# More People Test One D&D Origins Playtest Than D&D Next



## Parmandur

darjr said:


> I’m not sure how they’d know. Maybe download and some measure of play reports? It’s a bold claim and if it’s based on downloads it’s still very impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the first week alone, more of you have playtested One D&D than in the entirety of 5e playtesting!
> 
> Thank you to everyone who has helped shape the future of Dungeons & Dragons!



I mean, with the Beyond sign-up they have much more solid data on who is downloading stuff than they did with just a hosted PDF.


----------



## Burnside

Are they interpreting "downloaded the UA" as equal to "playtested"?

Because, I mean, I downloaded and read it. I haven't used any of it at the table, and probably won't. I'm sure I'm not alone in that.


----------



## Reynard

I am implementing some rules but my players have roundly rejected rebuilding with the UA chargen rules.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Considering that a lot of their playtesting that they ask the public for is just players opinions on the ideas and fluff of the stuff they made (and whether people are interested in the directions the bits are going)... just having enough interest to download the packet is probably considered valid playtesting to a certain extent for them. And all of our discussions here on EN World about the various bits and pieces (even if we don't play them in a game per se) is still info they will use to make further assumptions for what folks will want to see in later packets


----------



## Nikosandros

Parmandur said:


> I mean, with the Beyond sign-up they have much more solid data on who is downloading stuff than they did with just a hosted PDF.



Didn't they had some kind of registration for downloading the Next material? I seem to recall one, but I'm not sure.

On the main topic: it's probably actually many more. I'm positive that in many groups someone will have downloaded the PDF and then shared with others who didn't bother with the registration.


----------



## dave2008

Burnside said:


> Are they interpreting "downloaded the UA" as equal to "playtested"?
> 
> Because, I mean, I downloaded and read it. I haven't used any of it at the table, and probably won't. I'm sure I'm not alone in that.



I am sure that is what they mean. However, that is likely the same data the have for the Next playtest, so I guess it is an apples to apples comparison


----------



## darjr

Nikosandros said:


> Didn't they had some kind of registration for downloading the Next material? I seem to recall one, but I'm not sure.
> 
> On the main topic: it's probably actually many more. I'm positive that in many groups someone will have downloaded the PDF and then shared with others who didn't bother with the registration.



I have seen a lot of pdf sharing of the pdf as well.


----------



## TwoSix

Burnside said:


> Are they interpreting "downloaded the UA" as equal to "playtested"?



Oh yea, that's exactly what they mean.

Still, having more people download the 1st UA document than the entirety of the playtest packets from 10 years ago is a strong indicator of how much the player base has grown.


----------



## dave2008

PS Isn't the survey supposed to be available today?


----------



## Maxperson

darjr said:


> I’m not sure how they’d know. Maybe download and some measure of play reports? It’s a bold claim and if it’s based on downloads it’s still very impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the first week alone, more of you have playtested One D&D than in the entirety of 5e playtesting!
> 
> Thank you to everyone who has helped shape the future of Dungeons & Dragons!



Yeah.  The downloads is probably how they are tracking it.  They're probably guessing at a margin of error, though, because there's no way they can know how many are like me and just reading and digesting the rules, but not actually playtesting them.

I'm not surprised at the numbers of downloads, though.  D&D took off after 5e was released, so the huge numbers of D&D players that we have now weren't around for the 5e playtest.


----------



## Nikosandros

dave2008 said:


> PS Isn't the survey supposed to be available today?



Yes, but it is still early morning in the Pacific Time Zone.


----------



## dave2008

Nikosandros said:


> Yes, but it is still early morning in the Pacific Time Zone.



I always forget that, even though both my children are going to school on the west coast!


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

Nikosandros said:


> Didn't they had some kind of registration for downloading the Next material? I seem to recall one, but I'm not sure.



Have to "claim" it on D&D Beyond to get access to the page with the download link.


----------



## Maxperson

Nikosandros said:


> Yes, but it is still early morning in the Pacific Time Zone.



I live in California.  I'm not sure almost 9am qualifies as early morning.  My 6:45 wake-up, though...


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Burnside said:


> Are they interpreting "downloaded the UA" as equal to "playtested"?
> 
> Because, I mean, I downloaded and read it. I haven't used any of it at the table, and probably won't. I'm sure I'm not alone in that.



Yes, but I think that's equivalent measure - download for download.

No-one will ever know how many people actually playtested anything. I mean, we actually playtested the heck out of one of D&D Next playtests - the one with the cool Sorcerer - but we didn't playtest any of the others, even though we downloaded them.


Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> Have to "claim" it on D&D Beyond to get access to the page with the download link.



Yeah it's quite a lot of clicks, which I think is intentional, you have to be logged in, and relatively determined to download it. No-one in my main D&D circle even knew about it but me, on Friday when we played Spire, which I found kind of interesting.

Also yay Eric and Diana, my favourite D&D cartoon characters! Illegitimi non carborundum Eric!


----------



## Parmandur

Burnside said:


> Are they interpreting "downloaded the UA" as equal to "playtested"?
> 
> Because, I mean, I downloaded and read it. I haven't used any of it at the table, and probably won't. I'm sure I'm not alone in that.



You have to formally aign up for the playtest, ao year they are counting that, not spying on what people do after sighing up.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> I live in California.  I'm not sure almost 9am qualifies as early morning.  My 6:45 wake-up, though...



Pretty sure WotC doesn't open their office till 9. Literally every time they do something like this, it's after 9 AM, which I doubt is a coincidence.


----------



## Parmandur

Parmandur said:


> Pretty sure WotC doesn't open their office till 9. Literally every time they do something like this, it's after 9 AM, which I doubt is a coincidence.



Speak of the Devil, the Survey is open now, y'all.

@darjr @Morrus


----------



## overgeeked

As the PHB says: Playtesting provided by over 175,000 fans of D&D. Thank you!

So they’ve had more UA downloads than that since release. It’s likely also why they’re more willing to dump tradition as they know there are orders of magnitude more new fans than long-haulers.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Someone please tell me how intense/detailed the survey is! If it's the usual hyper-detailed affair I think I'll put off my responding until the weekend lol.


----------



## dave2008

PS - the survey is live! I'm taking it now


----------



## overgeeked

dave2008 said:


> PS - the survey is live! I'm taking it now



When you’re done let us know how long it is.


----------



## darjr

Started a thread 








						D&D 5E - One D&D origins playtest survey is live
					

https://t.co/iaU4SbfkCK




					www.enworld.org


----------



## Parmandur

Ruin Explorer said:


> Someone please tell me how intense/detailed the survey is! If it's the usual hyper-detailed affair I think I'll put off my responding until the weekend lol.



It's pretty standard UA stuff. I finished it in 15-20 minutes. 

Interesting note is that they did notnsokicit any feedback on Half-Elves or Half-Orcs being replaced with refluffing.


----------



## Parmandur

overgeeked said:


> When you’re done let us know how long it is.



15-20 minutes. Standard UA survey format.


----------



## dave2008

Ruin Explorer said:


> Someone please tell me how intense/detailed the survey is! If it's the usual hyper-detailed affair I think I'll put off my responding until the weekend lol.



Quick look and I imagine the length varies based on how many races you playtested. I only did 2, so I am only getting questions on those 2


----------



## Parmandur

dave2008 said:


> Quick look and I imagine the length varies based on how many races you playtested. I only did 2, so I am only getting questions on those 2



I told them I didn't test anything, and was still asked about them all. Maybe there were more undepth questions for you?


----------



## Zaukrie

They literally forgot a ton of things to ask about in the survey. Like, the lists of backgrounds is missing backgrounds. Terrible editing.


----------



## Von Ether

Based on the old adage that people are more invested when they have to do more than one click, it can be assumed more people did more with the material. Though that's still just even more speculation than hard numbers.


----------



## Zaukrie

I beat them up on still having learned things in races, inspiration being so much worse than lucky, and a few other things. (the combat based feats are so much more powerful than the others, for example)


----------



## dave2008

overgeeked said:


> When you’re done let us know how long it is.



It took me a long time as I had to stop to respond to some work emails. My advice - don't do it at work!

For me it was 28 questions (include write in responses) about the playtest and then some demographic questions. I will post my answers when I get home from work


----------



## dave2008

Parmandur said:


> I told them I didn't test anything, and was still asked about them all. Maybe there were more undepth questions for you?



Not sure, i will post my questions and answers when I get home. I took screenshots of everything


----------



## Jacob Lewis

Isn't there more people playing D&D now than before? That just makes sense. So celebrate every victory, no matter how small or meaningful, eh? That's cool.


----------



## Weiley31

I'm not going to lie: I've taken stuff from this playtest and added onto the previous versions of certain races because I love it so much.
That Tremorsense via Bonus Action? _Yup, adding it to the previous 5E Dwarves._


----------



## Parmandur

dave2008 said:


> It took me a long time as I had to stop to respond to some work emails. My advice - don't do it at work!
> 
> For me it was 28 questions (include write in responses) about the playtest and then some demographic questions. I will post my answers when I get home from work



I was lucky enough thst it dropped as I started my Coffee break.


----------



## Nikosandros

Maxperson said:


> I live in California.  I'm not sure almost 9am qualifies as early morning.  My 6:45 wake-up, though...



Well, early as in "first half of"...


----------



## Nikosandros

Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> Have to "claim" it on D&D Beyond to get access to the page with the download link.



Yes, but I was talking about the Next playtest in 2012.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Parmandur said:


> I mean, with the Beyond sign-up they have much more solid data on who is downloading stuff than they did with just a hosted PDF.



but as we see here more people downloaded it then tested it... so the number still isnt' right


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Maxperson said:


> I live in California.  I'm not sure almost 9am qualifies as early morning.  My 6:45 wake-up, though...



yeah some people 'early' and other peoples 'early' don't always line up... in general I have been told not to call or assume to get a call before 9am the local time


----------



## LuisCarlos17f

I can understand the abilities bonus in the background instead the lineages/races to avoid the typecasting of these, but I beg for the return of the racial feats with abilities bonus.


----------



## Marandahir

Maxperson said:


> Yeah.  The downloads is probably how they are tracking it.  They're probably guessing at a margin of error, though, because there's no way they can know how many are like me and just reading and digesting the rules, but not actually playtesting them.
> 
> I'm not surprised at the numbers of downloads, though.  D&D took off after 5e was released, so the huge numbers of D&D players that we have now weren't around for the 5e playtest.



Until you respond and tell them you didn't actually use those rules in play. Assuming you're honest with them!


----------



## Maxperson

Marandahir said:


> Until you respond and tell them you didn't actually use those rules in play. Assuming you're honest with them!



I always am.  It doesn't help things to lie and they always have a section for comments where I can say my piece.


----------



## Marandahir

Maxperson said:


> I always am.  It doesn't help things to lie and they always have a section for comments where I can say my piece.



Wasn't suggesting you were lying to them! Just that that is an option that some people might want to do. I don't think it's a useful one to try to game the system by lying on a playtest survey response, though…


----------



## Veltharis ap Rylix

Parmandur said:


> Interesting note is that they did notnsokicit any feedback on Half-Elves or Half-Orcs being replaced with refluffing.



Not specifically, but I used the freeform "any other comments" textbox toward the end to talk about that aspect at length.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> Not specifically, but I used the freeform "any other comments" textbox toward the end to talk about that aspect at length.



I always wonder both "how much" they read those comments and "who" reads those comments. I assume someone in the survey company reads them and looks for general trends and reports to WotC on those trends? Anyone ever work in the survey business have an idea?


----------



## Charlaquin

That’s not at all surprising to me, given how much bigger D&D is now than it was then.


----------



## Zaukrie

FitzTheRuke said:


> I always wonder both "how much" they read those comments and "who" reads those comments. I assume someone in the survey company reads them and looks for general trends and reports to WotC on those trends? Anyone ever work in the survey business have an idea?



Comments are more important than rankings, and it isn't close. We acted on comments, we used rankings to give us general ideas.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> I told them I didn't test anything, and was still asked about them all. Maybe there were more undepth questions for you?



Same


----------



## Leatherhead

Interesting. They excluded the Cultist background from the feedback selections. I might not have noticed it, if not for actually building a cultist character while messing around with the rules.


----------



## Zaukrie

They missed more than a few things in the lists, backgrounds were also missing.


----------



## dave2008

Zaukrie said:


> They missed more than a few things in the lists, backgrounds were also missing.



Which backgrounds? I thought all the playtest backgrounds where in the survey


----------



## Haplo781

"More people are playing D&D in 2022 than in 2012" is not surprising.


----------



## Parmandur

Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> Not specifically, but I used the freeform "any other comments" textbox toward the end to talk about that aspect at length.



Same here, I quite like it and let them know that.


----------



## THEMNGMNT

Wow.


----------



## Parmandur

GMforPowergamers said:


> but as we see here more people downloaded it then tested it... so the number still isnt' right



For WotC, this is a smell test: people downloading and reading is what they want to gage reception.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper

dave2008 said:


> Which backgrounds? I thought all the playtest backgrounds where in the survey



Acolyte was missing from the "have you played?" section was present on the "evaluate this background" part.  Cultist was missing from both.  A couple of others were missing from both as well, all had the Magic Initiate feat from above. 

At first I thought it was because they may have bumped out the magic initiative feat from their consideration, but I did see at least one background with the Magic Initiate feat included in both the played and evaluate sections. (Though I think it was the Sage which could easily be refluffed with the skilled feat.)

It was slightly annoying because the Cultist was the one that I briefly playtested and there wasn't an option for.... "other."


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Marandahir said:


> Until you respond and tell them you didn't actually use those rules in play. Assuming you're honest with them!



I mean if we assume people are lying that is a different issue


----------



## Oncewasbenji

Anyone else finding that stats in background leads to people picking optimal background for class, therefore being a bit uniform in decisions about characters? I fed this back as I can see it making new characters less diverse.


----------



## Marandahir

Oncewasbenji said:


> Anyone else finding that stats in background leads to people picking optimal background for class, therefore being a bit uniform in decisions about characters? I fed this back as I can see it making new characters less diverse.



What do you mean by picking backgrounds? The default assumption is that you build your own background and assign the feat and ASIs and profs that fit with it.  What we have here are a handful of sample backgrounds you MIGHT build something akin to. 

This is not like picking backgrounds in the 2014 PHB, where the default assumption is choose a background, and you can customize it if you'd like and the DM approves…


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

The Myopic Sniper said:


> Acolyte was missing from the "have you played?" section was present on the "evaluate this background" part.  Cultist was missing from both.  A couple of others were missing from both as well, all had the Magic Initiate feat from above.
> 
> At first I thought it was because they may have bumped out the magic initiative feat from their consideration, but I did see at least one background with the Magic Initiate feat included in both the played and evaluate sections. (Though I think it was the Sage which could easily be refluffed with the skilled feat.)
> 
> It was slightly annoying because the Cultist was the one that I briefly playtested and there wasn't an option for.... "other."




Not sure why they're soliciting feedback on specific backgrounds at all, since the system is completely build-a-bear.


----------



## OB1

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> Not sure why they're soliciting feedback on specific backgrounds at all, since the system is completely build-a-bear.



I actually responded that the sample backgrounds should be in an appendix at the back of the book to reinforce the idea of creating your own.  If you don't want to or need help getting inspiration on what to do, you can look up the samples, but by not presenting it right after the rule, it makes it more likely that people will understand that the default is to create your own.


----------



## Nikosandros

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> Not sure why they're soliciting feedback on specific backgrounds at all, since the system is completely build-a-bear.



That's exactly what I wrote in the box in that part of the survey...


----------



## Marandahir

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> Not sure why they're soliciting feedback on specific backgrounds at all, since the system is completely build-a-bear.



Pretty sure it's because they want to double check that people want build-a-bear backgrounds, hence why they didn't ask for reviews of ALL the backgrounds, just some of them.


----------



## Parmandur

Oncewasbenji said:


> Anyone else finding that stats in background leads to people picking optimal background for class, therefore being a bit uniform in decisions about characters? I fed this back as I can see it making new characters less diverse.



O know it's already been said, but the ASI is free floating, it can't be "gamed" as such.


----------



## dave2008

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> Not sure why they're soliciting feedback on specific backgrounds at all, since the system is completely build-a-bear.



Well I imagine many people, like my group, will still prefer premade backgrounds.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

It's the best of both worlds. You can chose a background for a quick-build, like you would if you took equipment from your class and BG, or you can make your own, like if you spent your money on equipment. Or you can do what I expect most do (or, at least, it's what _I_ would do, which is pick one, and then swap out one or two things for something else equivalent. It speeds up making a character, but DOES NOT limit you in any way.


----------



## Reynard

FitzTheRuke said:


> It's the best of both worlds. You can chose a background for a quick-build, like you would if you took equipment from your class and BG, or you can make your own, like if you spent your money on equipment. Or you can do what I expect most do (or, at least, it's what _I_ would do, which is pick one, and then swap out one or two things for something else equivalent. It speeds up making a character, but DOES NOT limit you in any way.



It's not even an either or. You can replace any feature you like. That, I assume, will be by far the most common usage: choosing a background but switching out a language,  tool proficiency,  or feat.


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

Reynard said:


> It's not even an either or. You can replace any feature you like. That, I assume, will be by far the most common usage: choosing a background but switching out a language,  tool proficiency,  or feat.



Just as they intend. Because it's literally impossible for them to give examples of every possible imagined background a player character could have before becoming an adventurer.

A player can choose one of the prebuilt ones and run it as written if they want. They can also choose to customize it in any way they want (maybe they were a Farmer-turned-Soldier that still has the Ability Score bonuses of the Farmer, but got the gaming set proficiency and Goblin language of the Soldier), or make a completely new background (apprentice mage to a Hag that learned forgotten arcane secrets before turning on their master and joining up with a carnival). They intend for the "make your own"/"customize an existing background" to be the base, because that promotes more player creativity and doesn't restrict the feats and ASIs that the player wants and thinks would fit the character.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Reynard said:


> It's not even an either or. You can replace any feature you like. That, I assume, will be by far the most common usage: choosing a background but switching out a language,  tool proficiency,  or feat.



Yeah, that's what I meant. Just like you might do with equipment.


----------



## MNblockhead

Zaukrie said:


> They missed more than a few things in the lists, backgrounds were also missing.



I got quite a few questions on backgrounds. I wonder if their is some randomization going on. I can't see how my earlier answers would determine whether they ask or don't ask about backgrounds.


----------



## MNblockhead

Charlaquin said:


> Same



Same here. But in comments I made clear that I read them and gave feedback in comments based on that.


----------



## MNblockhead

Oncewasbenji said:


> Anyone else finding that stats in background leads to people picking optimal background for class, therefore being a bit uniform in decisions about characters? I fed this back as I can see it making new characters less diverse.



Sure. Same with feats. I mentioned that in my comments but I also stated that while I think certain feats and backgrounds will be favored because they are mechanically seen as better, I am okay with feats and backgrounds not being "balanced" because some people will choose for flavor over getting the best mechanical benefit. As long as they are mechanically interesting and let you do fun things, and as long as their are good options for all play styles, pillars of play, and settings, I'm okay with some being "underpowered."

My main comment on backgrounds was that they were all satisfactory. I like the direction they are taking in making more clear that these are just examples and giving more tools and clear instructions for making your own backgrounds. I want them to lean into that more.  Also, I would like anything that is more "nurture" based, like skills and proficiencies to be removed from race and put into backgrounds and class. I also said that while I worry that the "ability scores from elsewhere" section makes background creation a bit more complicated, I overall appreciate and approve of it for backward compatibility.

In my comments for the races, I stated that race features should be clearly more "nature" based and skills, languages, proficiencies and other "nurture" based attributes should be something you get from backgrounds and class.


----------



## Kronius

darjr said:


> WotC has announced that more people have playtested the first One D&D playtest than the number of people who playtested the entirety of the D&D Next playtest 10 years ago, which led to the release of D&D 5E. The number of people who playtested D&D Next, according to the credits in the 5E _Player's Handbook_, was over 175,000 people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the first week alone, more of you have playtested One D&D than in the entirety of 5e playtesting!
> 
> Thank you to everyone who has helped shape the future of Dungeons & Dragons!
> 
> 
> View attachment 259842



Well I want to say Duh, because there are more people playing now that at any time in the past, especially when it was 4e. People were playing the "it" game, Pathfinder back during those transition times. We knew WotC was done with 4e. They told us. Even with the public playtest those influencers at the time were not really paying attention to the playtest. They were doing other things like 13th Age or other indie games.


----------



## Oncewasbenji

Parmandur said:


> O know it's already been said, but the ASI is free floating, it can't be "gamed" as such.



If it's free floating, why have different specific backgrounds give different specific stats? That takes away from the 'build it yourself' reading of those rules. The ua has specific stat increases for each background and that's what players will see/choose. Why do that unless you want people to use them? It misleads. There has always been an option to build your own background but in my experience (and I dm for a lot of people, I run 8 campaigns a fortnight) people will still just pick what is in the book. It is possible this is just me, but thus makes it feel less free tha  it is now. If it's meant to be a free floating bonus not attached to anything, why is it not just a separate step, rather than happening in the background step?


----------



## Oncewasbenji

MNblockhead said:


> Sure. Same with feats. I mentioned that in my comments but I also stated that while I think certain feats and backgrounds will be favored because they are mechanically seen as better, I am okay with feats and backgrounds not being "balanced" because some people will choose for flavor over getting the best mechanical benefit. As long as they are mechanically interesting and let you do fun things, and as long as their are good options for all play styles, pillars of play, and settings, I'm okay with some being "underpowered."
> 
> My main comment on backgrounds was that they were all satisfactory. I like the direction they are taking in making more clear that these are just examples and giving more tools and clear instructions for making your own backgrounds. I want them to lean into that more.  Also, I would like anything that is more "nurture" based, like skills and proficiencies to be removed from race and put into backgrounds and class. I also said that while I worry that the "ability scores from elsewhere" section makes background creation a bit more complicated, I overall appreciate and approve of it for backward compatibility.
> 
> In my comments for the races, I stated that race features should be clearly more "nature" based and skills, languages, proficiencies and other "nurture" based attributes should be something you get from backgrounds and class.



I wasn't so much concerned with it being g underpowered as all fighters being ex soldiers or gladiators or whatever rather than something interesting like Noble or acolyte.


----------



## Li Shenron

Burnside said:


> Are they interpreting "downloaded the UA" as equal to "playtested"?
> 
> Because, I mean, I downloaded and read it. I haven't used any of it at the table, and probably won't. I'm sure I'm not alone in that.



Yeah, my guess is that 10% of the respondents will playtest and 90% will say they had, while all they did was rant or rave on a forum.


----------



## Nikosandros

I didn't have the chance to actually playtest the packet and I told that much in the survey. Why assume that most of the respondents will lie?


----------



## Tonguez

thats not really all that impressive considering how ubiquitous the tech is now compared to a measly 10 yrs ago...


----------



## Parmandur

Oncewasbenji said:


> If it's free floating, why have different specific backgrounds give different specific stats? That takes away from the 'build it yourself' reading of those rules. The ua has specific stat increases for each background and that's what players will see/choose. Why do that unless you want people to use them? It misleads. There has always been an option to build your own background but in my experience (and I dm for a lot of people, I run 8 campaigns a fortnight) people will still just pick what is in the book. It is possible this is just me, but thus makes it feel less free tha  it is now. If it's meant to be a free floating bonus not attached to anything, why is it not just a separate step, rather than happening in the background step?



Those are explicitly just examples, it's  a build system.


----------



## Oncewasbenji

Parmandur said:


> Those are explicitly just examples, it's  a build system.



This is not how I read it, but I think this might just be a difference of approach. Technically they've always been a build system but a lot of players just pick from available options rather that  make a new one. So I guess to me, the semiotics of putting the stat increases in the stat block examples signifies to most players it's easier to just pick from the examples and the default. And the default is what I take exception to.


----------



## Stalker0

Parmandur said:


> Those are explicitly just examples, it's  a build system.



Yeah but it’s a lot of examples, I do think the visual gives the wrong impression


----------



## Maxperson

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> Not sure why they're soliciting feedback on specific backgrounds at all, since the system is completely build-a-bear.



Because a lot of people don't bother and just select one that is built, so they want those people to be happy.  3 years of playing 5e with mostly proactive players, and I've seen them build a background twice.  They don't do it if there's one prebuilt that fits.


----------



## MockingBird

It's faster to just pick a background. If they weren't there and ASIs weren't tied to them I'm sure lots of players just wouldn't bother. I personally prefer the backgrounds to just pick from. I really wish they didn't tie the ASIs to them, I fed that back in the survey.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Maxperson said:


> Because a lot of people don't bother and just select one that is built, so they want those people to be happy.  3 years of playing 5e with mostly proactive players, and I've seen them build a background twice.  They don't do it if there's one prebuilt that fits.



Surely they swapped a skill for another skill or any number of customizations, though. That's working as intended, I think.


----------



## Parmandur

Oncewasbenji said:


> This is not how I read it, but I think this might just be a difference of approach. Technically they've always been a build system but a lot of players just pick from available options rather that  make a new one. So I guess to me, the semiotics of putting the stat increases in the stat block examples signifies to most players it's easier to just pick from the examples and the default. And the default is what I take exception to.



Yeah, the examples do seem to be confusing people, which I mentioned in feedback as well. Hopefully they edit this section to make the standard more clear, maybe cut the examples entirely.


----------



## Parmandur

FitzTheRuke said:


> Surely they swapped a skill for another skill or any number of customizations, though. That's working as intended, I think.



If they keep the examples, they probably ought to format them with choices, like making it clear that the +2 and +1 can go anywhere, say to just pick a language, etc.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Parmandur said:


> If they keep the examples, they probably ought to format them with choices, like making it clear that the +2 and +1 can go anywhere, say to just pick a language, etc.



It's amazing that they have to spell this stuff out, but yeah, based on confusion here they'll have to look like this: 

*GUARD *(or some other similar posting of your choice)
Ability Scores: +2 Strength, +1 Wisdom (or two other abilities of your choice)
Skill Proficiencies: Athletics, Perception (or two other skills of your choice)
Tool Proficiency: Gaming Set* (one of your choice or another tool of your choice)
Language: Dwarvish (or another language of your choice)
Feat: Alert (or another level 1 feat of your choice)
Your feet begin to ache when you remember the countless hours you spent at your post in the tower (or another location of your choice).  You were trained to keep one eye outside the wall (or another place of your choice), watching for marauders (or another enemy of your choice) sweeping from the nearby forest (or another terrain of your choice), and your other eye inside the wall, searching for cutpurses and troublemakers (or other individuals of your choice). At the end of each shift, you bunked in the mayor’s barracks (or another location of your choice) alongside your fellow sentries and the dwarven smiths (or other companions of your choice) who kept your armor snug and your weapons sharp. (Or an entirely different paragraph of fluff of your choice).
Equipment
Crossbow Bolt (20); Gaming Set (same as above); Hooded Lantern; Light Crossbow; Manacles; Quiver; Spear; Traveler’s Clothes; 12 GP (or other equipment of equal or lesser value of your choice).

But should it really be necessary to do that for EACH sample background when you've already explicitly said it at the beginning of the background section? Seems like it might be.


----------



## Zaukrie

My issue isn't that I can't change things up....but that the examples aren't all that good. Like, cultist language should be "language tied to cult" or something, not "abyssal". Or maybe I'm over thinking things.....

My real issue is that race traits still include cultural/learned things, and I don't want that at all.


----------



## Parmandur

FitzTheRuke said:


> It's amazing that they have to spell this stuff out, but yeah, based on confusion here they'll have to look like this:
> 
> *GUARD *(or some other similar posting of your choice)
> Ability Scores: +2 Strength, +1 Wisdom (or two other abilities of your choice)
> Skill Proficiencies: Athletics, Perception (or two other skills of your choice)
> Tool Proficiency: Gaming Set* (one of your choice or another tool of your choice)
> Language: Dwarvish (or another language of your choice)
> Feat: Alert (or another level 1 feat of your choice)
> Your feet begin to ache when you remember the countless hours you spent at your post in the tower (or another location of your choice).  You were trained to keep one eye outside the wall (or another place of your choice), watching for marauders (or another enemy of your choice) sweeping from the nearby forest (or another terrain of your choice), and your other eye inside the wall, searching for cutpurses and troublemakers (or other individuals of your choice). At the end of each shift, you bunked in the mayor’s barracks (or another location of your choice) alongside your fellow sentries and the dwarven smiths (or other companions of your choice) who kept your armor snug and your weapons sharp. (Or an entirely different paragraph of fluff of your choice).
> Equipment
> Crossbow Bolt (20); Gaming Set (same as above); Hooded Lantern; Light Crossbow; Manacles; Quiver; Spear; Traveler’s Clothes; 12 GP (or other equipment of equal or lesser value of your choice).
> 
> But should it really be necessary to do that for EACH sample background when you've already explicitly said it at the beginning of the background section? Seems like it might be.



Or just make them more clearly templates, without fully filled out ASI or Language/Tool choices.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Zaukrie said:


> My issue isn't that I can't change things up....but that the examples aren't all that good. Like, cultist language should be "language tied to cult" or something, not "abyssal". Or maybe I'm over thinking things.....



Abyssal (Or another suitably cult-y language of  your choice).

Honestly, the most obvious type of cult is a demon cult, hence Abyssal. Obviously you can switch it to Primordial for your Elder Eye cult or Deep Speech for your Lolth Cult.



Zaukrie said:


> My real issue is that race traits still include cultural/learned things, and I don't want that at all.



Yeah, it's surprising how many remnants are there considering that it was an explicit part of their design goals. I mean, I guess I really _can_ see Dragonborn popping out of the Egg speaking Draconic (If ANYTHING can be done innately, that one seems likely, if totally unnecessary).

Dwarves? Well... I mean, I guess it'd be cool to make dwarves that are NOT connected to the earth as part of their nature. "Gods did it" is definitely not the best excuse, either. Still, I mean, I understand why they find it hard to divorce dwarves from these things. They have been vastly built into their stereotype. Kind of the point, though, innit?


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Parmandur said:


> Or just make them more clearly templates, without fully filled out ASI or Language/Tool choices.



Yes, but then that defeats the whole point of them being designed for quick-builds. The WHOLE POINT is to make for less decisions for those who want it. Anyone who wants to make their own choices can swap any element for any other element. Easy.


----------



## Parmandur

FitzTheRuke said:


> Yes, but then that defeats the whole point of them being designed for quick-builds. The WHOLE POINT is to make for less decisions for those who want it. Anyone who wants to make their own choices can swap any element for any other element. Easy.



Still, seems a bit like being stuck between a rock and a hard place: so many people seem to view these examples as some sort of assumed default, when they aren't built that way.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Parmandur said:


> Still, seems a bit like being stuck between a rock and a hard place: so many people seem to view these examples as some sort of assumed default, when they aren't built that way.



That part is weird, as it's spelled out right at the beginning. I mean, I may have gotten a little carried away with my tongue-in-cheek version, but it looks like they may have to find a way to make it doubly obvious (tripley obvious?) that you can swap any element out for any other like-element as well as build-your-own. It's not all or nothing.


----------



## OB1

Again, if they move the examples to an appendix in the back, it will help drive home that the default is to build your own.  If they want to give an example in the background section, they'd be better off picking one like Soldier and showing it three different ways.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

OB1 said:


> Again, if they move the examples to an appendix in the back, it will help drive home that the default is to build your own.  If they want to give an example in the background section, they'd be better off picking one like Soldier and showing it three different ways.



I still disagree with that, myself. I think having the examples there for a quick plug-n-play is an excellent design.


----------



## MockingBird

FitzTheRuke said:


> I still disagree with that, myself. I think having the examples there for a quick plug-n-play is an excellent design.



I agree, it would be annoying not to have them near the chargen rules.


----------



## Parmandur

FitzTheRuke said:


> That part is weird, as it's spelled out right at the beginning. I mean, I may have gotten a little carried away with my tongue-in-cheek version, but it looks like they may have to find a way to make it doubly obvious (tripley obvious?) that you can swap any element out for any other like-element as well as build-your-own. It's not all or nothing.



Mayne the ASI should go elsewhere in character creation, like Class, to keep the mechanical focus of Background on Feats.


----------



## Haplo781

Maybe the solution is to have a list of backgrounds that are pretty bare-bones (just provides a feat and skill proficiencies and tells you to pick the rest yourself), followed by a list that's slightly more detailed (also includes tool proficiencies), and finally a list with everything filled in.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Parmandur said:


> Mayne the ASI should go elsewhere in character creation, like Class, to keep the mechanical focus of Background on Feats.



It honestly makes the most sense in Class, seeing as where your top stats go is near _entirely_ dependent on Class, and not on anything else.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Haplo781 said:


> Maybe the solution is to have a list of backgrounds that are pretty bare-bones (just provides a feat and skill proficiencies and tells you to pick the rest yourself), followed by a list that's slightly more detailed (also includes tool proficiencies), and finally a list with everything filled in.



That's a lot of space for something that is already spelled out as an option, though.


----------



## Nikosandros

I think that the ASI should simply go together with the determination of ability scores.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Might as well just go with what's gonna happen 95% of the time and have Class give you +2 to its own prime ability and have background give you a +1 (or to avoid those two things stacking, give class +1, BG +1, and a floating +1 or whatever.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Nikosandros said:


> I think that the ASI should simply go together with the determination of ability scores.



Yeah, at this point they could just get rid of them entirely and give us a few more points of point-buy. (Or offer them as bonuses after rolling).


----------



## Zaukrie

FitzTheRuke said:


> Might as well just go with what's gonna happen 95% of the time and have Class give you +2 to its own prime ability and have background give you a +1 (or to avoid those two things stacking, give class +1, BG +1, and a floating +1 or whatever.



That makes sense to me. Won't happen, but makes sense.


----------



## MNblockhead

Parmandur said:


> Yeah, the examples do seem to be confusing people, which I mentioned in feedback as well. Hopefully they edit this section to make the standard more clear, maybe cut the examples entirely.



A lot of players like to choose from examples. They won't cut them. They can make the option to roll your own a lot more obvious but as I stated before, encouraging rolling your own will be easier in D&D Beyond than in the printed book. 

In DDB, I would like it to work where when it takes you to the background section, the default to select your proficiencies, equipment, feats, etc.  But to have a toggle to "choose from examples backgrounds."

In DDB, I think it would be easier to just roll your own than have to scroll through all the example backgrounds anyway.


----------



## MNblockhead

FitzTheRuke said:


> It's amazing that they have to spell this stuff out, but yeah, based on confusion here they'll have to look like this:
> 
> *GUARD *(or some other similar posting of your choice)
> Ability Scores: +2 Strength, +1 Wisdom (or two other abilities of your choice)
> Skill Proficiencies: Athletics, Perception (or two other skills of your choice)
> Tool Proficiency: Gaming Set* (one of your choice or another tool of your choice)
> Language: Dwarvish (or another language of your choice)
> Feat: Alert (or another level 1 feat of your choice)
> Your feet begin to ache when you remember the countless hours you spent at your post in the tower (or another location of your choice).  You were trained to keep one eye outside the wall (or another place of your choice), watching for marauders (or another enemy of your choice) sweeping from the nearby forest (or another terrain of your choice), and your other eye inside the wall, searching for cutpurses and troublemakers (or other individuals of your choice). At the end of each shift, you bunked in the mayor’s barracks (or another location of your choice) alongside your fellow sentries and the dwarven smiths (or other companions of your choice) who kept your armor snug and your weapons sharp. (Or an entirely different paragraph of fluff of your choice).
> Equipment
> Crossbow Bolt (20); Gaming Set (same as above); Hooded Lantern; Light Crossbow; Manacles; Quiver; Spear; Traveler’s Clothes; 12 GP (or other equipment of equal or lesser value of your choice).
> 
> But should it really be necessary to do that for EACH sample background when you've already explicitly said it at the beginning of the background section? Seems like it might be.



Nah. Just state it up front that you can roll your own from scratch, use a background, or use a background and swap some things out. 

Yes, many will just select a background and use it. That's not really a problem.  I like to roll my own and with more players I DM for would as well.  But I realize that it like wanting players to write up a backstory, write up their own flaws, ideals, etc. I know some DMs are strict about this kind of thing, but not every player is into that. I'm not going to force them to roll their own if they just want to just select and play.  Hell, I always have a bunch of pre-gens on hand for player who just want to select a character that seems cool and don't want to bother with character creation. 

The game should support the grab-and-go as well as the cook-from-scratch types.


----------



## MNblockhead

Zaukrie said:


> My issue isn't that I can't change things up....but that the examples aren't all that good. Like, cultist language should be "language tied to cult" or something, not "abyssal". Or maybe I'm over thinking things.....
> 
> My real issue is that race traits still include cultural/learned things, and I don't want that at all.



You're overthinking things.  I'm not saying this as a dig and it really isn't that you are "over" thinking things but you likely enjoy character creation as a major part of your enjoyment of the game. 

For many players that just isn't the case. I met quite a few players, especially new players, where character creation is a splash of cold water on their enthusiasm to play. 

And this isn't just with backgrounds.  I would prefer that for each race that for players who don't want to roll, point buy, or apply standard array, they should have the option for "here are some default/example stats for a dwarf, just use these if you don't want to fiddle."  Like they already do with character classes.


----------



## MNblockhead

Parmandur said:


> Still, seems a bit like being stuck between a rock and a hard place: so many people seem to view these examples as some sort of assumed default, when they aren't built that way.




Maybe having clear sections for (1) "build your own" and (2) "templates" (or examples, or "select one").  Using headers, layout, etc. For each step in the character creation process:

1. Choose a Race/Origin (yes, purposefully before rolling dice)

After choosing your race, you either (1) generate/select ability scores (by rolling, point buy, or standard array) and add your floating ASIs, or (2) select from a template that has the traditional ASIs baked in, including an option to select from one of several pregenerated set of ability scores for that race. 

2. Choose a Background

Current rules are in the 1DD are fine. Just make it the choice of DIY vs select from an example more obvious with layout (or DDB toggles)

3. Choose a Class


Another thing I think would help would be to have a fourth core book that is just a well organized collection of pre-generated characters. If it had great artwork and well-written backstories that are sufficiently setting-agnostic, I think it would sell well. It would be cool for each one to have a call out box that steps through how the options selected to make that character.   DDB already has a feature to one-click create a character.  A lot of other games, including the D&D Basic sets come with a selection of pre-gens and these have always been popular in my experience.


----------



## MNblockhead

OB1 said:


> Again, if they move the examples to an appendix in the back, it will help drive home that the default is to build your own.  If they want to give an example in the background section, they'd be better off picking one like Soldier and showing it three different ways.



I'm not a fan of adding more page flipping to the character creation process. People selecting from examples is not a bad thing. We don't need to "encourage" them to roll their own by making using examples more inconvenient. 

Having it in the player-creation section, instead of the back of the book, doesn't save on page count. 

With spells, it makes sense to have them in their own section because you need to frequently reference them in play and you'll be making selections throughout the character's career. But backgrounds are something you only create/select once, during character creation and everything you need to know about them is represented on your character sheet.


----------



## MNblockhead

Haplo781 said:


> Maybe the solution is to have a list of backgrounds that are pretty bare-bones (just provides a feat and skill proficiencies and tells you to pick the rest yourself), followed by a list that's slightly more detailed (also includes tool proficiencies), and finally a list with everything filled in.



Except many players like the flavor text. A lot of players are make their selections based on the flavor text and the art work.


----------



## MNblockhead

FitzTheRuke said:


> It honestly makes the most sense in Class, seeing as where your top stats go is near _entirely_ dependent on Class, and not on anything else.



Yeah, this is where it gets fiddly.

For _myself_, I like backgrounds having ASI and feats. It just makes sense to me, adds versimitude, and promotes the zero-to-hero style of play I like (I actually have begun campaigns with zero-level character funnels - they don't select a class until they select from their surviving zero-level characters and choose a class).  But that isn't really how most people play. From my observations most games start with the characters already fairly heroic (just having a class does that IMHO).  Many groups start their campaigns at level 5. So for the way most people play, it probably does make sense to have ASIs tied to class.

On the other hand, I like having ASIs come from multiple places: race, backgrounds, and class.  Weither selected or based on templates. It just gives a bit more customization.  Even if it mechanically the result is the same, is feels different to me. If I'm playing an origin where my "people" are huge, hardy, barbarians.  I like having ASIs reflect that. That could come from a goliath template or ASIs that I chose to apply (my halfling tribe are not your typical halflings, they are roided up spartan halfings...)  For me the game would be losing something if ASIs can't come from race.  And it would add something to also have the option of having them come from backgrounds.  I suppose I could accept them coming from background instead of race, but only from class?  That just isn't as satisfying to me.


----------



## Twiggly the Gnome

Maybe the background section should have a disclaimer:

*These sample Backgrounds are just examples! All of the components thereof are completely fungible. Feel free to change anything that would better reflect your individual character concept.



*


----------



## Haplo781

There should be an entire page dedicated to how to build a background, and that page should be on the right side, so you have to see it before you get to the sample backgrounds.


----------



## CrashFiend82

After spending years writing SOPs for multiple departments at a major corporation, I can guarantee some percent of people will not read a sidebar, heading, or any other demarcation of Build Your Own background. If WOTC can find a perfect solution, I will steal that in a heartbeat. To be honest they should follow the KISS method, players that grab and go probably won't care if their PC is suboptimal.


----------



## Zaukrie

MNblockhead said:


> You're overthinking things.  I'm not saying this as a dig and it really isn't that you are "over" thinking things but you likely enjoy character creation as a major part of your enjoyment of the game.
> 
> For many players that just isn't the case. I met quite a few players, especially new players, where character creation is a splash of cold water on their enthusiasm to play.
> 
> And this isn't just with backgrounds.  I would prefer that for each race that for players who don't want to roll, point buy, or apply standard array, they should have the option for "here are some default/example stats for a dwarf, just use these if you don't want to fiddle."  Like they already do with character classes.



I don't like character creation. All I'm saying is if their goal is to separate race and culture / skills, that they still aren't good at it. 

I agree, they should make it as simple, or complex, as people want. Frankly, I think premade dwarf fighters or whatever, would be great to have in the book. If not the book, DNDbeyond, for free


----------



## MNblockhead

CrashFiend82 said:


> After spending years writing SOPs for multiple departments at a major corporation, I can guarantee some percent of people will not read a sidebar, heading, or any other demarcation of Build Your Own background. If WOTC can find a perfect solution, I will steal that in a heartbeat. To be honest they should follow the KISS method, players that grab and go probably won't care if their PC is suboptimal.



^ Yeah, this. 100%   

Kinda like security instructions, SOPs, and training are important but it is dangerous to expect they'll be read, remembered, and followed. You need to design your systems to make compliance easy.  Which is why I think there are limits with what you can do in print. Put the DIY instructions for those of us who like to read the manual, but keep the easy grab-and-go options for what is likely the majority of players. In a chargen program like DDB you can step people through the process and selections, which will encourage more people to roll their own because it is easy.


----------



## MNblockhead

Zaukrie said:


> I don't like character creation. All I'm saying is if their goal is to separate race and culture / skills, that they still aren't good at it.




They are walking a tight-rope. They want to update to a more flexible, less essentialist char gen system, while keeping the flavor of D&D. 

Personally, I would like to see rules for making your own races, classes, and background. Each followed by examples drawn from the traditional races and classes. I think that could be done and still be backward compatible. Most people would just select from existing race, class, and background templates. Cool. But give tools to roll your own.



Zaukrie said:


> I agree, they should make it as simple, or complex, as people want. Frankly, I think premade dwarf fighters or whatever, would be great to have in the book. If not the book, DNDbeyond, for free



I agree, but the problem will be page count. Which is why releasing a book (or boxed set with loose sheets) with pregens would be nice. I know that the basic sets do this, but I'm talking about having a large number of options to choose from. Don't know how well a separate book/box of just pre-gens would sell. They could also be useful for GMs to for NPCs, but NPC rules likely would use monster-type stat blocks and need to have different levels, etc. I think they will leave the "pre gens" for DDB.

DDB already has the ability to make pregens. You can just one-click create one completely at random, or you can select a small number of options like race, class, and level and have one generated. Not sure that I can see them making this avaialble for free though. Perhaps my pre-gen book ideal could be released as a PDF that is made available for free as a download like the basic rules.


----------



## Reynard

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> Maybe the background section should have a disclaimer:
> 
> *These sample Backgrounds are just examples! All of the components thereof are completely fungible. Feel free to change anything that would better reflect your individual character concept.
> 
> View attachment 260076*



Probably more useful to put the word "suggested" in front of all the predefined options. In my experience people just don't read instructions. They dive right into the choices. So there's at least a slight chance that when they see "Suggested Language" instead of just "Language" that they will clue in. But probably not. They would much rather complain online about how terrible the design is rather than actually read.


----------



## darjr

I’ve mulled this over and I agree they should have a quick build option that will probably be seen as “defaults” and for groups, unless they really emphasize that they are individuals or something more careful.

Seeing it that way I think language should be taken out of said “defaults”


----------



## Yaarel

Burnside said:


> Are they interpreting "downloaded the UA" as equal to "playtested"?
> 
> Because, I mean, I downloaded and read it. I haven't used any of it at the table, and probably won't. I'm sure I'm not alone in that.



Even to articulate what you find less appealing is part of playtesting.

In some ways understanding appeal is more useful than catching problematic mechanics.


----------



## Yaarel

Reynard said:


> I am implementing some rules but my players have roundly rejected rebuilding with the UA chargen rules.



Reasons?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

I can see +1* from class, two +1's from backround.
That way, you can always have 16 in your prime stat without thinking.

Additionally, I'd like it if you gained the 1 from your class, even if you multiclassed into them. Would make up a bit for the lost stat increases due to mhlticlassing.

*I could also see some classes having more than one +1 bonus due to their MADness.
I could perfectly see a monk getting +1 to dex and wis.


----------



## Zaukrie

Frankly, just remove stat adjustments from anything and let players put them anywhere. That's easy and removes any bias. So easy. Want a strong elven mage? Go for it.


----------



## Scribe

UngeheuerLich said:


> I can see +1* from class, two +1's from backround.
> That way, you can always have 16 in your prime stat without thinking.
> 
> Additionally, I'd like it if you gained the 1 from your class, even if you multiclassed into them. Would make up a bit for the lost stat increases due to mhlticlassing.
> 
> *I could also see some classes having more than one +1 bonus due to their MADness.
> I could perfectly see a monk getting +1 to dex and wis.



+1 from race, a select list not any stat. No +1 Str from a Halfling for example.
+1 from background, 2 attributes per background to choose from.
+1 from class, 3 attributes to choose from.

Easy.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> Maybe the background section should have a disclaimer:
> 
> *These sample Backgrounds are just examples! All of the components thereof are completely fungible. Feel free to change anything that would better reflect your individual character concept.
> 
> View attachment 260076*



It's gotta have the Shia gif pop-up in the digital version!



MNblockhead said:


> DDB already has the ability to make pregens.



I've always been surprised that DDB doesn't just have a spot where people can post characters for strangers to use, like how they have monsters built by other users. It seems like a no-brainer.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Scribe said:


> +1 from race, a select list not any stat. No +1 Str from a Halfling for example.
> +1 from background, 2 attributes per background to choose from.
> +1 from class, 3 attributes to choose from.
> 
> Easy.




Nope. I don't want them on race anymore.


----------



## Scribe

UngeheuerLich said:


> Nope. I don't want them on race anymore.



Fair enough.


----------



## Charlaquin

Parmandur said:


> Or just make them more clearly templates, without fully filled out ASI or Language/Tool choices.



But the entire purpose of giving examples is so people have the option to take them all as a package instead of having to make each choice individually.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Charlaquin said:


> But the entire purpose of giving examples is so people have the option to take them all as a package instead of having to make each choice individually.




Ultimately, I'm not sure that the game needs to cater to people who stubbornly refuse to read the part that tells them that they can swap any element they like for any other of the same sort. If someone feels that the examples are somehow straightjacketing them, they are mistaken, and IMO not much more needs to be said on the matter (past clearly stating that you can swap stuff, which they've done, and presumably will do in the finished product).


----------



## Charlaquin

Twiggly the Gnome said:


> Maybe the background section should have a disclaimer:
> 
> *These sample Backgrounds are just examples! All of the components thereof are completely fungible. Feel free to change anything that would better reflect your individual character concept.
> 
> View attachment 260076*



To be fair, the packet does say the following:




When you choose a Background, you have three options:
• Build a Background by using the rules in the “Build Your Background” section.
• Select a premade Background from the “Sample Backgrounds” section.
• Select a premade Background from the “Sample Backgrounds” section and then customize it with the rules in the “Build Your Background” section.


----------



## Haplo781

FitzTheRuke said:


> Ultimately, I'm not sure that the game needs to cater to people who stubbornly refuse to read the part that tells them that they can swap any element they like for any other of the same sort. If someone feels that the examples are somehow straightjacketing them, they are mistaken, and IMO not much more needs to be said on the matter (past clearly stating that you can swap stuff, which they've done, and presumably will do in the finished product).


----------



## Parmandur

Charlaquin said:


> But the entire purpose of giving examples is so people have the option to take them all as a package instead of having to make each choice individually.



Another solution would be to put way, way more examples in?


----------



## Levistus's_Leviathan

FitzTheRuke said:


> Ultimately, I'm not sure that the game needs to cater to people who stubbornly refuse to read the part that tells them that they can swap any element they like for any other of the same sort. If someone feels that the examples are somehow straightjacketing them, they are mistaken, and IMO not much more needs to be said on the matter (past clearly stating that you can swap stuff, which they've done, and presumably will do in the finished product).



Agreed. And to add to that, as I've said before: *Wizards of the Coast cannot design a game under the assumption that the majority of players are going to read the rule in the stupidest manner possible. *

If people misinterpret a rule so badly that they miss the entire paragraph that explains the changes and how to use them, it's really not WotC's fault. People misreading the rules is inevitable, and trying to design a game under the assumption that the rules are going to be constantly misread and thus trying to future-proof that is near-impossible.


----------



## Maxperson

FitzTheRuke said:


> Surely they swapped a skill for another skill or any number of customizations, though. That's working as intended, I think.



Yeah.  If they had a back story written up and a specific background fit, but it needed a different skill to make sense with the backstory, I'd be like, "Okay, cool.  Go for it."


----------



## Parmandur

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> Agreed. And to add to that, as I've said before: *Wizards of the Coast cannot design a game under the assumption that the majority of players are going to read the rule in the stupidest manner possible. *
> 
> If people misinterpret a rule so badly that they miss the entire paragraph that explains the changes and how to use them, it's really not WotC's fault. People misreading the rules is inevitable, and trying to design a game under the assumption that the rules are going to be constantly misread and thus trying to future-proof that is near-impossible.



They are designing a game to be accessible to asany people as possible ,however, so making everything flow as smoothly as possible is important. Enough posters on these boards seem confused, sonI eonder what they will end up doijg in the end.


----------



## Maxperson

Scribe said:


> +1 from race, a select list not any stat. No +1 Str from a Halfling for example.
> +1 from background, 2 attributes per background to choose from.
> +1 from class, 3 attributes to choose from.
> 
> Easy.



I'd like to see either 2 +1s from race or background and +1 from the other, and then 1 +1 from class.  4 +1s with the rule that you can have no more than +2 to a single stat doesn't even begin to break anything.  Mountain dwarves did not rule the universe.


----------



## Parmandur

Maxperson said:


> I'd like to see either 2 +1s from race or background and +1 from the other, and then 1 +1 from class.  4 +1s with the rule that you can have no more than +2 to a single stat doesn't even begin to break anything.  Mountain dwarves did not rule the universe.



It didn't break anything, but that's because they amd the Half-Elf had a different balance between ASI and Feat-like abilities: other Races in 2014 are essentially built around one ASI, one Feat, and one +1 Feat, whereas  Halfand Mountain Dwarf are two full ASI's and a Feat (Humans being the weird choice between 3 ASI's or two full Feats and an ASI).

OneD&D Races seem to be consistently a Geat and a half of features, with the ASI and a half put off somewhere else.


----------



## Maxperson

Parmandur said:


> It didn't break anything, but that's because they amd the Half-Elf had a different balance between ASI and Feat-like abilities: other Races in 2014 are essentially built around one ASI, one Feat, and one +1 Feat, whereas  Halfand Mountain Dwarf are two full ASI's and a Feat (Humans being the weird choice between 3 ASI's or two full Feats and an ASI).
> 
> OneD&D Races seem to be consistently a Geat and a half of features, with the ASI and a half put off somewhere else.



It wouldn't have broken anything regardless.  A +1 increase from a stat going to an even number doesn't change things in any noticeable way in game.  You literally succeed one more time every 20 rolls on average.  Nobody is going to notice that and it's not going to break the game no matter which stat it is on which race.


----------



## Scribe

Maxperson said:


> I'd like to see either 2 +1s from race or background and +1 from the other, and then 1 +1 from class.  4 +1s with the rule that you can have no more than +2 to a single stat doesn't even begin to break anything.  Mountain dwarves did not rule the universe.



As long as there are some restrictions or limits, sure. These are flavour additions, its not like the games math is in danger here as you say.


----------



## JEB

Levistus's_Leviathan said:


> *Wizards of the Coast cannot design a game under the assumption that the majority of players are going to read the rule in the stupidest manner possible. *
> 
> If people misinterpret a rule so badly that they miss the entire paragraph that explains the changes and how to use them, it's really not WotC's fault. People misreading the rules is inevitable, and trying to design a game under the assumption that the rules are going to be constantly misread and thus trying to future-proof that is near-impossible.



I agree in principle, but apparently folks sometimes need things to be spelled out very explicitly. As mentioned several times now, 5E's backgrounds are also customizable, and that's been missed. As another example, the 5E Monster Manual supported picking alternative alignments for monsters, well before they had to append "typically" in current stat blocks. I'm sure there are more...

Hence my support for some hand-holding here and walking folks very clearly through the process, and/or including some variants of the same background to show it's not just what they list or nothing. If you want to make sure people do it, you need to write to that.


----------



## Parmandur

JEB said:


> I agree in principle, but apparently folks sometimes need things to be spelled out very explicitly. As mentioned several times now, 5E's backgrounds are also customizable, and that's been missed. As another example, the 5E Monster Manual supported picking alternative alignments for monsters, well before they had to append "typically" in current stat blocks. I'm sure there are more...
> 
> Hence my support for some hand-holding here and walking folks very clearly through the process, and/or including some variants of the same background to show it's not just what they list or nothing. If you want to make sure people do it, you need to write to that.



The PHB is for the basics, after all, and helping new people ramp up as much as reference for veterans.


----------



## Gorck

Zaukrie said:


> Frankly, just remove stat adjustments from anything and let players put them anywhere. That's easy and removes any bias. So easy. Want a strong elven mage? Go for it.



I, for one, would hate this.  Maybe I'm in the minority, but I didn't like this option in Tasha's and I was upset that they took the _option _and made it _mandatory _with subsequently released races.  That's the reason I refuse to allow Owlin, Fairies, and Harengon in my campaigns.  

I enjoy the puzzle of trying to find interesting Race/Class combos to play, and that pursuit has led me to try Races I might not have otherwise considered playing, but with this method people would probably just determine the single optimal race and use it to make all their characters.

I used to play with a guy who would only play a Dwarf, which is fine for him - "to each, his own" and all - but I would find that dreadfully boring.


----------



## Xohar17

Veltharis ap Rylix said:


> Have to "claim" it on D&D Beyond to get access to the page with the download link.



Thats for one dnd, they meant dnd next, and there was in fact some regustration process involved there too.


----------



## Xohar17

Nikosandros said:


> That's exactly what I wrote in the box in that part of the survey...



Me too, i told em i didnt use any background as written, we all eother made a new one or modified at least some asoect of the background we chose.


----------



## Xohar17

UngeheuerLich said:


> Nope. I don't want them on race anymore.



Why?


----------



## Mind of tempest

Gorck said:


> I, for one, would hate this.  Maybe I'm in the minority, but I didn't like this option in Tasha's and I was upset that they took the _option _and made it _mandatory _with subsequently released races.  That's the reason I refuse to allow Owlin, Fairies, and Harengon in my campaigns.
> 
> I enjoy the puzzle of trying to find interesting Race/Class combos to play, and that pursuit has led me to try Races I might not have otherwise considered playing, but with this method people would probably just determine the single optimal race and use it to make all their characters.
> 
> I used to play with a guy who would only play a Dwarf, which is fine for him - "to each, his own" and all - but I would find that dreadfully boring.



I can respect that but do understand that guy who mains dwarves who you played with is closer to the common new dnd player than you are as puzzling is not what a lot want out of their fantasy escapism system.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Xohar17 said:


> Why?



This might derail the thread. If you search for my argumentation, you will find them.

In short: 
I think a +2 bonus does not carry enough weight to distinguish one race from another, a +1 bonus even less so (we are not in ADnD anymore, where having a +1/-1 adjustment to stats change your character noticably, we are also not in 3.x anymore, where you would get bigger bonuses, which were often offset or enhanced by sie modifiers)
I like the giff trait, which gives advantage on strength checks and carrying capacity, which will always make you really strong, without changing combat balance.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> They are designing a game to be accessible to asany people as possible ,however, so making everything flow as smoothly as possible is important. Enough posters on these boards seem confused, sonI eonder what they will end up doijg in the end.



People on this board notoriously do not read the rules. Some of them take pride in it (especially as it relates to the DMG). The more I read peoples' responses to the playtest, the more I am convinced open and public playtests are a terrible idea and will result in a (mechanically) worse game.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> People on this board notoriously do not read the rules. Some of them take pride in it (especially as it relates to the DMG). The more I read peoples' responses to the playtest, the more I am convinced open and public playtests are a terrible idea and will result in a (mechanically) worse game.



Based on the past ten years of playtest iterations, the result will likely tend very conservative. But thst has helped the game so far.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> Based on the past ten years of playtest iterations, the result will likely tend very conservative. But thst has helped the game so far.



There is no doubt that whatever drove 5E's design was at least partially responsible for its popularity. However, just becasue a design is popular doesn't mean it is "good." Now, i am not saying 5E is bad, or badly designed, or any of that. What I am saying is that the public playtest doesn't necessarily improve the quality of the design and if anything serves more of a marketing purpose -- both to test how folks will react to changes, and as a way to preview design choices.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> There is no doubt that whatever drove 5E's design was at least partially responsible for its popularity. However, just becasue a design is popular doesn't mean it is "good." Now, i am not saying 5E is bad, or badly designed, or any of that. What I am saying is that the public playtest doesn't necessarily improve the quality of the design and if anything serves more of a marketing purpose -- both to test how folks will react to changes, and as a way to preview design choices.



I meant more the ongoing playtesting process that led to Xanathar's, then Tasha's, and now the 2024 Core. It's kept the game on an even keel.


----------



## Reynard

Parmandur said:


> I meant more the ongoing playtesting process that led to Xanathar's, then Tasha's, and now the 2024 Core. It's kept the game on an even keel.



I am skeptical that the Xanathar's method is going to work for a core overhaul. There are too many moving, interconnected parts that have to be tested simultaneously. It's not just checking to see if a new subclass works or is overpowered. If you change a foundational element -- a race or class, for example-- the list of possible interactions and knock on effects is too big to discover in the 2 week survey window.


----------



## Parmandur

Reynard said:


> I am skeptical that the Xanathar's method is going to work for a core overhaul. There are too many moving, interconnected parts that have to be tested simultaneously. It's not just checking to see if a new subclass works or is overpowered. If you change a foundational element -- a race or class, for example-- the list of possible interactions and knock on effects is too big to discover in the 2 week survey window.



Neither any Race nor Class are are foundational elements in the system, those are modular plug and play elements. They have an internal, NDA bound system for that sort of thing, anyways, this playtest is, again, just a taste test to determine how far out they can push.


----------

