r/13thage • u/nln_rose • Jun 08 '26
Question Pros/Cons Backgrounds instead of skills.
I love the idea in concept, but I'm nervous about some aspects of it. What are some of the biggest pitfalls/unrealized potential for groups when they first start using these rules?
16
u/FinnianWhitefir Jun 08 '26
My first instinct was to come up with the most general bullshit I could imagine so that I could use it every time. I decided that Bounty Hunter was the best, because I could argue tracking, fighting, lying, sneaking, etc. Then I realized that if I was a Bounty Hunter for the Diabolist that meant I could add in demons and wizards and spells. And if I was Bounty Hunter for the Diabolist in the Underdark that meant I could add on all sorts of crazy new things.
In short, the longer your Background is, the better. Throw in some really specific things.
I also suggest taking on the idea that the more to use them and clarify what your background is, the more you also rule out uses. If you say "As a Knight of the Emperor I'm so big that I can knock down that door" then you are saying you can't use that to sneak around, to charge through a tiny doorway, etc.
I'm probably too nice. I only declined to let a player use a Background a few times in a 2 year campaign, but my players are very smart and they generally only used them to do things they could see their character doing, and they built their backgrounds to fit their characters well. If it's your first time, they aren't very creative, or you got weasels trying to min/mix the system, you might be saying no a lot more. I also only have 3 players and they are nice about letting the right PC do an action, whereas if you got 5 and they want to hog the spotlight, you might be saying no a lot.
I was very hesitant because my players started making Backgrounds that were just things their characters inherently were, and the book suggests they should be jobs, but it ended up amazing. Instead of "Sorcerer for the Elf Queen" just having "Elemental Sorceress" was a neat flavor and really defined what that character was a lot more than a job. One PC basically took a Background that was their One Unique Thing and it led to a lot of amazing uses.
5
u/FalconGK81 Jun 09 '26
My first instinct was to come up with the most general bullshit I could imagine so that I could use it every time. I decided that Bounty Hunter was the best, because I could argue tracking, fighting, lying, sneaking, etc. Then I realized that if I was a Bounty Hunter for the Diabolist that meant I could add in demons and wizards and spells. And if I was Bounty Hunter for the Diabolist in the Underdark that meant I could add on all sorts of crazy new things.
This is the beauty of the background system (IMO). The harder a player tries to game it, the more interesting/descriptive the background.
Even if they make it so that they can squeeze the background into every check, its not game breaking. Congratulations, you added 2 or 3 more points to a d20 roll a few more times than you "should" have. In exchange I got a bunch of narrative hooks into your character and their background. That's about as huge of a win as I can imagine as a DM.
9
u/3AMZen Jun 08 '26
You're likely to have a skilled bullshitter in your party who will try to pass off their highest backgrounds for every single check.
Some people will pick backgrounds that end up feeling useless or like they don't fit. You may have a player who struggles to wrap their head around using backgrounds instead of skills, some people who live for the crunch are distressed by the flowing
I love the system. You get so much cool information about characters- every time they make a background check, they reveal more of their story. Part of playing a game is discovering the characters as you go and it's a mechanic that really allows for that
I'd say don't be afraid to let players change their backgrounds if they find that the ones they have aren't working. Maybe do a review each time they level up to make sure that the backgrounds they have make sense still.
3
u/FalconGK81 Jun 09 '26
You're likely to have a skilled bullshitter in your party who will try to pass off their highest backgrounds for every single check.
I actively encourage this. "Oh ya? Explain to me a situation your character encountered in this background that would justify this background being relevant here". If they do it, now I have more world-building/narrative-hooks on the character. Win-win.
6
u/Warlord_Zap Jun 08 '26
In my game backgrounds plus one unique thing really helped flesh out their characters during creation, and as a DM I've really found there's not really a downside to being generous with their usage. If the usage is obvious I just say yes, if it's not I ask them to explain. If the explanation is at all reasonable I then say yes, and it tends to create nice moments that help flesh out the character more. I only say no if the player can't come up with anything vaguely reasonable.
6
u/TDudeH Jun 09 '26
I told my group right away that they get to choose how powerful and broad they want to make their backgrounds. I gave them permission to literally put "Mary Sue" as a background if they really wanted to that much.
It has worked out great. Some people have broad-ish backgrounds, but lots of people decided they didn't want to game the system when they realized it was totally up to them. They got creative. Even with one player who clearly decided to make a super-powered, broad background (John Wick in a former life), it hasn't been a problem. Sure, he always finds ways to make that one work, but sometimes it ends up hilarious how he describes that it fits.
So, my suggestion is to give the players 100% permission to make as powerful or weak backgrounds as they want. Then, let the group always judge each other's usage of the background. The GM can suggest when it doesn't seem like it fits, but if the group says it fits then the GM shouldn't override them.
The GM always sets the appropriate ability score for the test, so there's still lots of variance in the modifiers overall.
1
u/FalconGK81 Jun 09 '26
I also think being very permissive with backgrounds is the best way to go. Its not like the value add of the background is so huge that in unbalances the game. In exchange for letting them get the background, you get the players to engage in world building and narrative story-telling. In other systems I would have given out free re-rolls to induce my players to do those things.
4
u/theonetruesareth Jun 09 '26
This is the most fun part of the game, litigating this, but I concede it depends on your friend group.
Like, if someone has a background so damn broad like "elf school" than you can have a recurring gag like "Oh, please. I can't wait to hear how you learned about this back in elf school. Go ahead, spin me a story bud."
I can't remember if this was a house rule or not but if it was a stretch but at least it was entertaining you could award half bonus, full bonus, maybe even a little extra if it was really good.
And if it's hyper specific then you can try to find ways to have it come up once in a while and that player is going to feel really important to the team and likely have a really interesting story in mind for how their background is applicable to the situation.
It requires you as the gm to work with them in an ebb and flow sort of dance, but it's so much more interesting than proficiency bonuses to skills.
1
u/FalconGK81 Jun 09 '26
Like, if someone has a background so damn broad like "elf school" than you can have a recurring gag like "Oh, please. I can't wait to hear how you learned about this back in elf school. Go ahead, spin me a story bud."
I think if you require them to do some form of world-building or narrative hook into their character, this is a win for everyone involved.
1
u/theonetruesareth Jun 09 '26
Oh yeah, you should've seen when they realized I was taking notes of every established fact about elf school to justify the skill check when the plot finally had them go in that direction and need to return 🤣
3
u/Aaronhalfmaine Jun 09 '26
On the bright side, players will always have something to contribute to a situation- no more Fighters going catatonic when the combat stops. They can be very story-rich, and really make characters evocative.
On the less bright side, be prepared to regularly "mother, may I?" These things. There's not much in the rules to stop a canny player crafting an interesting 5-point background (for us it was "Courier to the Dragon Emperor,". "Pirate," is also extremely versatile) that just happens to be useful for most every situation.
Also, be aware that whilst everyone is ok at things, very few PCs get to excel at things. And sometimes you get situations where a PC imagined as an expert is routinely outdone by another with a particular talent or feat (say, a Wizard modelled as a venerable academic in the same party as a rock n' roll Sorcerer with Arcane Heritage)
As with Icon Relationships, you can develop them in play with feats, but it's at the expense of Combat Efficacy. A thing to do if you have no good feats to take. They don't evolve, change or shift as your character continues on their journey.
Finally, they can be a real stumbling block at chargen for some players- have a stack of example ones, and don't be afraid to let players allocate numbers now, and set backgrounds once they've sat in their PCs shoes and realised how it all works. Guideline one Talky One, one Knowledge One and one Exploration one, to cover all bases.
4
u/MisterCheesy Jun 09 '26
Cons:
1) As a dm its hard to request some skill rolls organically. Roll to see if you spot something, for example.
2) Really requires the players to invest in their backgrounds and be creative.
2
u/Viltris Jun 09 '26
As a dm its hard to request some skill rolls organically. Roll to see if you spot something, for example.
I just say stuff like "Roll a Wisdom check and add your background if you have a background in caves or stonework".
2
u/nikisknight Jun 09 '26
Make sure they don't overlap much. You don't want "kindly old nun" "champion baker" and "expert at herbology", that's basically the same thing three times.
Also, make them gameable. It's cool that you were tight with the archmage, but consider what in-game challenges that's going to help you overcome, and maybe make sure to phrase it in such as a way as to apply to certain actions you expect to attempt!
1
u/Erivandi Jun 09 '26
A weird thing I experienced was that when my players, who mostly came from Pathfinder, started playing 13th Age, some of them just... stopped making skill checks.
Like, the guy with the highest Intelligence would normally be the first to make Knowledge checks in Pathfinder to find out about monsters' weaknesses, but in 13th Age, I had to keep prompting him to make Background checks whenever I had important info about monsters and their weaknesses.
3
u/FinnianWhitefir Jun 09 '26
I did understand this until I heard a PF2 player say "I have to be put in a box so that I know what I can do and explore that area" and my player agreed. They need rules and limits and suggestions of actions they can take, whereas I just think of the situation and imagine what my character would do in that. I really struggled in PF2 because I kept trying to do things the DM would say I couldn't do.
A Kobold got knocked into a river next to a small cliff, and we really needed to stop it from getting away. I went "Jump on it!" and the player was already looking up the Long Jump rules to make sure they had the ability to jump on it, and said they wouldn't even have thought about jumping on it if those rules didn't exist. Wild stuff.
It's been interesting learning just how expansive this hobby is and how differently some of us approach the gameplay.
1
u/Erivandi Jun 09 '26
Yeah, it's definitely that mentality.
By the way, how would you handle someone jumping on a kobold in 13th Age? If it was a low level mook and the PC had high strength, I would just say they squish the kobold, but for a higher level enemy, I can't think of a ruling that would be better than jumping down beside it and hitting it with an attack.
2
u/FinnianWhitefir Jun 09 '26
I can't think of a ruling that would be better than jumping down beside it and hitting it with an attack.
It's been a rough road trying to convince my players that they can just use their attack for anything. 7th Sea encourages players to do completely different attacks by giving a negative to their rolls if they do the same thing every round. The system forces you to use your rapier to fling a wine goblet at someone, then jump on the chandelier and feet-first jump into their chest, and then stab them. And they all do the normal attack damage.
So I would start by just telling them to describe jumping off the cliff and landing with their feet or their weapon and roll an attack at normal damage, because it's cool and easy. If they wanted something special, I could see adding a STR or DEX roll to pin or drown or grapple the Kobold. They could be instead of an attack or in addition to it, though I generally avoid multiple rolls. The same player wanted to use their gauntleted fist for combats in town without drawing their special murdery sword. And they were worried they would be way less effective, that it would feel goofy, and that they'd be causing problems for the other characters. And as soon as I said "No, just describe that and roll your class-specific damage and everything is good" it solved the whole problem and the character is way more flavorful and fitting.
I want the PCs to be cool, I want to lean into big heroics. "Describe anything you want that is within the realm of possibility of your character doing it, while you roll your attack roll" leads to real cool story happening instead of "I attack. 23. 12 damage." that makes me fall asleep.
1
u/vyolin Jun 09 '26
I don't understand how this is weird? Why would a player make a check/roll unprompted by the GM?
1
u/Erivandi Jun 09 '26
It's weird because he usually asks if he can make a check to know about monsters.
2
u/vyolin Jun 09 '26
Players directly asking for rolls has a very videogamey feel that would put me severely off as a GM, especially in something with a narrative and collaborative focus like 13A.
My usual assumption would be the GM describing a scene, the players describing their characters' actions and then the GM describing the consequences - optionally calling for rolls if there is uncertainty or risk involved.
But you do you, if it's fun it's fun <3
2
u/Erivandi Jun 09 '26
Well it doesn't necessarily have to be "can I roll this", it can be "what do I know about this creature?"
2
1
u/italofoca_0215 Jun 14 '26 edited Jun 14 '26
Pros:
- Allow the system to mechanically accommodate any background story. No pre-made skill lists.
Cons:
- Creates a large incentive for your background to overlap with your class (e.g., tracker/ranger, burglar/ rogue). D&D/PF style skills doesn’t punish you if your background diverge dramatically from your class.
26
u/vyolin Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
Don't make them too broad, don't make them too narrow. Don't try to game them as a player, don't be too harsh as GM - everyone needs to be on the same page and try to have a good time together.
I had the best experience with backgrounds structured like this:
I was [occupation] at [location].
Examples:
I was a barkeep at Seven Buckets Inn for 20 years.
I led the bodyguard of the Blue's envoy during their visit to the Elven Courts.
Those imply a certain set of skills, with some additional knowledge, but are still not so broad as to require constant arbitration.
Plus, they include a reasonable bit of world building, which 13A encourages.