Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Haltherrion" data-source="post: 5411814" data-attributes="member: 18253">If your quible with backgrounds has more to do with the fact that it is easy to write something into a background that as a player you might not actually use, I suppose that's one thing. But the distinctions you draw below seem overstated to me.  So you aren't trained pre-game start as a fighter or a wizard? I really don't agree with your assertion. Plenty happens pre-game to your character that matters in game related to definition of your character class, starting gold, etc. Obviously plenty happened to get you to age X, whatever that happens to be for your character and for non-humans, that can be many, many years. Backgrounds allow you to define this in a few sentences or a few paragraphs.  As I said, as the game goes on, the in-game interactions matter more. But what's the harm in defining some of the pre-game experiences of the character? They obviously did in fact occur unless you mandate that all your PCs must have bland, uninteresting histories. This isn't too different to my mind, to what a screenwriter or an author does. Does he start his protagonist with no history and everything you know about him is what you read or see going forward with, here's the key part, no reference to anything that occured before the movie or book started? Or are there references to what happened previously? In all but some literary endeavours, having characters with no reference to background is generally pretty off-putting to the viewer/reader.  Yes, I like that quote as well. However, it would be wrong to conclude that he did not make plans. Just that he felt a general needed to be flexible to adapt as events changed. Put into the D&D context, Moltke would be seeming to suggest, make your backgrounds but don't be bound by them. If they get used, great. If they don't get used, no problem. Just like with a military leader, the backgrounds provide context, some "thinking through" of the character, just as a general tries to think through his initial deployments and foe's reactions. To be knocked flat because your foe does something you didn't think of is bad generalship. So is not having any idea how to cross the river ahead of time. Moltke would hardly have advocated no plans <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> THere's no attribution for this statement on the wikipedia entry for him but from what is generally known about him, it certainly seems more than plausible:However, as can be seen from the descriptions of his planning for the war with Austria and the war with France, his planning for war was very detailed and took into account thousands of variables. It is a mistake to think that Moltke thought war plans were of no use (which a simple reading of "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy" would seem to indicate). That can happen and I have seen it happen with some regularity (for me, maybe 1-2 players in any given gaming group). Those are the ones who also tend to forget their character background and not make use of it but regardless, the greater number who use their backgrounds add a good deal to the fun at our table. If you tend to run campaigns that last many sessions, I can see why this isn't a big deal for your group although again, I don't see the harm in it. It can help move the character development along in early sessions.</blockquote>

Verification