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

[Remathilis]

I think the one thing we can all agree on is that, whatever the final form of these Backgrounds in 2024 is, there needs to be proper guidance on how to create your own - as in, how to create the backstory elements - alongside the samples. This UA is just the rules, presented to experienced players, used to coming up with character concepts. One of the strengths of the Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws framework is that it gives you a way to generate a character by rolling on a few tables. I'd like to see these Backgrounds combined with similar tables:

E.g.
Gladiator - Language (d6)
1: Your comrades in the arena included outsiders from the ungoverned lands to the north, many of whom boasted orc ancestry. (Orcish)
2: You were trained by an elven weaponmaster, rumoured to be an exiled noble from a distant land. (Elvish)
3. Your main rival was a dwarf berserker, with whom you traded many insults before bouts to whip up the crowd's fervour. (Dwarvish)
4. You trained in esoteric, mystic fighting styles with a master of unarmed combat whose people revered angelic overlords. (Celestial)
5. A young kobold was your friend and protégé in the fighters' barracks, but you couldn't protect him in the end. (Draconic)
6. The patron of the arena where you fought was a notorious beholder crime lord, and for a time you became one of its inner circle. (Deep Speech)

I'd be fine with this "to see what language you learned" approach, IF

1.) there is a table for the ASI, skills, tool, feat, and equipment choices too.
2..) there are six examples/backgrounds tops. That is a lot of space dedicated to giving sample loadouts multiple choice points.

 

[Remathilis]

But some background is going to need to grant Orcish if Orcish is going to exist as a language. And whatever background does that is going to have unfortunate implications about orcs. This is why I’ve come to the conclusion that the real problem here is that languages are racialized in D&D. They took the languages out of race without taking the race out of languages.

But what's the alternative? You either create a Tower of Babel situation where the only language is Common, or you create languages by region (Illuski, Waelan, Ulou, Thorass, Chessan, Raumtheran, etc) which ties them to a certain setting, which appears to be the opposite of what they want in this edition. The sheer amount of space you'd use to list and explain every language in Faerun, Oerth, Eberron, Krynn, Exandria, the Domains of Dread, etc, would be tremendous, and doesn't even address homebrewers, who I bet nine times out of ten you just say, "uh, the people in the elf lands speak elf".

 

[Thommy H-H]

I'd be fine with this "to see what language you learned" approach, IF

1.) there is a table for the ASI, skills, tool, feat, and equipment choices too.
2..) there are six examples/backgrounds tops. That is a lot of space dedicated to giving sample loadouts multiple choice points.

Yes, I imagined there'd be tables for those as well, though maybe not the ASIs, which perhaps require a bit less narrative justification.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Because you already can do that. It's the first option on the page. But everybody skipped that part on the way to seeing what the new backgrounds looked like, so we'll just repeat it 17 times so that nobody misses the fact that backgrounds are suggestions.

I look at it like a combo meal at a restaurant: you can order anything on the menu but if you want a easy and quick choice that doesn't involve much thinking, order a combo meal # and your all set. But don't look at the combo menu and get angry all the combos come with fries when you want onion rings, the chicken sandwich is shown with a Sprite and you want a Diet Coke, or you wanted the California burrito and that's not on the combo menu so you can't get it with anything else.

 

[Alzrius]

But what's the alternative? You either create a Tower of Babel situation where the only language is Common

That seems to be the ideal for some people, under the paradigm that "having languages none of your PCs speak isn't fun/doesn't move the game along, so why bother?"

Personally, I disagree with that. I think that having problems like that facilitates play, rather than impedes it, since they tend to invite solutions which bring adventure elements forward on their own, e.g. "this prisoner has vital intelligence, but no one here speaks his language. We need you to take him to the capital and find an interpreter there. Be careful though, his organization is likely to try and recover him before you arrive."

 

[Remathilis]

Yes, I imagined there'd be tables for those as well, though maybe not the ASIs, which perhaps require a bit less narrative justification.

Not hard to do.

Acolyte
D4

1.) +2 Wis, +1 int. You spent much time studying the faith's holy scriptures
2.) +2 Cha, +1 Wis. You spent your youth spreading the word of your faith to others
3.) +2 Str, +1 Wis. You were part of the militant wing of your orders, fighting the enemies of your faith
4.) +1 to Str, Wis, Cha. Being a small temple, you were expected to juggle multiple rolls.

 

[Galandris]

Not hard to do.

Acolyte
D4

1.) +2 Wis, +1 int. You spent much time studying the faith's holy scriptures
2.) +2 Cha, +1 Wis. You spent your youth spreading the word of your faith to others
3.) +2 Str, +1 Wis. You were part of the militant wing of your orders, fighting the enemies of your faith
4.) +1 to Str, Wis, Cha. Being a small temple, you were expected to juggle multiple rolls.

Very hard to do, I'd say instead. I've seen players being impeded by the BIFTs, because they thought they were mandatory instead of roleplaying aids. The crutches had become a prison for them. If we have a table like you propose, I fully expect some people to think ASIs are supposed to be rolled on the table and complain that their CON/STR cleric concept is RUINED because they were put in a small temple. And from the other side of the screen, DMs asking "how is your Nobleman fighter having 18 STR at level 1? Noble background can't give STR, only WIS, CHA and INT!"

 

[Remathilis]

Very hard to do, I'd say instead. I've seen players being impeded by the BIFTs, because they thought they were mandatory instead of roleplaying aids. The crutches had become a prison for them. If we have a table like you propose, I fully expect some people to think ASIs are supposed to be rolled on the table and complain that their CON/STR cleric concept is RUINED because they were put in a small temple.

That's when you show them the part where YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN BACKGROUND!!!

Honestly, my feedback to WotC is going to be:

Skip the premade combo options and just give us a "Tika and Artemis" example of how you build your origin. No acolytes, no gladiators, etc, just two examples of characters built using the make your own and done.

 

[Galandris]

That's when you show them the part where YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN BACKGROUND!!!

Honestly, my feedback to WotC is going to be:

Skip the premade combo options and just give us a "Tika and Artemis" example of how you build your origin. No acolytes, no gladiators, etc, just two examples of characters built using the make your own and done.

That's what I have been proposing. No "samples", the create your background, and illustrations on how to do it. Possibly as many illustrations as there are currently background, to show the variance, including within an intended class, using a pretend team of players creating their characters. No table, no anything that would tend to reinforce the idea that this part is "mechanic first, story second" and not "create a backstory that explains your assorted kit of abilities gained at this stage of character creation".

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Not hard to do.

Acolyte
D4

1.) +2 Wis, +1 int. You spent much time studying the faith's holy scriptures
2.) +2 Cha, +1 Wis. You spent your youth spreading the word of your faith to others
3.) +2 Str, +1 Wis. You were part of the militant wing of your orders, fighting the enemies of your faith
4.) +1 to Str, Wis, Cha. Being a small temple, you were expected to juggle multiple rolls.

This is definitely not the way to go if the point of having pre-made backgrounds is to make the choice easier for new players. You have to roll a d4 to figure out if your background has synergy with the stats your class needs? Just nope.

 

[Cadence]

This is definitely not the way to go if the point of having pre-made backgrounds is to make the choice easier for new players. You have to roll a d4 to figure out if your background has synergy with the stats your class needs? Just nope.

If one needs to have a certain background to synergize with a particular class, and also be easy for new players, then class/background should probably say which premade background/class to pick.

This sounds like another reason to just make ASIs free instead of being tied to race/class/background to me. "Once you've laid out your base stats, add a +2 and a +1 to any tow different abilities you want. Not sure which ones, here's some guidance to get you started ...". (And yes, I know the default is custom backgrounds, but apparently a lot of new players won't do custom).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In One D&D, some dated ideas are being dropped, including racial essentialism and the pernicious real world idea that even a drop of "impure" blood fundamentally changes a person. Eric's Grandma wouldn't want us to go down that rabbit hole, but if you're unfamiliar with this, look up "octoroon" on Wikipedia and be, I hope, a little shocked at an attitude that was still around at least as recently as 1974.

So while half-orcs and half-elves aren't their own special categories any more, One D&D walks back in the door with a related idea that I don't think anyone was asking for:

Certain cultures, by default, are associated with certain jobs in D&D. I don't think you'd see a modern ruleset try to codify a similar argument.

If you haven't read the One D&D Character Origins UA yet (and it seems that plenty of YouTubers haven't, for instance, although that doesn't stop them from making 45 minute videos expressing their opinions about it), every one of the new backgrounds includes a bonus language.

The new PHB is going to say these are just examples and players should be making custom backgrounds. But let's be honest, that's an option already, and most players just go with the example ones. So what WotC puts in the examples matters, both as a model and because probably most players will use them and never make a custom background of their own.

Some of the languages seem like reasonable expectations for most worlds. Entertainers all know Elvish, which suggests that the elves have created great works of music and drama that other peoples will either perform verbatim or learn so they can adapt them to their native cultures. Urchins know Common sign language (a new default language added to the list, which is a nice change that I approve of, especially as it carries with it the real world reality that not every deaf person uses the same sign language), which I guess they're using to communicate on the street -- which is takes sign language to a little bit of a weird place, but OK. Acolytes know Celestial, which feels a bit limited (do the Lawful Neutral gods really write their holy books in the language of the upper planes?), but I can see what they're going for.

But Criminals all know Thieves Cant, which feels like a pretty significant element, historically, being handed out a little too freely. (I know people will tell me that Thieves Cant never comes up in their game, but I use it all the time, including just recently when a group playing through Empire of the Ghouls made a wrong turn in the sewers and stumbled into thieves guild territory, shrugging and ignoring the cant signs painted on the walls. I use this PDF from the DMs Guild, and it's served me well in the often rogue-heavy games I run.) And notably, they're not giving out the other class language, Druidic, as part of a background.

Why does every guide speak Giant? Every pilgrim speaks Halfling? Every sailor can speak Primordial? These feel like big setting decisions and some of them turn ordinary zero level characters (remember, the background is what happens to them before they start adventuring) into something mythic. A sailor being able to speak to magical sea creatures in their own language belongs on Odysseus' ship, not on some random fishing trawler.

And then it starts to get a bit icky. Every charlatan knows Infernal, which suggests unpleasant things about my gnome illusionist. Every gladiator speaks Orcish, which -- despite them walking back previously problematic descriptions of orcs in the Character Races section, makes a strong contrary statement here.

What's more, this feels unnecessary. If groups aren't using languages "enough" for WotC, that's those groups' call. (I make language pretty important in my games, but we're now reaching the level in my main campaign where magic will make it never an issue again.) Under the current rules, anyone can learn additional languages during downtime, so they don't need them handed out willy-nilly at character creation.

This is just a beta test, but this is a decision that should be rolled back. If you agree, please consider including this in your feedback in September.

I mean, it's really boneheaded and opens them to unnecessary criticism simply for the sake of being cutesy.

They should have put "language of choice" there, or just not made language part of Background.

As an aside I've seen a lot of criticism of 1D&D for the half-race rules, which I think is fairly justified, but equally, a ton of it comes from keen PF2 boosters, and PF2 has a nearly identical issue (to be half-race in that, you have to select a "main" race then lose your subrace to get the benefits of the other race, IIRC).

 

[edosan]

This sounds like another reason to just make ASIs free instead of being tied to race/class/background to me. "Once you've laid out your base stats, add a +2 and a +1 to any tow different abilities you want. Not sure which ones, here's some guidance to get you started ...". (And yes, I know the default is custom backgrounds, but apparently a lot of new players won't do custom).

Just adding that as a sentence under rolling your stats feels way clearer than the current model of “here are seventeen different examples but really, just do whatever you want. “ Same with languages: “you get a bonus language, pick one or roll on this table.”

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

If one needs to have a certain background to synergize with a particular class, and also be easy for new players, then class/background should probably say which premade background/class to pick.

This sounds like another reason to just make ASIs free instead of being tied to race/class/background to me. "Once you've laid out your base stats, add a +2 and a +1 to any tow different abilities you want. Not sure which ones, here's some guidance to get you started ...". (And yes, I know the default is custom backgrounds, but apparently a lot of new players won't do custom).

I'm pretty sure the quick-build sections for each class will tell you to pick a specific background, just like they do in the 5e PHB.

 

[Parmandur]

As an aside I've seen a lot of criticism of 1D&D for the half-race rules, which I think is fairly justified, but equally, a ton of it comes from keen PF2 boosters, and PF2 has a nearly identical issue (to be half-race in that, you have to select a "main" race then lose your subrace to get the benefits of the other race, IIRC).

Bot subrace and mixed Race are a first Level Feat in PF2.

 

[Nikosandros]

That's when you show them the part where YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN BACKGROUND!!!

Honestly, my feedback to WotC is going to be:

Skip the premade combo options and just give us a "Tika and Artemis" example of how you build your origin. No acolytes, no gladiators, etc, just two examples of characters built using the make your own and done.

I really like this idea! They can provide a lot of examples, taken from previous lore and make some new characters as well.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's when you show them the part where YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN BACKGROUND!!!

Honestly, my feedback to WotC is going to be:

Skip the premade combo options and just give us a "Tika and Artemis" example of how you build your origin. No acolytes, no gladiators, etc, just two examples of characters built using the make your own and done.

This is great, I will suggest the same. No generic options, because people are, frankly, too dim to understand that generic options aren't the only options, and this has been proven repeatedly.

 

[Nikosandros]

Getting to the OP, I think that WotC is in a bit of a bind. In older editions, races tended to be somewhat culturally monolithic and thus it could make sense that there was such languages as halfling and elvish. OTOH, introducing even vaguely plausible languages in a generalist game like D&D seems very complicated and the opposite of what Wizards is aiming for.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Getting to the OP, I think that WotC is in a bit of a blind-spot. In older editions, races tended to be somewhat culturally monolithic and thus it could make sense that there was such languages as halfling and elvish. OTOH, introducing even vaguely plausible languages in a generalist game like D&D seems very complicated and the opposite of what Wizards is aiming for.

Sure, but all they need to do here to avoid criticism and silly business is not associate the languages with specific jobs.

PF2 dodges this bullet by not doing anything as silly as associating languages with jobs, and having a specific setting. 1D&D can't have a specific setting because D&D is a lot broader than PF. Indeed PF2 is a huge annoying chore to properly adapt to homebrew or indeed any non-Golarion settings, because so much of it is hard-tied to Golarion, esp. outside the core book, but even inside it, so I don't think it'd be smart for D&D to follow that path.

 

[Nikosandros]

Sure, but all they need to do here to avoid criticism and silly business is not associate the languages with specific jobs.

That's fair. If they follow the above suggestion about removing generic examples of BGs, they solve the issue.