The truth is 90% of tables didn't use those role-playing aspects of 2014 backgrounds.
There is a common theme about D&D of wanting something for looks but not wanting to use it.
Everybody wants to folk hero to have the ability to rest or find shelter among commoners.
No one wants to warp the game around the idea that there has to be an opportunity for the folk hero to need shelter or rest among the commoners.
"Custom Backgrounds are the default, unless your GM bans them." and "Your GM can allow you to make a custom background, as an optional rule" are very different positions.More importantly, however, given that the 2024 DMG (p 55) provides guidance that "You can also create a background to help a player craft a story they have in mind for their character", I'm not seeing any issue with swapping out the default Origin feat of a Background for something else a player has in mind.
If you don't provide ways to use roleplay background traits bonds and ideals in most campaigns and publish adventures, most tables will not use them.There's no need to warp the game around it, what does that even mean?
Yep - this is the simple Creating a Background suggestion in the DMG (p 55)I don't think I'd even bother with backgrounds in 2024, just give players the mechanical benefits they want from the available options.
Actually the narrative background traits don't do much at most tables. Nor did they scale.I think the narrative background traits were the best bit of 5e 2014, it's a shame they jettisoned them. They should have made a big book of them instead and allowed martial characters access to additional ones. The traits would be a good way of heloping martials stay relevant at higher levels.
If you don't provide ways to use roleplay background traits bonds and ideals in most campaigns and publish adventures, most tables will not use them.
D&D is set up that Tough would be always useful In every campaign.
D&D is not set up so that Rustic Hospitality is always useful In every campaign.
every time i see this argument i want to ask the community 'is it biological essentialism that a tiger is more agile than an ox and the ox tougher?' the species of DnD are not comparible to the various races of humanity, because the human races are fundamentally still all humans and the fantasy species aren't, no matter how much their visually distingushing features just seem to be the length of their ears, the colour of their skin or how tall they are.People complained about attribute score improvements based on a character's species, many because it reminded them of biological essentialism and made them feel icky,
Actually the narrative background traits don't do much at most tables. Nor did they scale.
That's why they were jettisoned.
Perish the thought our 500 page combat and magic simulator includes anything about roleplaying!They were cool for inspiration but for the most part it was just several pages of fluff across a chapter.