I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[MGibster]

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.

Al Capone funded soup kitchens and Pablo Escobar was considered a saint by many of the poor people in Colombia because he spent so much money helping them. Crime lords spending money helping people is just good business.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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

How do you measure, exactly, "really care". Is there a chart? Do you have to strap someone into a machine? Is a Voight-Kampff kind of thing? What's your exact determinance point? How did you scientifically work this out?

Otherwise that's kind of nonsense mate and you know it!

I mean, I actually semi-agree in the sense that I don't think that dislike of the creepiness (and it's not really "morality" it's creepiness - there's a difference - some really creepy and not-nice people love that stuff and it makes it seem... blech more generally as a result) that was the sole motivating factor, but also I think you need to be real that a lot of people were kind of "squicked" by or just felt gross about some (not all) of the racial modifiers. Particularly negative mental modifiers. Particularly on races which lined up with other racist-trope traits.

And that combined with the fact that they obviously weren't serving much purpose, meant that it was easy for people to move away from them, and people in general were happier when they did.

Racial stats weren't helped by two other factors aside from creepiness and lack of flexibility:

1) A lot of racial stats were obviously bollocks. Loads and loads of races it was clearly a case of "Uhhhh we need to put the bonuses/penalties somewhere". Including major ones like Wood Elves as I pointed out earlier. People can scrabble for justifications, but we could scrabble for justifications for, say, giving humans say +2 CHA and +2 INT, it wouldn't make it not bollocks.

2) Some concepts/races were wildly, ridiculously better-supported than others, in that either they had much more generally favourable stat combos, or they had tons of subraces with various stat combos, or they had flexible or semi-flexible stats with no real drawback (5E Half-Elves for example).

And I guess also

3) Races in all editions of D&D, including 5E are clearly NOT well-balanced with each other at all, and stats bonuses just made this worse.

Both of which kind of show up how these aren't very interesting, well-considered or convincing, or even important to have. And hell, most of us played in the Tashas to 2024 period when a huge proportion of D&D games just had no restrictions (just a +2 and a +1 place as you wish), and clearly the world didn't end. Games weren't less immersive or w/e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What's always been really funny to me about people getting SO MAD about strong, brutish halflings being possible is that they canonically exist in Tolkien (c.f. Bullroarer Took etc.). Like:



Y'all trying to tell me Bullroarer here didn't have 20 STR? Because I'm pretty sure that's something you need 20 STR or more to to.

So, frankly, guys, if Tolkien could and did imagine super-strong halflings, and he's held up by you guys as this "gold standard", why is there a problem? Seriously, please explain!

(Also "You guys, I need to take my fantasy seriously, like Tolkien, and strong halflings stop me!!!" well maybe click on Golfimbul's name right there and see how seriously Tolkien took stuff.)

The Bullroarer story may very well be apocryphal in-setting. And part of the evidence for his prodigious physicality was Bullroarer's ability to ride a horse. A big deal...for hobbits.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It’s not only that, it’s also that some class choices are extremely disconnected from their main attributes.

Dwarves are supposed to be gruff and unfriendly, that is why they get a penalty to Cha. But why the heck does this mean there are fewer Dwarf sorcerers and Dwarf sorcerers are less effective?

Dwarf sorcerers weren't a thing when these ideas were developed.

 

[dragoner]

So, this touches on an important point: the difference between "broad average" for a people, and how you depict individuals.

There is a difference between a GM saying, "In this world, Dwarves are often tougher and stronger than humans, and their culture values those traits" and "In this world, if you play a dwarf your character WILL BE tough and strong, because dwarves are tough and strong."

My observation is that people are multi-faceted. More than anything else, telling players what their character will be is not good, imo. Let them determine that. If I am playing or running a game with Dwarves, then the game often has it's own lore, and usually I won't change it, because if I were to re-write the setting, why use that one at all? Afaik the new D&D rules just give the bonuses to everyone not tied to the specifics, and the player can choose, which I think is a good design choice.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The Bullroarer story may very well be apocryphal in-setting. And part of the evidence for his prodigious physicality was Bullroarer's ability to ride a horse. A big deal...for hobbits.

There's no reason to believe it's any more or less apocryphal than the countless other stories told in those books.

In fact if anything, the general message of The Hobbit and LotR is that most of these "old stories" either have a significant grain of truth in them, or, wild and implausible as they might seem, are in fact wholly and completely true (c.f. giants in the mountains etc.). Why should this differ? Because you don't personally like it as much?

Dwarf sorcerers weren't a thing when these ideas were developed.

Incorrect.

Race limits were dropped at the same time as Sorcerers appeared. Weird mistake to make.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Especially for playing oneself with pointy ears. If one is not exploring the situation of a hardy member of the british gentry facing the horrors of WWI, you might not need hobbits. If you don't want to explore the challenge of being short and lucky, you don't need halflings. If one isn't exploring the difficulty of being a kleptomaniac adapting to a society that has grown completely crazed with the silly, greedy and alien concept of personal ownership, you don't need a kender.

You also don't need culture, most of the time.

"Need" for what purposes?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

"Need" for what purposes?

When people play themselves with pointy ears, they don't need culture, because they'll do choices informed by their (player's) culture, not the one of the fantasy settings. They might select one trait and insist on it and ignore the rest. Which is why many writers summarize their culture to this (the warrior race Klingon culture, the greedy race Ferengi culture...) because it's also easier.

Not that I encourage this type of play.

 

[Umbran]

Well said. Clearly, biologically Klingons are relatively well-suited to war/combat (at least compared to other species, it kind of cancels out if fighting each other), in that they're stronger than humans, have more redundant physiology (i.e. extra heart, backup spine-equivalent, etc.), grow up really fast (about twice as fast as a human), and so on, but humans are incredibly well-suited to jogging and long-distance walking, doesn't mean have to make their our primary identity!

Well, much like Tolkien orcs, Klingons were not originally a simulation. But, they did serve a different rhetorical purpose.

Tolkien orcs were an expression of the effects of Evil.
D&D orcs were a monster-unit for PCs to kill.
Trek Klingons were originally vaguely Soviet-analog antagonists for nigh utopian space opera & morality plays.

As we move away from any of these narrative purposes, the described creature and culture will change. D&D and Trek have changed over the years, so, orcs and Klingons have changed.

 

[Umbran]

IMO, that solution still results in one 'race' being a superior choice for a given class, which is one of the things I want to avoid.

Fair. I was addressing more the general approach to species that we want to have some superior trait, rather than your specific needs.