D&D 5E Ability Score Increases (I've changed my mind.)

[Malmuria]

How do you model it in a game? Roll your stats using a bell-curve generating method.

There may be a lot of variation within members of a single species, but there may also be systematic variations between species. The presence of the former doesn't mean there can't be the latter.

That's the idea, I guess, but I don't think it works very well. You're taking an entire genome and reducing it to six stats, each of which operates on essentially a 9 point scale (-4 to +5). Then you create, say, an owl creature that has, on average, a slightly better wisdom (and thus...perception?...) bonus compared to a human. It models nothing. (btw, just looked up the owl stat block...+3 perception lmao)

 

[Scribe]

The last one isn't. Beauty is in the eye of the non-trademarked beholder.

Fair, but there are examples in novels of people being stunned by 'elven beauty' so I ran with it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Of course having wings is biological essentialism, so is being biologically better runner, being stronger (was it via strength ASI or powerful build) and literally any species-wide biological difference in capability. What is disingenuous is to pretend that it isn't.

Yes, I fully understand that some depictions of biological essentialism are far more harmful than others. I am not confused about that.

Then let’s stop pretending that “aarakocra have wings” or “dragonborn can breathe fire” is some sort of insightful observation. There’s a clear difference between saying a race is better or worse than others at something in a human way, and saying a race has a fantastical trait like incredible longevity, cat claws, or the ability to shapeshift.

But some people here (I think you included) have said that any biological essentialism is problematic.

No one thinks it’s problematic for tortles to have shells or changelings to be able to change their appearance. “All differences between D&D races are bad” is a caricature you keep trotting out.

And I'm not sure that is even wrong. But please, let's be internally consistent with this!

Or, we could stop pretending that our brains work like computers and actually use our ability to evaluate things on a case-by-case basis using broad sets of criteria and principles instead of insisting on the impossible standard of a single objective rule that can deterministically sort all differences between races into “problematic” and “not problematic.”

Sure. But then you don't think any depiction of biological essentialism is bad, just some depictions of it.

Biological essentialism is belief that ‘human nature’, an individual's personality, or some specific quality (such as intelligence, creativity, homosexuality, masculinity, femininity, or a male propensity to aggression) is an innate and natural ‘essence’, rather than a product of circumstances, upbringing, and culture. It isn’t biologically essentialist to say birds have wings. Do the lines get a bit blurrier when it comes to made-up fantasy races? Yes, of course they do. But claiming that gnomes having a bonus to intelligence is equivalent to Tieflings having horns is just shameless whataboitism.

But I really think the issue is far more difficult than you are willing to accept.

I don’t claim it isn’t a complex topic. It is. But again, there’s an obvious qualitative difference between racial ASIs and fantastical traits like a Genasi’s control over their associated element, and it’s a waste of time and energy comparing those traits when we could be focusing on traits that are actually remotely comparable, like racial proficiencies (which I would argue are definitely biologically essentialist), Darkvision (which I would argue is definitely not), and things like dwarven resilience (which I would argue is on the borderline and merits some more in-depth interrogation.)

 

[billd91]

That's the idea, I guess, but I don't think it works very well. You're taking an entire genome and reducing it to six stats, each of which operates on essentially a 9 point scale (-4 to +5). Then you create, say, an owl creature that has, on average, a slightly better wisdom (and thus...perception?...) bonus compared to a human. It models nothing. (btw, just looked up the owl stat block...+3 perception lmao)

Sure it models something - it models what the game cares about. And that's enough.

 

[Malmuria]

Biological essentialism is belief that ‘human nature’, an individual's personality, or some specific quality (such as intelligence, creativity, homosexuality, masculinity, femininity, or a male propensity to aggression) is an innate and natural ‘essence’, rather than a product of circumstances, upbringing, and culture. It isn’t biologically essentialist to say birds have wings. Do the lines get a bit blurrier when it comes to made-up fantasy races? Yes, of course they do. But claiming that gnomes having a bonus to intelligence is equivalent to Tieflings having horns is just shameless whataboitism.

That's a good point--essentialism is a metaphysical concept. It ascribes difference to essence rather than, say, genetic variation.

I don't think it's a problem, per se, for fantasy to have essentialist aspects in this sense, given that magic in fantasy worlds is a metaphysical construct made real (e.g. perhaps god did give the aarakocra its wings in your setting?). But if the game is going to employ tropes in this way, the designers and everyone who plays it should be aware and critical of where particular tropes come from (historically or in fantasy and pulp fiction)

 

[Charlaquin]

That's a good point--essentialism is a metaphysical concept. It ascribes difference to essence rather than, say, genetic variation.

I don't think it's a problem, per se, for fantasy to have essentialist aspects in this sense, given that magic in fantasy worlds is a metaphysical construct made real (e.g. perhaps god did give the aarakocra its wings in your setting?). But if the game is going to employ tropes in this way, the designers and everyone who plays it should be aware and critical of where particular tropes come from (historically or in fantasy and pulp fiction)

See, I’m much more comfortable with the idea of differences between D&D races on the basis of biology than essence. Goliaths are bigger and stronger than other races because they’re more closely related to giants. Aarakocra can fly because they have wings. I’m even ok with dwarves being hardier because they’re “genetically” (inasmuch as genes are a thing in a fantasy setting) predisposed to it. But, when it comes to essential qualities like alignment, personality, predisposition towards certain classes (which is a direct product of racial ASIs), “natural aptitude” with certain weapons or tools, or even skills… that’s where it starts to get uncomfortable for me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You know what I'd like to see? A description of a humanoid race that meets the following criteria:

1. The race depicted is a common humanoid creature in D&D (orc, elf, goblin, dwarf, etc).

2. The description presents the lineage as distinct from humans in some significant way or ways.

3. The description avoids any traditionally racist language of any kind.

That's what we're shooting for here, right? Something that threads the needle.

 

[Charlaquin]

You know what I'd like to see? A description of a humanoid race that meets the following criteria:

1. The race depicted is a common humanoid creature in D&D (orc, elf, goblin, dwarf, etc).

2. The description presents the lineage as distinct from humans in some significant way or ways.

3. The description avoids any traditionally racist language of any kind.

That's what we're shooting for here, right? Something that threads the needle.

Obvious trap is obvious. If you want to see lots of great examples of traditional D&D races depicted in a nuanced and generally well-regarded way, read Eberron.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Obvious trap is obvious. If you want to see lots of great examples of traditional D&D races depicted in a nuanced and generally well-regarded way, read Eberron.

Are they described as distinct from humans? Or just having cultures that any human could adopt?

 

[Charlaquin]

Are they described as distinct from humans? Or just having cultures that any human could adopt?

I don’t see how those things are dichotomous.