I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[BrokenTwin]

Why is it not an acceptable solution to voluntarily take the lower scores? (I.e., play a Dwarf sorcerer, but put your low scores/bonuses into a traditional Dwarf attributes.). That way you get to play the way you want, and other people get to play the way they want?

It's because that's not playing against the system. The personal challenge isn't "can I play a suboptimal halfling barbarian", but "how good of a halfling barbarian can I play?" If the end result is the exact same as playing a goliath barbarian, then it's not fun.
I'm not saying modern D&D should change its rules to match my preferences (I don't play modern D&D anyway), I'm trying to explain why having hard coded limitations can be fun for the player. Limitations can spur creativity just as much as it can spurn it.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I mean, I think there's no possible way the culture of elves could be the same nearly-Ferengi human culture you're describing (i.e. the kind that concerns itself with "accruing assets").

I didn't say "how many assets" I said "what kind of assets". Quantity is a quality but not the only quality.

Will "typical" elven adults have homes that are sparsely furnished but each item is a masterpiece? Will they have eclectic mixes of materials accrued over centuries? Does it look like a museum? Is it a hoarder house with centuries of things acquired and kept "just in case"?

And that was the first of 3 questions. The other two were relarionships and experience.

As for what is given to children, dowries are a pretty widespread thing in a multitude of human cultures. Thinking "what are the baselines for having a family" is pretty basic element, and when you need to plan on having this child in your household for an entire human lifespan, what does that mean?

Perhaps elves need at least 3 different professions to ensure they can adapt to changing conditions before they are "marryable" and parents are responsible for the apprenticeships. (Relationship + experience)

Do elves "need" to have made arrangements for family living in two separate regions, to ensure a child can reach maturity? (Relationship) What about 6 horses, a yurt and a warbow, is that a decent hedge? Or maybe they just need "life insurance", in the form of a suitable ring with a diamond big enough for Raise Dead and enough gold to pay a priest to cast it. I mean, you only need to save 2gp/yr when your "teen" years last for 80 years. (Assets)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's because that's not playing against the system. The personal challenge isn't "can I play a suboptimal halfling barbarian", but "how good of a halfling barbarian can I play?" If the end result is the exact same as playing a goliath barbarian, then it's not fun.
I'm not saying modern D&D should change its rules to match my preferences (I don't play modern D&D anyway), I'm trying to explain why having hard coded limitations can be fun for the player. Limitations can spur creativity just as much as it can spurn it.

Whilst I agree they shouldn't be the same, I would strongly disagree that one of them should just flatly do more damage and have better chance to hit. That's not an interesting or fun difference. That's just a boring and powerful flat advantage for one of them. There are lots of good ways to differences without "One of u hav bigger numbah!!!"

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Or maybe they just need "life insurance", in the form of a suitable ring with a diamond big enough for Raise Dead and enough gold to pay a priest to cast it. I mean, you only need to save 2gp/yr when your "teen" years last for 80 years. (Assets)

And if you need to wait 1,400 years to inherit your father's shop, are you really going to get into the same trade as him as human do?

Interestingly, that might have effect on social mobility, unless they are just, as a species, more patient and feel that it is OK to wait.

And that's only touching the "natural" aspect of the culture that might develop. What kind of culture would you develop when the God of Chairs created you and activily whisper in your head that your success isn't in breeding but in owning a lot of chairs? Do they produce images of people with lots of chair that teenager stash under their beds?

 

[BrokenTwin]

Whilst I agree they shouldn't be the same, I would strongly disagree that one of them should just flatly do more damage and have better chance to hit. That's not an interesting or fun difference. That's just a boring and powerful flat advantage for one of them.

Straight damage per hit isn't the only metric I'm measuring by. The tradeoffs could be the halfling being harder to hit, more mobile, or other advantages that the goliath lacks. Them being identical as an end result is a failure state for me, because it's boring.
From memory, that kind of tradeoff is rather difficult to pull off in modern D&D, but there's other systems that handle that tradeoff just fine. Especially ones that support the other pillars of play with more equitable crunch, so your halfling barbarian might not be quite as great at dealing damage in raw combat, but might better handle travel, exploration, or social situations.

 

[MGibster]

There's got to me some axiom stating every conversation about TTRPGs in general will eventually lead to Dungeons & Dragons. I thought it was a good idea when they, D&D (yes, D&D is it's own creature created from the amalgamated thoughts of fans over the years) abandoned attribute penalties. A Charisma penalty actively discouraged players from creating half-orc Bards. Of course since they got rid of half-orcs I guess they didn't want them as Bards or anything else apparently.

But then D&D also encourages min-maxing. At least 5th edition does. Players are strongly encouraged to put their highest attribute in whatever makes sense for their class, so they had to make sure the player could pick whatever their highest attribute would be regardless of species.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

A Charisma penalty actively discouraged players from creating half-orc Bards. Of course since they got rid of half-orcs I guess they didn't want them as Bards or anything else apparently.

I laughed out loud

 

[kigmatzomat]

And if you need to wait 1,400 years to inherit your father's shop, are you really going to get into the same trade as him as human do?

Right, or do elven children take over the parent's shop so the parent can finally stop making chairs and move on to being an alchemist while knowing the kid is in good shape?

Or what if elven adults treat elves less than 100yro as disposable? Like, what if elves had MORE kids than the orc stereotype but expect most of them to die by their 40s? I mean, maybe they just get numbers until they "earn" a name.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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!

Just building on this point. Klingons are great at taking punishment, with redundant physiology, and resistance to strong alcohols compared to humans, which could be represented with a +2 bonus to Con. But humans are descended from persistance predators, used to running and walking extreme distances compared to most races…which is also modeled in D&D with a +2 bonus to Con.

 

[Fanaelialae]

And if you need to wait 1,400 years to inherit your father's shop, are you really going to get into the same trade as him as human do?

Interestingly, that might have effect on social mobility, unless they are just, as a species, more patient and feel that it is OK to wait.

And that's only touching the "natural" aspect of the culture that might develop. What kind of culture would you develop when the God of Chairs created you and activily whisper in your head that your success isn't in breeding but in owning a lot of chairs? Do they produce images of people with lots of chair that teenager stash under their beds?

It's an interesting question.

Even with elves' slower reproductive rates, by the time they pass on they could have numerous generations of descendents. It probably wouldn't be all that uncommon.

Let's assume that the average elf has an average of 2 children by age 200, and stops procreating after that (just to keep the math simple). Each of those kids follows the same pattern. By the time that first elf is 1400, they've got at least 6 or 7 generations of descendents, totaling 64-128 elvish descendants.

If all of those descendants stand to inherit, there might not be that much to go around per individual. If they're more like Tolkien's elves, they may even take some of their stuff with them to the distant shores, and as a result there's even less to inherit.

Which suggests that elves might not really expect to inherit much of anything, and could instead be focused on their own ambitions and interests. Elves might even consider the human custom of parents expecting their children to follow in their footsteps to be impractical, from their point of view.