better" to fit the concept better not. "We can work around a custom background to make this work for you." Which is much different. Having rules for customizing and modifying backgrounds is better than what we currently have.
I see the equipment and customizing issues as interface issues. And equipment being very much the least of such, since that is really easy to edit after the fact as needed.
So your issue is with the loss of the "feature" thing .... which is entirely too varied and would need literally millions of different features to fit every kind of custom background a player could come up with instead of just using a feat that gives a bigger more commonly used boon and the rest can be GM and player common sense/ Fiat? and NOT the default custom builds or the fact that they have refined the rules for customizing backgrounds?
So your issue is with the loss of the "feature" thing .... which is entirely too varied and would need literally millions of different features to fit every kind of custom background a player could come up with instead of just using a feat that gives a bigger more commonly used boon and the rest can be GM and player common sense/ Fiat? and NOT the default custom builds or the fact that they have refined the rules for customizing backgrounds?
First of all, 'every kind' is not their with either. It is a straw man. There is never going to be accommodation for literally every possibility.
The existing rules allow the player and DM to work out something new, though. And there is actually space currently to type in a description, but there is no provision to have it override the feature and it does not show up on the character sheet at all, directly (if you click on the background it does show up on the popup)
Are you talking about the online thing now? because some people still use pen and paper. I know we are on DnD Beyond with online character sheets but I will still use Pen and Paper from time to time and backgrounds just get written in there. I am honestly just confused at this point as to what you are even arguing against. This gives better rules for custom backgrounds. It gives you more options at character creation and you aren't losing anything and it is more balanced. Is it perfect yet? no of course not this is the first play test. but the concept of pick the ASI you want, pick 2 skills, pick a tool, a language, and now pick one of our level 1 feats to allow your character to mechanically stand out from other characters like you at level 1. There might be feats that aren't great for this right now and need balancing sure.
Screw they could just remove the word "background" and say pick these things, and come up with a backstory, and not have this stuff linked to your background at all and I still think it would be better than what we have. Backgrounds right now are way to pigeon holed, the custom background thing we have now doesn't function without massive assistance from the DM.
This functions regardless. Those suggestions you made about my custom sailor I could have received none of those from the DM and just played the character and I would have been fine. But if I didn't get help from the DM under current rules with the custom sailor I would be starting out with no equipment and a feature that may not function. Because it says I can get passage on a ship with trade for work, but if my character can't do the ship work that the dm expects me to do because he was a different kind of sailor that feature outright fails and then does nothing. And it only does SOMETHING in the extremely niche situation where we need to get on a boat. AND why can't anyone with survival experience and the like try that? Why does it have to be this specific background? Same thing with sage. Cant research unless you are a sage?, Can't stay at a church unless you are an Acolyte? Churches aren't going to help people? How is the church getting funding and followers if they aren't helping people? These features are what many refer to as "ribbon features", things that have no real mechanical benefit, but are entirely there for flavor. Flavor is free on all character forever. You aren't losing it, you never will, and it shouldn't be your sole source of inspiration for a background.
Again, can we do away with all the vagueness? What options or combination of options are you thinking might be problematic for a DM to handle? Like, give me something to work with other than 'deconstructed systems bad'. Show me an example of the sort of cognitive dissonance you're referring to.
I can give you an example of what I would have a problem with, but every DM will have their own personal preferences and objections. That's the thing about deconstructed systems, every GM is going to have their own unique take on what is and isn't ok with some of course being ok with all of it.
Example of something I would have a problem with.
Background Name: Sailor
Ability Scores: +2 Wisdom, +1 Consitution
Skill Proficiency: Arcane, Religion
Tool Proficiency: Herbalism Kit
Language: Abyssal
Feat: Magic Initiate
Whats wrong with that? I can definitely why that build could make sense for maybe a ship medic or maybe some kind shaman used for navigating ships across the sea.
It seems good but it provides a good place to start with flavour in a much more interesting way than the current backgrounds would.
So, what are we even arguing over right now? From the way this conversation is going, nothing really changes other than features being replaced by feats, right? Kotath likes features and everyone else? likes feats. Is that the long and short of it?
To clarify, Kotath: you do not allow your players to have anything if they can't point to a relevant background feature that allows them to have it?
If there's no Acolyte in the party, the party cannot even enter temples save illegally, and/or with a hefty bribe? If there's no Sailor in the party, the party cannot negotiate passage on an oceangoing vessel? If there's no Folk Hero in the party, all commoners will be hostile and completely unwilling to even speak to the party? If there's no Noble in the party, all men of standing and status will have the party banished/arrested/attacked on sight?
Is that what we're looking at here? because as far as I can tell that's the argument you seem to be making - that in order to do a basic job function you are REQUIRED to have the "permission" of a restrictive background feature, and if you do not have that background feature than all possible avenues of non-combat interaction will be closed off to you forever. Is that about right?
So, what are we even arguing over right now? From the way this conversation is going, nothing really changes other than features being replaced by feats, right? Kotath likes features and everyone else? likes feats. Is that the long and short of it?
More specifically I am defending the features on the basis they are much more narrative driven, which is what I feel backgrounds should be.
Whether 1st level characters should get additional feats or not is a power issue, more than a narrative issue.
But it still seems to mostly boil down to you liking features while everyone else likes feats.
So, what are we even arguing over right now? From the way this conversation is going, nothing really changes other than features being replaced by feats, right? Kotath likes features and everyone else? likes feats. Is that the long and short of it?
More specifically I am defending the features on the basis they are much more narrative driven, which is what I feel backgrounds should be.
Whether 1st level characters should get additional feats or not is a power issue, more than a narrative issue.
But it still seems to mostly boil down to you liking features while everyone else likes feats.
So, what are we even arguing over right now? From the way this conversation is going, nothing really changes other than features being replaced by feats, right? Kotath likes features and everyone else? likes feats. Is that the long and short of it?
More specifically I am defending the features on the basis they are much more narrative driven, which is what I feel backgrounds should be.
Whether 1st level characters should get additional feats or not is a power issue, more than a narrative issue.
But it still seems to mostly boil down to you liking features while everyone else likes feats.
I think, and everyone else is saying those features don't need to be spelled out. Especially if it needs to be newly worked. That is just part of the backstory and intrinsic you don't need a rule for it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I get the feeling we're talking about different types of restrictions. I'm not talking about the difference in restrictions between setting specific rpgs and generalist rpgs. I'm talking about the difference in restrictions between a player being able to play what they want that exists within the system in question. For example, lets use languages in 5e as an example. Languages can all be learned the same, correct? There's no rule, mechanical or narrative, that would indicate that one language would require more to learn given equal opportunity than another (not counting settings where the language literally does not exist), right? So, in a general setting, the only thing stopping a character from learning a specific language is opportunity. But opportunity is decided by the player when it comes to background.
If a sailor knows abyssal, that indicates that at some point in that characters life, the opportunity to learn abyssal has come up. Assuming that abyssal is a language that exists in the setting, and that there is even the slightest chance that it could be learned, the player has the freedom to decide that their character, who is just a sailor, has happened upon that opportunity to learn the language. Unless you are going to say that in setting nothing that speak abyssal has the ability to pass on that information. As in is literally incapable of ever under any circumstance passing on the meaning of the things it says, and that given sufficient time and study no one is ever under any circumstance able to figure it out through any means be they mundane or mystical what the language means. If that is not the case then this sailor that the player is making should be free to contrive a situation in which their character has had to opportunity to do so.
And this applies generally to every other part of the things that backgrounds give access to. So, this isn't saying that you can't ban things from your game that doesn't make sense in your game world. If demons don't exist, or if they and no one else speaks abyssal that's fine, that's a reason to ban any of your characters from taking that specific language. But if abyssal is just some exotic language that just exists out in the world, and there are people who can learn, know, and/or teach it, then saying that a specific character can't take it because they are a sailor is the type of restriction that people generally hate and are moving away from.
Ultimately different tables are different. It is up to a gm to work with the players to make what works. There are samples for a reason. Use them, allow small tweaks as needed. Some tables are going to want crazier things. DnD has expanded so much that we are both playing DnD but my table and players are nothing like yours, and that is a good thing. The background rules facilitates this. If you have a problem with the way one of your players made their background, work with them to refine it and you can both have a better game.
WotC cannot design the game around the assumption the stupidest reading of a mechanic is how people are going to play the game.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
And this is a perfectly good, coherent, set of background abilities. The only problem with it is that, to make it look absurd, you gave it the name "sailor", which requires some explanation, whereas "apprentice demon hunter" or something wouldn't make anyone blink.
If all first-level characters just started with 50gp for gear, stat boosts, a couple of skills, a tool proficiency, another language, and a feat, all of the player's choice, but it was just part of base-line character generation, with no mention of background, would you have a problem with that? How about if that list, with slight variations, was built into the race and class definitions?
Because all the new background rules are is a combination of "all first-level characters start with this set of stuff" and "use that stuff to tell a quick story about what your character did with their life so far.".
It's not "deconstructing" character creation at all. It's standardizing it.
That right there is a perfectly good Sea Witch.
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!
Hell, it makes for a perfectly good sailor who sold their soul!
Honestly, as someone who plays and loves Fate, doomsaying about D&D becoming a genre-less toolkit is neither scary, nor is it remotely even close.
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!
Honestly, even just looking at it, there were several ways that I could make Sailor that I thought made sense. When I was thinking of a sailor character i wanted to play I came up with something like this.
Ability Score +2 Wisdom, +1 Con
Skill Proficiency Perception and Religion
Tool Proficiency: Cartographer tools
Language: Abyssal
Feat: Alert.
Easy their job was manning the crows nest under most days and worked as the ship's navigator. He is a bit religious so he learned Abyssal out of paranoia mostly. But even the other, +con is not bad for sailors, +wisdom depends on what their job was and considering they have a herbalism kit that is an easy ship's witch doctor. They need abyssal to tell demons who have possessed their crew to piss off in their own language and spot curses as the ship's witch doctor. Which also is why they are proficient in both Religion AND Arcane skills and what sailor witch doctor isn't complete without magic with magic initiate.
Just saying there are a lot of jobs on a ship, so it makes sense to me.
And this right here is a conversation I would have with my DM and might make me go. "Hmmm, maybe drop perception for survival or drop cartographers for navigators tools" to make myself either more "explorer type" or to become more the navigator thing that I was going for. The GM literally helping me flesh out my character to get the fantasy I want to play better.
Well that and the DM has an easier time setting up equipment for me, and so do I. And if it works either way, why not just do it. It is more satisfying you can more easily personalize it. The current rules don't let you personalize sailor nearly to this degree. This was a case of "hey you might like this better" to fit the concept better not. "We can work around a custom background to make this work for you." Which is much different. Having rules for customizing and modifying backgrounds is better than what we currently have.
Honestly I wanted to try my hand at redoing the background of the Archfey Warlock Trixie Vagabaughn. Lost from the fey wilds as a small child trixie grew up on the streets. She learned quick that she didn't have the strength to survive through might or intimidation, she needed to use her charms and develop skills to beg, borrow and steal for survival. She used what she could to trick people out of money through her charms or through skills she developed from a need to eat. When caught the townsfolk would call her horrid things, but the people she saw as friends simply called her tricksy for all the lies and magic tricks that some saw as real magic, and others just saw as a quick hand. She liked the sound of that and took it for her name. After a time she became curious about where she came from and who her real family was longing for someplace far away from the streets. When she had beg, borrowed and stolen enough and saved up, she set forth on her journey to find her home.
Current:
Urchin
Skills: Sleight of hand, Stealth
Tools: Disguise kit, Thieves' tools
no Language
Feature: City Secrets
Urchin
Abilities
+2 Charisma, +1 Dex
Sleight of Hand, Deception
Tool Proficiency: thieves tools
Language: Thieves Can't
Feat: Skilled, taking stealth, survival and insight.
Honestly, a pretty big win for concept. I never needed Disguise kit because I liked mask of many faces, and too me, the city secrets feature never made much sense once I left the city I grew up in to go on adventures, but the skills I would have developed from using my charms and social skills to get what I want, and when that failed to steal it or scrounge for it, being taken outside the city makes more sense. As far as equipment I get to start with commoner's cloths, I can now actually start with thieves tools and an explorer's pack. Could already to the pack, but starting with thieves tools out the gate is huge.
(as for the warlock bargain, that was something done long ago without her knowledge when she was first born into the fey wilds, the terms may very well be why she was ejected from the wilds herself at such a young age, but as far as she knows, she simply has a book that shows her how to do a few magic tricks from time to time, when she can make heads or tails of it, but the book and the bargain may be the key to the past that she is missing.)
Well the problem with NOT having thieves cant NOT being among people with criminal backgrounds and the like then it isn't much of a language for thieves. Sure Rogues know it, but rogues need a way to communicate discreetly with other criminal organizations beyond just a "Rogue class", so either those organizations need to know it, or it isn't really a functioning tool of communication in those circles. Not every guild member is a rogue and shouldn't be they need a diverse group of abilities to succeed if they are all rogues in a world of magic, than I am surprised the guild hasn't already collapsed. (Of course not every campaign setting has a "thieves GUILD" and thus Theives cant doesnt even represent a thieves guild thing and is just how certain people within certain circles communicate). This is also why druidic only being for druids doesn't exactly work either. Oh look a language, that no one speaks outside of your home, and you are adventurers that are specifically left your home.
And custom background ALSO makes you lose out on the starting items, AND once again the feature not only doesn't really help, but also fails to work for the concept, especially when a big part of the concept is the character is leaving the city and taking the skills they learned with them.
Again it is an outright win for my character concept over the old way. The feature before was useless for the concept of my character LEAVING the city to adventure. And the custom background rules hurt more than they help in 5e. AND the current Urchin doesn't allow for the kind of Urchin I want to play. It is all stealth and sleight of hand, which is fine for a pure thief, but for someone that is a thief or a con person or even just a charmer willing to do anything to survive stealth just doesn't fit either. Again I know you will point to custom background, which again takes away the items and once again still leaves me with a feature that is literally either nonsensical or useless for the concept.
So your issue is with the loss of the "feature" thing .... which is entirely too varied and would need literally millions of different features to fit every kind of custom background a player could come up with instead of just using a feat that gives a bigger more commonly used boon and the rest can be GM and player common sense/ Fiat? and NOT the default custom builds or the fact that they have refined the rules for customizing backgrounds?
Are you talking about the online thing now? because some people still use pen and paper. I know we are on DnD Beyond with online character sheets but I will still use Pen and Paper from time to time and backgrounds just get written in there. I am honestly just confused at this point as to what you are even arguing against. This gives better rules for custom backgrounds. It gives you more options at character creation and you aren't losing anything and it is more balanced. Is it perfect yet? no of course not this is the first play test. but the concept of pick the ASI you want, pick 2 skills, pick a tool, a language, and now pick one of our level 1 feats to allow your character to mechanically stand out from other characters like you at level 1. There might be feats that aren't great for this right now and need balancing sure.
Screw they could just remove the word "background" and say pick these things, and come up with a backstory, and not have this stuff linked to your background at all and I still think it would be better than what we have. Backgrounds right now are way to pigeon holed, the custom background thing we have now doesn't function without massive assistance from the DM.
This functions regardless. Those suggestions you made about my custom sailor I could have received none of those from the DM and just played the character and I would have been fine. But if I didn't get help from the DM under current rules with the custom sailor I would be starting out with no equipment and a feature that may not function. Because it says I can get passage on a ship with trade for work, but if my character can't do the ship work that the dm expects me to do because he was a different kind of sailor that feature outright fails and then does nothing. And it only does SOMETHING in the extremely niche situation where we need to get on a boat. AND why can't anyone with survival experience and the like try that? Why does it have to be this specific background? Same thing with sage. Cant research unless you are a sage?, Can't stay at a church unless you are an Acolyte? Churches aren't going to help people? How is the church getting funding and followers if they aren't helping people? These features are what many refer to as "ribbon features", things that have no real mechanical benefit, but are entirely there for flavor. Flavor is free on all character forever. You aren't losing it, you never will, and it shouldn't be your sole source of inspiration for a background.
Quote from BigLizard >>
Again, can we do away with all the vagueness? What options or combination of options are you thinking might be problematic for a DM to handle? Like, give me something to work with other than 'deconstructed systems bad'. Show me an example of the sort of cognitive dissonance you're referring to.
I can give you an example of what I would have a problem with, but every DM will have their own personal preferences and objections. That's the thing about deconstructed systems, every GM is going to have their own unique take on what is and isn't ok with some of course being ok with all of it.
Example of something I would have a problem with.
Background Name: Sailor
Ability Scores: +2 Wisdom, +1 Consitution
Skill Proficiency: Arcane, Religion
Tool Proficiency: Herbalism Kit
Language: Abyssal
Feat: Magic Initiate
Whats wrong with that? I can definitely why that build could make sense for maybe a ship medic or maybe some kind shaman used for navigating ships across the sea.
It seems good but it provides a good place to start with flavour in a much more interesting way than the current backgrounds would.
So, what are we even arguing over right now? From the way this conversation is going, nothing really changes other than features being replaced by feats, right? Kotath likes features and everyone else? likes feats. Is that the long and short of it?
To clarify, Kotath: you do not allow your players to have anything if they can't point to a relevant background feature that allows them to have it?
If there's no Acolyte in the party, the party cannot even enter temples save illegally, and/or with a hefty bribe?
If there's no Sailor in the party, the party cannot negotiate passage on an oceangoing vessel?
If there's no Folk Hero in the party, all commoners will be hostile and completely unwilling to even speak to the party?
If there's no Noble in the party, all men of standing and status will have the party banished/arrested/attacked on sight?
Is that what we're looking at here? because as far as I can tell that's the argument you seem to be making - that in order to do a basic job function you are REQUIRED to have the "permission" of a restrictive background feature, and if you do not have that background feature than all possible avenues of non-combat interaction will be closed off to you forever. Is that about right?
Please do not contact or message me.
But it still seems to mostly boil down to you liking features while everyone else likes feats.
So the argument is that DMs are too stupid to know how to tell a story if the players' background features don't spoon-feed them that story?
Please do not contact or message me.
I think, and everyone else is saying those features don't need to be spelled out. Especially if it needs to be newly worked. That is just part of the backstory and intrinsic you don't need a rule for it.