I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[TwoSix]

Take 5.5 D&D. The MM tells us about goblins, and lizardfolk, and aarakocra, etc. What tells us about dwarves, elves, and dragonborn? According to you, nothing. We only know about how to make PCs that resemble these beings. You don't see this as a problem?

No. What's the problem?

If I need an elf NPC in my game, I add one. If it needs stats, I make up stats that feel elfy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. What's the problem?

If I need an elf NPC in my game, I add one. If it needs stats, I make up stats that feel elfy.

So you're looking at this issue entirely from your personal table's perspective? Fair enough.

 

[TwoSix]

My thought is more that the drift in reference frame can cause a disconnect at the table. As @Micah Sweet says, 5e24 doesn't tell us much about species. That isn't an issue for people who have been playing for decades because the text was there before. But if you come into the game now, you won't learn the same lore about species; it may be obvious to you that halflings and goliaths have the same strength.

It isn't like there isn't ANY info, AFAIK, the new books have a section on species. And it isn't like the 5e14 books aren't still valid.

And if it's obvious to the GM that halflings and goliath have the same strength, then just....do that? If a player and DM disagree, they can sort it out, just like we do with any other disconnect between our frame of reference. Harmonizing our frames our reference, like when a GM describes something and the PCs ask clarifying questions, is a major part of play.

Then if you sit down with someone who has preconceived notions, and...what are halflings like? What are elves like? Yes these can be campaign-specific, and yes there is non-D&D media that can help establish this. But it helps to have a common reference frame, and the current books won't help you.

Again, I'm reasonably sure the new books do have information on species in the PHB. And as a GM, you shouldn't need an explicit rule to tell you that people that are 3' tall and weigh 40 pounds probably aren't particularly strong on average.

And if you think halflings are actually like ants and can lift way more than would be obvious, then just do that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There doesn't have to be a "right" answer, but there should be at least one (preferably more than one) answer at all in the text, and if you're right there just isn't.

Take 5.5 D&D. The MM tells us about goblins, and lizardfolk, and aarakocra, etc. What tells us about dwarves, elves, and dragonborn? According to you, nothing. We only know about how to make PCs that resemble these beings. You don't see this as a problem?

Pretty much every edition of D&D has been quite bad and/or deeply inconsistent at this. 3E arguably least, because it used the "template" concept quite heavily.

The big problem with the "template" concept and the "NPCs use the same rules as PCs" concept (which D&D has never consistently stuck to, again late 1E AD&D and 3E are probably when it used it most but still not consistently) is that they can generate incredible amounts of largely-irrelevant work for the DM, and the D&D DM already has a ton more paperwork to do than most DMs of modern RPGs. Templates could probably be revived and simplified so that they didn't, but "NPCs use the same rules as the PCs" is a fundamentally cursed/make-work concept that RPGs have been attempting to escape from in various ways since the late 1980s (albeit it wasn't abandoned "en masse" until, like, the 2000s).

Hell, one big help to any RPG wanting to use a "template" concept would simply be making a free online monster/NPC builder for your game that let you just select a creature and apply one-click apply a template to it - I believe the old 4E DDI might have been able to do that, or something very close, but the half-developed mess that is everything on D&D Beyond that doesn't go on a player's character sheet can't do it.

 

[TwoSix]

So you're looking at this issue entirely from your personal table's perspective? Fair enough.

I'm saying your bog-standard GM should be able to extrapolate from the high-level tropes of a race to determine a workable set of mechanical parameters for what an "average" member of a race would be represented as without mechanical guidance.

 

[Cadence]

And as a GM, you shouldn't need an explicit rule to tell you that people that are 3' tall and weigh 40 pounds probably aren't particularly strong on average.

The carrying capacity rules support that they are. Small vs. Medium explicitly doesn't matter for carrying or dragging/lifting/pushing. (I don't have the 5e24 MM handy, but the 2014 one refers folks to the PHB for interpreting the ability scores and how they're used in play. )

 

[TwoSix]

The carrying capacity rules support that they are. Small vs. Medium explicitly doesn't matter for carrying or dragging/lifting/pushing. (I don't have the 5e24 MM handy, but the 2014 one refers folks to the PHB for interpreting the ability scores and how they're used in play. )

They still aren't strong. This doesn't really have anything to do with the rules. This is about the principle that the GM has carte blanche to model NPCs as they see fit without needing to feel beholden to the PC generation rules.

Even if a PC halfling has no Strength adjustment, the GM can (and should) still model your standard halfling NPC as having a 6 Strength.

I mean, the fact that you're looking for rules to model that Small characters are weaker tells me you intrinsically understand that Small characters are weaker, thematically. So in your games, just make halfling NPCs have lower Strength.

 

[Distracted DM]

No idea. What defines D&D conventions (and D&D-like games) is transmitted by media exposure and cultural osmosis from various tables even more so than a few paragraphs in a PHB or DMG.

Outside of some grimdark stuff, fantasy in general is defined by characters with special birthrights and special destinies. D&D has just accepted that basic assumption.

I think calling it out specifically would help clarify a few things- for instance, that PCs don't work the same as NPCs.
13th Age explicitly says you're already a hero at level 1, that you stand apart from common folk.
Dungeon World says you're the cleric/wizard/thief. There may be other priests, magic users, and burglars, but you are THE wizard.

TSR editions of DnD did sort of have you as The Everyman, Plowshare to Sword sort of character.. and all the characters were built sort of the same way, whether PC or NPC. 3e we saw NPCs still using similar rules but different classes... so the PCs did stand out a bit since they were PC Fighter class, not NPC Warrior class.

4e and 5e just use completely separate rules for PC vs NPC.

 

[TwoSix]

TSR editions of DnD did sort of have you as The Everyman, Plowshare to Sword sort of character.. and all the characters were built sort of the same way, whether PC or NPC. 3e we saw NPCs still using similar rules but different classes... so the PCs did stand out a bit since they were PC Fighter class, not NPC Warrior class.

4e and 5e just use completely separate rules for PC vs NPC.

Exactly. As the core assumptions of D&D have changed from classic to trad to neotrad over the decades, the assumed relationship between the PCs and NPCs has changed.

That thing I said earlier, about PCs not being a representative sample of the NPC population, is completely at odds with the assumptions of D&D from the '70s and into the '80s.

 

[The Firebird]

It isn't like there isn't ANY info, AFAIK, the new books have a section on species. And it isn't like the 5e14 books aren't still valid.

The material is very brief. I don't think having to look in an old PHB for the information is a good solution. If anything it reinforces that the designers thought that information was no longer relevant.

And if it's obvious to the GM that halflings and goliath have the same strength, then just....do that? If a player and DM disagree, they can sort it out, just like we do with any other disconnect between our frame of reference. Harmonizing our frames our reference, like when a GM describes something and the PCs ask clarifying questions, is a major part of play.

I'm not saying it is an intractable problem. But we are all familiar with issues caused by differences between RAI and RAW. What you're saying is that the RAI diverge from what is on the page. If that is the intent, why not include it as RAW to head off disputes?