D&D (2024) Bonus languages in One D&D backgrounds goes contrary to their other goals

[Twiggly the Gnome]

You know what would be neat? If the sample backgrounds each had an explicit reference to a different Campaign Setting in their names. I'd drive home the point these are just examples, and show that WotC is actually serious about the multiverse being the default setting.

 

[Charlaquin]

You know what would be neat? If the sample backgrounds each had an explicit reference to a different Campaign Setting in their their names. I'd drive home the point these are just examples, and show that WotC is actually serious about the multiverse being the default setting.

It would be. But thinking about it, I think the names might need to be fairly general to work for their purpose as the option folks like my aforementioned friend grab as a package instead of wading through all the floating options. It’s easy to pick “entertainer” from a list of generic-sounding job descriptions. But if the options are like “Acolyte of Pelor” and “Athasian Gladiator” and “Candlekeep Scholar,” the kind of player who wants to just pick a background and go… doesn’t know what any of that means.

 

[Cadence]

It would be. But thinking about it, I think the names might need to be fairly general to work for their purpose as the option folks like my aforementioned friend grab as a package instead of wading through all the floating options. It’s easy to pick “entertainer” from a list of generic-sounding job descriptions. But if the options are like “Acolyte of Pelor” and “Athasian Gladiator” and “Candlekeep Scholar,” the kind of player who wants to just pick a background and go… doesn’t know what any of that means.

Put Acolyte in big bold and under it have Acolyte of Pelor as a smaller sub-title?

 

[Charlaquin]

Put Acolyte in big bold and under it have Acolyte of Pelor as a smaller sub-title?

Maybe. At this point, I think maybe just making it two total between languages and tool’s instead of one of each may be the best solution.

 

[Dire Bare]

I think the problem here is, you can take language out of race, but you can’t take race out of language (IN D&D!!!) Making language a background feature instead of a race feature makes sense, because languages are something you learn, not something you’re born with. But, as long as the languages are elvish, dwarvish, orcish, etc, there will always be the implication that elves, dwarves, orcs, etc. are inherently associated with the backgrounds that grant those languages. What’s needed is for the languages to be de-racialized. Call it Sindarin instead of Elvish, Khuzdul instead of Dwarvish… Probabably don’t call Orcish “black speech” but come up with something for it.

One thing I appreciate about the discussion in this thread, most everybody seems to be trying to move towards a better representation of race, culture, and language in our fantasy elf games. But still, a few seem intent on not just disagreeing, but tearing down the arguments and opinions of others. Ah well, it's what we do . . .

The problem facing the D&D designers, and our discussion here, as I see it, is how confusing the concept of race is. In the real world, race is a term scientists don't like because it's vague, loaded, and confuses genetics and culture. When we port it over to the fantasy game, it gets worse by blending in mythic tropes of fairy creatures.

I've come to view the traditional D&D view towards race as (unwittingly) super-ethnicity. Elves aren't really another species from human, but humans with a different culture, different language, and greater physiological differences than merely skin color or hair texture. As the designers try to leave the hidden negative tropes of race behind in the game, they are getting hung up on exactly how to do it without fundamentally changing the game. Crawford (was it Crawford?) states outright in the One D&D video that they are trying to make the elfiest elf, the dwarfiest dwarf . . . they are deliberately leaning into classic fantasy tropes, while simultaneously trying to leave negative tropes about race behind . . . . and that's a tall order.

I agree with @Whizbang Dustyboots that they've stepped backwards with language and background here. I think it comes from a good place, but ends up taking us in a circle. If we try to separate the orcish language from the orcish people, not only does that not make much intuitive sense, but when you give the language to all gladiators . . . . and yes, even with custom backgrounds being the default, and the provided examples being just that, examples, we are still world-building here in an unintentionally harmful way.

What is the best solution? I don't know, but I hope WotC keeps trying and moves away from this particular choice.

In Tolkien's world, elves were not a monolithic culture with a single language, they had cultural and linguistic diversity. Perhaps not as much as humans do in the real world, but representing real world diversity is tough, because it's complicated and huge. I wouldn't mind D&D moving towards a more Tolkieneque approach on this however, even if it puts more world-building detail in the core books (vs in the various setting books). Get rid of the monolithic racial languages, and give us three languages commonly spoken by elves in the world, seven dwarven languages, and four orcish tongues . . . or something like that. I think WotC needs to admit that the D&D core IS a world with setting assumptions and lean into it, and be careful with it.

 

[Charlaquin]

One thing I appreciate about the discussion in this thread, most everybody seems to be trying to move towards a better representation of race, culture, and language in our fantasy elf games. But still, a few seem intent on not just disagreeing, but tearing down the arguments and opinions of others. Ah well, it's what we do . . .

The problem facing the D&D designers, and our discussion here, as I see it, is how confusing the concept of race is. In the real world, race is a term scientists don't like because it's vague, loaded, and confuses genetics and culture. When we port it over to the fantasy game, it gets worse by blending in mythic tropes of fairy creatures.

I've come to view the traditional D&D view towards race as (unwittingly) super-ethnicity. Elves aren't really another species from human, but humans with a different culture, different language, and greater physiological differences than merely skin color or hair texture. As the designers try to leave the hidden negative tropes of race behind in the game, they are getting hung up on exactly how to do it without fundamentally changing the game. Crawford (was it Crawford?) states outright in the One D&D video that they are trying to make the elfiest elf, the dwarfiest dwarf . . . they are deliberately leaning into classic fantasy tropes, while simultaneously trying to leave negative tropes about race behind . . . . and that's a tall order.

I agree with @Whizbang Dustyboots that they've stepped backwards with language and background here. I think it comes from a good place, but ends up taking us in a circle. If we try to separate the orcish language from the orcish people, not only does that not make much intuitive sense, but when you give the language to all gladiators . . . . and yes, even with custom backgrounds being the default, and the provided examples being just that, examples, we are still world-building here in an unintentionally harmful way.

What is the best solution? I don't know, but I hope WotC keeps trying and moves away from this particular choice.

In Tolkien's world, elves were not a monolithic culture with a single language, they had cultural and linguistic diversity. Perhaps not as much as humans do in the real world, but representing real world diversity is tough, because it's complicated and huge. I wouldn't mind D&D moving towards a more Tolkieneque approach on this however, even if it puts more world-building detail in the core books (vs in the various setting books). Get rid of the monolithic racial languages, and give us three languages commonly spoken by elves in the world, seven dwarven languages, and four orcish tongues . . . or something like that. I think WotC needs to admit that the D&D core IS a world with setting assumptions and lean into it, and be careful with it.

I agree with your general position, but I don’t think these examples have worldbuilding implications. Again, the example gladiator background granting orcish doesn’t mean every gladiator speaks orcish, or even that most gladiators speak orcish. It means your gladiator character might speak orcish, unless you decide they speak a different language instead.

 

[Remathilis]

Sigh...

I get that a lot of people want to read this like they read the 2014 Backgrounds: a predetermined packet of goodies that says "I am a noble" and presents you with things and options that ALL nobles have, rather than using them as a quick build option. Most of the write-ups specifically call out WHY they picked the feat and language they did, but since that would require reading the blurb, I have a suggestion on how WotC should handle backgrounds:

ACOLYTE
Ability Scores. Choose two of them and increase one by 2 and the other one by 1. Alternatively, choose three ability scores, and increase each of them by 1.
Skill Proficiencies. Choose two Skills. Your character gains Proficiency in them.
Tool Proficiency. Choose one tool. Your character gains Tool Proficiency* with it.
Language. Choose one language from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables
Feat. Choose one 1st-level Feat. Your character gains that Feat.
Equipment. Your character gains 50 GP to spend on starting equipment. The character keeps any unspent GP as spare coin.

You devoted yourself to service in a temple, either nestled in a town or secluded in a sacred grove. There you performed hallowed rites in
honor of a god or pantheon. There you performed hallowed rites in honor of a god or pantheon.

ARTISAN
Ability Scores. Choose two of them and increase one by 2 and the other one by 1. Alternatively, choose three ability scores, and increase each of them by 1.
Skill Proficiencies. Choose two Skills. Your character gains Proficiency in them.
Tool Proficiency. Choose one tool. Your character gains Tool Proficiency* with it.
Language. Choose one language from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables
Feat. Choose one 1st-level Feat. Your character gains that Feat.
Equipment. Your character gains 50 GP to spend on starting equipment. The character keeps any unspent GP as spare coin.

You began mopping floors and scrubbing counters in an artisan’s workshop for a few coppers per day as soon as you were strong
enough to carry a bucket. When you were finally old enough to apprentice, you learned to create basic crafts of your own, as well as how to sweet-talk the occasional demanding customer.

Etc, etc.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Sigh...

I get that a lot of people want to read this like they read the 2014 Backgrounds: a predetermined packet of goodies that says "I am a noble" and presents you with things and options that ALL nobles have, rather than using them as a quick build option.

I've got friends who are videogame designers and one thing they all have to eventually let go is designing for the platonic ideal of how players ought to play their games and instead design for how players actually play their games. (The same is also true of every sort of designers. One of my favorite concepts is "desire paths," which are the paths pedestrians wear in landscaping when they ignore the circuitous sidewalks and paths designers put in place in favor of the way they actually want to walk.)

Like it or not -- and there are clearly people who are very much "not" -- I don't think it's realistic to expect players, especially new players, not to just grab an example and go, especially if WotC is trying to streamline play for newbies.

So sure, maybe there's a reason why the sample Jester background needs to have proficiency in fishing tools -- this particular jester is very into fish-based comedy -- but if WotC puts that in the list, it means that most of the time when you see a jester in the wild, they're going to stink like fish. And everyone at WotC knows this is how players behave, after years and years of more data than any D&D design team has ever had before it. And they need to design accordingly.

Example backgrounds need to be extremely specific, including with their names, or made much more general, because general backgrounds are likely to be the default choice for many players, even if that causes the designers' ulcers to flare up.

 

[edosan]

ACOLYTE
Ability Scores. Choose two of them and increase one by 2 and the other one by 1. Alternatively, choose three ability scores, and increase each of them by 1.
Skill Proficiencies. Choose two Skills. Your character gains Proficiency in them.
Tool Proficiency. Choose one tool. Your character gains Tool Proficiency* with it.
Language. Choose one language from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables
Feat. Choose one 1st-level Feat. Your character gains that Feat.
Equipment. Your character gains 50 GP to spend on starting equipment. The character keeps any unspent GP as spare coin.

You devoted yourself to service in a temple, either nestled in a town or secluded in a sacred grove. There you performed hallowed rites in
honor of a god or pantheon. There you performed hallowed rites in honor of a god or pantheon.

I’m sure you’re being sarcastic but that feels more intellectually honest than the current “these example backgrounds are very carefully thought out, as shown by the flavor text but feel free to change literally anything you want because we know you’re just picking stuff off a menu” we currently have.

 

[Dire Bare]

I agree with your general position, but I don’t think these examples have worldbuilding implications. Again, the example gladiator background granting orcish doesn’t mean every gladiator speaks orcish, or even that most gladiators speak orcish. It means your gladiator character might speak orcish, unless you decide they speak a different language instead.

You've mentioned this a few times, that the gladiator background doesn't represent a generalized gladiator in the D&D world, but a specific gladiator in the D&D world. And . . . that's not what the playtest document actually says. The document does say each background has "story-orientated details meant to inspire", but that's not the same thing as saying, "This is A gladiator, not ALL gladiators." Perhaps this was their intent, but if so, it's not clear (to me). And even if they did outright say what you put forth, I still think the example backgrounds ARE world-building, and unintentionally, negatively doing so.

D&D players are used to general archetypal options that define their character, classically race and class, but also backgrounds with the 2014 rules. In the potential upcoming 2024 rules, many players will customize their backgrounds, but many others will take the example backgrounds given along with their uncomfortable world-building. Games will be filled with gladiators all knowing orcish, reinforcing the already existing trope of savage, aggressive warriors reminiscent of some real-world stereotypes.

A minor tweak makes this go away . . . don't assign languages to most backgrounds. Some make sense, like Thieves' Cant for criminals, or celestial for acolytes (as a liturgical language), but each background doesn't need an assigned language, even when player's can customize it to something different. Bring the tool and language traits together, each background gets two, rather than one of each. OR, give different "story-orientated details". Make the gladiator background come packaged with the halfling language, because THIS gladiator had a halfling trainer . . . . I don't really like that idea, but it's better (to me) that what the current document has.