@EzekielRaiden I really have no energy to a full quoted reply. Sorry. It might be easier if you tried to make your posts somewhat more concise, I feel your verbosity might actually obfuscate the point you're trying to make.
I still don't understand why you keep bringing up variability and averages. No one is denying that individuals vary and are not averages. We have way to represent that even with ASIs, point buys/roll.
Secondly, I don't understand why you think it matters what things are actually chosen by the character in fiction and what are only chosen by the player. That doesn't seem relevant.
Thirdly, of course in archetypal examples we must compare them to what a character of not that archetype attempting similar task could achieve. That really is what determines whether the archetype has niche protection on its area of expertise ort not.
Alright. Q: What
are racial ability bonuses? A: The trends of populations of fictional beings, on some kind of measure.
Q: In a simulation, what data would give us these numbers?
A: The mean ("average") on some set of metrics, e.g. height, mass, lift strength, reaction time, ??? for Charisma, etc.
Q: Is it a correct model of actual population variability to expect that this average represents most members?
A: No, not at all. In fact, even when examining
whole populations (not just samples), subjects that meet
all requirements to be "average" are rare, even with an insanely broad meaning of "average" like "the middle 50% of all aviators." They may not even exist at all, if too many metrics are used.
Q: Do fixed racial ability scores actually offer simulative or verisimilitudinous benefits?
A: It appears they do not. A simulation which uses them would fail to actually represent the real, measurable variability found in all actual populations of living beings. At least as I understand the term, "verisimilitude" refers to resembling what is true or real, and the true and real thing is that population variability pretty much absolutely trumps the central tendencies ("averages"). It is, in fact, an un-simulative
abstraction to treat
all members of a population as being like the average of their measured traits.
Q: Can the mechanic be used differently in a way that
would be simulative or verisimilitudinous?
A: Yes, by having a range of divergence away from "average." This is exactly what 5e will now offer. Playing to type is still very likely to be commonplace. But any given member of any given race
may vary, sometimes just a bit (e.g. Dragonborn with +2 Cha/+1 Str), sometimes more (e.g. an Elf with +2 Int/+1 Con), and sometimes substantially (Custom Lineage). This more correctly (not perfectly, but better) models the statistics of actual populations, especially when accounting for the fact that adventurers are weird by the standards of most (if not all) fictional races.
Q: Does this new method actually change what people will play, in terms of archetypes?
A: While I can't be truly certain, I doubt it. Tropes can be hard to defy, of their nature they are tendencies of human thought. Dragonborn will still more likely be beefy bois and gorls. Elves will still more likely be willowy. But now there is official support for playing against type if one desires it, a willowy dragonborn (that otherwise still resembles other dragonborn) or a beefy elf (that otherwise still resembles other elves).
Which leaves one of two questions for you:
1. If you
do still believe these things support simulation and/or verisimilitude, what do you mean by those terms? It would seem you must be using different meanings thereof, and talking won't go anywhere until we work that out.
Or...
2. If you
do not believe they give such benefits but still wish to have them, why? That is, the reasons you gave seem not to apply, but you still pursue them, so there must be another reason.
Assuming #2 is what led me to ask if what you truly want is the official rubber stamp for the flavor of each race, and hence my "that's weird, since you've never seemed to need official approval before now." Assuming #1 is why I've asked what you mean by these terms when you responded with confusion.
I hope that is sufficiently succinct.
That seems like rather melodramatic overkill.
www.enworld.org
