And I left feedback indicating, in both "Satisfaction" bars and in words, that I didn't even bother engaging with the samples because the custom background system was so much better than being stuck with a prebuilt. We'll see if the majority of players agree with me when this is revisited in the future.
Yep, pretty much this. Absolutely no one at my table has used them as written. At best I'm personally using what is kind of a heavily modified Artisan.
And nearly no one at my tables uses the existing ones strictly as written. The current rules do actually make it clear that modifying them is ok, just work with your DM on that. Which should be done on backgrounds anyway.
That goes without saying. I doubt many tables go strictly by the example backgrounds.
Which is why I am arguing for scrapping the list in favour of walking the reader through creation of a couple backgrounds, with the list of questions in mind: Where do they come from, what did they do, what did they learn there, what resources did they gain and whom did they form strong connections with?
Oh sure, I'm all for talking out character background before play. As long as they don't try to codify things into half-baked mechanics like, 'you know exactly X number of people who you are close' to or whatever I'm all for that.
Another straw man. I never said 'exactly X people.' No matter what number you use for X.
I literally never said you did.
Nor did anyone else. And I am the only one who has been arguing in favour of them adding a discussion of contacts.
I never said anyone else did either. And my argument has never been against discussing anything with the DM. My argument is and always has been against the inclusion of mechanical 'features' built into the game that do little other than restrict gameplay.
I think they shouldn't have included specific languages in backgrounds. Or made it more clear that these sample backgrounds can be altered (i.e. used as templates)
I think they shouldn't have included specific languages in backgrounds. Or made it more clear that these sample backgrounds can be altered (i.e. used as templates)
They were pretty damn explicit that those were samples and could be freely changed as the user pleased.
I think they shouldn't have included specific languages in backgrounds. Or made it more clear that these sample backgrounds can be altered (i.e. used as templates)
They were pretty damn explicit that those were samples and could be freely changed as the user pleased.
And yet, they are not really presented any differently than the current 'examples' are presented, just shorter. And in the feedback, they are asked about individually, as if they are intended as something more than just samples.
Because the 'samples' are explicitly made using the create your own background rules. They're literally examples of using those specific rules to make a functional background. It says so explicitly in the text.
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.
I think they shouldn't have included specific languages in backgrounds. Or made it more clear that these sample backgrounds can be altered (i.e. used as templates)
They were pretty damn explicit that those were samples and could be freely changed as the user pleased.
And yet, they are not really presented any differently than the current 'examples' are presented, just shorter. And in the feedback, they are asked about individually, as if they are intended as something more than just samples.
Because the 'samples' are explicitly made using the create your own background rules. They're literally examples of using those specific rules to make a functional background. It says so explicitly in the text.
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.
Every story has a beginning. Your character’s background reveals where you came from, how you became an adventurer, and your place in the world. Your fighter might have been a courageous knight or a grizzled soldier. Your wizard could have been a sage or an artisan. Your rogue might have gotten by as a guild thief or commanded audiences as a jester.
Choosing a background provides you with important story cues about your character’s identity. The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring? Where did you get the money to purchase your starting gear, or, if you come from a wealthy background, why don’t you have more money? How did you learn the skills of your class? What sets you apart from ordinary people who share your background?
The sample backgrounds in this chapter provide both concrete benefits (features, proficiencies, and languages) and roleplaying suggestions.
Note "sample suggestions"
And may I ask what that at all has to do with our current discussion?
I think they shouldn't have included specific languages in backgrounds. Or made it more clear that these sample backgrounds can be altered (i.e. used as templates)
As I said in the very first post on the very first page of this thread, the samples in the OPT document were not meant to be taken as gospel. I don't know how much clearer they could have been that the text provided were simply examples of how the system could be used and were not meant to be played as is. See my other thread where I use the new system to redo the backgrounds of four of my active characters for more examples of why the sample backgrounds, frankly, didn't really need to be there. At least, not in such number. But again - both the OPT document and the accompany video make it clear that Wizards considers "write your own" to be the new default, rather than "use one of ours".
I think they shouldn't have included specific languages in backgrounds. Or made it more clear that these sample backgrounds can be altered (i.e. used as templates)
As I said in the very first post on the very first page of this thread, the samples in the OPT document were not meant to be taken as gospel. I don't know how much clearer they could have been that the text provided were simply examples of how the system could be used and were not meant to be played as is. See my other thread where I use the new system to redo the backgrounds of four of my active characters for more examples of why the sample backgrounds, frankly, didn't really need to be there. At least, not in such number. But again - both the OPT document and the accompany video make it clear that Wizards considers "write your own" to be the new default, rather than "use one of ours".
I get the feeling that we mostly agree. Rather than the list of sample backgrounds, which I think are problematic because, to me, they feel even less than those in the current rules, that they should have taken a couple ideas and walked readers through the process of basic idea to fleshed out background, within the background rules framework.
Even the one word titles of the samples are arguably problematic. The biggest problem is casual readers, who will see the list the way the current list is seen.
We may yet see something like that in the final finished book, and we can always advocate for that in the survey.
Remember, the PHB shows us, step by step, how to build Bruenor Battlehammer as a 1st-level character. And in Chapter 4, there are numerous sidebars dedicated to Tika Waylan and Artemis Entreri.
I have no issues with them beyond how bland they are. If you look at the existing Backgrounds in 5e they all have some kind of fluff / RP mechanic attached to them Smuggler has connections in a city, etc. While people can of course ad this to any of them I feel that they are so barren there is zero flavor and makes me wonder why have anything at all. It represents a more concerning trend from WotC where they lean on focusing on homebrew almost entirely which makes me wonder....why spend money on DnD stuff if I'm just going to be making up 100% of it anyways.
I get your trepidation. I miss having those, too. That said, in all honesty, they rarely come up in my games. I know my experience is purely anecdotal, but the only time a player even tried to invoke their background was when they'd take Outlander for food and water. And that was only in campaigns where people pretended to care about overland travel. In literally ever other instance, they either forgot or didn't care.
And adventurer's league play has even less use for those ribbon abilities. They're terrific for long-form storytelling, if the players all remember to use them, but not everyone does that. And therein lies the problem. In order to have the game appeal to the largest possible audience, it risks dilution.
I get your trepidation. I miss having those, too. That said, in all honesty, they rarely come up in my games. I know my experience is purely anecdotal, but the only time a player even tried to invoke their background was when they'd take Outlander for food and water. And that was only in campaigns where people pretended to care about overland travel. In literally ever other instance, they either forgot or didn't care.
And adventurer's league play has even less use for those ribbon abilities. They're terrific for long-form storytelling, if the players all remember to use them, but not everyone does that. And therein lies the problem. In order to have the game appeal to the largest possible audience, it risks dilution.
I wonder if making those more a part of customization could get people to engage with it more. Perhaps add it as part of their structured background creation block. Add some examples.
Honestly, Backgrounds are pretty pointless if you ignore the RP / storytelling mechanics since its no different than telling players "pick your stats, language, two proficiency and starting equipment. You wouldn't even have to put a term to it. Some of those flavor aspects are why I pick the backgrounds I do, while I may not use them every time its enjoyable for the character creation.
I get your trepidation. I miss having those, too. That said, in all honesty, they rarely come up in my games. I know my experience is purely anecdotal, but the only time a player even tried to invoke their background was when they'd take Outlander for food and water. And that was only in campaigns where people pretended to care about overland travel. In literally ever other instance, they either forgot or didn't care.
And adventurer's league play has even less use for those ribbon abilities. They're terrific for long-form storytelling, if the players all remember to use them, but not everyone does that. And therein lies the problem. In order to have the game appeal to the largest possible audience, it risks dilution.
I wonder if making those more a part of customization could get people to engage with it more. Perhaps add it as part of their structured background creation block. Add some examples.
Honestly, Backgrounds are pretty pointless if you ignore the RP / storytelling mechanics since its no different than telling players "pick your stats, language, two proficiency and starting equipment. You wouldn't even have to put a term to it. Some of those flavor aspects are why I pick the backgrounds I do, while I may not use them every time its enjoyable for the character creation.
Counterpoint: we never actually needed those ribbon features to be player-facing.
Do we need Shelter of the Faithful (Acolyte) to roleplay knowing the rites of my faith, or to be welcome and respected in a house of my deity? Do we need Position of Privilege (Noble) to roleplay bonds and duty to family, and any liege lord or vassals?
The ribbons were always a little awkward because some carried mechanical benefits, and those benefits were unevenly distributed. While I miss them because they were useful in seeing how the world saw our characters, I don't think they actually needed to be part of the background proper. We can define them without the mechanics of a nebulous and rarely-invoked feature.
I get your trepidation. I miss having those, too. That said, in all honesty, they rarely come up in my games. I know my experience is purely anecdotal, but the only time a player even tried to invoke their background was when they'd take Outlander for food and water. And that was only in campaigns where people pretended to care about overland travel. In literally ever other instance, they either forgot or didn't care.
And adventurer's league play has even less use for those ribbon abilities. They're terrific for long-form storytelling, if the players all remember to use them, but not everyone does that. And therein lies the problem. In order to have the game appeal to the largest possible audience, it risks dilution.
I wonder if making those more a part of customization could get people to engage with it more. Perhaps add it as part of their structured background creation block. Add some examples.
Honestly, Backgrounds are pretty pointless if you ignore the RP / storytelling mechanics since its no different than telling players "pick your stats, language, two proficiency and starting equipment. You wouldn't even have to put a term to it. Some of those flavor aspects are why I pick the backgrounds I do, while I may not use them every time its enjoyable for the character creation.
Counterpoint: we never actually needed those ribbon features to be player-facing.
Do we need Shelter of the Faithful (Acolyte) to roleplay knowing the rites of my faith, or to be welcome and respected in a house of my deity? Do we need Position of Privilege (Noble) to roleplay bonds and duty to family, and any liege lord or vassals?
The ribbons were always a little awkward because some carried mechanical benefits, and those benefits were unevenly distributed. While I miss them because they were useful in seeing how the world saw our characters, I don't think they actually needed to be part of the background proper. We can define them without the mechanics of a nebulous and rarely-invoked feature.
Not really a counter point since I put that in my statement. Is "ribbons" what they were called? Anyways, I never liked the mentality of "its not balanced so just get rid of it"
"Rarely Invoked" is based on how a campaign is run, and my point is, if players better communicate their "ribbon" then perhaps it would be more utilized. Since typically backgrounds were just taken and the non proficiiency stuff was just ignored because peopel focused on the best proficiencies. Players still wrote their backstories and DMs often worked that into the story. Since the game is putting making your own more front and center why not include a mechanic to give some guidance when people make their custom background.
I get your trepidation. I miss having those, too. That said, in all honesty, they rarely come up in my games. I know my experience is purely anecdotal, but the only time a player even tried to invoke their background was when they'd take Outlander for food and water. And that was only in campaigns where people pretended to care about overland travel. In literally ever other instance, they either forgot or didn't care.
And adventurer's league play has even less use for those ribbon abilities. They're terrific for long-form storytelling, if the players all remember to use them, but not everyone does that. And therein lies the problem. In order to have the game appeal to the largest possible audience, it risks dilution.
I wonder if making those more a part of customization could get people to engage with it more. Perhaps add it as part of their structured background creation block. Add some examples.
Honestly, Backgrounds are pretty pointless if you ignore the RP / storytelling mechanics since its no different than telling players "pick your stats, language, two proficiency and starting equipment. You wouldn't even have to put a term to it. Some of those flavor aspects are why I pick the backgrounds I do, while I may not use them every time its enjoyable for the character creation.
Counterpoint: we never actually needed those ribbon features to be player-facing.
Do we need Shelter of the Faithful (Acolyte) to roleplay knowing the rites of my faith, or to be welcome and respected in a house of my deity? Do we need Position of Privilege (Noble) to roleplay bonds and duty to family, and any liege lord or vassals?
The ribbons were always a little awkward because some carried mechanical benefits, and those benefits were unevenly distributed. While I miss them because they were useful in seeing how the world saw our characters, I don't think they actually needed to be part of the background proper. We can define them without the mechanics of a nebulous and rarely-invoked feature.
Not really a counter point since I put that in my statement. Is "ribbons" what they were called? Anyways, I never liked the mentality of "its not balanced so just get rid of it"
"Rarely Invoked" is based on how a campaign is run, and my point is, if players better communicate their "ribbon" then perhaps it would be more utilized. Since typically backgrounds were just taken and the non proficiiency stuff was just ignored because peopel focused on the best proficiencies. Players still wrote their backstories and DMs often worked that into the story. Since the game is putting making your own more front and center why not include a mechanic to give some guidance when people make their custom background.
Probably because most people don't really need that guidance. If a characters backstory was that they were a smuggler I would hope that the DM wouldn't need to be told that that character would be the one to know smuggling routes and the like.
Background features are rarely invoked by name. I don't think I've ever once said "I invoke my archaeologist's Historical Knowledge feature, provide me the information I'm entitled to know." It's always been more "as an archaeologist and historian, is there any special insight Star might have in/on this situation/place?" Rather than slapping the DM across the mouthregion with a capital-BF Background Feature, I simply ask if my lowercase-b background as Star offers any clues as to what we're looking at.
Some tables would consider that never using my feature, since I don't Activate Historical Knowledge. Some tables would consider it to be using my feature extensively, since I'm dropping my archaeologist chops left and right in all the ancient dusty-ass tombs we keep finding ourselves in. Personally I'm in the former camp - "Historical Knowledge" is generally meaningless, but the idea that my historian knows things about History and might have insights into things and places related to the world's half-lost past has come up a great deal. Which is, in my mind, the proper way of doing things. Does it make sense for you to know a person/place/thing? Then you should know it, whether or not your capital-BF Background Feature gives you permission to know it.
Probably because most people don't really need that guidance. If a characters backstory was that they were a smuggler I would hope that the DM wouldn't need to be told that that character would be the one to know smuggling routes and the like.
Smuggling routes, sure, assuming they have not changed since your character's time. Methods, too. There does not have to be anything hard and fast in the rules, but just getting players and especially DM's to buy into such is a worthy goal.
You seem to be thinking there was some huge amount of time between then and now. Background covers what a characters history was before play starts. Before play only really ends the second the game starts. So unless you're saying the smuggling routes changed the moment the game started it shouldn't be a problem. Like, if you need things spelled out for you mechanically to not immediately ignore everything in a characters background it shows that you don't actually care at all about the background themselves just the mechanics attached to them.
Probably because most people don't really need that guidance. If a characters backstory was that they were a smuggler I would hope that the DM wouldn't need to be told that that character would be the one to know smuggling routes and the like.
Smuggling routes, sure, assuming they have not changed since your character's time. Methods, too. There does not have to be anything hard and fast in the rules, but just getting players and especially DM's to buy into such is a worthy goal.
You seem to be thinking there was some huge amount of time between then and now. Background covers what a characters history was before play starts. Before play only really ends the second the game starts. So unless you're saying the smuggling routes changed the moment the game started it shouldn't be a problem. Like, if you need things spelled out for you mechanically to not immediately ignore everything in a characters background it shows that you don't actually care at all about the background themselves just the mechanics attached to them.
Keep in mind that they likely change them regularly to keep the guards (or whatever local law enforcement exists) off guard. They might not change literally immediately, but would likely change within a month or so. I am not saying that such things need to be spelled out in the PHB for each possible background, just that it is a good thing for player and DM to have worked out in advance, at least in general terms. Details can be figured out in play but both player and DM should be at least somewhat on the same page... if the background is to matter at all.
And the current default (including in 1DnD) is that they do just what they say they do, nothing more.
That's because roleplay considerations such as this are assumed to be happening anyways. It's kind of the point of the medium.
Probably because most people don't really need that guidance. If a characters backstory was that they were a smuggler I would hope that the DM wouldn't need to be told that that character would be the one to know smuggling routes and the like.
Smuggling routes, sure, assuming they have not changed since your character's time. Methods, too. There does not have to be anything hard and fast in the rules, but just getting players and especially DM's to buy into such is a worthy goal.
You seem to be thinking there was some huge amount of time between then and now. Background covers what a characters history was before play starts. Before play only really ends the second the game starts. So unless you're saying the smuggling routes changed the moment the game started it shouldn't be a problem. Like, if you need things spelled out for you mechanically to not immediately ignore everything in a characters background it shows that you don't actually care at all about the background themselves just the mechanics attached to them.
Keep in mind that they likely change them regularly to keep the guards (or whatever local law enforcement exists) off guard. They might not change literally immediately, but would likely change within a month or so. I am not saying that such things need to be spelled out in the PHB for each possible background, just that it is a good thing for player and DM to have worked out in advance, at least in general terms. Details can be figured out in play but both player and DM should be at least somewhat on the same page... if the background is to matter at all.
And the current default (including in 1DnD) is that they do just what they say they do, nothing more.
That's because roleplay considerations such as this are assumed to be happening anyways. It's kind of the point of the medium.
Which does not mean it is 'anything goes' or players can just conjure up connections from their pasts whenever they feel them convenient, that provide whatever benefits they, as players, say they should.
Or could toss out the concept of backgrounds entirely, assume that the only things learned were the skills, a language and a starting feat (which is all the 1DnD rules actually say) and anything beyond that has to be established through roleplay as if the NPC's being interacted with are all complete strangers to the PCs.
I've little doubt they're going to give a full example of character creation as per the usual when it comes to the full rulebook.
I am much more sceptical. Keep in mind that one of the complaints about the current 'features' (and a reason people argue them hard rules rather than examples) is there being no discussion of creating new ones, merely 'discuss it with your DM.'
The problem with 'features' imo is that they are hard rules, rather than something to discuss with your DM. Being hard rules, especially hard rules attached to mutually exclusive options, is the problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I never said anyone else did either. And my argument has never been against discussing anything with the DM. My argument is and always has been against the inclusion of mechanical 'features' built into the game that do little other than restrict gameplay.
II still think the backgrounds are boring.
I think they shouldn't have included specific languages in backgrounds. Or made it more clear that these sample backgrounds can be altered (i.e. used as templates)
They were pretty damn explicit that those were samples and could be freely changed as the user pleased.
Because the 'samples' are explicitly made using the create your own background rules. They're literally examples of using those specific rules to make a functional background. It says so explicitly in the text.
And may I ask what that at all has to do with our current discussion?
As I said in the very first post on the very first page of this thread, the samples in the OPT document were not meant to be taken as gospel. I don't know how much clearer they could have been that the text provided were simply examples of how the system could be used and were not meant to be played as is. See my other thread where I use the new system to redo the backgrounds of four of my active characters for more examples of why the sample backgrounds, frankly, didn't really need to be there. At least, not in such number. But again - both the OPT document and the accompany video make it clear that Wizards considers "write your own" to be the new default, rather than "use one of ours".
Please do not contact or message me.
We may yet see something like that in the final finished book, and we can always advocate for that in the survey.
Remember, the PHB shows us, step by step, how to build Bruenor Battlehammer as a 1st-level character. And in Chapter 4, there are numerous sidebars dedicated to Tika Waylan and Artemis Entreri.
I have no issues with them beyond how bland they are. If you look at the existing Backgrounds in 5e they all have some kind of fluff / RP mechanic attached to them Smuggler has connections in a city, etc. While people can of course ad this to any of them I feel that they are so barren there is zero flavor and makes me wonder why have anything at all. It represents a more concerning trend from WotC where they lean on focusing on homebrew almost entirely which makes me wonder....why spend money on DnD stuff if I'm just going to be making up 100% of it anyways.
I get your trepidation. I miss having those, too. That said, in all honesty, they rarely come up in my games. I know my experience is purely anecdotal, but the only time a player even tried to invoke their background was when they'd take Outlander for food and water. And that was only in campaigns where people pretended to care about overland travel. In literally ever other instance, they either forgot or didn't care.
And adventurer's league play has even less use for those ribbon abilities. They're terrific for long-form storytelling, if the players all remember to use them, but not everyone does that. And therein lies the problem. In order to have the game appeal to the largest possible audience, it risks dilution.
I wonder if making those more a part of customization could get people to engage with it more. Perhaps add it as part of their structured background creation block. Add some examples.
Honestly, Backgrounds are pretty pointless if you ignore the RP / storytelling mechanics since its no different than telling players "pick your stats, language, two proficiency and starting equipment. You wouldn't even have to put a term to it. Some of those flavor aspects are why I pick the backgrounds I do, while I may not use them every time its enjoyable for the character creation.
Counterpoint: we never actually needed those ribbon features to be player-facing.
Do we need Shelter of the Faithful (Acolyte) to roleplay knowing the rites of my faith, or to be welcome and respected in a house of my deity? Do we need Position of Privilege (Noble) to roleplay bonds and duty to family, and any liege lord or vassals?
The ribbons were always a little awkward because some carried mechanical benefits, and those benefits were unevenly distributed. While I miss them because they were useful in seeing how the world saw our characters, I don't think they actually needed to be part of the background proper. We can define them without the mechanics of a nebulous and rarely-invoked feature.
Not really a counter point since I put that in my statement. Is "ribbons" what they were called? Anyways, I never liked the mentality of "its not balanced so just get rid of it"
"Rarely Invoked" is based on how a campaign is run, and my point is, if players better communicate their "ribbon" then perhaps it would be more utilized. Since typically backgrounds were just taken and the non proficiiency stuff was just ignored because peopel focused on the best proficiencies. Players still wrote their backstories and DMs often worked that into the story. Since the game is putting making your own more front and center why not include a mechanic to give some guidance when people make their custom background.
Probably because most people don't really need that guidance. If a characters backstory was that they were a smuggler I would hope that the DM wouldn't need to be told that that character would be the one to know smuggling routes and the like.
Except, based on what the person I was responding to said, they don't as it isn't used.
Background features are rarely invoked by name. I don't think I've ever once said "I invoke my archaeologist's Historical Knowledge feature, provide me the information I'm entitled to know." It's always been more "as an archaeologist and historian, is there any special insight Star might have in/on this situation/place?" Rather than slapping the DM across the mouthregion with a capital-BF Background Feature, I simply ask if my lowercase-b background as Star offers any clues as to what we're looking at.
Some tables would consider that never using my feature, since I don't Activate Historical Knowledge. Some tables would consider it to be using my feature extensively, since I'm dropping my archaeologist chops left and right in all the ancient dusty-ass tombs we keep finding ourselves in. Personally I'm in the former camp - "Historical Knowledge" is generally meaningless, but the idea that my historian knows things about History and might have insights into things and places related to the world's half-lost past has come up a great deal. Which is, in my mind, the proper way of doing things. Does it make sense for you to know a person/place/thing? Then you should know it, whether or not your capital-BF Background Feature gives you permission to know it.
Please do not contact or message me.
You seem to be thinking there was some huge amount of time between then and now. Background covers what a characters history was before play starts. Before play only really ends the second the game starts. So unless you're saying the smuggling routes changed the moment the game started it shouldn't be a problem. Like, if you need things spelled out for you mechanically to not immediately ignore everything in a characters background it shows that you don't actually care at all about the background themselves just the mechanics attached to them.
That's because roleplay considerations such as this are assumed to be happening anyways. It's kind of the point of the medium.
Yeah that's a terrible idea.
I've little doubt they're going to give a full example of character creation as per the usual when it comes to the full rulebook.
The problem with 'features' imo is that they are hard rules, rather than something to discuss with your DM. Being hard rules, especially hard rules attached to mutually exclusive options, is the problem.