Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 9338446" data-attributes="member: 6877472"><p>And this is the crux of the argument. It's not that most Background features are a big deal, I think the only one I've ever heard complaints about was the Outlander basically destroying old school survival exploration.</p><p></p><p>It just comes down to how strongly you feel about verisimilitude. The background features are metagame elements, and 5e is pretty light on those, to the point that the few that do exist, get a lot of notice. More than that, they are metagame elements that the DM is urged to make work, and are invoked by the players, not the DM, who is, by actual definition in the DMG, the "Master of Worlds".</p><p></p><p>No, there's not much good reason to deny a Background Feature being used from a "it's a game" standpoint. But a lot of people, to varying degrees, are very attached to having a cohesive narrative. Upthread a ways back, I pointed out how these sort of coincidences of "just happening to know a guy" are a staple of the kinds of pulp stories that D&D was built on.</p><p></p><p>But not everyone wants to play that game. Maybe they want a grittier, closer to the ground experience. Thieves' World instead of Leiber or Tolkien. A metagame element that can be introduced at any time, where it would be completely unbelievable might take some people out of the story.</p><p></p><p>And immersion is important to a lot of people.</p><p></p><p>As has been noted, we make exceptions for spells generally because we accept (or have been trained to accept) the concept that magic can do amazing things that not-magic can't. The other day I watched <em>Seraphim Falls</em> for the first time, and I really enjoyed it, yet was surprised to find it was panned for it's few "maybe supernatural" elements. "What, did these people not see <em>Pale Rider</em>?"</p><p></p><p>But it just goes to show, D&D can be played in a lot of ways, and some of those ways have no room for "oh hey, guys, it's my cousin's sister's brother! He can help us!" That doesn't make them bad, it might make them not your preferred style, but it doesn't make them bad.</p><p></p><p>Like, Lanefan and his desire to make climbing out of ravine potentially an all day challenge that costs resources or a blip on the radar, depending on a single die roll? Not my cup of tea. I don't think my players would enjoy that. But, by all accounts, <em>his players do</em>. </p><p></p><p>And I can't say "well, that's not D&D" because D&D is a big tent. But Backgrounds, as presented, don't work with all the ways D&D can be played, and the books don't take that into account. Not once. They say "these are Backgrounds, DM, make 'em work".</p><p></p><p>Just as there are DM's who want there to be a chance for spells to fail when cast, or worse, have demons show up on occasion to tear the Wizard apart for daring to cast <em>magic missile</em>, there are going to be DM's who are going to look at a rules element like that and balk.</p><p></p><p>Upthread, I gave of examples of this very thing happening, and it can happen at a lot of tables, even tables run by DM's who would be on board with this sort of thing, but in the moment, have a knee jerk reaction of "this ruins my story" or "this seems too easy" or "where's that cool scene with my annoying bureaucrat?". </p><p></p><p>It's a proud nail. It sticks out because it appears to be saying "this is how D&D should be run" to some people. But D&D is for everyone, not just those of us who might be perfectly happy with giving players more agency in our games.</p><p></p><p>And it's changing. For better or for worse remains to be seen. And here's the thing- if you like the way it is, you can keep using it. Just as people who don't like it, don't.</p><p></p><p>I think by now everyone knows, you're not going to change the minds of those who don't like Background Features. I think that's a shame, because they can be great tools, but I also know that not every tool is needed for every job. I don't need a ball peen hammer (I hope) to fix a blue screen on my computer or unclog a drain. You probably shouldn't use a plunger to fix a brake line.</p><p></p><p>Of course, this post will get some likes, but I know others will ignore it and continue the debate, lol.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 9338446, member: 6877472"] And this is the crux of the argument. It's not that most Background features are a big deal, I think the only one I've ever heard complaints about was the Outlander basically destroying old school survival exploration. It just comes down to how strongly you feel about verisimilitude. The background features are metagame elements, and 5e is pretty light on those, to the point that the few that do exist, get a lot of notice. More than that, they are metagame elements that the DM is urged to make work, and are invoked by the players, not the DM, who is, by actual definition in the DMG, the "Master of Worlds". No, there's not much good reason to deny a Background Feature being used from a "it's a game" standpoint. But a lot of people, to varying degrees, are very attached to having a cohesive narrative. Upthread a ways back, I pointed out how these sort of coincidences of "just happening to know a guy" are a staple of the kinds of pulp stories that D&D was built on. But not everyone wants to play that game. Maybe they want a grittier, closer to the ground experience. Thieves' World instead of Leiber or Tolkien. A metagame element that can be introduced at any time, where it would be completely unbelievable might take some people out of the story. And immersion is important to a lot of people. As has been noted, we make exceptions for spells generally because we accept (or have been trained to accept) the concept that magic can do amazing things that not-magic can't. The other day I watched [I]Seraphim Falls[/I] for the first time, and I really enjoyed it, yet was surprised to find it was panned for it's few "maybe supernatural" elements. "What, did these people not see [I]Pale Rider[/I]?" But it just goes to show, D&D can be played in a lot of ways, and some of those ways have no room for "oh hey, guys, it's my cousin's sister's brother! He can help us!" That doesn't make them bad, it might make them not your preferred style, but it doesn't make them bad. Like, Lanefan and his desire to make climbing out of ravine potentially an all day challenge that costs resources or a blip on the radar, depending on a single die roll? Not my cup of tea. I don't think my players would enjoy that. But, by all accounts, [I]his players do[/I]. And I can't say "well, that's not D&D" because D&D is a big tent. But Backgrounds, as presented, don't work with all the ways D&D can be played, and the books don't take that into account. Not once. They say "these are Backgrounds, DM, make 'em work". Just as there are DM's who want there to be a chance for spells to fail when cast, or worse, have demons show up on occasion to tear the Wizard apart for daring to cast [I]magic missile[/I], there are going to be DM's who are going to look at a rules element like that and balk. Upthread, I gave of examples of this very thing happening, and it can happen at a lot of tables, even tables run by DM's who would be on board with this sort of thing, but in the moment, have a knee jerk reaction of "this ruins my story" or "this seems too easy" or "where's that cool scene with my annoying bureaucrat?". It's a proud nail. It sticks out because it appears to be saying "this is how D&D should be run" to some people. But D&D is for everyone, not just those of us who might be perfectly happy with giving players more agency in our games. And it's changing. For better or for worse remains to be seen. And here's the thing- if you like the way it is, you can keep using it. Just as people who don't like it, don't. I think by now everyone knows, you're not going to change the minds of those who don't like Background Features. I think that's a shame, because they can be great tools, but I also know that not every tool is needed for every job. I don't need a ball peen hammer (I hope) to fix a blue screen on my computer or unclog a drain. You probably shouldn't use a plunger to fix a brake line. Of course, this post will get some likes, but I know others will ignore it and continue the debate, lol. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?
Top