The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Now 5e backgrounds are more about directing the player to establish "your place in the world" with background features worded in a way that tends to imply they should override the GM's worldbuilding/adventure planning. Those questions are technically there on phb 125but now they are structured in a paragraph that encourages a feedback loop that weirdly turbocharges the foregrounded background with actual worldbuilding.
Could you give an example of this turbocharging? I really don't see it. Backgrounds, and their features, are an easy tool for players. I mean, the very first page of backgrounds in the PHB discusses customization and "suggested characteristics." Combine that with a session zero or, at the very least, ask the DM question, and it seems to me to backgrounds don't do anything but help the DM and player.
I’m just answering the poll question. Based on what I know now about the 2024 editions, which is based on what’s been revealed through playtesting, I’m not planning to adopt the rules from the new core books. The actual published material could change my mind later.
Fair enough. I'm a little surprised that those features are as important to you as all that, but I honestly support the character's story-integration that you're going for. I don't personally think that the background features did a good job of that, but I can see how players who leaned into them could get something out of them. Thanks for your perspective.
Could you give an example of this turbocharging? I really don't see it. Backgrounds, and their features, are an easy tool for players. I mean, the very first page of backgrounds in the PHB discusses customization and "suggested characteristics." Combine that with a session zero or, at the very least, ask the DM question, and it seems to me to backgrounds don't do anything but help the DM and player.
I think there's been a lot of discussion about one over the last couple pages since 1033 brought up the incongruity caused by the noble background & the "position of privilege" background feature it has on PHB135. It's a good one too because I've seen so many PCs with the noble background trying to do heavy duty worldbuilding to:
create a noble family
define its place in the world including what it does with whom all the way to things like declaring said family has power
create organizations & such that it "owns" from hammerspace like "my family has a branch of our $flowershopGuild in this town and... [you get where this 'and' is going]"
define how others like $NPC view it to the GM rather than asking the GM or engaging in any sort of discussion
And that's why I, for one, don't see a substantial difference between the 2014 and 2024 presentation of Background: I expect it to work exactly the same in practice.
Same. I see why @Hriston feels differently, but I don't imagine any difference between the two in my games, other than perhaps that the 2024 version feels less limited in scope. (To me).
I think there's been a lot of discussion about one over the last couple pages since 1033 brought up the incongruity caused by the noble background & the "position of privilege" background feature it has on PHB135. It's a good one too because I've seen so many PCs with the noble background trying to do heavy duty worldbuilding to:
create a noble family
define its place in the world including what it does with whom all the way to things like declaring said family has power
create organizations & such that it "owns" from hammerspace like "my family has a branch of our $flowershopGuild in this town and... [you get where this 'and' is going]"
define how others like $NPC view it to the GM rather than asking the GM or engaging in any sort of discussion
How are these not cleared up at session zero or right before the game. We are talking about a campaign, right? I assume (and maybe this is where I am wrong) that if someone is going to play six months or a year with a group, the DM has a chance to review the character prior to the game starting.
Your bold is an example of what I am talking about. I am not so sure we disagree. I think you might be drawing a straight line while I draw a curvy one.
To be clear I wish they just gave examples on how a background could be useful, not specific features that some people interpret as inviolable rules. It looks like that's the direction they're taking, so I think it's a good change.
Of course there will always be situations where a background is not particularly useful, like a sailor background in the desert.
How are these not cleared up at session zero or right before the game. We are talking about a campaign, right? I assume (and maybe this is where I am wrong) that if someone is going to play six months or a year with a group, the DM has a chance to review the character prior to the game starting.
It's only a problem when the player uses it as a spreadsheet for power or tries to engage in worldbuilding that conflicts with the GM's world or gets rejected by the GM. When the player feels like it is their right to engage in worldbuilding through backstory in isolation as the PHB pretty much telegraphs. There's also the contrasting fact that literally no part of the character creation chapter talks about collaborating with others at this stage & the15isg pages devoted to background aren't much better if backstory is done proactively.
Secondly there is the more severe issue where a player has an idea in their head and feels that any conflicts are for the GM to resolve on their end because the 5e glut of pages devoted to background shifts it from being a thing that stays in the background as a secondary tangent to the important things as 4e & 3.x made clear or implied. Instead of answering questions found in 3.x & 4e phb like
✦ Why did you decide to be an adventurer?
✦ How did you acquire your class? If you’re a fighter,
for example, you might have been in a militia, come
from a family of soldiers, or trained in a martial
school, or you might be a self-taught warrior.
✦ How did you acquire your starting equipment? Did
you assemble it piece by piece over time? Was it a
gift from a parent or a mentor? Do any of your per-
sonal items have special significance?
✦ What’s the worst event of your life?
✦ What’s the best thing that’s ever happened to you?
✦ Do you stay in contact with your family? What do
your relatives think of you and your chosen career?
in order to get an outlook on how the player will play the PC they are often answering them to build up their background with the BIFTs replacing what background once did in order to disruptively not really give much of an outlook on how the player will play the PC.
It's only a problem when the player uses it as a spreadsheet for power or tries to engage in worldbuilding that conflicts with the GM's world or gets rejected by the GM. When the player feels like it is their right to engage in worldbuilding through backstory in isolation as the PHB pretty much telegraphs. There's also the contrasting fact that literally no part of the character creation chapter talks about collaborating with others at this stage & the15isg pages devoted to background aren't much better if backstory is done proactively.
Secondly there is the more severe issue where a player has an idea in their head and feels that any conflicts are for the GM to resolve on their end because the 5e glut of pages devoted to background shifts it from being a thing that stays in the background as a secondary tangent to the important things as 4e & 3.x made clear or implied. Instead of answering questions found in 3.x & 4e phb like
✦ Why did you decide to be an adventurer?
✦ How did you acquire your class? If you’re a fighter,
for example, you might have been in a militia, come
from a family of soldiers, or trained in a martial
school, or you might be a self-taught warrior.
✦ How did you acquire your starting equipment? Did
you assemble it piece by piece over time? Was it a
gift from a parent or a mentor? Do any of your per-
sonal items have special significance?
✦ What’s the worst event of your life?
✦ What’s the best thing that’s ever happened to you?
✦ Do you stay in contact with your family? What do
your relatives think of you and your chosen career?
in order to get an outlook on how the player will play the PC they are often answering them to build up their background with the BIFTs replacing what background once did in order to disruptively not really give much of an outlook on how the player will play the PC.
I see what you are saying. However, the problem (like a lot of problems in D&D) come from not reading the book. But instead piecemealing it. I can't stand food analogies, but I am going to use one here: You are stating there is a problem with the meal because it is too savory and needs something sweet. Yet, you haven't had dessert yet. You are isolating just the main course instead of judging the meal as a whole.
First, let's get rid of the pesky noble background. It literally states in the PHB (pg. 125) "... if you come from a wealthy background, why don't you have more money?" This implies to the reader (player) that they shouldn't overreach. Because they are a noble does not mean they have tons of coin. The second is customization literally tells the player to work with their DM.
Now, back to that food analogy. In the beginning of the PHB, it talks about working with your DM. It is found in the introduction and in building the character. (It also is described, albeit in a positive way, in the background introduction (stating the DM can help you). So there is no conflict if people read the rulebook. The DM can even point to the second page of the rulebook where it states: "Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world."
The rulebook is a book to be taken as a whole, not piecemealed.
I see what you are saying. However, the problem (like a lot of problems in D&D) come from not reading the book. But instead piecemealing it. I can't stand food analogies, but I am going to use one here: You are stating there is a problem with the meal because it is too savory and needs something sweet. Yet, you haven't had dessert yet. You are isolating just the main course instead of judging the meal as a whole.
First, let's get rid of the pesky noble background. It literally states in the PHB (pg. 125) "... if you come from a wealthy background, why don't you have more money?" This implies to the reader (player) that they shouldn't overreach. Because they are a noble does not mean they have tons of coin. The second is customization literally tells the player to work with their DM.
Now, back to that food analogy. In the beginning of the PHB, it talks about working with your DM. It is found in the introduction and in building the character. (It also is described, albeit in a positive way, in the background introduction (stating the DM can help you). So there is no conflict if people read the rulebook. The DM can even point to the second page of the rulebook where it states: "Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world."
The rulebook is a book to be taken as a whole, not piecemealed.
No I don't think it's that simple. I'll try to move half a step away from the food analogy to a food marketing analogy. It's no secret that anyone going into a fast food place doesn't expect to get a burger that looks like the one on the sign or tv commercial & the staff can point to theprice/speed/corp policy/whatever vrs tv magic in the event someone does complain hoping to get a free small fry or whatever as compensation if it's particularly bad.
With the extreme devoted to PHB122-141 (BIFTS & backgrounds) the player who hasn't read it in detail arrives actually expecting to get what the ads look like without any of this or this and the GM has an incredibly poor footing with little to back them up right from the getgo if they try to push back in an effort to aim the player expectations towards reality. That solid footing is what the GM lost through the shift in tone & pagecount. "well bob you need to read the entire PHB & to be honest probably the DMG too, why not do that while I'm talking to Alice about $thing" is not really a solution for the GM.
It's not just noble, any of the backgrounds with notable social clout carries these sorts of problems. Guild artisans styled as guildmasters & the like, criminals who expect to be mafia boss adjacent, soldiers written like general Brittish, soldiers who expect to be taken as The legendary Captain Jack Sparrow, etc.
There's even a great parody of it and other backstory tropes
Whole thing is good but I timestamped it to the relevant example
Yes there are places that say words like "work with your GM" like you (and I in1050) mention/reference, but the important reason they also fail to give the GM any sort of solid footing is that the GM is referenced as taking a passive role to the active role they give to the player in deciding through the use of active & passive voice/sentences. It ultimately just reinforces a players belief that the gm is in the wrong by pushing back
marketing
