I found these kinda funny nonsensical maybe you will do. Feel free to add to the list.
Farmer. For some reason none of your stat boosts line up with your free skills
Artisan, apparently despite the flavor explicitly saying you learned how to interact with customer and given the persuasion skill does not get charisma as a stat choice.
Acolyte. You get your choice of three casting stats to get a boost to. Most characters who use one of the casting stats only use one of the three.
Entertainer seems like it would be a logical choice for a Bard. But the Background gives you 4 proficiencies in Musical Instruments, and Bard has an additional 3. What character desperately needs proficiency in SEVEN musical instruments.
Noble offers STR as one of its choices. Nobles, famous for doing manual labor.
Here's a wonky choice: Missing stat boosts: No backgrounds offer as choices any of the following combinations:
i think it is a misconception that in a background ability scores and skills have to match up. That is the optimizer brain talking.
Let's take the example of the Farmer. Most stuff the farmer is doing is demanding physical labor, thus strength and constitution plus the tough feat make total sense. For Wisdom: they have to guess many things more then they need to know, how will the weather be(survival), are the animals doing well (insight), is everything looking fine(perception) and so on, thus explaining the wisdom. Animal handling because they interact with animals frequently enough to be proficient with them. And Nature as a skill, that requires intelligence, is a perfect example of the narrow topic intelligence. The farmer knows about animals and plants and general stuff of nature, thus the proficiency in it. But they are not learned in the arcane arts, religious beliefs, the history of the world, or puzzle solving.
Acolyte. You get your choice of three casting stats to get a boost to. Most characters who use one of the casting stats only use one of the three.
Entertainer seems like it would be a logical choice for a Bard. But the Background gives you 4 proficiencies in Musical Instruments, and Bard has an additional 3. What character desperately needs proficiency in SEVEN musical instruments.
Noble offers STR as one of its choices. Nobles, famous for doing manual labor.
Here's a wonky choice: Missing stat boosts: No backgrounds offer as choices any of the following combinations:
STR/CON/CHA
STR/CON/INT
STR/WIS/CHA
DEX/INT/CHA
Nobles aren't known for doing physical labour but they are known for spending a lot of time on martial training, hence the strength boost
Acolyte. You get your choice of three casting stats to get a boost to. Most characters who use one of the casting stats only use one of the three.
Entertainer seems like it would be a logical choice for a Bard. But the Background gives you 4 proficiencies in Musical Instruments, and Bard has an additional 3. What character desperately needs proficiency in SEVEN musical instruments.
Noble offers STR as one of its choices. Nobles, famous for doing manual labor.
Here's a wonky choice: Missing stat boosts: No backgrounds offer as choices any of the following combinations:
STR/CON/CHA
STR/CON/INT
STR/WIS/CHA
DEX/INT/CHA
On Acolyte, this is a total minmaxer attitude and has nothing to do with the background. Acolytes are either studied (thus INT), have to talk to people (thus charisma) or are doing the general interaction with the people of the world and recognizing divine influence(thus wisdom)
For Entertainer, again, minmaxer attitude.
For Noble. STR makes a LOT of sense in a generic medieval setting. They get to good food, but they are also trained as warriors and knights, thus they have the means to build up strength. You are thinking of renaissance and later nobles, these no longer did the job of the knights, but relied on soldiers.
On Acolyte, this is a total minmaxer attitude and has nothing to do with the background. Acolytes are either studied (thus INT), have to talk to people (thus charisma) or are doing the general interaction with the people of the world and recognizing divine influence(thus wisdom)
For Entertainer, again, minmaxer attitude.
For Noble. STR makes a LOT of sense in a generic medieval setting. They get to good food, but they are also trained as warriors and knights, thus they have the means to build up strength. You are thinking of renaissance and later nobles, these no longer did the job of the knights, but relied on soldiers.
Some people have the idea that character optimizing and roleplaying are mutually exclusive (or that an unoptimized character is somehow automatically superior for roleplaying). That notion is entirely false.
Backgrounds -- with their single-word title and description of a whopping three sentences -- are supposed to be a jumping off point for players to create Their Personal Character. A character with a specific history and place in the world, a place which is unique. They're not supposed to be used as a "16-backgrounds-perfectly-fits-all-possible-PCs" straitjacket, and the fact that the 2024 Players Handbook encourages the use of Backgrounds in that way is a mark against it and a major step backwards.
Some people have the idea that character optimizing and roleplaying are mutually exclusive (or that an unoptimized character is somehow automatically superior for roleplaying). That notion is entirely false.
It's not at all a false notion. A role-player should be able to breathe life into any character he or she is provided. Including one that is pre-generated. Like you are expected to do at gaming conventions. Or one rolled randomly. When one simply must play with something one has calculated for performance that is the table-top equivalent of being unable to perform a piece of music with other musicians without having rehearsed with them. And if one must only ever go with what provides a character optimal performance then each and every character of any given class the optimizer plays is practically a clone. Which is not at all good characterization. It means every single character of the same class is essentially the same in terms of their mental and physical prowess. That's terrible characterization. The small contradictions we encounter in characters in good writing play no small part in making them good and memorable characters. Instead of just another cookie cut from the same mold.
It's not at all a false notion. A role-player should be able to breathe life into any character he or she is provided. Including one that is pre-generated.
Also including one that's optimized. Character optimization neither helps nor hinders roleplaying.
Some people have the idea that character optimizing and roleplaying are mutually exclusive (or that an unoptimized character is somehow automatically superior for roleplaying). That notion is entirely false.
It's not at all a false notion. A role-player should be able to breathe life into any character he or she is provided. Including one that is pre-generated. Like you are expected to do at gaming conventions. Or one rolled randomly. When one simply must play with something one has calculated for performance that is the table-top equivalent of being unable to perform a piece of music with other musicians without having rehearsed with them. And if one must only ever go with what provides a character optimal performance then each and every character of any given class the optimizer plays is practically a clone. Which is not at all good characterization. It means every single character of the same class is essentially the same in terms of their mental and physical prowess. That's terrible characterization. The small contradictions we encounter in characters in good writing play no small part in making them good and memorable characters. Instead of just another cookie cut from the same mold.
If I make a backstory for Bob the Wizard, to be played by Dave, how is Dave's roleplaying better if Bob the Wizard has 13 Intelligence instead of 16? How has that improved the game? Does the roleplaying get better if instead I give Bob the 8 in Intelligence?
As for cookie cutter builds, you cannot possibly be making a serious argument against optimization, given that the 2024 rules for Backgrounds are both entirely free of any flavor or personalization, while at the same time being so mechanically restrictive that they do nothing BUT drive players into making cookie-cutter builds.
If Dave decided that Bob was a Merchant who sold books before discovering a dusty old spellbook in a box he acquired, starting him on the path to Wizardry, why is it good for the game that Bob just has to have proficiency in Animal Handling, and not History like he wanted? How is Dave's experience playing the game better better because he has to take a skill he didn't want and doesn't fit anything in his backstory, and yet he can't take a skill he does want and would fit in his backstory? How is Dave's roleplaying improved because he the rules say he is not allowed to take History instead of Animal Handling, despite having a shop full of history books, and his only interaction with animals being the bacon and eggs he has for breakfast?
Entertainer seems like it would be a logical choice for a Bard. But the Background gives you 4 proficiencies in Musical Instruments, and Bard has an additional 3. What character desperately needs proficiency in SEVEN musical instruments.
For Entertainer, again, minmaxer attitude.
I have to agree with Stabbey_TC here. And I don't think this is a minmaxer attitude. It would be more bard-like (jack of all trades) to get proficiency with maybe 3 instruments and then be able to choose proficiency with 1 or 2 other tools like alchemist supplies, disguise kit or thieves' tools. Or even expertise in acrobatics and performance (vs. just getting proficiency) My bard has never needed to be able to play 7 different instruments.
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
Entertainer seems like it would be a logical choice for a Bard. But the Background gives you 4 proficiencies in Musical Instruments, and Bard has an additional 3. What character desperately needs proficiency in SEVEN musical instruments.
For Entertainer, again, minmaxer attitude.
I have to agree with Stabbey_TC here. And I don't think this is a minmaxer attitude. It would be more bard-like (jack of all trades) to get proficiency with maybe 3 instruments and then be able to choose proficiency with 1 or 2 other tools like alchemist supplies, disguise kit or thieves' tools. Or even expertise in acrobatics and performance (vs. just getting proficiency) My bard has never needed to be able to play 7 different instruments.
And i disagree here vehemently. A Bard that has a Entertainer background doubles down on the music part, like we see many musicians that can play multiple instruments. If you want to be a jack-of-all-trades bard, you wouldn't be a entertainer, but more like a wayfarer perhaps, or scholar, or hermit, backgrounds that reflect a wide array of different interests. But if your bard was a entertainer, then were should the other skills be coming from? Why would a entertainer have thieves' tools or alchemists supplies?
I may be misreading Enrif's post, but I don't think they were trying to say that role-playing and optimizing are mutually exclusive. Simply that saying "these background stats bonuses and skills/proficiencies don't make sense" is looking at them from an optimizer's lens. The vast majority of them make perfect sense within themselves... they just don't work as well for the classes you would "expect" them to.
Take entertainer and bard, since that's been brought up a few times now. The way I see it, Bard-as-entertainer is what they are now, not necessarily what they were. If they were an entertainer before, and then became a Bard after, well there's some serious overlap there. You'd expect some things to be redundant, wouldn't you? I mean, if you took two jobs, one after the other and they both not only used spreadsheet software extensively, but also both gave training on it, would you bemoan your previous job because the training in your current one is redundant?
This is what Enrif's post was pointing out (I believe). That an optimizer is the one that would look at that situation and think they should have been able to spend those training hours in the previous job on something else. It's not a bad thing to think this, but it doesn't really make sense from purely the background perspective. It gave you the skills you needed when you needed them (in the past). If your goal in life is to have the most skills, then you shouldn't really be doing something now that is so close to what you were doing before.
i think it is a misconception that in a background ability scores and skills have to match up. That is the optimizer brain talking.
Not that I disagree but the optimizer is just another word for gamer and D&D is a game, I don't think one can even feint surprise that gamers would want their character choices to be optimized to be successful in the game.
This is what the custom background utility is for in the DMG, I think you could ask 100 gamers how Farmer should be setup and you will get 100 different answers as some people will apply logic, others will apply narrative stereotypes, while others still will optimize etc..
I personally feel strongly that backgrounds should be more specific, strongly enough to have released two supplements (Book of Backgrounds Vol I & II) on the vault and I'm already working on Vol III. I think backgrounds are a matter of taste and excess. While I totally agree with what they did in the player's handbook (giving us a static list to pick from) as this makes the game more approachable, I fully agree that in the end, backgrounds are ultimately likely to be fully customized in most games, tailored to each character.
It's not at all a false notion. A role-player should be able to breathe life into any character he or she is provided. Including one that is pre-generated.
Also including one that's optimized. Character optimization neither helps nor hinders roleplaying.
That's the "Stormwind Fallacy"-Fallacy. No one argues that optimizers can or can't roleplay. The argument is that the choices you make do not reflect your story.
Let's take the wizard Bob example from above. Why does bob has Animal Handling as a Merchant? It doesn't fit the optimization you have mind? Because the assumption is, that a merchant in D&D is one that travels by oxcart or caravan to sell their stuff and thus has to interact with animals.
And it is these Assumptions that are baked into the game in every part.
Species, we have dwarves that have great darkvision and tremorsense, but what if i have a dwarf from a naval culture that never went under the ground. Well, these dwarves here have the base assumption of the dwarves that live in caves.
Classes, we have Ranger that do not get proficiency in persuasion/intimidation and history, but you want to be a ranger that hunts criminals in a urban setting. Well, the ranger is at its core assumption NOT a urban based class, but a wilderness based class and that is reflected in its features.
and we could look at feats, items, spell and see the same.
The game has base assumptions on everything that reflect a narrative. Sure you can reflavor and roleplay it counter to that, but a paladin will never have a arcane flavor, a entertainer will always be good with a lot of instruments, a elf will always have keen senses.
If you want to change every single detail to be chosen, than D&D is the wrong system for that.
I may be misreading Enrif's post, but I don't think they were trying to say that role-playing and optimizing are mutually exclusive. Simply that saying "these background stats bonuses and skills/proficiencies don't make sense" is looking at them from an optimizer's lens. The vast majority of them make perfect sense within themselves... they just don't work as well for the classes you would "expect" them to.
Take entertainer and bard, since that's been brought up a few times now. The way I see it, Bard-as-entertainer is what they are now, not necessarily what they were. If they were an entertainer before, and then became a Bard after, well there's some serious overlap there. You'd expect some things to be redundant, wouldn't you? I mean, if you took two jobs, one after the other and they both not only used spreadsheet software extensively, but also both gave training on it, would you bemoan your previous job because the training in your current one is redundant?
This is what Enrif's post was pointing out (I believe). That an optimizer is the one that would look at that situation and think they should have been able to spend those training hours in the previous job on something else. It's not a bad thing to think this, but it doesn't really make sense from purely the background perspective. It gave you the skills you needed when you needed them (in the past). If your goal in life is to have the most skills, then you shouldn't really be doing something now that is so close to what you were doing before.
Your example with the spreadsheets is a good one. We see it in our real life. We have people that have a past (background) doing one thing, and then if we look at what they are currently doing (class), it can be either A) building on top of what they did before (Entertainer Bard being versed in multiple instruments) or B) they are coming from a different field and are not as good in their current role, but have other skills (let's say Farmer Bard, that knows how to handle animals and is a bit tougher, but not as good with Music Instruments as one that dedicated more time in it)
i think it is a misconception that in a background ability scores and skills have to match up. That is the optimizer brain talking.
Not that I disagree but the optimizer is just another word for gamer and D&D is a game, I don't think one can even feint surprise that gamers would want their character choices to be optimized to be successful in the game.
This is what the custom background utility is for in the DMG, I think you could ask 100 gamers how Farmer should be setup and you will get 100 different answers as some people will apply logic, others will apply narrative stereotypes, while others still will optimize etc..
I personally feel strongly that backgrounds should be more specific, strongly enough to have released two supplements (Book of Backgrounds Vol I & II) on the vault and I'm already working on Vol III. I think backgrounds are a matter of taste and excess. While I totally agree with what they did in the player's handbook (giving us a static list to pick from) as this makes the game more approachable, I fully agree that in the end, backgrounds are ultimately likely to be fully customized in most games, tailored to each character.
There are different types of Optimization. Optimizing mechanical power, Optimizing Story, Optimizing theme, and a few more.
Some of them work perfectly with the system at hand, others butt heads with the system. And i think this is the disconnect we see with the background discussions. And having an optimizer brain, is not being able to take a step back and see what the system is, and how it actually works, instead trying to justify any critics with what they themself think is optimal.
I agree that optimization and roleplay are not mutually exclusive at all. But I also agree with Enrif (and disagree with the OP) in saying that there's nothing wrong with the Farmer background either. The primary issue with the background system is simply that we need more combinations/options, the existing options themselves and what they contain are broadly fine and align with their names/intent.
It's also worth reminding folks that backgrounds don't have to be completely rigid - they represent a prominent force/inclination in your upbringing, not necessarily the only one. Just because your character grew up as the child of a lord/lady does not mean you're stuck with the Noble background and that's it; the child of a noble can also have spent most of their formative years being a junior officer (Soldier), a library obsessed bookworm (Sage), highly religious (Acolyte), or even ran away from their life of privilege to join the circus (Entertainer) etc.
I agree that optimization and roleplay are not mutually exclusive at all. But I also agree with Enrif (and disagree with the OP) in saying that there's nothing wrong with the Farmer background either.
Farmer's fine. The main ones I have issues with are ones that are horrible choices for the class that has the most thematic reason to take them, usually because they provide minor benefits associated with that class that are mostly redundant if you actually are that class. The biggest offenders there are acolyte (cleric) and sage (wizard). There are also some absolutely horrible origin feats, such as crafter.
I agree that optimization and roleplay are not mutually exclusive at all. But I also agree with Enrif (and disagree with the OP) in saying that there's nothing wrong with the Farmer background either. The primary issue with the background system is simply that we need more combinations/options, the existing options themselves and what they contain are broadly fine and align with their names/intent.
It's also worth reminding folks that backgrounds don't have to be completely rigid - they represent a prominent force/inclination in your upbringing, not necessarily the only one. Just because your character grew up as the child of a lord/lady does not mean you're stuck with the Noble background and that's it; the child of a noble can also have spent most of their formative years being a junior officer (Soldier), a library obsessed bookworm (Sage), highly religious (Acolyte), or even ran away from their life of privilege to join the circus (Entertainer) etc.
As you say. People are too fixated on the exact name of backgrounds and forgot that these are very broad and a backstory can have multiple backgrounds in them by theme. Also people should look at backgrounds more as a archetype, then a prescribed story. Like Criminal is not any criminal, not a blackmailer, not a thug, but the archetypical thief. Same for other backgrounds, they are more archetype than story.
I agree that optimization and roleplay are not mutually exclusive at all. But I also agree with Enrif (and disagree with the OP) in saying that there's nothing wrong with the Farmer background either.
Farmer's fine. The main ones I have issues with are ones that are horrible choices for the class that has the most thematic reason to take them, usually because they provide minor benefits associated with that class that are mostly redundant if you actually are that class. The biggest offenders there are acolyte (cleric) and sage (wizard). There are also some absolutely horrible origin feats, such as crafter.
I disagree. Entertainer Bard is the baridiest bard in that they get more music instruments than other bards, the Acolyte Cleric is the clericiest cleric as they get more cleric cantrips and spells, the Sage Wizard is the wizardiest wizard as they get more wizard cantrips and spells. That you think that is not good, is rooted in disregarding that specialization as unwanted, and would rather get something that gives them things not already present in the class. Which is fine, but again rooted in the pure Minmax/optimizer attitude that only cares about mechanics, not about the theme or story.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I found these kinda funny nonsensical maybe you will do. Feel free to add to the list.
Farmer. For some reason none of your stat boosts line up with your free skills
Artisan, apparently despite the flavor explicitly saying you learned how to interact with customer and given the persuasion skill does not get charisma as a stat choice.
Acolyte. You get your choice of three casting stats to get a boost to. Most characters who use one of the casting stats only use one of the three.
Entertainer seems like it would be a logical choice for a Bard. But the Background gives you 4 proficiencies in Musical Instruments, and Bard has an additional 3. What character desperately needs proficiency in SEVEN musical instruments.
Noble offers STR as one of its choices. Nobles, famous for doing manual labor.
Here's a wonky choice: Missing stat boosts: No backgrounds offer as choices any of the following combinations:
i think it is a misconception that in a background ability scores and skills have to match up. That is the optimizer brain talking.
Let's take the example of the Farmer. Most stuff the farmer is doing is demanding physical labor, thus strength and constitution plus the tough feat make total sense. For Wisdom: they have to guess many things more then they need to know, how will the weather be(survival), are the animals doing well (insight), is everything looking fine(perception) and so on, thus explaining the wisdom. Animal handling because they interact with animals frequently enough to be proficient with them. And Nature as a skill, that requires intelligence, is a perfect example of the narrow topic intelligence. The farmer knows about animals and plants and general stuff of nature, thus the proficiency in it. But they are not learned in the arcane arts, religious beliefs, the history of the world, or puzzle solving.
Nobles aren't known for doing physical labour but they are known for spending a lot of time on martial training, hence the strength boost
On Acolyte, this is a total minmaxer attitude and has nothing to do with the background. Acolytes are either studied (thus INT), have to talk to people (thus charisma) or are doing the general interaction with the people of the world and recognizing divine influence(thus wisdom)
For Entertainer, again, minmaxer attitude.
For Noble. STR makes a LOT of sense in a generic medieval setting. They get to good food, but they are also trained as warriors and knights, thus they have the means to build up strength. You are thinking of renaissance and later nobles, these no longer did the job of the knights, but relied on soldiers.
Some people have the idea that character optimizing and roleplaying are mutually exclusive (or that an unoptimized character is somehow automatically superior for roleplaying). That notion is entirely false.
Backgrounds -- with their single-word title and description of a whopping three sentences -- are supposed to be a jumping off point for players to create Their Personal Character. A character with a specific history and place in the world, a place which is unique. They're not supposed to be used as a "16-backgrounds-perfectly-fits-all-possible-PCs" straitjacket, and the fact that the 2024 Players Handbook encourages the use of Backgrounds in that way is a mark against it and a major step backwards.
It's not at all a false notion. A role-player should be able to breathe life into any character he or she is provided. Including one that is pre-generated. Like you are expected to do at gaming conventions. Or one rolled randomly. When one simply must play with something one has calculated for performance that is the table-top equivalent of being unable to perform a piece of music with other musicians without having rehearsed with them. And if one must only ever go with what provides a character optimal performance then each and every character of any given class the optimizer plays is practically a clone. Which is not at all good characterization. It means every single character of the same class is essentially the same in terms of their mental and physical prowess. That's terrible characterization. The small contradictions we encounter in characters in good writing play no small part in making them good and memorable characters. Instead of just another cookie cut from the same mold.
Also including one that's optimized. Character optimization neither helps nor hinders roleplaying.
If I make a backstory for Bob the Wizard, to be played by Dave, how is Dave's roleplaying better if Bob the Wizard has 13 Intelligence instead of 16? How has that improved the game? Does the roleplaying get better if instead I give Bob the 8 in Intelligence?
As for cookie cutter builds, you cannot possibly be making a serious argument against optimization, given that the 2024 rules for Backgrounds are both entirely free of any flavor or personalization, while at the same time being so mechanically restrictive that they do nothing BUT drive players into making cookie-cutter builds.
If Dave decided that Bob was a Merchant who sold books before discovering a dusty old spellbook in a box he acquired, starting him on the path to Wizardry, why is it good for the game that Bob just has to have proficiency in Animal Handling, and not History like he wanted? How is Dave's experience playing the game better better because he has to take a skill he didn't want and doesn't fit anything in his backstory, and yet he can't take a skill he does want and would fit in his backstory? How is Dave's roleplaying improved because he the rules say he is not allowed to take History instead of Animal Handling, despite having a shop full of history books, and his only interaction with animals being the bacon and eggs he has for breakfast?
I have to agree with Stabbey_TC here. And I don't think this is a minmaxer attitude. It would be more bard-like (jack of all trades) to get proficiency with maybe 3 instruments and then be able to choose proficiency with 1 or 2 other tools like alchemist supplies, disguise kit or thieves' tools. Or even expertise in acrobatics and performance (vs. just getting proficiency) My bard has never needed to be able to play 7 different instruments.
"...at worst if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
And i disagree here vehemently. A Bard that has a Entertainer background doubles down on the music part, like we see many musicians that can play multiple instruments. If you want to be a jack-of-all-trades bard, you wouldn't be a entertainer, but more like a wayfarer perhaps, or scholar, or hermit, backgrounds that reflect a wide array of different interests. But if your bard was a entertainer, then were should the other skills be coming from? Why would a entertainer have thieves' tools or alchemists supplies?
I may be misreading Enrif's post, but I don't think they were trying to say that role-playing and optimizing are mutually exclusive. Simply that saying "these background stats bonuses and skills/proficiencies don't make sense" is looking at them from an optimizer's lens. The vast majority of them make perfect sense within themselves... they just don't work as well for the classes you would "expect" them to.
Take entertainer and bard, since that's been brought up a few times now. The way I see it, Bard-as-entertainer is what they are now, not necessarily what they were. If they were an entertainer before, and then became a Bard after, well there's some serious overlap there. You'd expect some things to be redundant, wouldn't you? I mean, if you took two jobs, one after the other and they both not only used spreadsheet software extensively, but also both gave training on it, would you bemoan your previous job because the training in your current one is redundant?
This is what Enrif's post was pointing out (I believe). That an optimizer is the one that would look at that situation and think they should have been able to spend those training hours in the previous job on something else. It's not a bad thing to think this, but it doesn't really make sense from purely the background perspective. It gave you the skills you needed when you needed them (in the past). If your goal in life is to have the most skills, then you shouldn't really be doing something now that is so close to what you were doing before.
Not that I disagree but the optimizer is just another word for gamer and D&D is a game, I don't think one can even feint surprise that gamers would want their character choices to be optimized to be successful in the game.
This is what the custom background utility is for in the DMG, I think you could ask 100 gamers how Farmer should be setup and you will get 100 different answers as some people will apply logic, others will apply narrative stereotypes, while others still will optimize etc..
I personally feel strongly that backgrounds should be more specific, strongly enough to have released two supplements (Book of Backgrounds Vol I & II) on the vault and I'm already working on Vol III. I think backgrounds are a matter of taste and excess. While I totally agree with what they did in the player's handbook (giving us a static list to pick from) as this makes the game more approachable, I fully agree that in the end, backgrounds are ultimately likely to be fully customized in most games, tailored to each character.
That's the "Stormwind Fallacy"-Fallacy. No one argues that optimizers can or can't roleplay. The argument is that the choices you make do not reflect your story.
Let's take the wizard Bob example from above. Why does bob has Animal Handling as a Merchant? It doesn't fit the optimization you have mind? Because the assumption is, that a merchant in D&D is one that travels by oxcart or caravan to sell their stuff and thus has to interact with animals.
And it is these Assumptions that are baked into the game in every part.
Species, we have dwarves that have great darkvision and tremorsense, but what if i have a dwarf from a naval culture that never went under the ground. Well, these dwarves here have the base assumption of the dwarves that live in caves.
Classes, we have Ranger that do not get proficiency in persuasion/intimidation and history, but you want to be a ranger that hunts criminals in a urban setting. Well, the ranger is at its core assumption NOT a urban based class, but a wilderness based class and that is reflected in its features.
and we could look at feats, items, spell and see the same.
The game has base assumptions on everything that reflect a narrative. Sure you can reflavor and roleplay it counter to that, but a paladin will never have a arcane flavor, a entertainer will always be good with a lot of instruments, a elf will always have keen senses.
If you want to change every single detail to be chosen, than D&D is the wrong system for that.
Your example with the spreadsheets is a good one. We see it in our real life. We have people that have a past (background) doing one thing, and then if we look at what they are currently doing (class), it can be either A) building on top of what they did before (Entertainer Bard being versed in multiple instruments) or B) they are coming from a different field and are not as good in their current role, but have other skills (let's say Farmer Bard, that knows how to handle animals and is a bit tougher, but not as good with Music Instruments as one that dedicated more time in it)
There are different types of Optimization. Optimizing mechanical power, Optimizing Story, Optimizing theme, and a few more.
Some of them work perfectly with the system at hand, others butt heads with the system. And i think this is the disconnect we see with the background discussions. And having an optimizer brain, is not being able to take a step back and see what the system is, and how it actually works, instead trying to justify any critics with what they themself think is optimal.
I agree that optimization and roleplay are not mutually exclusive at all. But I also agree with Enrif (and disagree with the OP) in saying that there's nothing wrong with the Farmer background either. The primary issue with the background system is simply that we need more combinations/options, the existing options themselves and what they contain are broadly fine and align with their names/intent.
It's also worth reminding folks that backgrounds don't have to be completely rigid - they represent a prominent force/inclination in your upbringing, not necessarily the only one. Just because your character grew up as the child of a lord/lady does not mean you're stuck with the Noble background and that's it; the child of a noble can also have spent most of their formative years being a junior officer (Soldier), a library obsessed bookworm (Sage), highly religious (Acolyte), or even ran away from their life of privilege to join the circus (Entertainer) etc.
Farmer's fine. The main ones I have issues with are ones that are horrible choices for the class that has the most thematic reason to take them, usually because they provide minor benefits associated with that class that are mostly redundant if you actually are that class. The biggest offenders there are acolyte (cleric) and sage (wizard). There are also some absolutely horrible origin feats, such as crafter.
May I ask why you think crafter is horrible? With the magic items creation rules having tool prof and a 20% to crafting them doest seem so bad.
As you say. People are too fixated on the exact name of backgrounds and forgot that these are very broad and a backstory can have multiple backgrounds in them by theme. Also people should look at backgrounds more as a archetype, then a prescribed story. Like Criminal is not any criminal, not a blackmailer, not a thug, but the archetypical thief. Same for other backgrounds, they are more archetype than story.
I disagree. Entertainer Bard is the baridiest bard in that they get more music instruments than other bards, the Acolyte Cleric is the clericiest cleric as they get more cleric cantrips and spells, the Sage Wizard is the wizardiest wizard as they get more wizard cantrips and spells. That you think that is not good, is rooted in disregarding that specialization as unwanted, and would rather get something that gives them things not already present in the class. Which is fine, but again rooted in the pure Minmax/optimizer attitude that only cares about mechanics, not about the theme or story.