D&D (2024) Just drop the backgrounds.

[Corinnguard]

But why should WotC care about procedural "realism" over fitting the process to actually usage by most players...?

They probably don't. So it's up to the players to decide how they want to approach the creation of their character. Some players will start the process by examining the classes and subclasses first, and then work their way toward pairing their choice with a particular race. Other players are going to start by checking out the races and work their way toward picking a class. Like it's been mentioned earlier in this thread, there is no right or wrong way to making a character.

There ought to be a poll on this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But why should WotC care about procedural "realism" over fitting the process to actually usage by most players...?

As has been said for 5-ish editions, race/heritage has been listed first, as the first choice you make at character creation. Is there a problem with that? If not, why change it?

I would certainly be happier if more content creators asked that question.

 

[Parmandur]

As has been said for 5-ish editions, race/heritage has been listed first, as the first choice you make at character creation. Is there a problem with that? If not, why change it?

I would certainly be happier if more content creators asked that question.

If people are mostly ignoring the structure in practice, then yes, something is wrong with it. That's some Design 101 stuff.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If people are mostly ignoring the structure in practice, then yes, something is wrong with it. That's some Design 101 stuff.

Are they? Do you have any evidence beyond personal experience? Has this question even been asked in a systematic way, or are you assuming its true because you agree with it?

 

[Corinnguard]

If people are mostly ignoring the structure in practice, then yes, something is wrong with it. That's some Design 101 stuff.

What is it about the classes that make them more appealing to you than the races?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I do roll abilities first usually and then decide what I'm going to play, based on what ideas I have that the stats align with. Real people don't get to decide every aspect of themselves. So I don't see why a PC needs to be pieced together like a robot.

Of course, I rarely play, so it doesn't come up often. And I let my players decide how they're going to make their PCs.

I agree, there's no right or wrong way. But that means my way is exactly as right as yours is. I care about "realism" as far as it goes. What I don't care about is how many people agree with me.

There isn't a right or wrong way to design your character . . . but there is a right or wrong way to tackle character design in the core rulebooks. The wrong way would be to differ from how the majority of players do character design. And I can guarantee you that the vast majority of people don't take a Traveler-esque way of choosing who/what their character is in D&D. That's not how anyone that I've ever met or heard of before you plays 5e. So changing character generation in the core rulebooks to your niche way would definitely be "wrong", because it would confuse a lot of people for no reason.

You said "who cares about realism" (paraphrased) that is a value judgement. I care. Having a character be created organically matters to me far more than slotting into the empty "melee fighter" space in the party.

But it's not "realism". To our characters, we're omniscient observers from beyond their universe. We can design them any way we want. Your way isn't more "realistic" when we exist out of their time stream and can design them and their identity backwards, forwards, or even jumping around in their timeline (getting really technical, we exist on 4 spatial dimensions and 2 time dimensions from the perspective of your characters). Your way isn't more realistic. It's just your preferred way of making them.

And there's nothing wrong with that. But that you like your way more doesn't mean that it's the base of the community or should be included in the books.

 

[Parmandur]

Are they? Do you have any evidence beyond personal experience? Has this question even been asked in a systematic way, or are you assuming its true because you agree with it?

I'm sure WotC has studied this, and while I never had a problem with just ignoring the book structure in practice, I immediately saw when they put thst in the packet that it made more sense on the level of design.

What is it about the classes that make them more appealing to you than the races?

It's not that one or the other is more "appealing," it's that Class matters way more to the game than Race. An Elf Ranger and a Dwarf Ranger do the same stuff, with only a couple of minor differences, and share more in common in play than with an Elf or Dwarf of any other Class.

 

[Corinnguard]

I'm sure WotC has studied this, and while I never had a problem with just ignoring the book structure in practice, I immediately saw when they put thst in the packet that it made more sense on the level of design.

It's not that one or the other is more "appealing," it's that Class matters way more to the game than Race. An Elf Ranger and a Dwarf Ranger do the same stuff, with only a couple of minor differences, and share more in common in play than with an Elf or Dwarf of any other Class.

An Elf Ranger and a Dwarf Ranger do the same stuff with regards to the base class (sans the subclass features). But when you throw the subclasses into the mix, the only time they would do the same stuff is when both are members of the same subclass. There are quite a number of official WoTC subclasses for the Ranger class, and an untold number of Ranger subclasses that have been created by 3rd party companies and those D&D fans who like to homebrew.

But there is no generic Elf and no generic Dwarf in 5e. Instead there is quite a number of official elven and dwarven subraces, 3rd party company versions of both races, and homebrewed versions of both races.

The players with their DM's approval can choose any version of elf and dwarf they want. They can choose any version of the Ranger class or Ranger subclass (again with DM approval) they want.

So it's hard to say IMO if class matters way more than race.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There isn't a right or wrong way to design your character . . . but there is a right or wrong way to tackle character design in the core rulebooks. The wrong way would be to differ from how the majority of players do character design. And I can guarantee you that the vast majority of people don't take a Traveler-esque way of choosing who/what their character is in D&D. That's not how anyone that I've ever met or heard of before you plays 5e. So changing character generation in the core rulebooks to your niche way would definitely be "wrong", because it would confuse a lot of people for no reason.

But it's not "realism". To our characters, we're omniscient observers from beyond their universe. We can design them any way we want. Your way isn't more "realistic" when we exist out of their time stream and can design them and their identity backwards, forwards, or even jumping around in their timeline (getting really technical, we exist on 4 spatial dimensions and 2 time dimensions from the perspective of your characters). Your way isn't more realistic. It's just your preferred way of making them.

And there's nothing wrong with that. But that you like your way more doesn't mean that it's the base of the community or should be included in the books.

As I said, I'm not asking them to change the existing order. I'm asking them to maintain it.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

As I said, I'm not asking them to change the existing order. I'm asking them to maintain it.

The existing order is Race then Class then Ability Scores. Background isn't mentioned in the Step-by-Step guidelines to creating a character. Also, race and class can very, very easily be swapped in this order, and are so commonly swapped that it's often the norm.