I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Cadence]

I think it's a pretty core premise for modern-day D&D that PCs are not some representative sample drawn randomly from a generated pool of NPCs.

PCs are intended to be more like the BG3 Origin characters; they're going to have special, comic-book style backstories that explain their combination of background, species, and class powers.

Tha

Eureka !

Ive been trying to articulate what i most loathe about “modern” D&D and youve hit the nail on the head.

Had B2 open recently for some other quotes...

Page 6: The background information for the players and how they compare to typical people.

In the 1e PHB (page 17), half-orc PCs are explicitly different from the usual offspring of orcs and humans:

In the DMG (page 12), the PCs are supposed to be viable and NPCs use a different method of getting ability scores from PCs:

The 1e DMG also contains NPCs with no PC analog (Alchemist, Sage).

 

[Alzrius]

Again, I'm reasonably sure the new books do have information on species in the PHB.

I thought the presumption was that all of the racial information in the 5E PHB was only supposed to describe PCs of each race—who are supposed to be exceptions unbound by the conventions/limitations ascribed to typical elves, dwarves, etc.—and not everyone else in the game world.

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.

Those are certainly easy fixes, but still sound an awful lot like the Oberoni Fallacy.

 

[TwoSix]

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?

I have no idea what the RAI is. I’m just saying what I outlined is what I feel is the easiest approach.

 

[aramis erak]

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

I agree.

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.

Persistence hunting, as done by the San and !kung, isn't all that tiring to do. It requires skill with bow or spear, and the ability to WALK for about 2 hours. The trick is, it only works on certain prey... many deer and antelopes can only sprint a short bit, then must rest... and you walk up, scare the prey, which isn't recovered yet from the first sprint, and it sprints again... possibly with another wound where you jabbed it... often dying of heat exhaustion. It's low effort and high reward, save when some other, more aggro, predator comes along and steals the prey (before or after its death).

So, no, it's probably not a good justification for humans and Klingons having the same Con.

It's pitting their patience and perception vs the critters' lactic acid build up and sprints. In other words, two strengths vs 1 strength and 1 weakness.

 

[aramis erak]

I have no idea what the RAI is. I’m just saying what I outlined is what I feel is the easiest approach.

RAI= Rules As Intended.

 

[TwoSix]

Those are certainly easy fixes, but still sound an awful lot like the Oberoni Fallacy.

It's not really Oberoni IF you don't want them to put in rules simply because you think that it will both A) make people mad and B) they'll just screw it up anyway.

I mean, the one rule from 5e2024 someone pointed out was "Just use 10s for all stats for average commoner NPCs". That's terrible advice! Definitely don't do that! "No rules" is better than that rule!

 

[TwoSix]

RAI= Rules As Intended.

I know what RAI means; I don't what the intention is to be able to decipher the RAI.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Do you object to such mechanical guidance existing in the text though?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

The TSR philosophy on these things(even if they don't follow it perfectly) is my standard. I see no reason why putting dwarves, elves, humans, etc in the MM, as they were in those days, as an entry with general information, would in any way preclude them for being used as a PC species. It doesn't stop people from playing goblins, for example. Furthermore, having these species exist in the PH but not in the MM artificially separates and "raises them up" in comparison to others. IMO 4e and 5e have been moving in a direction contrary to my preference in this (and other) areas.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Yes, and to be honest it makes me a little sad. Different editions all called D&D simply shouldn't IMO be completely different games.