# RIP, 2014 PHB backgrounds



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 13, 2022)

I haven't seen any discussion on the 2014 PHB backgrounds that _aren't_ in the Character Origins UA:

Folk Hero
Outlander
All the others seem to be represented, although Guild Artisan has been renamed to be Artisan. (Putting them in a guild was probably too restrictive and too much world building -- is the one blacksmith in a town a guild of one?)

The two left out of this UA might still show up, and they're wildly different, IMO.

Folk Hero, first off, doesn't seem like a background, but something to grow into. Your first level character is already a folk hero? And the benefits of the background seem to be things that a DM would be granting to higher level heroic PCs by default. In practice, I never saw anyone with this background ever do much with it. At my tables, it's been very much a "eh, I guess I have to have a background" background. This very much feels like a background developed early in the game's development and one that doesn't stand up well years later.

Outlander is also treated the same way -- "well, I guess I need a background" -- but it's so generic and, frankly, so good, that I saw it used for nearly every wilderness character as a way to pick up some free-floating proficiencies. I'm surprised we don't have anything exactly like it -- a Guide or a Hermit isn't the same thing and is much more specific.

Yes, yes, the UA backgrounds are meant as examples, but as is, they will be used at many tables as the list of backgrounds to choose from and it's likely D&D Beyond will present them that way. I'd like to see a generic wilderness person background included in that list.


----------



## bedir than (Sep 13, 2022)

Outlander was probably eliminated for its cultural leaning.

Folk Hero was rightly and justly tossed aside because you play the game to become a hero.


----------



## Lidgar (Sep 13, 2022)




----------



## MarkB (Sep 13, 2022)

I want most of them gone. Write one or two as "how to" illustrations if they must, but ditch the rest so that players stop treating the illustrative examples as proscriptive defaults.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Sep 13, 2022)

MarkB said:


> I want most of them gone. Write one or two as "how to" illustrations if they must, but ditch the rest so that players stop treating the illustrative examples as proscriptive defaults.



Totally agree with this, give and Alice and Bob example but no pre cooked backgrounds or if they must put them in an appendix.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 13, 2022)

While I hear you, @MarkB and @UngainlyTitan, WotC wants the barriers to entry to be lower, rather than higher. I suspect they might view new players assembling a custom background for a character to be a needless speed bump.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 13, 2022)

I completely disagree. There is nothing (IMO) wrong with listing some quick-grab backgrounds while suggesting to people that they can swap out any bit they like. Does anyone complain about the equipment packages? I've never heard it. You can choose to buy your gear, too. Everyone seems to understand this.


----------



## CleverNickName (Sep 13, 2022)

I very much prefer creating my own backgrounds (the rules are right there in the Player's Handbook).  Four of the last five characters I've played had custom backgrounds: Town Guard, Vampire Hunter, Whaler, and Tunnel Engineer.  The one time I played a textbook background, it wasn't by choice: our DM told us that all characters had to have the Soldier background.

Do folks not write their own backgrounds?  For me, it's a big part of the fun of character creation.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Sep 13, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I completely disagree. There is nothing (IMO) wrong with listing some quick-grab backgrounds while suggesting to people that they can swap out any bit they like. Does anyone complain about the equipment packages? I've never heard it. You can choose to buy your gear, too. Everyone seems to understand this.



Then the examples should demonstrate that.


----------



## Xamnam (Sep 13, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Do folks not write their own backgrounds?



I never did before, so I actively appreciate how the playtest material foregrounds building your own background as an expected route so much more explictly. For whatever reason, based on the layout of the PHB, I assumed that customizing a background was a secondary option, only for if there was some compelling reason one of the listed ones didn't fit, let alone building one from wholecloth. Plus, I felt like I'd then have to convince the DM that any "non-book" background was as acceptable, and the additional benefit of customization didn't feel worth that, when the ones there were close enough. And to be fair, I never felt like I wasn't able to find a good enough one. But I definitely could have had better ones, and the fact that the book calls those "sample" backgrounds should have clued me in.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 13, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I completely disagree. There is nothing (IMO) wrong with listing some quick-grab backgrounds while suggesting to people that they can swap out any bit they like. Does anyone complain about the equipment packages? I've never heard it. You can choose to buy your gear, too. Everyone seems to understand this.



Yeah, but based on some of the early playtest feedback, they don't understand it when it comes to backgrounds. We had a thread here complaining that the Gladiator background was racist for including Orcish as one of the chosen languages, and a lot of similar reactions on Youtube and social media.


----------



## gorice (Sep 13, 2022)

I seem to be the only one who thinks Folk Hero was good. Look, there's got to be some kind of background that says 'peasants think you're cool', and that one did the trick. Peasants thinking you're cool doesn't go that far in a world ruled by knights and sorcerers, by the way.

I actually think the old background features were the best part of the backgrounds. They weren't just random backstory, they were something that could be, and was, used in play. Now, every character is going to have exactly the same mechanical connection to the world, and it will be a matter of DM fiat whether it means anything.


----------



## Stalker0 (Sep 13, 2022)

Technically, ALL backgrounds were murdered in the update, as none of them have special abilities anymore. The actual backgrounds are dead, replaced with pure customization.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Sep 13, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Four of the last five characters I've played had custom backgrounds: Town Guard, Vampire Hunter, Whaler, and Tunnel Engineer.



Whaler is a great background.


----------



## Gorck (Sep 13, 2022)

Not everybody is ultra-creative, and many people struggle with balancing mechanics.  Not having backgrounds to choose from, and forcing every player to create their own, it just more work (and more stress) for both the players and the DM.  The 2014 PHB (and SCAG) were perfectly fine giving premade backgrounds, but also encouraging creative types to make their own.  That way, everybody wins


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 13, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> There is nothing (IMO) wrong with listing some quick-grab backgrounds while suggesting to people that they can swap out any bit they like.



I don't think you're disagreeing with me at all. I think they need to have pre-made backgrounds available, even if custom backgrounds are what they recommend.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 13, 2022)

gorice said:


> I seem to be the only one who thinks Folk Hero was good. Look, there's got to be some kind of background that says 'peasants think you're cool'



Does there? I find it hard to map that background onto any hero of fiction.

I don't think anyone springs out of the ground as a hero of the people. The folk hero was someone before that point.


----------



## Argyle King (Sep 13, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Does there? I find it hard to map that background onto any hero of fiction.
> 
> I don't think anyone springs out of the ground as a hero of the people. The folk hero was someone before that point.


----------



## Leatherhead (Sep 14, 2022)

Standard Backgrounds in the PHB should be full on custom, with maybe an example or two. Premade backgrounds should be regulated to Setting books, where they can have maximum flavor, and potentially setting specific feats to better reflect them.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Sep 14, 2022)

I am really sorry that they appear to be getting away from the background features. They didn't come into play often, but their existence meant that backgrounds contributed something to your character you couldn't get through class or race. 

I thought that was brilliant, and that it really worked to individuate a first-level character (a soldier cleric _felt_ very different from a noble cleric or a criminal cleric); it was a wonderful access into roleplaying, I felt, which they appear to be losing.


----------



## Cruentus (Sep 14, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I completely disagree. There is nothing (IMO) wrong with listing some quick-grab backgrounds while suggesting to people that they can swap out any bit they like. Does anyone complain about the equipment packages? I've never heard it. You can choose to buy your gear, too. Everyone seems to understand this.



As mentioned above, and IME, not everyone understands this.  A lot of the complaints about the UA are "Why do farmers speak Halfling?"  Or "That's stupid, why do Gladiators speak Orc?  Is WOTC saying all gladiators are orcs?", etc.  Its reviewers, "influencers", etc. as well.  People don't get that its "optional" and that its supposed to be bespoke.  WOTC will have to do it some other way, or somehow make it crystal clear. 

Again, IME, when its written down, them's the rules, and people will use the "examples" as "this is how they work, and these are valid choices.", which in the UA, they're really not (they're supposed to be examples).


----------



## Shiroiken (Sep 14, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Then the examples should demonstrate that.



They do in the UA. I agree this needs to be much clearer than they put in the 5E PHB, and a good method would be to refer to them as Example Backgrounds. Putting the customization in a sidebar made it seem like an optional rule, rather than standard.


----------



## Azzy (Sep 14, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> Then the examples should demonstrate that.



How? Putting the clear as day text that's already there in 14 pt bold, italicized, and underline print?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 14, 2022)

They also need to make creating custom backgrounds the default in D&D Beyond, which they are pushing more players to, not fewer. As it is, building anything custom in D&D Beyond is definitely for more advanced users.

I don't think there's even a way to create a custom background on the fly. You'd have to create a custom background as homebrew content, then connect it to your campaign, for it to even show up as an option to choose.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 14, 2022)

Azzy said:


> How? Putting the clear as day text that's already there in 14 pt bold, italicized, and underline print?



Take out the default languages and say "pick a language that makes sense for your character." (Or better yet, stop giving free languages to every background. Not every character needs to have picked up another language pre-adventuring.)


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 14, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> They also need to make creating custom backgrounds the default in D&D Beyond, which they are pushing more players to, not fewer. As it is, building anything custom in D&D Beyond is definitely for more advanced users.
> 
> I don't think there's even a way to create a custom background on the fly. You'd have to create a custom background as homebrew content, then connect it to your campaign, for it to even show up as an option to choose.




This. Well, that and they should also make sure that if you choose to pick a sample one, you should be able to easily swap out any single element. The last thing I'd want is to have to make a whole "custom" _farmer_ just so I can give it a different language proficiency.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Sep 14, 2022)

Cruentus said:


> As mentioned above, and IME, not everyone understands this.  A lot of the complaints about the UA are "Why do farmers speak Halfling?"  Or "That's stupid, why do Gladiators speak Orc?  Is WOTC saying all gladiators are orcs?", etc.  Its reviewers, "influencers", etc. as well.  People don't get that its "optional" and that its supposed to be bespoke.  WOTC will have to do it some other way, or somehow make it crystal clear.
> 
> Again, IME, when its written down, them's the rules, and people will use the "examples" as "this is how they work, and these are valid choices.", which in the UA, they're really not (they're supposed to be examples).



Even as examples, though, they are misleading. 

They should just say choose any standard language for backgrounds, or, better, remove the association of bac kgrounds and language entirely.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Sep 14, 2022)

Azzy said:


> How? Putting the clear as day text that's already there in 14 pt bold, italicized, and underline print?



One as @Whizbang Dustyboots says in the post above but the other should be a initial section where they walk through an example of a character creating a custom background. 
You know sort of like " Bob decided that his character had apprenticed to a village blacksmith and put +2 in Str and +1 in Con, he competed at hammer throwing at the village fair and took proficiency in Athletics and Animal Handling and Prof in Smiths Tools. ..... etc."


----------



## Azzy (Sep 14, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Take out the default languages and say "pick a language that makes sense for your character." (Or better yet, stop giving free languages to every background. Not every character needs to have picked up another language pre-adventuring.)



What's the problem with sample backgrounds having all the options (including language) already filled out—that's their raison d'etre. And how does having a language filled out muddy the clarity that the sample backgrounds are just that—samples?


----------



## Azzy (Sep 14, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> One as @Whizbang Dustyboots says in the post above but the other should be a initial section where they walk through an example of a character creating a custom background.
> You know sort of like " Bob decided that his character had apprenticed to a village blacksmith and put +2 in Str and +1 in Con, he competed at hammer throwing at the village fair and took proficiency in Athletics and Animal Handling and Prof in Smiths Tools. ..... etc."



I guess. But are the people that miss the part that says that you can build your own or customize the sample backgrounds going to miss reading that, too?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 14, 2022)

Azzy said:


> I guess. But are the people that miss the part that says that you can build your own or customize the sample backgrounds going to miss reading that, too?



I think if we conducted a survey of D&D users, we'd find that very few of them use custom backgrounds, even though they've been a choice in the PHB since 2014. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the same thing with the 2024 PHB.


----------



## Azzy (Sep 14, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I think if we conducted a survey of D&D users, we'd find that very few of them use custom backgrounds, even though they've been a choice in the PHB since 2014. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the same thing with the 2024 PHB.



But is that by choice or because of not reading the rules? Is expecting people to not read the rules reasonable?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 14, 2022)

Azzy said:


> But is that by choice or because of not reading the rules? Is expecting people to not read the rules reasonable?



I think we must design the world for the human beings we have, not the human beings we wish them to be.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 14, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Take out the default languages and say "pick a language that makes sense for your character." (Or better yet, stop giving free languages to every background. Not every character needs to have picked up another language pre-adventuring.)



Maybe under language phrase it as "Pick any language (for example Halfling)". So you're got your picked-out option, but it's super-clear that it's just an option.


----------



## Gorck (Sep 14, 2022)

If you write a book and some people don't read it thoroughly, that's on those readers, not the writer.  You can lead a horse to water . . .


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 14, 2022)

MarkB said:


> Maybe under language phrase it as "Pick any language (for example Halfling)". So you're got your picked-out option, but it's super-clear that it's just an option.



I think that's an excellent compromise and doesn't meaningfully impact word count or layout, both of which matter quite a bit.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 14, 2022)

Gorck said:


> If you write a book and some people don't read it thoroughly, that's on those readers, not the writer.



That's a tough sell to corporate masters who want to see year over year growth, not declines or plateauing.


----------



## Gorck (Sep 14, 2022)

We don't exactly have any statistics on this.  How many people create their own custom backgrounds vs. how many use the defaults.  Of those who use the defaults, how many didn't know you could create your own vs. how many found the premades more convenient vs. how many were apathetic.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Sep 14, 2022)

Gorck said:


> We don't exactly have any statistics on this.  How many people create their own custom backgrounds vs. how many use the defaults.  Of those who use the defaults, how many didn't know you could create your own vs. how many found the premades more convenient vs. how many were apathetic.



To be honest I did not know I could make a custom background until I read the UA and compared it to the material in the PHB. Which I probably would not have read it so closely if I did not decide to make a YouTube video on the UA.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 14, 2022)

Gorck said:


> We don't exactly have any statistics on this.  How many people create their own custom backgrounds vs. how many use the defaults.  Of those who use the defaults, how many didn't know you could create your own vs. how many found the premades more convenient vs. how many were apathetic.



Yeah, it's the kind of thing WotC would have to do and even that only goes out to people who opt-in to the survey, who won't be statistically identical to the full universe of D&D players.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 14, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> To be honest I did not know I could make a custom background until I read the UA and compared it to the material in the PHB. Which I probably would not have read it so closely if I did not decide to make a YouTube video on the UA.



Actually reading the UA and the PHB puts you in a very small camp of D&D YouTubers.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Sep 14, 2022)

Gorck said:


> If you write a book and some people don't read it thoroughly, that's on those readers, not the writer.  You can lead a horse to water . . .



So I've worked as a classroom teacher, and like probably everyone whose ever had that job I learned in my first week in an actual classroom that students will almost never read the actual instructions of an assignment, say a worksheet, no matter how clear and strategically bolded they are, if based on the layout of the assignment or some other extrinsic factor they think they already know what they are supposed to do with it. An RPG is different in that they seem to disproportionately appeal to the sort of people who do actually read the rules, and usually the knowledge of commonly overlooked things actually written in those rules gradually filters out to the rest of the community. But otherwise I think the dynamics are basically the same.

Very few people read a book like the PHB word for word. Rules that run counter to common assumptions people make based on the presentation will routinely be overlooked or misunderstood. In a system where you have to choose a race, a class, and background and then there is a section with extensive options for each, and the prior two choices don't have a presumption of being able to create your own custom option, people are naturally going to think they're supposed to pick one of the set options. People are particularly likely to skip sections that seem like boring front matter that are in the way of them reading about all the neat backgrounds.

That being said, since the consequences of people not reading the instructions thoroughly in this instance are just that they have a background that's maybe not as much to their exact tastes as the one they would have invented, I think the accessibility benefits of listing out pre-made backgrounds far outweigh the consequence of a large segment of players thinking they are mandatory.


----------



## NaturalZero (Sep 14, 2022)

I've made more characters than I can count in 5e and I've always used the custom background option. Making that the default really feels, IMO, like the developers catching up with how the game is played, much like the floating ability score modifiers. 

The people that I play with usually swap skills out on the backgrounds, so the idea that people have been actually using them straight out of the book is pretty surprising to me. If they want people to understand that picking feats and skills is the default, they really should just put that text up front as part of the process and list pre-mades explicitly as examples as an afterthought. In the 5e PHB, the custom option is presented as a little side thing that apparently many missed. Just make that the main text and the pre-mades as a sort of side-bar.


----------



## Greg K (Sep 14, 2022)

I think that the background section should also instruct players to talk to the DM before creating a background to ensure it fits the setting.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 14, 2022)

NaturalZero said:


> In the 5e PHB, the custom option is presented as a little side thing that apparently many missed. Just make that the main text and the pre-mades as a sort of side-bar.



The importance of page design in helping readers process information cannot be overstated.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 14, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I think if we conducted a survey of D&D users, we'd find that very few of them use custom backgrounds, even though they've been a choice in the PHB since 2014. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the same thing with the 2024 PHB.



I think part of the problem is that customizing your background reads like an optional rule you’d need to ask your DM about. This is in part because it’s presented after the list of backgrounds, and in part because not all backgrounds are created equal, which makes changing some of the benefits feel like cheating. The UA fixes both of those problems, and so far I haven’t actually heard from anyone who doesn’t understand that custom is default in the UA. I have only heard people saying “well, people are going to treat the examples as the default anyway.”


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 14, 2022)

MarkB said:


> Maybe under language phrase it as "Pick any language (for example Halfling)". So you're got your picked-out option, but it's super-clear that it's just an option.



Are we also going to do that with the tool, the two skills, and the ability score increases? At that point, why write the same thing 18 times instead of once at the beginning?


----------



## Staffan (Sep 14, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Are we also going to do that with the tool, the two skills, and the ability score increases? At that point, why write the same thing 18 times instead of once at the beginning?



Because tools and skills are more clearly associated with the background. I don't have the file available right now, but no-one is going to object to a Farmer background giving you proficiency in Animal Handling, Nature, and Farmer's tools – that's perfectly reasonable. But then adding "halfling language" because "many farmer's almanacs are written in halfling" seems like a Big Stretch. Most of the other background languages had similarly dubious justifications.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Sep 14, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> So I've worked as a classroom teacher, and like probably everyone whose ever had that job I learned in my first week in an actual classroom that students will almost never read the actual instructions of an assignment, say a worksheet, no matter how clear and strategically bolded they are, if based on the layout of the assignment or some other extrinsic factor they think they already know what they are supposed to do with it. An RPG is different in that they seem to disproportionately appeal to the sort of people who do actually read the rules, and usually the knowledge of commonly overlooked things actually written in those rules gradually filters out to the rest of the community. But otherwise I think the dynamics are basically the same.
> 
> Very few people read a book like the PHB word for word. Rules that run counter to common assumptions people make based on the presentation will routinely be overlooked or misunderstood. In a system where you have to choose a race, a class, and background and then there is a section with extensive options for each, and the prior two choices don't have a presumption of being able to create your own custom option, people are naturally going to think they're supposed to pick one of the set options. People are particularly likely to skip sections that seem like boring front matter that are in the way of them reading about all the neat backgrounds.
> 
> That being said, since the consequences of people not reading the instructions thoroughly in this instance are just that they have a background that's maybe not as much to their exact tastes as the one they would have invented, I think the accessibility benefits of listing out pre-made backgrounds far outweigh the consequence of a large segment of players thinking they are mandatory.



For proof, watch the Critical role Vox Machina live play, 100 episodes in they are still getting rules wrong. Although in some cases I never could decide if Matt was getting the rule wrong or implementing a house rule.


----------



## Gorck (Sep 14, 2022)

Something about creating custom backgrounds as the default method just doesn’t sit right with me.  Life is about trade-offs.  One background might have something you really want, but also something you don’t want.  Another background might get rid of the thing you didn’t want from the first background, but doesn’t have the thing you did want.  This makes for a significant decision point for the player: which option is more important for my character.

I understand sometimes a player might have a specific design in mind for their character, but there isn’t an existing background that fits the theme.  That’s a perfectly valid reason for creating a custom background.  But when people are just cherry-picking all the items that they want every time they create a new character, there’s no longer a give-and-take; it all becomes just take.  You can’t always get everything you want; sometimes you need to make compromises.  But when you CAN get everything you want, that cheapens the decision-making process and renders each choice less meaningful.


----------



## Amrûnril (Sep 14, 2022)

Gorck said:


> Something about creating custom backgrounds as the default method just doesn’t sit right with me.  Life is about trade-offs.  One background might have something you really want, but also something you don’t want.  Another background might get rid of the thing you didn’t want from the first background, but doesn’t have the thing you did want.  This makes for a significant decision point for the player: which option is more important for my character.
> 
> I understand sometimes a player might have a specific design in mind for their character, but there isn’t an existing background that fits the theme.  That’s a perfectly valid reason for creating a custom background.  But when people are just cherry-picking all the items that they want every time they create a new character, there’s no longer a give-and-take; it all becomes just take.  You can’t always get everything you want; sometimes you need to make compromises.  But when you CAN get everything you want, that cheapens the decision-making process and renders each choice less meaningful.




But each of the elements is a trade-off in and of itself. Do you want your character to be proficient in Stealth or in Perception? Do you want to increase their Dexterity or their Constitution? Should they speak Dwarvish or Halfling? Those choices are more interesting if you can consider them in their own right rather than being limited to predetermined (and somewhat arbitrary) combinations.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 14, 2022)

While I love the idea of the background features giving concrete meat to the backgrounds, basically none of them did anything... except for Outlander's Wanderer, which went the other way and removed half the reason to have Survival as a skill at all. Which is not exactly better.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 14, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> While I love the idea of the background features giving concrete meat to the backgrounds, basically none of them did anything... except for Outlander's Wanderer, which went the other way and removed half the reason to have Survival as a skill at all. Which is not exactly better.



Yeah, Outlander is the "you already have these proficiencies, so pick whatever you want" background for druids and rangers I DM for.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 14, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Yeah, Outlander is the "you already have these proficiencies, so pick whatever you want" background for druids and rangers I DM for.



Yeah, this is the other half of it. Something like it existing easily lessens the variety in backgrounds (and not every campaign is run with custom backgrounds).


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 14, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Yeah, Outlander is the "you already have these proficiencies, so pick whatever you want" background for druids and rangers I DM for.



Which is funny because you can pick whatever you want with any background anyway.


----------



## Malmuria (Sep 14, 2022)

The "this is your life" section from Xanathar's is excellent for this kind of thing.  In fact, I think background creation should be part of a Session 0 _procedure_ that the whole group follows.  Backgrounds should be part of a discussion on the setting and themes for the campaign and the preferences and goals of the players.  The example backgrounds shouldn't be expressed as individual "packages" that you can pick up, but rather take the reader through how to express your idea for a character into 5.5's mechanical terms, in coordination with your dm and everyone else at the table.


----------



## Kannik (Sep 15, 2022)

I noted in the survey that a "wilderness"-type background was missing (which was surprising to me, given how common of a trope it is in fantasy games and fiction).  

But I also noted/asked them not to remove the riders from backgrounds as well.  Even if the potential reason to remove them is that some groups (many?) forget they exist I recommended they keep them as they help drive RP and the narrative, and as such they are used often in our group to good and flavorful effect.  Fingers crossed they add it back in...


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 15, 2022)

Gorck said:


> Something about creating custom backgrounds as the default method just doesn’t sit right with me.  Life is about trade-offs.  One background might have something you really want, but also something you don’t want.  Another background might get rid of the thing you didn’t want from the first background, but doesn’t have the thing you did want.  This makes for a significant decision point for the player: which option is more important for my character.
> 
> I understand sometimes a player might have a specific design in mind for their character, but there isn’t an existing background that fits the theme.  That’s a perfectly valid reason for creating a custom background.  But when people are just cherry-picking all the items that they want every time they create a new character, there’s no longer a give-and-take; it all becomes just take.  You can’t always get everything you want; sometimes you need to make compromises.  But when you CAN get everything you want, that cheapens the decision-making process and renders each choice less meaningful.



I agree, but I rarely see a player that will accept a down side to any character decision they make if they don't have to.  All but one of my players flocked to the Tasha's ASI changes, for example,  and it wasn't because they wanted to play a half-orc sorcerer with a 16 CHA.


----------



## Eltab (Sep 18, 2022)

Adventurers League figured out in short order how to mix-and-match the component parts of a Background.  There is even a thread on optimising the choices to get extra GP.

If customised backgrounds are to be the norm, create two dozen that each express a common RPG character, and attach the AL instructions.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 19, 2022)

I've always hated how in D&D Beyond, they make you either pick a background, or create your own from scratch. They don't make it easy to pick a background and then just change a single element (like a language, tool, or even a skill). 

This is basic functionality that I hope they remember to implement when they put in whatever final form 1D&D looks like.


----------



## edosan (Sep 19, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> I am really sorry that they appear to be getting away from the background features. They didn't come into play often, but their existence meant that backgrounds contributed something to your character you couldn't get through class or race.
> 
> I thought that was brilliant, and that it really worked to individuate a first-level character (a soldier cleric _felt_ very different from a noble cleric or a criminal cleric); it was a wonderful access into roleplaying, I felt, which they appear to be losing.



This is what I’m going to miss out of backgrounds - the old background abilities were way more interesting and flavorful than UA’s “add two points to one ability score and one to another, then pick up a language and feat, like you do with every other background.” If you can customize every background it almost makes you wonder why bother having a background at all.


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 19, 2022)

Farmer replaces Folk Hero, and Guide replaces Outlander.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 19, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Are we also going to do that with the tool, the two skills, and the ability score increases? At that point, why write the same thing 18 times instead of once at the beginning?



This is the problem with the precon backgrounds: no matter how you parse it, people will assume the precon = only way to do something and complain. Why are all gladiators strong? My gladiator is tough or agile. He favors acrobatics and intimidation. He uses a disguise kit instead of smith's tools. He speaks the true language of violence: Gnome. But some people will read that and say according to WotC, that's "not a gladiator". People get hung up on that title but more importantly, they get hung up on that stat block under it.

My suggestion then would be to remove the default ASI, skills and proficiencies and just keep the flavor text "as is". Gladiator doesn't define what options you pick, it gives you a little story and the player picks the abilities that realize it. You get 18 little origin stories, the player decides how that looks mechanically.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 19, 2022)

Kobold Stew said:


> I am really sorry that they appear to be getting away from the background features. They didn't come into play often, but their existence meant that backgrounds contributed something to your character you couldn't get through class or race.
> 
> I thought that was brilliant, and that it really worked to individuate a first-level character (a soldier cleric _felt_ very different from a noble cleric or a criminal cleric); it was a wonderful access into roleplaying, I felt, which they appear to be losing.



Agree completely. 

I never saw a background after the PHB ones have the same vibe. They clearly represented a character's role in the world or society, be it a profession or "how you earn your living" in more general terms (including stealing, begging or hunting/harvesting).

Then despite the very clear original concept, people got confused with the idea of "cultural" background and started wondering why Barbarian is a class and not a background...


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 19, 2022)

edosan said:


> This is what I’m going to miss out of backgrounds - the old background abilities were way more interesting and flavorful than UA’s “add two points to one ability score and one to another, then pick up a language and feat, like you do with every other background.”




I don't really agree. For all their flowery language, all the 2014 background features boiled down to "Hey, DMs: Remember to have NPCs treat the PCs like they are the people who the background says they are". You could accomplish the same by just saying _that_ in the DMG. (You know, assuming people read it).



edosan said:


> If you can customize every background it almost makes you wonder why bother having a background at all.



You could customize every background before. That part isn't new.



Remathilis said:


> This is the problem with the precon backgrounds: no matter how you parse it, people will assume the precon = only way to do something and complain.



Do we really have to make the rules worse because people who didn't read them will complain about things that they do or don't say? What a world we live in.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 19, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I've always hated how in D&D Beyond, they make you either pick a background, or create your own from scratch. They don't make it easy to pick a background and then just change a single element (like a language, tool, or even a skill).
> 
> This is basic functionality that I hope they remember to implement when they put in whatever final form 1D&D looks like.



There's a bunch of "easy" stuff they haven't done, presumably due to manpower issues. Now that WotC owns them, hopefully they will staff up more. I've been waiting for sidekick classes to be available in the main engine since Tasha's came out. (Building a sidekick from scratch and then manually adding it to an obscure field in the character sheet doesn't exactly make managing sidekicks easy and intuitive.)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 19, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Do we really have to make the rules worse because people who didn't read them will complain about things that they do or don't say? What a world we live in.



You live in a world where you'll get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, where ladder manufacturers have to put a sticker on the top rung of a ladder telling people to not stand there and where maintenance staff has to put out yellow signage warning that a wet floor is a bad place to be walking so people don't bust their heads.

The world has to be designed for regular people, not ideal ones.

If 1D&D was a fantasy heartbreaker someone was publishing on DriveThruRPG, sure, they could design it the way you suggest, but Hasbro wants D&D to be unbelievably mainstream and is hoping to have every household in America own a PHB. You bet they're going to try and make it as user-friendly as possible.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 19, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> You live in a world where you'll get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, where ladder manufacturers have to put a sticker on the top rung of a ladder telling people to not stand there and where maintenance staff has to put out yellow signage warning that a wet floor is a bad place to be walking so people don't bust their heads.
> 
> The world has to be designed for regular people, not ideal ones.
> 
> If 1D&D was a fantasy heartbreaker someone was publishing on DriveThruRPG, sure, they could design it the way you suggest, but Hasbro wants D&D to be unbelievably mainstream and is hoping to have every household in America own a PHB. You bet they're going to try and make it as user-friendly as possible.



I'm not against user friendly - I'm absolutely for it! I think there are many, _many_ ways that user-friendliness could be improved for D&D.

"You can customize any part of this background you like"

"No we can't, because you gave us _examples_!"

Is not that. It's stubborn, willful ignorance. 

Don't get me wrong. The part about customization will obviously need to be highlighted with arrows pointing at it or something, based on the comments here. But we don't need to do away with examples (or hide them, or make them worthless as quick-picks by making them all say "choose any" under each heading).


----------



## Parmandur (Sep 19, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I don't really agree. For all their flowery language, all the 2014 background features boiled down to "Hey, DMs: Remember to have NPCs treat the PCs like they are the people who the background says they are". You could accomplish the same by just saying _that_ in the DMG. (You know, assuming people read it).
> 
> 
> You could customize every background before. That part isn't new.
> ...



Yes, the roleplay bits are easy to keep up with...roleplaying.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 19, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> I'm not against user friendly - I'm absolutely for it! I think there are many, _many_ ways that user-friendliness could be improved for D&D.
> 
> "You can customize any part of this background you like"
> 
> ...



As a wise boss once said to me: "think about how smart the average person is. Then think about how 50% of them are dumber than that."

Even as far as the 2014 style backgrounds are, people assumed they were set in stone and would say things like don't t take criminal as a rogue because it gave thieves tools and you already get them as a rogue. The idea that backgrounds were customizable was lost, so much so many of them gave choices (pick two skills from list) rather than defined suggestions.

I just think any attempt to make them prescriptive is probably going to blow up in their face based on the initial response from the playtest packet. Better to remove the headache now.


----------



## shadowoflameth (Sep 19, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I haven't seen any discussion on the 2014 PHB backgrounds that _aren't_ in the Character Origins UA:
> 
> Folk Hero
> Outlander
> ...



If creating  a custom background is allowed, then you can still use these if you want. I personally wonder about having all backgrounds include a feat or a language. I don't think this is really needed especially with feats being an optional rule. I'd like to see background x includes a feat, or +1 ASI and a skill or language.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 19, 2022)

I think the UA is signalling that feats aren't going to be optional in 2024.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 19, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> This is the problem with the precon backgrounds: no matter how you parse it, people will assume the precon = only way to do something and complain.



I don’t think that’s actually true. I have experienced a lot of people who have this concern, and no people who _actually_ assume that the defaults are the only option. I’m sure _some_ people may make that assumption, but for those people it will be a simple enough matter to point out to them that this isn’t the case.


Remathilis said:


> Why are all gladiators strong? My gladiator is tough or agile. He favors acrobatics and intimidation. He uses a disguise kit instead of smith's tools. He speaks the true language of violence: Gnome.



And that’s 100% valid according to these rules.


Remathilis said:


> But some people will read that and say according to WotC, that's "not a gladiator". People get hung up on that title but more importantly, they get hung up on that stat block under it.



Those people are factually incorrect, and it is a trivial matter to point out the text that says so.


Remathilis said:


> My suggestion then would be to remove the default ASI, skills and proficiencies and just keep the flavor text "as is". Gladiator doesn't define what options you pick, it gives you a little story and the player picks the abilities that realize it. You get 18 little origin stories, the player decides how that looks mechanically.



But this leaves people having to make ten choices instead of being able to make between one and ten choices. The purpose of having the default options is so that people have the ability to take a pre-made package if they don’t want to make all those individual choices. It’s exactly the same concept as taking a starting equipment package instead of spending starting gold - another thing no one mistakes for being mandatory.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 19, 2022)

shadowoflameth said:


> If creating  a custom background is allowed, then you can still use these if you want. I personally wonder about having all backgrounds include a feat or a language. I don't think this is really needed especially with feats being an optional rule. I'd like to see background x includes a feat, or +1 ASI and a skill or language.



I don’t think feats are going to be optional any more.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 19, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> You live in a world where you'll get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt, where ladder manufacturers have to put a sticker on the top rung of a ladder telling people to not stand there and where maintenance staff has to put out yellow signage warning that a wet floor is a bad place to be walking so people don't bust their heads.
> 
> The world has to be designed for regular people, not ideal ones.
> 
> If 1D&D was a fantasy heartbreaker someone was publishing on DriveThruRPG, sure, they could design it the way you suggest, but Hasbro wants D&D to be unbelievably mainstream and is hoping to have every household in America own a PHB. You bet they're going to try and make it as user-friendly as possible.



Actually, I'm pretty sure all the things you mentioned are to avoid lawsuits, not safety.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 19, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think that’s actually true. I have experienced a lot of people who have this concern, and no people who _actually_ assume that the defaults are the only option. I’m sure _some_ people may make that assumption, but for those people it will be a simple enough matter to point out to them that this isn’t the case.
> 
> And that’s 100% valid according to these rules.
> 
> ...



If it's so easy to point out where someone is incorrect, then why are we still having this issue?


----------



## TwiceBorn2 (Sep 19, 2022)

Greg K said:


> I think that the background section should also instruct players to talk to the DM before creating a background to ensure it fits the setting.



Same should go for language options, especially since many campaigns (whether homebrewed or published) include languages not mentioned in the PHB. Both standard and rare language options in the PHB should include a bullet along the lines of "other language appropriate to the campaign (consult with your DM)", or something along those lines.

EDIT: I also hate that all PCs are considered literate in every language they speak, but I'm not going to die on that hill.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 19, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think that’s actually true. I have experienced a lot of people who have this concern, and no people who _actually_ assume that the defaults are the only option. I’m sure _some_ people may make that assumption, but for those people it will be a simple enough matter to point out to them that this isn’t the case.
> 
> And that’s 100% valid according to these rules.
> 
> ...



Well, there is an equipment list (and chapter) in the PH.  There's nothing marked as "background element list, please choose five".


----------



## Horwath (Sep 20, 2022)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I think the UA is signalling that feats aren't going to be optional in 2024.



They never should have been optional.

Now they have no excuse to not balance them vs. +2 to your primary score.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 20, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> If it's so easy to point out where someone is incorrect, then why are we still having this issue?



Again, I’m not seeing the issue. Everyone is concerned about hypothetical players who might think the examples aren the only options, but no one seems to _actually think that_.


----------



## shadowoflameth (Sep 20, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I don’t think feats are going to be optional any more.



Then it's a problem with backward compatibility. I like feats but not every game uses them. Certainly every background doesn't need a feat or a language.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 20, 2022)

shadowoflameth said:


> Then it's a problem with backward compatibility. I like feats but not every game uses them. Certainly every background doesn't need a feat or a language.



No need to tie feats to background, just have a character gain a feat at 1st level.

simple.

if you really do not want to play with feats, just have an option to take +2 ASI with condition that ASI cannot stack with racial bonus over +2.
that means that racial ASIs with +2 "I dont like feats ASI" will be something out of:
+2,+2,+1
+2,+1,+1,+1
+1,+1,+1,+1,+1


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 20, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Again, I’m not seeing the issue. Everyone is concerned about hypothetical players who might think the examples aren the only options, but no one seems to _actually think that_.



The whole kerfuffle started when people pointed out that the backgrounds in the playtest were using some of the same bias (intended or not) that racial cultures did. Gladiator (with its strength boost, orc language and SAVAGE attacker feat) was viewed as WotC saying gladiators in D&D were associated with orcs and savagery, and that just is the old orc lore with extra steps. There were threads on Enworld pointing this out, lest you think this was just a Twitter outrage. People literally read it and thought "why do all gladiators speak orc? Why do all farmers speak halfling?" And a few wondered why all criminals are dexterous or nobles charismatic. In short, people read it as "this is what a gladiator/farmer/noble is" rather than "this is what they could be". 

The question is whether having these prepackaged bundles few people beyond be players are going to use is worth the chance that a background is viewed as restricting or even problematic. I want to trust WotC can thread that needle, but I've seen how WotC has made some unforced errors and how quickly people were willing to jump on the gladiator thing as yet another example of that. IMHO, the limited value of the premade bundles isn't worth the headache of people analyzing them as world building. There is no language you slot into gladiator that doesn't paint the race as violent, and having "choose x" is a waste of space. 

So yeah, people will make that mistake because they already have. And it immediately became a minor tempest in a teapot. And the fixes are to make the system more complicated or redundant. So maybe the best move is to abandon the presets or reword them closer to the quick builds in the class section (a paragraph full of plain language suggestions). But the current format is ripe for misunderstanding.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 20, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> The whole kerfuffle started when people pointed out that the backgrounds in the playtest were using some of the same bias (intended or not) that racial cultures did. Gladiator (with its strength boost, orc language and SAVAGE attacker feat) was viewed as WotC saying gladiators in D&D were associated with orcs and savagery, and that just is the old orc lore with extra steps. There were threads on Enworld pointing this out, lest you think this was just a Twitter outrage. People literally read it and thought "why do all gladiators speak orc? Why do all farmers speak halfling?" And a few wondered why all criminals are dexterous or nobles charismatic. In short, people read it as "this is what a gladiator/farmer/noble is" rather than "this is what they could be".
> 
> The question is whether having these prepackaged bundles few people beyond be players are going to use is worth the chance that a background is viewed as restricting or even problematic. I want to trust WotC can thread that needle, but I've seen how WotC has made some unforced errors and how quickly people were willing to jump on the gladiator thing as yet another example of that. IMHO, the limited value of the premade bundles isn't worth the headache of people analyzing them as world building. There is no language you slot into gladiator that doesn't paint the race as violent, and having "choose x" is a waste of space.
> 
> So yeah, people will make that mistake because they already have. And it immediately became a minor tempest in a teapot. And the fixes are to make the system more complicated or redundant. So maybe the best move is to abandon the presets or reword them closer to the quick builds in the class section (a paragraph full of plain language suggestions). But the current format is ripe for misunderstanding.



It started because WotC are again writing things backwards.


Backgrounds should be presented 1st as:

1. Pick +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 for your ASIs
2. Pick any 2 skills
3. Pick any feat
4. Pick your choice of 2 or 3 languages, tools or weapons

Then, and only then you could write some EXAMPLES of backgrounds for new people that might not want to create their own or for maybe general guidance what might show up in certain backgrounds.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 20, 2022)

Horwath said:


> It started because WotC are again writing things backwards.
> 
> 
> Backgrounds should be presented 1st as:
> ...



I expect WotC feels presenting four decision points at the beginning of a section will scare off all those precious new players they're courting.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 20, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I expect WotC feels presenting four decision points at the beginning of a section will scare off all those precious new players they're courting.



if examples start on the same page in next paragraph, that should not be a problem.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 20, 2022)

Horwath said:


> It started because WotC are again writing things backwards.
> 
> 
> Backgrounds should be presented 1st as:
> ...



But that's the thing: THEY DID!

The first section of backgrounds is the DIY method. It explains the ASI, skills, tool, language and feat choices along with 50gp of gear. It's the first thing in the background section, and people still missed it because the eye moves to lists and people started looking at the various lists and skipped how that is just a suggestion. My thought is as long as they list those suggestions in the same visual format as racial traits, it's going to be viewed as a hard rule rather than a suggestion. 

My suggestion would be to omit the list format for a paragraph, akin to the quick builds: 

"To play a gladiator, put a high score in strength, dexterity or constitution, with a second in charisma. Take skills like athletics, intimidation or performance, and take a tool like blacksmithing or a musical instrument. Consider a language for a race known for its warriors like orc, dwarf or draconic, and consider the savage attacker feat to show your battle prowess."

In one paragraph, you have given a few options and suggestions without nailing them down to a specific example or saying "choose one" without guidance.


----------



## Gorck (Sep 20, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> I expect WotC feels presenting four decision points at the beginning of a section will scare off all those precious new players they're courting.



I think what would scare off new players is the overwhelmingness of having to create your own Background.  Having preset examples helps ease new players into the game and gets them started.  Then when they have a little experience under their belts, they can try their hands at expressing their creativity by building their own Background.

I currently DM for two 10-year-olds.  I practically had to coerce them into picking Backgrounds for their current characters because they didn't know how beneficial getting extra Skills, Tool Proficiencies, and Equipment actually was.  Neither one even chose BIFTs because when I asked them what they wanted for their characters, they just shrugged and said, "I don't know."  All they wanted to do was jump right in and start playing ASAP.  I know that's just a problem with my group, but I'm sure there are other people out there in my predicament.  Not every group involves seasoned veterans who are familiar with every aspect of the game (or of similar TTRPGs in general).


----------



## dave2008 (Sep 20, 2022)

MarkB said:


> I want most of them gone. Write one or two as "how to" illustrations if they must, but ditch the rest so that players stop treating the illustrative examples as proscriptive defaults.



Can't agree with you there. My players don't want to create a background. They just want to pick one and go.  So, for my players, I hope they keep backgrounds in '24.


----------



## dave2008 (Sep 20, 2022)

Horwath said:


> It started because WotC are again writing things backwards.
> 
> 
> Backgrounds should be presented 1st as:
> ...



What? That is exactly what they did in the UA. They presented the default as make your own. The examples were just examples. Did you read the UA?


----------



## Horwath (Sep 20, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> What? That is exactly what they did in the UA. They presented the default as make your own. The examples were just examples. Did you read the UA?
> 
> View attachment 261854



Guess I mixed up bullet points, hahaha.

Well, guess that they had to write that "sample" backgrounds are just examples and in no way mandatory. Some thing have be made very clear for some people 
Still, I don't know why some people complained why some samples are written that way.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 20, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> Can't agree with you there. My players don't want to create a background. They just want to pick one and go.  So, for my players, I hope they keep backgrounds in '24.



Which part don't they want to do? They don't want to pick the ability score increases that best match their chosen class? They don't want any say in what languages their character knows? They want to have their first-level feat chosen for them sight-unseen? Or they don't care what proficiencies they have?

Because aside from that stuff, all that's there is a paragraph saying "this is what I do when I'm not out adventuring."


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 20, 2022)

Exactly. If your players don't care what their stats/skills/feats are, DnD is the completely wrong system for them. It's stupidly full of minutia.


----------



## MarkB (Sep 20, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Guess I mixed up bullet points, hahaha.
> 
> Well, guess that they had to write that "sample" backgrounds are just examples and in no way mandatory. Some thing have be made very clear for some people
> Still, I don't know why some people complained why some samples are written that way.



I'm thinking maybe they just have to break it into two chapters rather than just two sections in the same chapter. First chapter "Backgrounds"  which only details how to custom-build backgrounds. Second chapter "Example Backgrounds" which starts with an explanation that these are only examples and can be customised to suit, then has the examples. Hard to say what else they can do to make it clear.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 20, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Exactly. If your players don't care what their stats/skills/feats are, DnD is the completely wrong system for them. It's stupidly full of minutia.



5E is very middle of the road for crunch levels.

And D&D can be the right system for someone if it's the only game their friends play.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 20, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> Exactly. If your players don't care what their stats/skills/feats are, DnD is the completely wrong system for them. It's stupidly full of minutia.



Everyone plays 5e (for an accepted value of everyone).  Telling people to play something else in this day and age will not work.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 20, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> The whole kerfuffle started when people pointed out that the backgrounds in the playtest were using some of the same bias (intended or not) that racial cultures did. Gladiator (with its strength boost, orc language and SAVAGE attacker feat) was viewed as WotC saying gladiators in D&D were associated with orcs and savagery, and that just is the old orc lore with extra steps. There were threads on Enworld pointing this out, lest you think this was just a Twitter outrage. People literally read it and thought "why do all gladiators speak orc? Why do all farmers speak halfling?" And a few wondered why all criminals are dexterous or nobles charismatic. In short, people read it as "this is what a gladiator/farmer/noble is" rather than "this is what they could be".



And then people pointed out that it doesn’t actually work like that, and those silly arguments have stopped.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 20, 2022)

Horwath said:


> It started because WotC are again writing things backwards.
> 
> 
> Backgrounds should be presented 1st as:
> ...



That is literally how they are presented (well, except that it’s pick 1 language and 1 tool instead of 2 or 3 languages tools or weapons). And also 50 gp worth of equipment and/or coinage.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 20, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> And then people pointed out that it doesn’t actually work like that, and those silly arguments have stopped.



You have far more faith than I do. If the kinds of people in tune enough to find and read the playtest doc got it wrong, I have little hope for newer and casual players.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 20, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> You have far more faith than I do. If the kinds of people in tune enough to find and read the playtest doc got it wrong, I have little hope for newer and casual players.



Again, if I was seeing widespread misunderstanding of how it works, I might be concerned. I saw a little bit of that as the knee-jerk reaction when the UA first dropped, and when it was pointed out, the same people shifted to saying “well, other people are going to misunderstand it.” And I just don’t really see that. Again, some people might, but it is a simple matter to point out the actual text to them, just like we did with the initial wave of misunderstanding.


----------



## dave2008 (Sep 20, 2022)

MarkB said:


> Which part don't they want to do? They don't want to pick the ability score increases that best match their chosen class? They don't want any say in what languages their character knows? They want to have their first-level feat chosen for them sight-unseen? Or they don't care what proficiencies they have?



Yes to all of that.  They simply don't want to think about it. They want to pick a theme,* at most, and that is it.

*Such as "soldier," etc.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 20, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> Yes to all of that. They simply don't want to think about it. They want to pick a theme,* at most, and that is it.
> 
> *Such as "soldier," etc.



I wonder how many will pick options that aren't aligned with their class, such as a soldier wizard with a +2 Str. It will be race/class combos all over again. 

At least this time the PHB has the "but I want to put the +2 in Int" option covered.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 20, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> I wonder how many will pick options that aren't aligned with their class, such as a soldier wizard with a +2 Str. It will be race/class combos all over again.



I'm not sure it matters.

The folks who want to min-max their characters for the best stats possible will do so under any system. Many of them wouldn't care about roleplay anyway and those that do will roleplay even the crazier combos.

Conversely, the folks for whom roleplay is their primary focus will pick crazy combos, but usually _because_ of the friction between them. My 78 year old dad plays a pirate bard and it's been a lot of fun leveraging both sides of the character.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 20, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Again, if I was seeing widespread misunderstanding of how it works, I might be concerned. I saw a little bit of that as the knee-jerk reaction when the UA first dropped, and when it was pointed out, the same people shifted to saying “well, other people are going to misunderstand it.” And I just don’t really see that. Again, some people might, but it is a simple matter to point out the actual text to them, just like we did with the initial wave of misunderstanding.




There _does_ seem to be a lot of people who understand it claiming that other people are not going to understand it. Even to the point of asking for it to be changed or removed because of a misunderstanding that, while it can happen, doesn't seem to be too hard to correct by pointing to the part that says you can make your own.


----------



## dave2008 (Sep 20, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> I wonder how many will pick options that aren't aligned with their class, such as a soldier wizard with a +2 Str. It will be race/class combos all over again.



I can only speak for my group, but it has varied from person to person IIRC.  I don't remember their backgrounds off the top of my head so I will have to check when I get a chance.


Remathilis said:


> At least this time the PHB has the "but I want to put the +2 in Int" option covered.



I am glad the are going to have all of the customizability, but I just know it is not for my players and that is absolutely OK.


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 20, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> As a wise boss once said to me: "think about how smart the average person is. Then think about how 50% of them are dumber than that."



I'd say this is a deepity rather than actual wisdom. Even if you could measure intelligence with enough precision to allow you to determine the one person who is the median, there would be HUGE numbers of people on either side of the median that are so close to the median in intelligence that it would make no difference at all. You would never be able to determine that they were any more or less intelligent than the median on a day-to-day, because the difference would be so tiny. So in reality there would be some significant proportion of people who for all intents and purposes are as smart as the average person, leaving far less than 50% to be less intelligence than that.

That, plus the fact that you can just as easily say there are 50% of people who are smarter than the median as well, thus making the exact opposite point using the same assumption, renders the whole thing rather meaningless. Especially in the context of game rules written in a book. Who is more likely to pick up a book to play a game from it, someone of below-average intelligence, or above-average?


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 21, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> There _does_ seem to be a lot of people who understand it claiming that other people are not going to understand it. Even to the point of asking for it to be changed or removed because of a misunderstanding that, while it can happen, doesn't seem to be too hard to correct by pointing to the part that says you can make your own.



Exactly. Will this be misunderstood sometimes? Of course. But I don’t think that’s a reason to throw out the design, especially when the misunderstanding is trivially easy to correct.


----------



## Gorck (Sep 21, 2022)

Fifth Element said:


> I'd say this is a deepity rather than actual wisdom. Even if you could measure intelligence with enough precision to allow you to determine the one person who is the median, there would be HUGE numbers of people on either side of the median that are so close to the median in intelligence that it would make no difference at all. You would never be able to determine that they were any more or less intelligent than the median on a day-to-day, because the difference would be so tiny. So in reality there would be some significant proportion of people who for all intents and purposes are as smart as the average person, leaving far less than 50% to be less intelligence than that.
> 
> That, plus the fact that you can just as easily say there are 50% of people who are smarter than the median as well, thus making the exact opposite point using the same assumption, renders the whole thing rather meaningless. Especially in the context of game rules written in a book. Who is more likely to pick up a book to play a game from it, someone of below-average intelligence, or above-average?



Wow, you put way too much thought and analysis into a simple George Carlin joke.


----------



## shadowoflameth (Sep 21, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> Can't agree with you there. My players don't want to create a background. They just want to pick one and go.  So, for my players, I hope they keep backgrounds in '24.



Agree. Whatever they do for the final formula, I'd like to see: here are completed backgrounds and if you want to make your own, here's what you get in one.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 22, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> I very much prefer creating my own backgrounds (the rules are right there in the Player's Handbook).  Four of the last five characters I've played had custom backgrounds: Town Guard, Vampire Hunter, Whaler, and Tunnel Engineer.  The one time I played a textbook background, it wasn't by choice: our DM told us that all characters had to have the Soldier background.
> 
> Do folks not write their own backgrounds?  For me, it's a big part of the fun of character creation.



When I DM my players are about 50/50 on make there own or take one that fits... I once made everyone have to pick one and 2 players HATED it... I told them they could swap a skill and/or language out and that didn't help.

I almost always take a background, and make little mods.


----------



## Gorck (Sep 22, 2022)

So far, in all my 5e campaigns, every player has chosen a premade background.  Not one single player has made up their own background.  I don't forbid it or anything, that's just how it's worked out so far.

Something about making your own background seems a little to much like "having your cake and eating it too."  I've mentioned it in another thread, but I like there to be a little give-and-take in character creation; a little compromise between what we want and what we can live without.  I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a lot of players will make their own background giving them proficiency in Perception & Stealth and the Lucky feat.


----------



## Azzy (Sep 22, 2022)

Gorck said:


> Something about making your own background seems a little to much like "having your cake and eating it too."  I've mentioned it in another thread, but I like there to be a little give-and-take in character creation; a little compromise between what we want and what we can live without.



Why? Choosing the "right" combinations is extremely metagamey and as opposed to simply choosing options that match with a player-designed concept.


----------



## Gorck (Sep 22, 2022)

Azzy said:


> Why? Choosing the "right" combinations is extremely metagamey and as opposed to simply choosing options that match with a player-designed concept.



Because getting everything you want is boring and having to make difficult decisions makes those choices much more meaningful and intriguing.  There's a reason that BIFT contains the "F" - nobody is perfect.  There's a reason 3e used to have ASIs of +2/-1 instead of all plusses.


----------



## shadowoflameth (Sep 22, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> What? That is exactly what they did in the UA. They presented the default as make your own. The examples were just examples. Did you read the UA?
> 
> View attachment 261854
> View attachment 261855
> ...



I like this except that even though I play with feats, not everyone does. For backward compatibility, I recommend, 'If your game uses feats, choose one 1st level feat or alternatively, a one point increase to an ability that has not been increased by your lineage or one skill or tool proficiency, and one language. I don't think that every background needs a language or a feat to be a valid choice, and if everyone gets a 1st level feat, what will the variant human get?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Sep 22, 2022)

Azzy said:


> Why? Choosing the "right" combinations is extremely metagamey and as opposed to simply choosing options that match with a player-designed concept.





Gorck said:


> Because getting everything you want is boring and having to make difficult decisions makes those choices much more meaningful and intriguing.  There's a reason that BIFT contains the "F" - nobody is perfect.  There's a reason 3e used to have ASIs of +2/-1 instead of all plusses.



This is a play style issue. Neither is a "correct" answer.

In my games (about 15 players overall, with some players only in one game, others in multiple), I have only one player who's interested in customized backgrounds, but they're also interested in customizing everything and are very focused on the math. Everyone else strongly prefers pre-fab options, even if they are otherwise high-crunch and high-customization type players (several of them are Pathfinder 1.0 players and DMs as well).


----------



## Azzy (Sep 22, 2022)

Gorck said:


> Because getting everything you want is boring and having to make difficult decisions makes those choices much more meaningful and intriguing.



You're of the misconception that creating a character to concept is boring or doesn't include difficult decisions just because you don't have to fight the system. That's a false dichotomy. You can absolutely create meaningful and interesting character concepts without metagamey limitations—this happens in other RPGs (and novels) all the time.



Gorck said:


> There's a reason that BIFT contains the "F" - nobody is perfect.  There's a reason 3e used to have ASIs of +2/-1 instead of all plusses.



With experience with other, non-D&D RPGS, I can safely say that no one requires the mechanics to impose artificial restrictions to create flawed or otherwise interesting characters—we just build that as part of the concept (just like the F, along with the others in the BIFT) is a roleplaying consideration, not a mechanical limitation.


----------



## demonsquidgod (Sep 24, 2022)

I'm the lone person who didn't like the "RP focused" background abilities. I felt like they actually detracted from or negated otherwise interesting role-playing opportunities. If you're a sailor you could certainly try to use that background as justification that you could find allies or friends around a port, but you'd likely still need to play it out. There might be complications, like rivals, old debts, or perhaps the you're at a far flung port with different social and cultural rules. With the old backgrounds it just says that it happens and that kind of interesting stuff is transformed into the DM negating a clearly stated PC ability. I don't like published backgrounds dictating world building to us unless it's part of an existing setting.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Sep 24, 2022)

demonsquidgod said:


> I'm the lone person who didn't like the "RP focused" background abilities. I felt like they actually detracted from or negated otherwise interesting role-playing opportunities. If you're a sailor you could certainly try to use that background as justification that you could find allies or friends around a port, but you'd likely still need to play it out. There might be complications, like rivals, old debts, or perhaps the you're at a far flung port with different social and cultural rules. With the old backgrounds it just says that it happens and that kind of interesting stuff is transformed into the DM negating a clearly stated PC ability. I don't like published backgrounds dictating world building to us unless it's part of an existing setting.



No, you're not the only one. I quickly started thinking to myself "Yadda yadda. Yes, the DM _should_ have NPCs treat your PC as if they are who they are. That's pretty obvious. There's nothing else here but that."

But you have a point, that it can even be _detrimental_ to that idea, when we assume that all those things _just happen_ without much RP and without any conflict.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 24, 2022)

Gorck said:


> So far, in all my 5e campaigns, every player has chosen a premade background.  Not one single player has made up their own background.  I don't forbid it or anything, that's just how it's worked out so far.
> 
> Something about making your own background seems a little to much like "having your cake and eating it too."  I've mentioned it in another thread, but I like there to be a little give-and-take in character creation; a little compromise between what we want and what we can live without.  I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a lot of players will make their own background giving them proficiency in Perception & Stealth and the Lucky feat.



Yeah, honestly I wish more compromise was necessary in character creation.  Choosing a custom background feel a little samey and OP to me.

(Cue the villagers with pitchforks and torches come to run me out of town)


----------



## Umbran (Sep 24, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> (Cue the villagers with pitchforks and torches come to run me out of town)




*Mod Note:*
So, being dismissive of people before they've even said anything is self-fulfilling prophecy.  You don't have a lot of space to claim being the victim when you are the one to start with the antagonistic stance.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 26, 2022)

Gorck said:


> Because getting everything you want is boring and having to make difficult decisions makes those choices much more meaningful and intriguing. There's a reason that BIFT contains the "F" - nobody is perfect. There's a reason 3e used to have ASIs of +2/-1 instead of all plusses.



Maybe D&D should return to those older trade-offs like level limits, alignment restrictions and race/class combos. It's more meaningful when a player has to choose between the potential of a 20th level human LG paladin or a 10th level CG elf fighter.


----------



## Clint_L (Sep 26, 2022)

Race-based level limits were terrible! Everybody hated them and refused to use them. Similarly, tying classes to particular races and alignments has no place in modern RP. Let DMs and players make those choices, don't try to impose them. My campaigns don't even use alignment.


----------



## Composer99 (Sep 26, 2022)

Remathilis said:


> It's more meaningful when a player has to choose between the potential of a 20th level human LG paladin or a 10th level CG elf fighter.



That is, frankly, an assertion of very dubious merit, at least if you are claiming it to be some sort of truth about the game _writ large_.

Players and DMs _find their own meaning_ in the play and structure of the game. (If you find meaning in those restrictions, well and good for you; I want no part of them!)


----------



## Micah Sweet (Sep 26, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Race-based level limits were terrible! Everybody hated them and refused to use them. Similarly, tying classes to particular races and alignments has no place in modern RP. Let DMs and players make those choices, don't try to impose them. My campaigns don't even use alignment.



That's an extraordinarily one-sided view.  "Everybody" hated them?  Do you speak for the gaming community?  How about we focus on our own opinions, and don't assume "everybody" shares your preferences.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 27, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Race-based level limits were terrible! Everybody hated them and refused to use them. Similarly, tying classes to particular races and alignments has no place in modern RP. Let DMs and players make those choices, don't try to impose them. My campaigns don't even use alignment.



But you're getting everything you want! Isn't that boring? Wouldn't your game be served by making difficult decisions, like trading off power now (in the form capped levels or limited class options) for the option of choosing whatever class you want and reaching unlimited level? Is that intriguing? Isn't having to make compromises and sacrifices better than just playing what you want to play?

Can I shove my tongue any further into my cheek?


----------



## Fifth Element (Sep 27, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> That's an extraordinarily one-sided view.  "Everybody" hated them?  Do you speak for the gaming community?  How about we focus on our own opinions, and don't assume "everybody" shares your preferences.



While it's true that we should not assume that our own experiences are universal, there's also a principle of charity that helps online discussions go more smoothly. That is, read posts in a charitable light. For example, rather then assuming someone means literally everyone when they use that word, assume they're engaging in the type of light hyperbole that is very common in informal discussions.


----------

