I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Micah Sweet]

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..."

This can be solved with more options, allowing for different interesting variations on the same basic kind of character. See Level Up's "options at every level" style for details.

 

[The Firebird]

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..."

From my time as an AL GM: the diversity of builds pre-Tasha was noticeably greater than post-Tasha. The introduction of new power options like the Twilight Cleric crowded out any benefits from interesting species/class choices. Ime.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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."

Yeah I'm not against races having different flavor, in fact I'm all for actual flavor as expressed by unique abilities. I just think that +1/-1 bonuses/penalties don't actually add any flavor, they just force an unnecessary tradeoff between roleplaying and optimization.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

From my time as an AL GM: the diversity of builds pre-Tasha was noticeably greater than post-Tasha. The introduction of new power options like the Twilight Cleric crowded out any benefits from interesting species/class choices. Ime.

Interesting. In your experience, do you attribute that to a change in practice or did you player with a newer crowd?

 

[Umbran]

This can be solved with more options, allowing for different interesting variations on the same basic kind of character. See Level Up's "options at every level" style for details.

With respect, as the Firebird notes, more options available does not necessarily equate to more options used. More options means more opportunities for finding synchronicity that creates optimal builds.

 

[Morrus]

Then what are you doing playing a game with classes? You should be playing GURPS.

I knew that would be the reply. Almost like I've had this conversation 1,000 times before. Nothing is binary; there are degrees of things.

 

[MGibster]

I knew that would be the reply. Almost like I've had this conversation 1,000 times before. Nothing is binary; there are degrees of things.

I imagine at some point we'll just be able to have conversations in heavily coded language.

User 1: Premise #32 regarding player species.
User 324: Question #42.
User 444: Rebuttal #21.
User 841: Offensive statement #3.
Moderator 3: Banning statement #98 followed by plea to keep things polite #4.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I imagine at some point we'll just be able to have conversations in heavily coded language.

User 1: Premise #32 regarding player species.
User 324: Question #42.
User 444: Rebuttal #21.
User 841: Offensive statement #3.
Moderator 3: Banning statement #98 followed by plea to keep things polite #4.

Plausibly deniable personal attack #48.

 

[Micah Sweet]

With respect, as the Firebird notes, more options available does not necessarily equate to more options used. More options means more opportunities for finding synchronicity that creates optimal builds.

But more optimal builds than previously, which is...more builds, and therefore, more diversity. If someone wants to optimize you're not going to stop them anyway without removing that aspect of the game, which for them makes it less fun.

 

[Scribe]

Plausibly deniable personal attack #48.

Those go elsewhere.