D&D 5E Customizing Backgrounds Core Rule - Public Service Announcement

[The Green Hermit]

A friend of mine recently started a game, and he doesn't fine Inspiration uninspiring as a mechanic. He just finds it terribly difficult to remember int he middle of everything else.

I think he's instead defaulting to giving a PC advantage for clever play on the spot, rather than giving it to store up for later use.

I have fancy metal dice that I hand out for inspiration. They are easy to see and remember. If they haven't been used by the end of the session, we jot that down in our notes and they get passed back out next session.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

While this is completely accurate of course (not disputing that), I would also caution new players and established veterans alike, that as usual, even doing this is at the discretion of the DM and should be covered during session zero.

OTOH, unless the DM says they are houseruling this, it’s allowed. Which is the opposite of what many players seem to think is the case.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Pretty much this. The positioning of the OP gave me that "no one can stop you" vibe, which I just have a problem with in the context of cooperative play.

If it had been presented as, "Hey, can't get quite what you are looking for? Remember that, within the rules, you might be able to modify a background to get what you need! Talk to your GM about it!" and the whole discussion becomes different.

Framing matters.

But that’s not the framing of the rules as written. RAW, the player needn’t consult the DM, any more than they’d consult the DM when deciding they want to play a human fighter, or choosing their skills or fighting style from their class, etc.

Unless the DM is using a house rule, customizing a background isn’t something the player needs permission for.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In case you failed to notice, none of the mechanical abilities are representative of what the background is actually supposed to be. A brewer should be good at brewing, because that's what those words mean. This "brewer" has, not only a complete inability to brew anything, but influence within high society as a result of their noble birth. (Which they don't actually have, because they weren't actually born noble. But people are still inclined to think well of them, because of their noble birth, as a brewer.)

It's a direct violation of the central premise behind any role-playing system: that the rules of the game reflect the reality of the game world. None of these abilities reflect anything about what it means to be a brewer.

Absurd examples that no one would ever actually do aren’t especially informative or convincing. The player would just change the name of the background to something appropriate, or not name the background at all bc they don’t actually need names. They have the noble prestige feature so clearly they are a noble or are seen as one, or as a person of similar station to a noble (like a bard in some settings, or some other position of prestige outside the normal hierarchy).

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

Until I saw this thread, I didn't know that custom backgrounds were something people didn't know about. I've always supported the rule and rather enjoyed that you didn't need to house rule a character having a skill or item proficiency you wanted them to have.

 

[Wulffolk]

Not sure if this has been mentioned already, but in the end the DM always has the final judgement on anything in the game that he runs. He should be willing to hear out any reasonable player request, but should choose whatever works best in his opinion for the game that he is running.

Most groups can easily survive the departure of one unhappy player that is unwilling to accept the decisions of a DM, but few can survive when an unhappy DM decides to quit rather than constantly fight with a troublesome player.

Wise players understand that keeping the game enjoyable for the DM is more important than "winning" an argument over a minor disagreement.

Any player that tried to force something on me by citing RAW, against my own judgement after I have already heard their case, would be demonstrating a level of disrespect that would lead me to exclude that person from future sessions.

 

[DND_Reborn]

OTOH, unless the DM says they are houseruling this, it’s allowed. Which is the opposite of what many players seem to think is the case.

Yeah, that is why I said it SHOULD be covered at session zero.

 

[Bolares]

I never use them as a DM, because I find Inspiration ... uninspiring (heh). On the other hand, I find writing them out to be a useful exercise when I'm writing up a character's background. Obviously, YMMV.

My aproach to them is that they are great for the player to use as a compass for their decisions, mainly when the character is new and the player does not grasp it entirelly. As a DM I read them when we start, discuss them with the players and let them play the PCs as they want. I never use inspiration because it's a half cooked idea that I often forget about. To me the traits are a better version of alignment, to be used by the players as much as they want

 

[Bolares]

This is how I see the "issue" of custom backgrounds. It's RAW... in my games RAW is always allowed. But the custom background gives you options to choose, and as a GM I like togo over the players choices just to garantee they didn't screw up something. it's the same with point buy ability scores, buying equipment and known/prepared spells. To me it's not about permission or anything like that, it's just making sure the rules were followed.

But that is just how I do it. In general, the book allows them, but every table shoud decide how anything works for them.