I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Corinnguard]

Sorcerer wasn't on the menu for anyone.

And then when they appeared in the PF1 menu, they came in several different and distinct flavors.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But that's up to the player. They decide what character they want to play from the available options.

This is getting circular.

Yes, you are correct. And the result is that each new campaign has yet another halfling rogue, elf wizard, orc barbarian, etc.

I think it comes down a tradeoff between two goals:
1) enabling players who want to 'play against type' including the downside of lower primary stats, but with the system imposing that limitation instead of requiring them to voluntarily take those stats
2) enabling players who want to play against type but without the downside of lower primary stats

I think the answer is obvious, but YMMV.

 

[The Firebird]

This is getting circular.

Yes, you are correct. And the result is that each new campaign has yet another halfling rogue, elf wizard, orc barbarian, etc.

I think it comes down a tradeoff between two goals:
1) enabling players who want to 'play against type' including the downside of lower primary stats, but with the system imposing that limitation instead of requiring them to voluntarily take those stats
2) enabling players who want to play against type but without the downside of lower primary stats

I think the answer is obvious, but YMMV.

Are "halfling rogues, elf wizards, dwarf clerics" and the like even types any more? I run AL games and at least for people who have come into the hobby post-Tashas's, it doesn't seem that way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is getting circular.

Yes, you are correct. And the result is that each new campaign has yet another halfling rogue, elf wizard, orc barbarian, etc.

I think it comes down a tradeoff between two goals:
1) enabling players who want to 'play against type' including the downside of lower primary stats, but with the system imposing that limitation instead of requiring them to voluntarily take those stats
2) enabling players who want to play against type but without the downside of lower primary stats

I think the answer is obvious, but YMMV.

I'm not sure there is a type to play against if that type has no mechanical back up. It's still a game that supposed to represent things in the setting mechanically. What you're describing as your ideal just sounds like a story.

 

[MGibster]

For me, the important thing is that a game has a strong narrative reason for have different species. For the most part, D&D fails at this. But since I don't really take any of the D&D settings very seriously, it's something I can live with. I long ago accepted the truth that it didn't matter of a player's Fighter was a tiefling, halfling, or goliath because the game was going to play out essentially the same way regardless.

It's always good to be reminded that no game can be all things to all players. But if someone writes a game they need to figure out what it's all about. i.e. Take some sort of stance even knowing not everyone is going to like it.



The Skeptic: "For it is true that some prefer their dwarfs to have no magic, others prefer their dwarfs to be mighty wizards, and still others who prefer their dwarfs to be very tall beings made of fungus. I say unto thee, no game may be all things to all people. No matter the game designers intent, there will be the wailing and gnashing of teeth from those players whose preferences are not favored."

St. Jackson: "Hark, like a soothing Tums, I bring news to quiet a tumultuous stomach. I speak of the beginning and end of all games, GURPS! Within its holy pages are multitudes; universes as of yet undiscovered and genre combinations that go together like peanut butter & chocolate."

 

[Corinnguard]

Are "halfling rogues, elf wizards, dwarf clerics" and the like even types any more? I run AL games and at least for people who have come into the hobby post-Tashas's, it doesn't seem that way.

I think it's been this way since 4e. While 3e didn't prevent you from choosing any class that you wanted your character to be or keep you leveling up as far as you wanted to go, it did have that Favored Class drawback. The Favored Class for Dwarves was Fighter. The Favored Class for Elves was Wizard. But this drawback came only into play when you tried to multiclass, and it was mostly an XP drawback. If you were a Dwarf Fighter/X, you were okay because one of your two classes was your Favored Class. If you tried to multiclass when neither class was your Favored Class, you earned an XP penalty if you advanced one class further than the other.

 

[MGibster]

Are "halfling rogues, elf wizards, dwarf clerics" and the like even types any more? I run AL games and at least for people who have come into the hobby post-Tashas's, it doesn't seem that way.

I don't think anyone plays dwarfs. They're so 1998.

 

[FrozenNorth]

See my reply to @Ruin Explorer above.

It kind of makes your response irrelevant though. The thread is arguing in favour of bioessentialism, ie bonuses and penalties to various stats.

This creates problems. Among others, the problem that certain races are penalized from taking certain classes, even when the principal stat for that race isn’t strongly correlated with the stat in fiction (as a Cha penalty for being gruff and blunt isn’t relevant to casting magic innately).

In that context, claiming that stat penalties predate certain classes is completely irrelevant.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It kind of makes your response irrelevant though. The thread is arguing in favour of bioessentialism, ie bonuses and penalties to various stats.

This creates problems. Among others, the problem that certain races are penalized from taking certain classes, even when the principal stat for that race isn’t strongly correlated with the stat in fiction (as a Cha penalty for being gruff and blunt isn’t relevant to casting magic innately).

In that context, claiming that stat penalties predate certain classes is completely irrelevant.

They predate the kinds of uses for Charisma you were suggesting. That seems relevant to me.

 

[Umbran]

But that's up to the player. They decide what character they want to play from the available options.

The complaint wasn't about just one player, though. It is about how all of one character type always ends up using the same build. "Yeah, yeah. Barbarian, 20-strength, GWM. Sure, whatever..."