I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Jfdlsjfd]

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

Everyone doing a little to educate the world will get us rid of a huge problem. Educating yourself might solve a problem at your table only (that you may not have if your players already know that there is nothing racist if one of your own BBEG is a strong black man because you rolled that on a table, even if it can evoke a stereotype, or if your elves are haughty because they are inspired by fays and not Nazis).

It's certainly less easy, though.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Bingo. The non-human species in most works of fiction are there because they serve some sort of narrative purpose and I feel as though that should be true for most RPG fantasy settings as well. What narrative purpose a halfling might serve in any given setting might vary of course. One nice thing about having non-human species is it helps instill a sense of wonder and the fantastical into a setting. The cantina scene in the first Star Wars made a big impression on audiences as it showed them the galaxy was a big place with a diverse population. It wouldn't be so well remembered if the patrons were all humans.

Little known fact: Jabba the Hutt is one of the most generous philanthropists in the galaxy. He just keeps his role secret to protect his business reputation.

The popular trope that Hutts are heartless is pure racism.

 

[billd91]

Oh, and maybe that last part of what I just wrote is getting to the essence of what I'm trying to say. Yes, constraints in the form of rules that force choices are a vital part of games, but there is a difference between constraints that are, for lack of a better term, intended for mechanical balance, and those that are there entirely for aesthetic reasons.

So unless one could argue that a combination of the "Lucky" feat with high Strength is somehow unbalancing to the game, I can't see how a constraint on halfling strength is anything other than aesthetic. And therefore to extrapolate that opposition to that aesthetic is the first step toward rules anarchy is to, in my opinion, make a category error.

Except for the part that a lot of game design choices are all about the aesthetics of those choices. Game design isn't science or math - though those are also involved. Aesthetics, the art of game design, is always also a feature and it's a strong part of why and how games differ. If they were all science/mathematics, there wouldn't be so much variation in outcomes, styles, or philosophies.

Stat bonuses/penalties for character ancestries/species can have various effects on the players - the ones who count all the beans to fully optimize them may see them as absolutely restrictive, but other players may see them as worthy challenges, some as valuable trade-offs, still others as ways of guiding major currents of a culture but still allow other eddies and options. A game embracing those options is an aesthetic choice, yes, but it's not an error. It's just not a choice you prefer.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I feel like whilst Bullroarer Took might not able to beat the Mountain in an wrestling contest, he probably could hit someone as hard as, if not harder than, The Mountain. I don't think The Mountain could even reliably throw a head 100 yards, let alone "batter up" it straight off a neck. But wrestling isn't pure strength - The Mountain's real advantage is being 8ft tall and 420lbs, not being superhumanly strong, which he wasn't - he is just as strong as you'd expect from a muscular man of his size who wasn't that height because of any kind of illness, whereas Brandobras/Bullroarer kind of was just terrifyingly and freakishly strong for his 4'2" height - I mean the halflings kind of are in general by human standards but he really was.

So that's actually engaged with by 5E 2024 - your 7-8ft tall 300lb+ Goliath has Powerful Build, which makes him better at wrestling (admittedly you might say the unidirectional nature of it is a bit weak, I'd agree).

I think D&D actually handles both those characters kinda okay.

Also I kinda really wanna play a halfling in D&D for the first time ever lol.

To the best of my knowledge, Tolkien never actually wrote Brandobras' story. It's simply a myth that is briefly mentioned in LotR. We don't know if some supernatural being/item endowed him with super-strength in that moment, or (as is the case with many myths that have a basis in reality) it was simply exaggerated over time. Perhaps Tolkien intended it to be taken as an established historical fact of Middle Earth, but I think it's equally likely he expected the reader to assume a degree of embellishment.

 

[SkidAce]

Yeah, I wouldn't agree that it "shuts down" those concepts. But it does undeniably, and dramatically, reduce their frequency.

So if it reduces the frequency, it simulates the rarity of that concept in the world lore, as expected?

Not for or against per se...its a complicated thing...but working as intended?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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
"squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes: in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types".

As for the name, the one citation is heavily conjugated, or Orc is part of a longer rood.
Given that the author himself regretted the racism inherent in his creation...



I've seen the human in cosplay effect, too... most strongly in Dragonbane.




I'd rather have the species mods... halflings should be weaker due to less leverage from shorter limbs. Probably should be
Orcs might be stronger biologically. Dwarves made of tougher stuff, especially Gloranthan ones.

I don't much care for race as class, tho' I've used them in TSR D&D and Palladium. And the one shot of Talislanta I ran.


I suspect not correct. I've gotten zero pushback for racial/species mods in core; I've gotten pushback for changing/adding them to games without them. I suspect the actual majority simply don't care.

And I've always (since first encountering species concept, considered D&D "races" as species. then Krynn added subspecies (elves, dwarves)...

I do think far fewer actual players really care about the morality of racial ASIs in RPGs than the internet would have us believe.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There are limits and their limits. Limits that apply across the board are a lot less onerous then ones that apply to character concepts.
An 18 ability cap is setting a limit that applies to all. It is demarking the scope of the playing field. The -2 strength bonus on a species is shutting down some character concepts. Though again, my biggest gripes is that it is boring because most players will respond by simply not playing that race in a role where str matters.

That implies that PCs are special and should be treated differently in the rules from other members of their species; in effect,it is a narrative concept expressed through the mechanics. That idea is far from universally lauded.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

To the best of my knowledge, Tolkien never actually wrote Brandobras' story. It's simply a myth that is briefly mentioned in LotR. We don't know if some supernatural being/item endowed him with super-strength in that moment, or (as is the case with many myths that have a basis in reality) it was simply exaggerated over time. Perhaps Tolkien intended it to be taken as an established historical fact of Middle Earth, but I think it's equally likely he expected the reader to assume a degree of embellishment.

It doesn't really matter though, does it?

I think we can safely rule out supernatural beings/items - there's no way that'd fail to be mentioned even a short form of such a story.

And if it's an exaggeration, sure, but literally anything in LotR and The Hobbit (and let's not even start on the Silmarillion) are potentially exaggerations, because they're both in-universe stories written by a specific individual, then translated into English (and loosely, I think we can safely say, given the rush of the dragon-firework at the birthday party is compared by the writer to an "express train", presumably not something in the original text!), not narrated by some sort of omniscient third-party or the like.

The key takeaway is that Tolkien had no problem whatsoever imagining a terrifyingly strong hobbit. The story is literally from first chapter of The Hobbit, note, it's not tucked away somewhere. One of the first things we learn about hobbits, in fact, they can be mighty warriors capable of almost single-handedly stopping a goblin invasion (goblins who are quite capable of killing humans one-on-one, note). It's obviously embellished in the sense that that's probably not how golf was invented, but at the same time, he's only a few generations back, and no-one seemingly disbelieves the basic claim that a really strong hobbit existed. Indeed, it seems like the Took family history has a fair number of warrior-hobbits in it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That implies that PCs are special and should be treated differently in the rules from other members of their species; in effect,it is a narrative concept expressed through the mechanics. That idea is far from universally lauded.

I mean, you can't really have it both ways.

The PCs simply, factually, are treated differently in every edition of D&D, because in no edition of D&D do NPCs/monsters reliably and consistently abide by the same rules as PCs, for both better and worse, advantage and disadvantage. D&D is fundamentally an asymmetrical game and always has been, all the way back to OD&D. It was arguably least-asymmetrical in late 1E (not early) and perhaps again in 3E, but it was still asymmetrical.

If you want a "everyone is playing by the same rules" RPG they exist (Marvel FASERIP maybe?). D&D is not one of them.

 

[The Firebird]

I mean, you can't really have it both ways.

The PCs simply, factually, are treated differently in every edition of D&D, because in no edition of D&D do NPCs/monsters reliably and consistently abide by the same rules as PCs, for both better and worse, advantage and disadvantage. D&D is fundamentally an asymmetrical game and always has been, all the way back to OD&D. It was arguably least-asymmetrical in late 1E (not early) and perhaps again in 3E, but it was still asymmetrical.

If you want a "everyone is playing by the same rules" RPG they exist (Marvel FASERIP maybe?). D&D is not one of them.

The fact that some differences exist does not imply adding more differences is not an issue.