I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[NN]

So what if it “limits imagination”?

 

[Morrus]

So what if it “limits imagination”?

Some of us don't want our imagination limited. I thought that was obvious. Maybe you're fine with it (clearly many are) but we were asked what the bioessentialism arguments were, and that's the answer. Well, one of the answers. I'm not going to touch the evil orc topic, because it's been done to death a million times here and I don't have the energy--plus that conversation always results in a thread closure.

 

[Alzrius]

So what if it “limits imagination”?

This is a salient question, because the entire point of having rules is to impose limits. This necessarily means that some ideas won't work as well as others, and other ideas won't be workable at all, under any particular game engine.

Yes, that means that a halfling will never be able to reliably outperform a goliath in terms of weightlifting in D&D 5E, because even if they both have a 20 Strength, that means that the halfling will only win an opposed check roughly 50% of the time (and the goliath has powerful build, and so can lift more in a straight comparison of maximum encumbrance values). Limits are part and parcel of the "game" part of a role-playing game.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

So basically, such "limitations" would be OK in a setting book (in this setting, my elves are clumsy, so, lacking finger fine control they won't be able to draw a bow effectively, [or with their god cursing them with incontrollable and random shakes if you want your species to have a fantastic origin]) but not in a core rulebook that should adopt a setting agnostic view?

Edit: sure it would be "limiting", as in "this setting does allow my character to wield a bow efficiently" but not more than "in this setting, there are no psychic power, so no you can't be a Jedi."

 

[Mr. Lahey]

I'm really sick of this argument because it misses the point by trying to redefine the point.

The problem is NOT (for example) that "Orcs are meant to be Black people."

The problem is that:
1) The way orcs are portrayed as "bad" in a way that most readers will immediately understand is by painting them as dumb, uncultured, violent, promiscuous, superstitious, and with physical features that evoke cavemen.
2) The reason those work as a kind of anti-virtue-signaling shorthand is because that's how we have have always portrayed people we want to subjugate and exploit.
3) It does not matter whether or not the authors were aware they are doing this. This issue exists completely independently of authorial intent.


So, no you are completely wrong: those tropes do exist in the real world, and when we replicate them in a game world they exist there, too. I personally am not offended by any of it, but I can understand why people of other backgrounds would find it hurtful. (And just because some people of those ethnicities don't seem to care, it doesn't invalidate the point.)

This, to me, is the real problem. Modern humans have no real world experience with sentient creatures with radically different physical or mental characteristics. Therefore, anytime we try to consider how halflings vs elves vs goliaths vs thri-kreen would be physically different, and how we might codify that in the mechanics of our games, we have few ways of thinking about this other than through the lens of Victorian-era, Euro-centric racial pseudoscience and centuries of this kind of cultural baggage.

I cannot imagine that the four cases above (and other playable creature types) would not have vastly different physical capabilities, but I would find it nearly impossible to codify that in a way that many would not see as problematic and referencing historical tropes.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

This is a salient question, because the entire point of having rules is to impose limits.

This to me is a really weird take. I see the rules as a framework to make it a game.

 

[Alzrius]

This to me is a really weird take. I see the rules as a framework to make it a game.

I'm not sure how you'd have a framework of rules that don't impose limits, if for no other reason than doing something in a given way rules out doing it some other way.

Even if you have optional rules or other alternatives, using them results in not using whatever rule they replace. Any given decision is necessarily going to have an opportunity cost attached, and any given system of how things work is inherently going to mean that you can't avail yourself of an alternative.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The books could probably afford to be more clear about that 10% thing though.

I agree that it could be more explicit, but if you know FR lore (which the MM is based on, since it references Gruumsh) it's pretty clearly implied that the MM does not apply to all orcs.

FR has had multiple societies of non-evil orcs.
Ondonti
Thesk
Many Arrows Kingdom

So, clearly, unless the 5e MM was intended to retcon significant established FR lore (which I highly doubt), it isn't intended to be a description of all orcs. Just the orcs that PCs are most likely to come in to conflict with.

Similarly, the drow entry only discusses evil drow, even though we know that Drizzt and the Daughter of Eilistraee are good drow who exist in the setting. Clearly, not all drow are evil. It's simply that the majority of drow live in societies devoted to Llolth, so the majority of good drow are likely killed by evil drow.

Neither drow nor orcs are inherently evil. It's simply that evil drow and orcs are the ones the PCs are most likely to come into conflict with, and that's the perspective that the MM is written from.

Granted, even a brief mention of this would have been a useful and welcome addition.

 

[MGibster]

Some of us don't want our imagination limited. I thought that was obvious.

Then what are you doing playing a game with classes? You should be playing GURPS.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I dont know if I agree with that and in fact think the opposite is true. I think having halfling barbarian be as strong as a goliath barbarian discourages creativity as it makes species irrelevant. I agree Halfling barbarians should be encouraged but they should not play the same way as a Goliath Barbarian does - they need to utilise their nimbility, luck and small size as part of their barbarian identity not in spite of it. Thats where the 'unusual species-class' combo becomes a creative challenge.

Doesn't that argue for creative race abilities (of which Lucky is actually a good example) instead of just +1 to your class's most important rolls?