I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Bill Zebub]

I think it's important to remember that this is a question of how you approach the game, in terms of generating characters. While a lot of people seem to think that the default method is to have your character completely developed—in terms of identity, powers/abilities, and backstory—before you start making them, that wasn't always the expectation. You can also use a semi-randomized method of generating your character (e.g. using a combination of die rolls and prerequisites that have to be met) that lets you discover who they are as you're making them, one which dovetails with the idea that their backstory is the first several levels/sessions of play.

Personally, I think there's a lot to be said for that latter approach.

Sure, I love Traveller. But I think redesigning most TTRPGs (despite my aside about real gamers) is beyond the scope of the thread topic.

 

[The Firebird]

I think having very different feeling species is fun. But people take real world inspiration for their cultures all the time. And it is more common to get 1 species = 1 culture rather than a diverse set of cultures for each species. E.g., "in my world, dwarves live up north and are inspired by Nordic culture".

If you're worldbuilding like that I think any degree of bioessentialism crosses a line.

With that said, it doesn't surprise me WotC et al are moving away from it. A lot of worldbuilders aren't going to approach the topic carefully enough and so if the rules they present have bioessentialism, more games will cross the line.

But, I would like to see more carefully constructed worlds that keep strong differences between species. Even introducing multiple cultures per species does a lot to avoid essentialism. And with the current WotC approach I would rather make everyone human.

 

[Shades of Eternity]

One of my recurring themes in my gaming material is "the monstrous in everyday life," where creatures that are monsters do relatively normal things (most likely because of Sesame Street), and that reflects that. I have a feeling this term refers to something completely different.

I was raised on monsters (even if they were of the cookie variety)

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'll add that in a hobby that prides itself on modifying rules to suit particular tables, complaints about things like orcs not being defined as evil, or no strength limits on females written into the rules book, is kinda hard to swallow.

Regardless of my (or your) opinion about how sensitive other people should or shouldn't be, the fact is that some people...a LOT of people...with personal and cultural backgrounds very different from mine, feel unwelcome by some of the tropes that have existed in the hobby since it was created by people in my demographic. I'd rather have more people in the hobby instead of fewer, so if I need to make a houserule that orcs are inherently evil and you can slaughter them on sight, instead of having that written into the monster manual, I'm willing to pay that price without kicking and screaming about it.

 

[AnotherGuy]

So, giants have this caste system, the Ordning, which considers non-giants as lesser folk. I think it is fair to say an average interaction with a giant may see this thinking in play and one of the cool challenges for PCs when dealing with a giant is to try navigate this superiority mentality in a way that doesn't offend a giant's ideology so as to achieve success in what they are trying to negotiate.

The thinking others are lesser than is a common trope - whether it be brought about by a deity, misguided belief, greater physical or mental powers etc. It all plays well into the fantasy setting.

You can have wonderful storylines such as establishing a connection with an isolationist species or the destruction of an empire based on slavery or solving the need for a species to procreate via symbiosis in the way the Goa'uld did in SG1.

 

[Bill Zebub]

One of my recurring themes in my gaming material is "the monstrous in everyday life," where creatures that are monsters do relatively normal things (most likely because of Sesame Street), and that reflects that. I have a feeling this term refers to something completely different.

I was raised on monsters (even if they were of the cookie variety)

"Oooh...a Snuffleufagus! That's worth 1,500 XP, and drops good treasure. Let's kill it!"

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think it's important to remember that this is a question of how you approach the game, in terms of generating characters. While a lot of people seem to think that the default method is to have your character completely developed—in terms of identity, powers/abilities, and backstory—before you start making them, that wasn't always the expectation. You can also use a semi-randomized method of generating your character (e.g. using a combination of die rolls and prerequisites that have to be met) that lets you discover who they are as you're making them, one which dovetails with the idea that their backstory is the first several levels/sessions of play.

Personally, I think there's a lot to be said for that latter approach.

I know I often (more often than not lately) just roll my stats down the line and development my character based on what I get. It reminds me of the old days.

 

[Celebrim]

In my personal opinion (although I know others disagree) the problem with stat bonuses is less about the insidious aspects of bioessentialism, and more that it forces an unnecessary trade-off between optimization and roleplaying. Why dissuade people from playing Orc wizards or Halfling warriors? If you (meant generically, not @overgeeked) don't want to play an orc wizard or halfling warrior, then don't. Put your own floating stat bonus* wherever you want, but don't tell other people how to make characters.

It's a theory. I don't think the theory holds up though, because my experience talking with 5e players is the lack of mechanical crunch to racial heritage doesn't get people to lean more into the question of "What would it be like to have a different biology or body or culture than my own" but rather just gets everyone to treat all characters as humans with rubber prosthetics glued to them. I don't see any sign that it gets people trying to imagine being something other than themselves.

Now granted, that group was probably only 20% of the players I've ever played with. Most people only play themselves no matter what is on the character sheet, but I don't think that dropping a mechanical connection to the fluff has helped in any respect.

And like I said, this strikes me as going to far the other way. Erasure of differences even in cases they'd be expected suggests a massive discomfort with "the other" rather than tolerance and acceptance of diversity. I generally want a lot of markers of "Hey, I'm an elf" or "Hey, I'm a sentient badgerfolk." or "Hey, I'm an algae colony with emergent intelligence" or whatever we are doing.

The sort of people who actually care about RP play non-optimized characters on purpose in part precisely because they aren't optimized. It's actually probably part of the attraction to go against type. But if there is no type to go against, well, where is the RP attraction?

 

[Shades of Eternity]

So it's avoid cultural stereotypes masquerading as species?

 

[Waller]

So it's avoid cultural stereotypes masquerading as species?

Basically, yes. There’s a difference between having four legs and being good at math. Or having dark vision and knowing how to use a longbow. The former in each case is a physical inherited trait. The latter in each case is a cultural thing.