D&D (2024) Is anyone going to use the new 2024 backgrounds?

[tetrasodium]

That was just a tangent to that tangent. I've just finally gotten up to date with Dr. Stone and was quickly reminded of him. Still he had his follower from the background feature n_n.


Let me bring this in order. To me backgrounds in 5e are mostly if not entirely about roleplay and getting a stake in the fictional space. Yes, it has skills and tools/languages attached, but these can be swapped if not outright chosen by raw, so totally a non-factor for mechanics. To me background choice has always been entirely about the themes I want for my character. At most, the background feature is the only mechanical concern. I mostly care about the BIFT and having a justification for in-game importance or lack of it. And many times I felt free to mix or modify that. The only need for DM approval has been to homebrew features.

Now we have mechanical pressure on what used to be a choice entirely free from mechanical concerns. And these are rigid packages. I can no longer just go pick without a care in the world, nor do something like mashing together stuff into things like "mafia princess" (noble+criminal) Because all of that now requires explicit DM approval.



I've been to busy fighting to use the stuff in my character sheet as written or to resist the DMs wanting to dictate weapon choice and forcing me to max up certain scores to "demand" stuff. When I DM I let players do almost anything they want, accept homebrew, third party and optional stuff from obscure blogs, but as a player, the most I can hope is to be respected on RAW, and that is the best outcome. (BTW I lost both fights with DMs)

It hink that your post nicely demonstrates the problem being addressed by somewhat locking down backgrounds with mechanical weight of Concern in addition to why it was needed.It seems by your description of working with the GM you feel that it is a one way street, it is not. The new phb has some details about how to do so during chargen on page 33 I believe it was.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That was just a tangent to that tangent. I've just finally gotten up to date with Dr. Stone and was quickly reminded of him. Still he had his follower from the background feature n_n.


Let me bring this in order. To me backgrounds in 5e are mostly if not entirely about roleplay and getting a stake in the fictional space. Yes, it has skills and tools/languages attached, but these can be swapped if not outright chosen by raw, so totally a non-factor for mechanics. To me background choice has always been entirely about the themes I want for my character. At most, the background feature is the only mechanical concern. I mostly care about the BIFT and having a justification for in-game importance or lack of it. And many times I felt free to mix or modify that. The only need for DM approval has been to homebrew features.

Now we have mechanical pressure on what used to be a choice entirely free from mechanical concerns. And these are rigid packages. I can no longer just go pick without a care in the world, nor do something like mashing together stuff into things like "mafia princess" (noble+criminal) Because all of that now requires explicit DM approval.



I've been to busy fighting to use the stuff in my character sheet as written or to resist the DMs wanting to dictate weapon choice and forcing me to max up certain scores to "demand" stuff. When I DM I let players do almost anything they want, accept homebrew, third party and optional stuff from obscure blogs, but as a player, the most I can hope is to be respected on RAW, and that is the best outcome. (BTW I lost both fights with DMs)

I'm sorry you had that experience, but I'm glad the game doesn't assume the DM is a jerk.

 

[MoonSong]

It hink that your post nicely demonstrates the problem being addressed by somewhat locking down backgrounds with mechanical weight of Concern in addition to why it was needed.It seems by your description of working with the GM you feel that it is a one way street, it is not. The new phb has some details about how to do so during chargen on page 33 I believe it was.

Care to be more explicit? I don't exactly follow.

 

[Zuranthium]

They didn't cover it as big, important, or highly creative. I know that's your interpretation but I don't see any verbiage in their coverage that supports that claim

"the flexibility of the new system goes beyond anything before"
"it's easier to create a character than ever before and characters will be deeper than ever before"
"any returning player will find more ways to imagine their character"
"the backgrounds section is more beautiful than ever before"
"backgrounds and species now interlock more than ever"
"each background now has their own bonus points [pause for hammed up reaction shot, as if this is sooooo brilliant]"
"the intention of design is remarkable and massively plotted out"
"you're going to find more ways to evolve your character than ever before"
"this is the largest handbook ever, it has been rebuilt from the ground up"

That's their job, right, to sell the content they produce

You act like corporations selling questionable products and using marketing to twist the narrative and maintain brand dominance is a good thing.

In reality WotC is owned by Hasbro and all the management cares about is pushing product in the most superficially profitable way possible, not the artistic/substantive integrity of what they are creating. The goal is to keep costs low and follow a formula: fill books with as much fluff as possible, to create the illusion of a high page count being a quality-stuffed product, with just enough changes to make it seem like something everyone must have.

 

[Yaarel]

Nobody is buying a book because of backgrounds, and nobody who wrote the backgrounds at WOTC thought people would buy the books because of backgrounds, Hyperbole isn't necessary or helpful on this topic.

Background has become a substantial and important design space.

There will be more DMs and players who put more thought into background, and with background feats and good proficiency rules, there will be DMs and players who buy a book because of the backgrounds.

 

[Scott Christian]

Most of our players will use the pre-generated backgrounds. I will use one if it fits my 2024 rules-based character.

 

[Yaarel]

I honestly think that the easiest, most interesting, and fairest thing to do is to use the 2024 Backgrounds, but let players trade any option for any other equivalent option, as long as it is done in a way that makes logical sense for that character.

Which is what I plan to do.

Yeah.

Spells and feats work this way. Pick such-and-such or an other one of your choice.

There is every reason for backgrounds to work this way too.

There is a default go-to for players that need this, and customizability for players that need this.

Win-win.

 

[mamba]

There will be more DMs and players who put more thought into background, and with background feats and good proficiency rules, there will be DMs and players who buy a book because of the backgrounds.

there will be people for who it is one of the reasons to get the new books, I very much doubt it will ever be the main reason

 

[Yaarel]

I am excited that 2024 is assigning mechanical weight to a background narrative.

@MoonSong has it right, that the background is where players are "getting a stake in the fictional world".

These arent neutral mechanics, they are part of the origin of a character − how the character concept fits within the world.

It is helpful for the core rules to supply a default narrative that is medievalesque and flexible.

At the same time, it is important to allow the player to tweak the narrative of ones own character − for the specific individual.


Essentially the player can have whichever background mechanics the player prefers. Go with the default narrative. And. If wanting to respin the narrative to finetune it, then work with the DM. Because. This is part of the space within the fictional world.

For example. @ECMO3 gave an excellent reallife example of how a character might have both a proficiency with a "Waterborne Vehicle" and an "Airborne Vehicle" − in this case by navy military training. If this is a concept for a character, it implies that the fictional space of the setting has at least one military that has this kind of personnel training. So the DM needs to figure out which military has this. Reciprocally, the character becomes affiliated with this specific organization. Is the character still active in this military organization? Is the character on a mission? Who are the organization contacts who might be helpful in the future? These are the kinds of things a player and a DM need to sort out together.

The player can have whichever mechanics make sense for the character concept. At the same time, these particular background mechanics are an entry point into the narrative space, and rich with narrative implications.

 

[NiClerigo]

“I'm not too keen on the redteam service provider adversary vibes being ascribed to the role of GM by wotc recently”

Could you please elaborate on the reasons why you see things this way? I have only played 2e and 5e, and feel that the game is moving in a direction in which serious threats with real chances of PC failure/death are both unlikely and discouraged, and DMs are expected to please extremely powerful characters. Fine for those that like this, but it’s not my cup of tea. I haven’t seen any confirmation that optional rules such as gritty or healing variants will be present in the DMG, which goes against the early 5e philosophy of a modulad system