D&D (2024) RIP, 2014 PHB backgrounds

[shadowoflameth]

I don’t think feats are going to be optional any more.

Then it's a problem with backward compatibility. I like feats but not every game uses them. Certainly every background doesn't need a feat or a language.

 

[Horwath]

Then it's a problem with backward compatibility. I like feats but not every game uses them. Certainly every background doesn't need a feat or a language.

No need to tie feats to background, just have a character gain a feat at 1st level.

simple.

if you really do not want to play with feats, just have an option to take +2 ASI with condition that ASI cannot stack with racial bonus over +2.
that means that racial ASIs with +2 "I dont like feats ASI" will be something out of:
+2,+2,+1
+2,+1,+1,+1
+1,+1,+1,+1,+1

 

[Remathilis]

Again, I’m not seeing the issue. Everyone is concerned about hypothetical players who might think the examples aren the only options, but no one seems to actually think that.

The whole kerfuffle started when people pointed out that the backgrounds in the playtest were using some of the same bias (intended or not) that racial cultures did. Gladiator (with its strength boost, orc language and SAVAGE attacker feat) was viewed as WotC saying gladiators in D&D were associated with orcs and savagery, and that just is the old orc lore with extra steps. There were threads on Enworld pointing this out, lest you think this was just a Twitter outrage. People literally read it and thought "why do all gladiators speak orc? Why do all farmers speak halfling?" And a few wondered why all criminals are dexterous or nobles charismatic. In short, people read it as "this is what a gladiator/farmer/noble is" rather than "this is what they could be".

The question is whether having these prepackaged bundles few people beyond be players are going to use is worth the chance that a background is viewed as restricting or even problematic. I want to trust WotC can thread that needle, but I've seen how WotC has made some unforced errors and how quickly people were willing to jump on the gladiator thing as yet another example of that. IMHO, the limited value of the premade bundles isn't worth the headache of people analyzing them as world building. There is no language you slot into gladiator that doesn't paint the race as violent, and having "choose x" is a waste of space.

So yeah, people will make that mistake because they already have. And it immediately became a minor tempest in a teapot. And the fixes are to make the system more complicated or redundant. So maybe the best move is to abandon the presets or reword them closer to the quick builds in the class section (a paragraph full of plain language suggestions). But the current format is ripe for misunderstanding.

 

[Horwath]

The whole kerfuffle started when people pointed out that the backgrounds in the playtest were using some of the same bias (intended or not) that racial cultures did. Gladiator (with its strength boost, orc language and SAVAGE attacker feat) was viewed as WotC saying gladiators in D&D were associated with orcs and savagery, and that just is the old orc lore with extra steps. There were threads on Enworld pointing this out, lest you think this was just a Twitter outrage. People literally read it and thought "why do all gladiators speak orc? Why do all farmers speak halfling?" And a few wondered why all criminals are dexterous or nobles charismatic. In short, people read it as "this is what a gladiator/farmer/noble is" rather than "this is what they could be".

The question is whether having these prepackaged bundles few people beyond be players are going to use is worth the chance that a background is viewed as restricting or even problematic. I want to trust WotC can thread that needle, but I've seen how WotC has made some unforced errors and how quickly people were willing to jump on the gladiator thing as yet another example of that. IMHO, the limited value of the premade bundles isn't worth the headache of people analyzing them as world building. There is no language you slot into gladiator that doesn't paint the race as violent, and having "choose x" is a waste of space.

So yeah, people will make that mistake because they already have. And it immediately became a minor tempest in a teapot. And the fixes are to make the system more complicated or redundant. So maybe the best move is to abandon the presets or reword them closer to the quick builds in the class section (a paragraph full of plain language suggestions). But the current format is ripe for misunderstanding.

It started because WotC are again writing things backwards.


Backgrounds should be presented 1st as:

1. Pick +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 for your ASIs
2. Pick any 2 skills
3. Pick any feat
4. Pick your choice of 2 or 3 languages, tools or weapons

Then, and only then you could write some EXAMPLES of backgrounds for new people that might not want to create their own or for maybe general guidance what might show up in certain backgrounds.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It started because WotC are again writing things backwards.


Backgrounds should be presented 1st as:

1. Pick +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 for your ASIs
2. Pick any 2 skills
3. Pick any feat
4. Pick your choice of 2 or 3 languages, tools or weapons

Then, and only then you could write some EXAMPLES of backgrounds for new people that might not want to create their own or for maybe general guidance what might show up in certain backgrounds.

I expect WotC feels presenting four decision points at the beginning of a section will scare off all those precious new players they're courting.

 

[Horwath]

I expect WotC feels presenting four decision points at the beginning of a section will scare off all those precious new players they're courting.

if examples start on the same page in next paragraph, that should not be a problem.

 

[Remathilis]

It started because WotC are again writing things backwards.


Backgrounds should be presented 1st as:

1. Pick +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 for your ASIs
2. Pick any 2 skills
3. Pick any feat
4. Pick your choice of 2 or 3 languages, tools or weapons

Then, and only then you could write some EXAMPLES of backgrounds for new people that might not want to create their own or for maybe general guidance what might show up in certain backgrounds.

But that's the thing: THEY DID!

The first section of backgrounds is the DIY method. It explains the ASI, skills, tool, language and feat choices along with 50gp of gear. It's the first thing in the background section, and people still missed it because the eye moves to lists and people started looking at the various lists and skipped how that is just a suggestion. My thought is as long as they list those suggestions in the same visual format as racial traits, it's going to be viewed as a hard rule rather than a suggestion.

My suggestion would be to omit the list format for a paragraph, akin to the quick builds:

"To play a gladiator, put a high score in strength, dexterity or constitution, with a second in charisma. Take skills like athletics, intimidation or performance, and take a tool like blacksmithing or a musical instrument. Consider a language for a race known for its warriors like orc, dwarf or draconic, and consider the savage attacker feat to show your battle prowess."

In one paragraph, you have given a few options and suggestions without nailing them down to a specific example or saying "choose one" without guidance.

 

[Gorck]

I expect WotC feels presenting four decision points at the beginning of a section will scare off all those precious new players they're courting.

I think what would scare off new players is the overwhelmingness of having to create your own Background. Having preset examples helps ease new players into the game and gets them started. Then when they have a little experience under their belts, they can try their hands at expressing their creativity by building their own Background.

I currently DM for two 10-year-olds. I practically had to coerce them into picking Backgrounds for their current characters because they didn't know how beneficial getting extra Skills, Tool Proficiencies, and Equipment actually was. Neither one even chose BIFTs because when I asked them what they wanted for their characters, they just shrugged and said, "I don't know." All they wanted to do was jump right in and start playing ASAP. I know that's just a problem with my group, but I'm sure there are other people out there in my predicament. Not every group involves seasoned veterans who are familiar with every aspect of the game (or of similar TTRPGs in general).

 

[dave2008]

I want most of them gone. Write one or two as "how to" illustrations if they must, but ditch the rest so that players stop treating the illustrative examples as proscriptive defaults.

Can't agree with you there. My players don't want to create a background. They just want to pick one and go. So, for my players, I hope they keep backgrounds in '24.

 

[dave2008]

It started because WotC are again writing things backwards.


Backgrounds should be presented 1st as:

1. Pick +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 for your ASIs
2. Pick any 2 skills
3. Pick any feat
4. Pick your choice of 2 or 3 languages, tools or weapons

Then, and only then you could write some EXAMPLES of backgrounds for new people that might not want to create their own or for maybe general guidance what might show up in certain backgrounds.

What? That is exactly what they did in the UA. They presented the default as make your own. The examples were just examples. Did you read the UA?