Blog: Background and Themes a closer look.

[Andor]

I have some questions which will judge if the theme-background thing is for my liking.

The themes and backgrounds are just the collection of feats and skills from the whole list that someone will get? These will be just preassigned for you?

If yes, then what is the difference from the pregenerated builds in 4e and 3e?

Well, there are a few points of difference.

Backgrounds are the 'skill' section I gather, but (as the name implies) are also literally intended to represent a background. So even if I swap a couple of skills out of the package my "Country Bumpkin" Rogue will still have something in common with your "Country Bumpkin" Wizard. Also I think background/skills are intended to interface with the exploration/interaction portions of the game, whereas...

Feats are in Themes, and seem to be combat centered. And Themes are not merely starting packages, but also sketch out a line of advancement. They represent what you are doing now, and where you are going. So even if my Halfling Country Bumpkin Rogue had nothing in common with your Elven Effete Noble Wizard a few months ago, the fact that we share the "Blood soaked profit seeker" theme let's us know that we have a similar approach to adventuring.

Or from another angle:

Background is where you are from.
Class is what you do.
Theme is how you do it.

The 3e starting packages were almost completely devoid of inherent flavor or setting ties. Backgrounds and themes should do a better job of giving you your characters place in the world, even if only to tell you what he is running away from.

 

[Ratskinner]

The 'all options off' option should NOT be a 0-level baseline from which everything builds, and is therefore strictly weaker than every other way to play. It should have static bonuses that bring it in line with the rest of the modes of play without having situational modifiers.

Heck a simple "If not using themes add 1 to every number on your character sheet" would suffice. But they gotta have something.

I would say two things:

First, if you turn off the options, you should be warned/prepared/instructed in the DMG to allow for a lot of creativity using ability checks, rather than the pre-def skills, feats, and maneuvers.

Secondly, it might be hard to come up with that number to add, if you lose a lot of flexibility/options in the process. That is, that could be a highly campaign-dependent number. My game works fine with a +1, some other guy's needs a +3, and someone else needs a +1/3 levels. Compensating for a theme or feat that yields +1d6 damage under condition X depends on how often condition X happens.

Then again, its really hard to say much without knowing the rules.

 

[gweinel]

Well, there are a few points of difference.

Backgrounds are the 'skill' section I gather, but (as the name implies) are also literally intended to represent a background. So even if I swap a couple of skills out of the package my "Country Bumpkin" Rogue will still have something in common with your "Country Bumpkin" Wizard. Also I think background/skills are intended to interface with the exploration/interaction portions of the game, whereas...

Feats are in Themes, and seem to be combat centered. And Themes are not merely starting packages, but also sketch out a line of advancement. They represent what you are doing now, and where you are going. So even if my Halfling Country Bumpkin Rogue had nothing in common with your Elven Effete Noble Wizard a few months ago, the fact that we share the "Blood soaked profit seeker" theme let's us know that we have a similar approach to adventuring.

Or from another angle:

Background is where you are from.
Class is what you do.
Theme is how you do it.

The 3e starting packages were almost completely devoid of inherent flavor or setting ties. Backgrounds and themes should do a better job of giving you your characters place in the world, even if only to tell you what he is running away from.

I think that what i see here is a streamlined path of what we already do.
Backgrounds is just named the skill section of the ph. Only this time, except from the list of skills, will have also thematic skill bundles.

The feat section will be renamed theme section and also will have character development paths: the themes.

As i said, what i see here is a better categorization of the character building proccess enriched with fluff.

Don't get me wrong, i like the fluff part, but i wanted something more. I wanted each skill/theme bundle to offer unique things to the character: The pirate concept (theme/background) would like to had pirate like abilities and not just the usual skills and feats that are available to everyone.
Even more i would like even more freedom: I would like to have the tools to build my own unique character concepts and each of these concepts would like to have something unique. So, my ninja character concept would have something that only the ninjas could do, and not everyone who would take the same skills and feats.

When i first heard abouth the themes this kind of stuff had in mind, but from what i see from the blogs is just the "usual" proccedure just renamed.

ps. of course we don't know how the feats will work in 5e, but i am assuming that will have the same role with the feats of 3e/4e.

 

[pemerton]

Backgrounds are the 'skill' section I gather

<snip>

I think background/skills are intended to interface with the exploration/interaction portions of the game, whereas...

Feats are in Themes, and seem to be combat centered.

<snip>

Background is where you are from.
Class is what you do.
Theme is how you do it.

If Background is "where you are from", and is also the principal interface with the exploration and interaction pillars, does that mean that I can't change how my PC deals with exploration and interaction in the course of play?

And if themes are combat centred, and also are how you do you class schtick, does that mean that classes are primarily/exclusively combat centred?

 

[gideonpepys]

I don't think it's fair that anyone should define what one's level of commitment should be to RPG's, in order for one to be allowed to participate.

Who said anything about not allowing them to participate? My point is simply that 'prepackaging' can be done for the benefit of such players (some of whom play at my table) without removing granular options for everyone else. Without folding all of the possible customization 'modules' and simply making them a vehicle for lumps of feats.

I know that there are people who just want to sit down and game right out of the box and I'm all for that. But losing themes and backgrounds to make that subset of players happy is a diservice to those who don't want to play that way.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Backgrounds is just named the skill section of the ph. Only this time, except from the list of skills, will have also thematic skill bundles.

The feat section will be renamed theme section and also will have character development paths: the themes.

As i said, what i see here is a better categorization of the character building proccess enriched with fluff.

Don't get me wrong, i like the fluff part, but i wanted something more. I wanted each skill/theme bundle to offer unique things to the character: The pirate concept (theme/background) would like to had pirate like abilities and not just the usual skills and feats that are available to everyone.

I don't think they mean the themes system will be an alternative to feats. They mean the themes system will replace the feat system. There will not be a big list of feats, and then a bunch of pre-picked packages. It'll just be the packages (and then if your group allows it, you can take feats from any combination of packages).

So pirate stuff will be pirate-only stuff, unless your group allows cross-theming.

 

[El Mahdi]

Who said anything about not allowing them to participate? My point is simply that 'prepackaging' can be done for the benefit of such players (some of whom play at my table) without removing granular options for everyone else. Without folding all of the possible customization 'modules' and simply making them a vehicle for lumps of feats.

I know that there are people who just want to sit down and game right out of the box and I'm all for that. But losing themes and backgrounds to make that subset of players happy is a diservice to those who don't want to play that way.

Then I misunderstood you. I wasn't the only who thought that's what you were saying, but a misunderstanding nonetheless.

Otherwise, I agree with what you've said here, and an outcome like you describe would be bad. But I'm at least 99.9% sure that isn't going to happen.

 

[Sunseeker]

I don't think they mean the themes system will be an alternative to feats. They mean the themes system will replace the feat system. There will not be a big list of feats, and then a bunch of pre-picked packages. It'll just be the packages (and then if your group allows it, you can take feats from any combination of packages).

So pirate stuff will be pirate-only stuff, unless your group allows cross-theming.

I'm not sure this is accurate, the way the last article was phrased referred to Themes as a "feat delivery system". In a general sense, a delivery system is usually some added system to make whatever you're taking easier to get. I have a feeling feats will be in, but they were be primary organized into themes, and not simply a laundry-list of feats.

Theme-only feats would lead to needless bloat. I mean can you imagine a pirate-theme only +1 to hit and then a Slayer +1 to hit and then an Avenger-theme +1 to hit and so on and so on...

 

[Andor]

Don't get me wrong, i like the fluff part, but i wanted something more. I wanted each skill/theme bundle to offer unique things to the character: The pirate concept (theme/background) would like to had pirate like abilities and not just the usual skills and feats that are available to everyone.

If Background is "where you are from", and is also the principal interface with the exploration and interaction pillars, does that mean that I can't change how my PC deals with exploration and interaction in the course of play?

And if themes are combat centred, and also are how you do you class schtick, does that mean that classes are primarily/exclusively combat centred?

Caveat. I am not a playtester and have not seen the playtest rules, these are my guesses based on the same public info you guys have.

As far as these go, we don't know yet. It could be that each theme/background includes some small game effect, although that can lead to bad design: frex if you give the Pirate theme sealegs, then suddenly you have implied that other characters cannot get sealegs. My feeling is that the prepackaged themes/backgrounds will have flavorfull benefits and the 'build your own' will supply a short list of useful but less cool options. So while you won't suffer mechanically from taking a by-the-book kit-bashed theme/background you will not get some thing as flavorful as whistling up your warhorse like a cowboy or having an automatic 'friendly' status with all barmaids.

As far as classes go, if they are splitting skills and feats off into seperate silos then yes, as in 4e I would expect classes to be primarily focused on how you kill people, as it has always been really. But not exclusively.

 

[KidSnide]

The critical unanswered question here is: "What's a Feat?".

If feats are like 4e feats (i.e. small, fiddly bits of customization) then giving a dozen of them to each character sounds like a pain, whether they are packaged into themes or not. Simplifying character creation is not sufficient if the result is still as complicated as a typical 4e paragon character.

On the other hand, if feats have killed utility powers, class ability options (and maybe some attack powers) and taken their stuff, then this is much more appealing. Themes are a solution for character generation, not gameplay. But gameplay also needs some help. I don't want to see themes that are a just a huge bundle of situational modifiers...

-KS