I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Theory of Games]

The originator of the concept of Orcs, and introduced it into the world, grounded them in racist stereotypes... Mongols, to be specific... then later lamented that in a letter. Tolkien described Orcs thus

Tolkien didn't create Orcs. He borrowed & adapted them from Beowulf, where they were depicted as a race descended from Cain who were cursed by God. Again, not "bioessentialism", but the product of "divine power"

Orc - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Umbran]

Because early D&D featured a lot of lazy half-considered "Race X is alignment Y" stuff

Hm.
I wonder how much of that can be attributed to still being so near the wargame root - these were "monster units", and thus not give a whole lot of deep consideration.

(which was often near-immediately counterpointed by some member of that race which wasn't that alignment, something that tends to get lost in the mix), people think you "need" races which are "just evil" or w/e, and you really don't.

See above - a common argument is the idea that you need "just evil" for purposes of having stuff you can kill without much consideration - which sounds a lot like wanting "monster units" for a wargame.

 

[Bill Zebub]

In that case you know that the limit is not imposed by the world, so the act of playing against type loses its salience.

Ehhh...l guess everybody is entitled to their own opinions and feelings, but I can't say I have a whole lot of sympathy for that sentiment. Not if the cost of satisfying it is that the official rulebook for everybody, everywhere in the world, constrains those who disagree.

 

[Bill Zebub]

See above - a common argument is the idea that you need "just evil" for purposes of having stuff you can kill without much consideration - which sounds a lot like wanting "monster units" for a wargame.

And there are lots of options for meeting that need (desire) that don't involve sentient humanoids.

EDIT: ....aaaaaand....as has been pointed out many times, you don't need official descriptions to meet that need to enable you to implement it however you want in your own game.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

See above - a common argument is the idea that you need "just evil" for purposes of having stuff you can kill without much consideration - which sounds a lot like wanting "monster units" for a wargame.

Probably also because when players play themselves, they (mostly) don't see themselves killing people. There is a strong cultural taboo against killing. You can admit that Conan kills his enemies, but he isn't really civilized, so it doesn't stick out (you wouldn't want him as your neighbour). But one might not want to see Harry kill Draco, even if Draco isn't nice. Because maybe Draco can grow and redeem himself, despite being a Slytherin and a Malfoy, and you are suppose to identify to Harry.

Knowing that the zombie in front of you can't become a nice and productive member of society is useful for that. You don't have to deal with prisonners, granting them right, or anything.

In a wargame, it's easier. You're removing squadron of orcs #23 from the play. You don't get as personal. And yet I know people who don't feel at ease winning as the Germans in a WWII game.

 

[Alzrius]

Weapon size constraints make just as much logical sense as attribute limitations...which I freely admit make sense...the question is what is the most fun for the most people?

For me, that leans a little too close into the "tyranny of fun" problem, where "fun" is equated to "being able to have/do what(ever) I want (at any given time)," and so the idea becomes that any instance of being told "no" by the rules is therefore an instance of bad game design.

Personally, I think that's just entitlement by another name. I think that (part of the) fun, at least within the context of a tabletop RPG, comes from finding ways to work within limits (or alternatively, finding ways to work around them), which necessitates that such limits be present in the first place.

Now, I can absolutely apply those limits myself on a voluntary basis (e.g. if I want my PC to be terrified of dogs, I can just role-play him that way). But I also prefer that the game rules do the proverbial heavy lifting in terms of design; that's why I'm paying my hard-earned money for them. Hence, I want them to do more rather than less in what they cover, including providing limitations. Some of those might be voluntary (e.g. a selection of optional disadvantages) and some might be hard-coded into certain choices, but either way I want them there.

(A lot of this also applies to issues of failure/loss in the context of RPGs as well, I should note.)

 

[SkidAce]

Edit to add: Again, the question - Why are we heck-bent on ascribing sentient behavior to biology?

Well, we may not need it for the game (since all PCs and NPCs fall within the sentient category anyway).

But does biology impact sentience or not? Thats tougher.

Some claim trees may have a form of sentience*, if they do, would that not have been a product of or affected by their biology?



*not claiming they do or don't this is a philosophical question

 

[Umbran]

That's very pessimistic. The goal should be to educate other people so they are no longer unusable because despicable people used them for their nefarious purpose.

Your ability to educate the world is limited. Your ability to educate yourself is in your own hands.

Removing lesser than humans and better than humans (probably the fetishizing of the aryan race by Nazis) leave "human" as the only usable trope.

Um... the US had a racism problem looong before WWII, and continuing after.

And, I think we need to note: racist tropes are a bit more than just about stats. They are about societal position, ascribed psychology, and other things as well. There are reasons that orcs are often a focus of such discussions, but not so much elves, dwarves, dragonborn or goliaths.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Your ability to educate the world is limited. Your ability to educate yourself is in your own hands.



Um... the US had a racism problem looong before WWII, and continuing after.

And, I think we need to note: racist tropes are a bit more than just about stats. They are about societal position, ascribed psychology, and other things as well. There are reasons that orcs are often a focus of such discussions, but not elves, dwarves, dragonborn or goliaths.

Elves are blond, superior, feel superior, despise other races as inferior (listen to Elrond speaking of the race f Man in the movie), I always saw them as fantasy Nazi. (not to say they were intended to be such)

 

[The Firebird]

Ehhh...l guess everybody is entitled to their own opinions and feelings, but I can't say I have a whole lot of sympathy for that sentiment. Not if the cost of satisfying it is that the official rulebook for everybody, everywhere in the world, constrains those who disagree.

I didn't say it ought to be an official rule. I've already said I think it shouldn't be. But there are tradeoffs.