Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8999897" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Sure. I think expectation is a big part of it. If the rules have a specific way of working, and the GM then decides to use judgment instead, that can be frustrating. I like the Backgrounds in 5e because they (some, at least) give specific benefits. Much like a feat or a spell… they work in clearly defined ways. Or at least, they should… some folks seem to think they’re less specific than other rules. They also help to serve as inspiration for potential advantages or drawbacks in play. Those more freeform situations that you’re describing. So a Noble may not need to make a roll to know a custom or to be familiar with heraldry, but they may also find it hard to move about unnoticed in the affluent district of a city. That kind of thing. To connect it to the idea of DM control, I’ve gotten very used to letting players decide when a background applies or not. If they declare an action and then say “do I get any kind of benefit due to being a Criminal?” I usually turn it right back on them. “How does being a Criminal help you here?” Unless their reason is total BS, I give them advantage or determine that no roll is needed. I think sometimes we don’t want to let the players have it “too easy” and so we resist this kind of thing. I think there’s a lot of conditioning that takes place in the hobby to make it seem that way. But 95% of the time, there’s nothing disruptive or unbalanced about this stuff. Generally, all it does is improve chances for something that may have succeeded anyway. I also find that having the player explain their reasoning on why their background applies can help to flesh out the character for the other participants, which is never a bad thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 8999897, member: 6785785"] Sure. I think expectation is a big part of it. If the rules have a specific way of working, and the GM then decides to use judgment instead, that can be frustrating. I like the Backgrounds in 5e because they (some, at least) give specific benefits. Much like a feat or a spell… they work in clearly defined ways. Or at least, they should… some folks seem to think they’re less specific than other rules. They also help to serve as inspiration for potential advantages or drawbacks in play. Those more freeform situations that you’re describing. So a Noble may not need to make a roll to know a custom or to be familiar with heraldry, but they may also find it hard to move about unnoticed in the affluent district of a city. That kind of thing. To connect it to the idea of DM control, I’ve gotten very used to letting players decide when a background applies or not. If they declare an action and then say “do I get any kind of benefit due to being a Criminal?” I usually turn it right back on them. “How does being a Criminal help you here?” Unless their reason is total BS, I give them advantage or determine that no roll is needed. I think sometimes we don’t want to let the players have it “too easy” and so we resist this kind of thing. I think there’s a lot of conditioning that takes place in the hobby to make it seem that way. But 95% of the time, there’s nothing disruptive or unbalanced about this stuff. Generally, all it does is improve chances for something that may have succeeded anyway. I also find that having the player explain their reasoning on why their background applies can help to flesh out the character for the other participants, which is never a bad thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification