D&D 5E Traits, Flaws, and Bonds L&L May 5th

[I'm A Banana]

Already the basic rules allow you to design your own mix-and-match backgrounds (p. 2 "Creating a background"). I see no reason there couldn't be a simple mechanism for switching these things.

Examples:
* Characters may invest two months of downtime to change one of the background skills with which they are proficient (or to change one proficiency, or to change the background trait).
* [and/or] Characters may invest two years of downtime to exchange one background for another (including a new, custom-designed one).

So yes, there should be ways to "swap professions" if that's what people want to do in play. Commoners can rise up from their station; butchers can learn to paint; thugs can learn to sail. All this is possible.

The game recognizes that skills and backgrounds don't need to be coupled -- you don't need one to use the other. I believe the game should also recognize that backgrounds and professions don't need to be coupled -- that use of one doesn't imply or demand use of the other. I imagine that's the intent in renaming "Priest" as "Acolyte" (and similar). The latter specifically implies training -- a set of skills you learned. The former implies behavior -- the things you do. If one can be trained in a church, but not actually participate or officiate at those rituals, and if one can participate or officiate at those rituals without being trained in a church to do so, these shouldn't be the same mechanical element. You can have one without the other.

Which isn't to say you can't link them, of course. I imagine at a Basic level, being a Cleric also implies you were an Acolyte and have a Priest profession. But if you're going to specifically talk about backgrounds, that means your profession is irrelevant, just like if you're going to be talking about professions (such as with downtime), that means the background is irrelevant.

Yes they do, although they are "professions" in the broad sense of "how you make your living". That includes stuff as the guild thief (you make a living by one or more illegal activity), the thug (you make a living by extorting money or dirty jobs by commission), the bounty hunter (you make a living by collecting bounties), the sage (you make a living by selling your knowledge or they just make donations to you).

I think the further distinction between backgrounds and professions would be useless.

I don't think focusing on backgrounds as "what you were before adventuring" rather than "what you are when not adventuring" is a good idea. The second interpretation is more consistent with the fact that you actually keep progressing in those proficiencies.

On one level, this is just semantics. The word "background" doesn't seem to imply something that you ACTIVELY DO. It's history. Context. It's not "how you make your living," it's "how you came to be who you are today." So if they're going to call the mechanical fob that tells you how your character spends their non-adventuring time your character's "background," it's just a lousy name for the thing. "Job" or "Profession" or even "Secondary Skill" are all much better words for that mechanical fob.

On another level, there's a game design reason these would be separate.

What you did before you took up your adventuring career can reasonably give you something I'm going to call "proficiency." You can learn to use a sword, or learn to con people with your charisma, or learn to sail a ship, or learn to conduct a ritual, or learn magical theory, or whatever -- you can get basic skills with that background training. Those are skills you can keep developing, because you were trained in the fundamentals.

What you do actively when not adventuring is a different thing. Your training doesn't necessarily factor into it as heavily. Anyone can proclaim themselves a representative of Banjo the Puppet God and go around blessing newborn babies. What you do when not adventuring is more defined by the outputs you want from the time you spend on it -- if you want some coin or some work of art or some remarkable item or some new friends or what. This product comes from performing a craft or utilizing your profession or engaging the townsfolk or whatever. You don't need to be a trained schmoozer to roll into town, start buying drinks, and making buddies. Your proficiencies might affect the degree of your success (ie, make a Diplomacy check to see how well you make connections), but they don't determine what you can do (since it doesn't take a specialization to do that).

So if "Acolyte" is what you did before you took up your adventuring career, it would give you some basic proficiencies (Religion and Holy Symbol, forex), but if "Priest" is what you do alongside your adventuring career, you might make Wisdom checks to see how much money you earn and how many people in town trust you after doing the Rosenberg's Bot Mitzvah for little Rebbekha (maybe you'd roll a Religion check instead if you were trained). Thus, you can have a system where someone is an Acolyte but not a Priest, or swapped, without one requiring the other, by separating those two elements.

And if those two elements are separate, it makes a lot more sense in the simple English of the thing for the "background" to house the "before you began your adventuring life" rules (such as the package of proficiencies that come with Acolyte), and the "downtime" system to house the "what you do when you're not adventuring" rules (such as making a little money and a few friends while perform a few blood-pact weddings in the name of our lord and savior Satan or whatever).

 

[howandwhy99]

In past editions, the game has approached the more "literary side" of character creation with a light touch. It's often been assumed that people already knew how to role play and didn't need much guidance for it, and that players would need little prompting to think of their characters as more than just a set of mechanical options for combat, skills, and magic.

The irony here is that "literary side" is put in quotation marks. Does he mean there is no literary side to the game? Every side is the literary side? Something else?

The falsehood is that role playing isn't engaging in the mechanics of the game, but instead about expressing a fictional persona. The latter isn't role playing, at least it never was for early D&D. Every game mechanic in early D&D was to enable better role playing by players.

On the other hand, the article's content is tantamount to predetermining particular strategies players are supposed to follow when playing the game. That doesn't allow for learning through play much at all for the players. How a player plays any game, meaning their particular discerned strategies, is supposed to be left open to the players. What we get here might be called strategy directives.

To me this is a confusion by the designers about the focus games. Games are about players discerning better strategies through play. Usually game designers won't offer strategies to players about how to play. That's part of the joy of learning about the game when playing it. OTOH, if players want the strategies they use to be attributed to fictional personae (and not themselves as game players), then that is something else entirely. I guess at last I am glad these are optional. A best I feel they are attempting to jump start players into being creative by being a creative for them.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Holy crap! Pun intended. Did not take long for another thread to be completely side-tracked over arguing about the name of one Background. Seriously?

Anyway, I love the ideas presented. It was nice to sort through 8 pages to see a few others did too. THIS is exactly what I want to see in a new edition. I especially love the random tables. Not just for newbies either. I love randomness. These will be very helpful for quick NPCs and I would even roll on them for any PCs I get to play (if I ever do)?

 

[sidonunspa]

This whole process works in Fate, because the mechanics (reasonably) equally in all types of scene; social, exploration, combat, etc. D&D is very much not that way. So, if (in the theorized system) you earn points through "free" roleplay that you can later use in "expensive" combat, .....

That's the DM's fault..

Social encounters can be as dangerous as any combat encounter... hell, they can be worse.

Aspects/traits/bonds/whatever SHOULD get the players in trouble, when used right create complications which can not always be defeated with a sword. Reward those choices, reward players for getting in trouble.

I would tweak the rules so fellow players & DM's can trigger another characters aspect/trait/bond/whatever... the heroes can spend a point (fate or whatever) to say "hell no" or they can "suck it up" and get an additional point.

 

[Li Shenron]

On one level, this is just semantics. The word "background" doesn't seem to imply something that you ACTIVELY DO. It's history. Context. It's not "how you make your living," it's "how you came to be who you are today."

It can mean both things. The designers at WotC have explicitly talked about D&D backgrounds both ways. But the proficiency rules (i.e. increasing bonus) they actually designed match more with background as "meanwhile" than with background as "before".

The specific backgrounds we've seen in the playtest rules can be easily interpreted both ways. This is very good, because a lot of gamers assume that adventurers do adventures all the time, and they play campaigns which are endless streams of adventuring quests and event: for them it maybe makes more sense to have a "before". But others prefer characters who lead normal lives plus sparse adventures, and backgrounds as "meanwhile" make a lot of sense then.

The downtime system is IMO meants to represent a more active management of the time between adventures, such as "you have this amount of time, what do you do?", and then use the system proactively i.e. make a decision "I want to obtain this benefit".

Backgrounds are meant to... well.. "blend in the background" It's not something to worry about specifying exactly what you're doing. You can assume you're doing that all the time you're not doing something more specific (e.g. adventures).

It also has to be kept in mind that originally background were introduced as a mechanic to deliver skills outside classes, because a lot of players were tired of the 3e way of virtually requiring to be a certain class in order to learn a skill. That's the real reason they were done in 5e, not because players wanted a mechanic to represent what you were doing before picking up an adventuring life or what you're doing as a job. The narrative interpretation came later, but it's very useful especially for players more interested in description than mechanics IMHO.

On another level, there's a game design reason these would be separate.

Well, my opinion is that backgrounds are going to be more useful for me to represent a PC's role in society, because generally speaking I like campaigns where quests may overlap and weave together continuously but most of the effective time is spent living in the world, but I do not generally want to specify the details. When I want to do that, I'll use the downtime system for specific actions.

So it's totally ok for me that someone has a background "Blacksmith" and that's how she makes a living and develops her skills continuously, and then sometimes she exploits a chunk of downtime to craft a masterwork weapon.

Honestly, I am not interested in using a system to represent the past, especially if such system grants something that still increases all the time.

 

[pemerton]

I heart that art.

It's from Divine Power. (Though whether it's original to that book I'm not sure.)

 

[pemerton]

So perhaps then it just comes down to what exactly the background is meant to imply?

It seems like backgrounds *should* fade away as characters interact with the world and grow. The commoner is still a commoner, but the 15th level commoner fighter is also the royal general. At some point he should learn which fork to use at a formal meal.

When backgrounds imply you were already established in life prior to taking up adventuring, they urge a style that I really dislike. Adventurers are much more likely, at least as I see it, to be people who started off adventuring instead of finishing formal training to become an established member of society, rather than after.

<snip>

So I prefer if background can allow either interpretation. If you are a priest, then you once were an acolyte, since it is a normal path along the way. But if you are an acolyte you didn't necessarily become a priest.

<snip>

Backgrounds ought to say who you were before you became established, so that you can say that a character was or was not established in the direction the background would have pointed.

In 5e, background don't seem to fill that role of "profession."

<snip>

It's just a matter of definition:

• Backgrounds represents your background before you became an adventurer -- your fundamental training.
• Class is your skillset as an adventurer -- what you're improving and working towards while killin' goblins.
• Profession is what you do other than adventure -- what you spend your time away from the dungeon doing.

<snip>

My impression is that, as a background, these things are about this history of the character

<snip>

If it's something that is about the character's present state, that is more like their profession

<snip>

Background is historical, not necessarily current, is the impression I get.

For me it's how the character connects t the world around them; what stops them from being murder hobos, if that phrase can be used neutrally.

<snip>

I see backgrounds embracing both of what you call backgrounds and profession.

<snip>

My end desire is for the background to matter to the character throughout his or her career.

I wanted to comment on this discussion around what it is about the character, and the character's story, that a background represents.

My view is: can't it vary from table to table and character to character?

As a component of PC build, backgrounds occupy the same space as, in 4e, is filled by backgrounds and themes. My game doesn't use backgrounds, but it does use themes. For one of the PCs I couldn't tell you what his theme is: it is basically just some power ups onto his class chassis (paladin). Whereas for another PC, his theme (Devil's Pawn) is at the forefront of play a lot of the time, as he (and the rest of the group) struggle with and debate the merits of various diabolic alliances.

Can't backgrounds be equally flexible? For some characters, it is just a note about history that explains skill choices and grants a simple status trait like Bad Reputation or Guild Membership. For other characters, it is central to the character's personality and ongoing development, and the trait (say a contact, or connection to a temple) is at the forefront of play for that character.

It would be good if D&Dnext could carry over some of this sort of flexibility from 4e, instead of there being some necessity to metaphysically compartmentalise each PC into exactly the same metaphysical elements, one from class and the other from background. (I hope that subclasses will be flexible in this same way.)

 

[pemerton]

In Fate, aspects are sort of self-limiting.

<snip>

This whole process works in Fate, because the mechanics (reasonably) equally in all types of scene; social, exploration, combat, etc. D&D is very much not that way. So, if (in the theorized system) you earn points through "free" roleplay that you can later use in "expensive" combat, its a safe bet that there will be some background/trait choices that are commonly far easier to (ab)use in that way than others (even after table differences are accounted for.)

That's the DM's fault..

Social encounters can be as dangerous as any combat encounter... hell, they can be worse.

Although I would like to see some sort of mechanic built around these ideals, bonds and flaws, I think Ratskinner is right to see a potential dissimilarity between Fate (or in my case Marvel Heroic RP, which is the system I know better and use as my mental proxy for Fate) and D&D, and to worry that this could put pressure on any such mechanics.

It is not fair to say that such pressure is simply the fault of the GM. In D&D it is hard, for instance, to "soak" as many points in non-combat resolution as combat resolution, simply because the latter involves so many dice rolls. Whereas if you look at systems that use Fate-style mechanics (or other forms of personality mechanics, like the augments in HeroWars/Quest), they are much more uniform across combat/non-combat, and hence there is no general optimisation strategy based on gaming the combat/non-combat divide.

This is why I am also hoping that D&Dnext will include some sort of skill challenge mechanic to help reduce that mechanical divide (even though it probably won't fully eliminate it)!

I have to disagree with the comment that traits, flaws and bonds should carry much mechanical weight; that is basically forcing one playstyle on all games.

I don't see why having a system that allowed them to have mechanical weight would be forcing anything on anyone. Who is being forced to use it?

IWithout mechanics, nobody forces anybody to use it. Add mechanics, and it won't be easily optional anymore.

Why not? If you don't want to use personality mechanics, don't use them.

A system of the sort being discussed wouldn't be cross-contaminating other features of action resolution. It would sit on top of them (or next to them - choose your preferred metaphor).

 

[Balesir]

Count me as another disappointed that these are given no mechanical elements. The system can be optional with as well as without such elements, it seems to me, and without them they are not really a part of the game - as [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION] said.

Just off the top of my head, "advantage" and "disadvantage" given for "Trait Points" would seem a good way to give these some mechanical edge. They are usable on any d20 roll - so in or out of combat - and should be justified using the "Personality Trait" entry* (e.g. "I idolize a particular hero of my faith, and constantly refer to that person’s deeds and example" means you have to relate one such deed or tale to justify the Advantage you gain). Ideals and flaws seem like ways to either get Trait Points (Ideals) or have others challenge you (Flaws) and you gain either a Trait Point or a Flaw Point (Disadvantage may be imposed) for succumbing to the flaw or not.

Bonds seem more like personal quests, to me.



*: This is a bit hokey, I realise, but, as an antidote to such "character traits" tending merely to be irritating as players interject irrelevant and frequently questionably flavoured hokum at random intervals (and, as a result, typically stop using them after a session or two, IME), it at least allows for a focus and spur for more directed extemporisation, I think.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It was nice to sort through 8 pages to see a few others did too. THIS is exactly what I want to see in a new edition. I especially love the random tables. Not just for newbies either. I love randomness. These will be very helpful for quick NPCs and I would even roll on them for any PCs I get to play (if I ever do)?

Totally, the random charts are delightful.

Count me as another disappointed that these are given no mechanical elements.

I am like 90% confident that they will have a module for adding mechanical elements onto this. But it's D&D, so even THIS much is kind of an unprecedented level of attention to these things.