Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 7915763" data-attributes="member: 6777737">See, and I wonder if you have this reaction because you weren't familiar with the rule, if none of your players has exercised it (to your knowledge), or if you're just not used to expecting players to be able to do it. Because when I read the first post, I don't see this as the framing at all. I think it's very clearly framed as, &quot;I can't believe my new players consistently don't know that custom backgrounds are presented as the normal rule and not an option or variant.&quot;You're not surprised when a player wants to play a wood elf or a mountain dwarf or maybe even a drow elf. You're not surprised if they play a Dex fighter or a Str fighter. If they take Find Familiar and choose a spider or an owl. If they play a light cleric or a life cleric. Players are free to choose all these things, and while, yes, a DM can ban or restrict them, I don't think it's normal to do so.Why is background customization really any different? Is my difference in reaction that I already knew about the rule and we have played that way since 2015 or so when we discovered it?Yes, yes, sure, you might run a campaign with no warlocks, or where drow are kill on sight, or where spider familiars are seen as evil, or where there are no light deities, and the same might be true for an arbitrary background. But I don't think that's the reaction you're describing here. I think you're saying that you expect your players to treat custom backgrounds as a variant or optional rule. That your players have no reason to assume that a custom background is allowed, while, I assume, the standard backgrounds are conversely allowed without question. I guess I just don't see why.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bacon Bits, post: 7915763, member: 6777737"] See, and I wonder if you have this reaction because you weren't familiar with the rule, if none of your players has exercised it (to your knowledge), or if you're just not used to expecting players to be able to do it. Because when I read the first post, I don't see this as the framing at all. I think it's very clearly framed as, "I can't believe my new players consistently don't know that custom backgrounds are presented as the normal rule and not an option or variant." You're not surprised when a player wants to play a wood elf or a mountain dwarf or maybe even a drow elf. You're not surprised if they play a Dex fighter or a Str fighter. If they take Find Familiar and choose a spider or an owl. If they play a light cleric or a life cleric. Players are free to choose all these things, and while, yes, a DM can ban or restrict them, I don't think it's normal to do so. Why is background customization really any different? Is my difference in reaction that I already knew about the rule and we have played that way since 2015 or so when we discovered it? Yes, yes, sure, you [I]might[/I] run a campaign with no warlocks, or where drow are kill on sight, or where spider familiars are seen as evil, or where there are no light deities, and the same might be true for an arbitrary background. But I don't think that's the reaction you're describing here. I think you're saying that you expect your players to treat custom backgrounds as a variant or optional rule. That your players have no reason to assume that a custom background is allowed, while, I assume, the standard backgrounds are conversely allowed without question. I guess I just don't see why. [/QUOTE]

Verification