D&D 5E Decoupling ancestry and culture

[Ruin Explorer]

Ironically this is kind of much closer to some early 2E stuff than stuff in-between. Taladas, back in 1989, decoupled race and culture to a significant extent. Not completely, but it had a lot of cultural kits, many of which explicitly could be taken by a number of different races, and which established your language(s), weapon proficiencies, starting proficiencies, and so on. For example the main group of steppe riders could be elves, half-elves or humans (as I recall). Whilst I don't think it was specified, it would also have been very easy to simply extend this and say "this dwarf was raised with the steppe riders, so has the same kit as them, instead of this other kit".

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Bias could creep in, causing us to make "growing up in an elvish city" be more rewarding than "growing up in a orcish city."

I mean, it's easy to deal with that in mechanical ways at least by simply specifying limits on what the "Childhood" phase could give you, just like we already have with Backgrounds. I wouldn't use your terms though, they feel weirdly clinical and 20th/21st century in that childhood is cleanly separated from background, which is unlikely in the quasi-medieval settings D&D revolves around, I'd stick with Ancestry/Culture/Background.

 

[jgsugden]

If we break things down into too many components, you get to a point where you might as well just say, "Here are a bunch of abilities. Select X from each list and come up with a story to explain it." If you're already effectively there, might as well go the rest of the way.

Also, physical characteristics being tied to ancestry can be bad as well. "Hey, this ancestry is all big and strong. They should be fighters. If you play them as a wizard you're wasting their strength." That will still create a "stand in for race, with inherent racism" vibe for a reasonable number of players. With only rare exceptions where physical description is inherently tied to capability, we should likely avoid tying physical abilities to ancestry.

 

[MarkB]

Where I feel that this may be problematic is that it encourages even more of a character's backstory choices to be made based upon mechanical benefits than is already the case in 5e. I tend to agree with @jgsugden that you'd be better off just providing a list of benefits to choose from, and decoupling them from upbringing entirely.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I like the idea but I would make some of the things more general, for example Clanhold could be any tool proficiency.

I know myself and others have talked about this sort of idea. Others believe it would just lead to more min/maxing, but if you provide any choices in any system it can lead to min/maxing. To devoid this, you have to make such determinations random--which doesn't appeal to most players IMX.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I mean, it's easy to deal with that in mechanical ways at least by simply specifying limits on what the "Childhood" phase could give you, just like we already have with Backgrounds. I wouldn't use your terms though, they feel weirdly clinical and 20th/21st century in that childhood is cleanly separated from background, which is unlikely in the quasi-medieval settings D&D revolves around, I'd stick with Ancestry/Culture/Background.

Howabout, Ancestry/Culture/Family/Background?

Ancestry = Human, Elf, etc.
Culture = Gives language
Family = Gives contacts, home town/village, a proficiency, may be another non adventuring proficiency like Farming, Bricklaying, Merchant
Background = A proficiency and tool proficiency

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Howabout, Ancestry/Culture/Family/Background?

Ancestry = Human, Elf, etc.
Culture = Gives language
Family = Gives contacts, home town/village, a proficiency, may be another non adventuring proficiency like Farming, Bricklaying, Merchant
Background = A proficiency and tool proficiency

I feel like family is just unnecessary in there. Between Culture and Background, you have all the same things covered. You're just unnecessarily pulling stuff out to make something else, and the name "family" isn't perfect, because an awful lot of D&D characters won't have been raised by any kind of conventional family, but rather by monks, or communally by lizardpeople, or on the mean streets without a home, or the like. I'm just not seeing how family is needed as well as Culture and Background.

I do think inflexible Backgrounds which don't allow Skill choices are unhelpful (there are a few) and should be revised to always allow a bit of choice with at least one of the skills, but I don't think adding in a bit about family is going to help - instead by tying in a bunch of mechanical stuff to that, you're going to cause actually less diverse character stories, when one "family" option gives Perception and Athletics, and another gives History and "Merchant" or whatever.

So I think a better solution to the same issue is to make sure Backgrounds are flexible, rather than this.

Further, how would you even do "family" if it gives "contacts" and a home/town village? There a tens of thousands of towns across many different settings. It's not like you can list them, so they'll need to be made up each time. Why does it need to be such a major mechanical element? Does it actually help? Would it perhaps not merely be better to have a non-mechanical "upbringing" so the player considers it, and can choose how much weight to give it. You're giving it a huge amount of weight here. Especially considering many backgrounds likely include upbringing (acolyte, noble, etc.). Why would it not make vastly more sense for Background to give contacts, if you were going to detail them?

 

[CubicsRube]

I've uploaded a first draft in the original post. Please excuse the rough formatting.

I'm finding it difficult to get some of the stereotypes out of cultures, so I've moved away from a "Dwarvish Clanhold" or an "Elvish Grove" and instead made different cultural locations. In this I have provided usual inhabitants of these locations, but this can be up to the player and the GM to decide. For example, a Eyrie could consist largely of a group of Orc who have tired of war and petty squabbles and want to seek something better for themselves. A deep mountain holding could host a diverse cosmopolitan society.

Secondly, I have moved ability score increases away from ancestry to class choice on the reasoning that training as a wizard would give you a boost to intelligence, a bard to charisma, etc.

I have thirdly separated skill proficiency choices out of class (but not from background) to a free choice system. This may not please some people and is option.

I've tried to keep many of the features as unchanged from the PHB as possible. However there have been a few instances where I have added or amended some items. Further work would be needed to balance out some of the features.

In summary the draft as it stands has the following choices:

1. Choose an ancestry - this gives physical features such as relentless endurance or poison resilience
2. Choose your native language
3. Choose the culture you grew up in - usually giving weapon/armour proficiencies, occasionally skill proficiencies, some magical abilities and other features that previously belonged to race
4. Background - Same as PHB, background features expanded upon in some cases
5. Proficiencies - 3 free skill choices - can be kept with class choice if preferred
6. Ability scores - choose your preferred method
7. Class - gives ability score increases in addition to normal class features

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I feel like family is just unnecessary in there. Between Culture and Background, you have all the same things covered. You're just unnecessarily pulling stuff out to make something else, and the name "family" isn't perfect, because an awful lot of D&D characters won't have been raised by any kind of conventional family, but rather by monks, or communally by lizardpeople, or on the mean streets without a home, or the like. I'm just not seeing how family is needed as well as Culture and Background.

In all of these cases they could get to know someone. I think that players and DM should be encouraged to consider the characters connections to the world. If Vinnie's cousins brother runs a tavern in Triboar that is an in to when the party arrives there. They could introduce themselves and get introduced to the important regulars at least.

I do think inflexible Backgrounds which don't allow Skill choices are unhelpful (there are a few) and should be revised to always allow a bit of choice with at least one of the skills, but I don't think adding in a bit about family is going to help - instead by tying in a bunch of mechanical stuff to that, you're going to cause actually less diverse character stories, when one "family" option gives Perception and Athletics, and another gives History and "Merchant" or whatever.

So I think a better solution to the same issue is to make sure Backgrounds are flexible, rather than this.

That would do also. I think a floating skill from a list and more tool proficiencies would be good.

Further, how would you even do "family" if it gives "contacts" and a home/town village? There a tens of thousands of towns across many different settings. It's not like you can list them, so they'll need to be made up each time. Why does it need to be such a major mechanical element? Does it actually help? Would it perhaps not merely be better to have a non-mechanical "upbringing" so the player considers it, and can choose how much weight to give it. You're giving it a huge amount of weight here. Especially considering many backgrounds likely include upbringing (acolyte, noble, etc.). Why would it not make vastly more sense for Background to give contacts, if you were going to detail them?

I would not consider it to be a major element and it would be better if the contact is in some location relevant to the adventure. It seems to be to be something that one could ignore, like I have often seen tool and gaming proficiencies are ignored but again I think that encouragement to think about connections to the world should be encouraged in play. A lot of characters I have seem seem to be, as if born from the mist

 

[Undrave]

Culture

I do wonder if this could unconsciously make things worse. We'd have to be very careful in selecting things that culture gives you. Bias could creep in, causing us to make "growing up in an elvish city" be more rewarding than "growing up in a orcish city."

I think Culture should be more vague and be based on more of societal level. Like you'd have a 'Mercantile Culture' where commerce and money rule, you'd have a 'Militaristic Culture' with strong authority and all the able people are trained in the use of weapons, you'd have 'Nomadic Culture', 'Isolationist Culture', 'Theocratic Culture', 'Magocratic Culture' and even a 'Hedonistic Culture' that all have a, shall we say, aspect of societal living they focus on as a culture. If you've ever played the game Tapestry, it'd be a lot like the civilizations in that game.

If we break things down into too many components, you get to a point where you might as well just say, "Here are a bunch of abilities. Select X from each list and come up with a story to explain it." If you're already effectively there, might as well go the rest of the way.

Also, physical characteristics being tied to ancestry can be bad as well. "Hey, this ancestry is all big and strong. They should be fighters. If you play them as a wizard you're wasting their strength." That will still create a "stand in for race, with inherent racism" vibe for a reasonable number of players. With only rare exceptions where physical description is inherently tied to capability, we should likely avoid tying physical abilities to ancestry.

How about the Ancestry only gives a +1 to the stat, and the Culture gives a choice between two +2 (no stacking)? That way your Mage can have 9 STR and still start with 16 INT.

Secondly, I have moved ability score increases away from ancestry to class choice on the reasoning that training as a wizard would give you a boost to intelligence, a bard to charisma, etc.

This was something I suggested as well, each step in the character creation process gives you a bonus and you no longer roll or point buy. You'd get a bonus from Ancestry, a bonus from Culture, a bonus from Background and then a bonus from your Class. People didn't like it so much because of the sacrosaint random stat generation they love so much (How are we gonna get two 18 otherwise?). But going on the suggestion I made earlier in this post, maybe Ancestry gives you a +1 and your Class a +2 then? Or maybe Ancestry +1, Culture +1, Background +1, Class +1? Or would that push optimization too much?