I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Crimson Longinus]

I guess I should have specified that I meant behaviorally, which was the context when Umbran made that point.

I think different biology will affect behaviour. I think super long lives species will have different attitudes than shorter live ones, people evolved from small herbivorous prey animals will have different temperament than ones evolved from carnivorous pack hunters etc. Though those differing psychologies are not essential in sense that they are merely the averages and the common attitudes and individuals may differ. And this is one of the reasons why I like having a rather limited palette of the species in my settings. Then every species can have good representation among the NPCs, and if the player chooses to play atypical member of that species that actually comes across, as there is something to compare to.

 

[Faolyn]

For example, let's say two players are making strength-based fighters. One wants to play a half-giant while the other is a halfling. Let's assume a fixed array of ability scores, arrange as desired.

If the half-giant gets a +2 to strength, while the halfling gets a -2 to strength, that arguably results in better verisimilitude. Assuming all other things are equal, we expect the massive half-giant to be stronger than the tiny halfling. It might feel a bit silly for the halfling to be an even match when arm wrestling the half giant.

Of course, that strength penalty might also be less fun for the halfling player, and potentially result in no one wanting to play a strength-based halfling fighter. It can constrain practical character creation, funneling players towards making the same class/species combinations, while penalizing those who make sub-optimal choices for the sake of RP. That said, I've known players who actually enjoy making those sub-optimal picks, so it isn't always a negative.

You could, alternately, represent the half-giant's strength mechanically by other means (maybe they get advantage when making strength checks against smaller targets) but this also has its own pros and cons. Using the example ability above, the half giant is no more effective at making strength checks against a larger target than the halfling is, which might strain verisimilitude for some.

Late to the discussion, so I dunno if this has been brought up yet.

One of the problems here is that the difference between the half-giant and the halfling is that the -2 stat penalty boils down to the half-giant gets a +1 bonus to Strength rolls and the halfling gets a -1 bonus. And logically, if you want to show the difference in physical might, that +1 or -1 ain't doing it. It's what, a total of a 10% difference between the two?

Not to mention, when you get right down to combat, the half-giant isn't going to be doing that much more damage than the halfling--the half giant can use heavier weapons that do more damage, but a Strength and Dexterity of 16 or 18 or 20 have the same bonuses to attacks and damages, which means a halfling can max their Dex and do big damage with a Dex-based weapon. (And don't forget, some dwarfs (still a lot shorter and lighter than a half-giant) and gith (described as tall, but gaunt and lanky) also got a +2 Strength bonus.)

Plus (unless 5.24 changed this) there's a stat max of 20. A halfling, even with a penalty, can eventually get to a 20 Strength. Quite quickly if they roll for stats instead of using a different method and rolled well.

And don't forget that a goliath with a Strength of 20 is 2/3rds as strong as an ancient dragon, because D&D just does flat bonuses; there's no scaling for size or anything like that.

D&D has a problem in that it put everything in advantage/disadvantage to rolls, meaning that if you give the half-giant advantage on Strength-based rolls, they're still going to roll lower than the halfling at times. Now, I'm glad for that because having to calculate a bunch of numerical bonuses is a pain in the neck, but it was helpful in showing some of those bonuses. A half-giant who gets a +10 when performing Feats of Strength is going to generally be much more impressive than one who simply rolls with advantage. Level Up uses expertise dice--an extra d4 (or sometimes d6 or d8) you add to your d20 roll, and are sometimes used in combination with advantage. Same sort of math, but built into the roll.

So I dunno. Maybe there should be different maximums for different stats, rather than a flat 20--although of course there will be problems if a species can have a higher mental stat than others. But there will be more problems if there's a lowered maximum.

So yeah, there is no perfect answer.

 

[Staffan]

It seems that as soon as you go down the road of giving ability score bonuses (or penalties) within a class based system where one class derives more benefits from being strong, or more benefits from being smart, you start to get justifying verbiage that says "Wood Elves are naturally graceful and quick and make excellent thieves and rangers."

I like the way 13th age does it. There are some exceptions, but for the most part it works like this: your race gives you the choice of 2 abilities to get a +2 bonus. For example, dwarves get +2 to Con or Wis, while a high elf gets +2 to Int or Cha. The same goes for your class: barbarians get +2 to Str or Con, while a Rogue gets +2 to Dex or Cha. The twist here is that you can't stack these – you can't get +4 to Cha as a high elf rogue. You could get Int/Dex, Cha/Dex, or Int/Cha. A dwarf barbarian could get Con/Str, Wis/Str, or Wis/Con, but not Con/Con.

This means that every race can get good at every class, though in some cases it can focus you in some way (e.g. high elves probably won't be the tankiest of barbarians, because they'll likely need to put their class bonus in Strength).

 

[Fanaelialae]

Late to the discussion, so I dunno if this has been brought up yet.

One of the problems here is that the difference between the half-giant and the halfling is that the -2 stat penalty boils down to the half-giant gets a +1 bonus to Strength rolls and the halfling gets a -1 bonus. And logically, if you want to show the difference in physical might, that +1 or -1 ain't doing it. It's what, a total of a 10% difference between the two?

Not to mention, when you get right down to combat, the half-giant isn't going to be doing that much more damage than the halfling--the half giant can use heavier weapons that do more damage, but a Strength and Dexterity of 16 or 18 or 20 have the same bonuses to attacks and damages, which means a halfling can max their Dex and do big damage with a Dex-based weapon. (And don't forget, some dwarfs (still a lot shorter and lighter than a half-giant) and gith (described as tall, but gaunt and lanky) also got a +2 Strength bonus.)

Plus (unless 5.24 changed this) there's a stat max of 20. A halfling, even with a penalty, can eventually get to a 20 Strength. Quite quickly if they roll for stats instead of using a different method and rolled well.

And don't forget that a goliath with a Strength of 20 is 2/3rds as strong as an ancient dragon, because D&D just does flat bonuses; there's no scaling for size or anything like that.

D&D has a problem in that it put everything in advantage/disadvantage to rolls, meaning that if you give the half-giant advantage on Strength-based rolls, they're still going to roll lower than the halfling at times. Now, I'm glad for that because having to calculate a bunch of numerical bonuses is a pain in the neck, but it was helpful in showing some of those bonuses. A half-giant who gets a +10 when performing Feats of Strength is going to generally be much more impressive than one who simply rolls with advantage. Level Up uses expertise dice--an extra d4 (or sometimes d6 or d8) you add to your d20 roll, and are sometimes used in combination with advantage. Same sort of math, but built into the roll.

So I dunno. Maybe there should be different maximums for different stats, rather than a flat 20--although of course there will be problems if a species can have a higher mental stat than others. But there will be more problems if there's a lowered maximum.

So yeah, there is no perfect answer.

Yeah, it's strange, but I believe there's a psychological component to it, at least in my experience. Even though a +1 or +2 modifier isn't dramatically significant, to a player it seems to feel like there is a dramatic difference between a stat that's a 14 vs an 18.

To give an example, in the game I played last weekend, we had a scene where three of us split off from the rest of the party. There's some custom stuff in that game, but it was effectively two monks and a bard. We needed to move an empty steel drum and the DM asked who was going to move it, and we kind of just stared at each other. The high strength characters were back with the rest of the party. The DM then asked what our strength scores were. It was something like 13, 13, 14. He laughed at us and told us that we're all well above the human average, and that any of us could move the drum. Typically when there's a "strong thing" that needs doing, we leave it to the strong character in the party, and as a result we didn't think of our characters as strong.

So although you are correct, IME it seems to have a greater psychological impact than its mechanical weight, at least among the gamers I know.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yeah, it's strange, but I believe there's a psychological component to it, at least in my experience. Even though a +1 or +2 modifier isn't dramatically significant, to a player it seems to feel like there is a dramatic difference between a stat that's a 14 vs an 18.

So although you are correct, IME it seems to have a greater psychological impact than its mechanical weight, at least among the gamers I know.

And that's why it "works" for representing great strength. It feels significant so it is significant.

And I certainly do not expect the level of simulationism from D&D where we can equate the exact percentage of the ability score increase to the exact percentage of strength increase in the fiction. It is more vague "bigger number stronger, more bigger more stronger," and don't sweat the details.

 

[billd91]

So I dunno. Maybe there should be different maximums for different stats, rather than a flat 20--although of course there will be problems if a species can have a higher mental stat than others. But there will be more problems if there's a lowered maximum.

So yeah, there is no perfect answer.

I'm not a fan (and never have been) of the idea of different maximums for species in D&D. For my money, halflings having to invest more to reach a Strength of 20 than a goliath does quite enough to satisfy my sense of species differences while allowing a halfling fighter or barbarian to reach the pinnacle of their class's powers. In other words, their potential as PCs isn't pinched off, they just have to work harder (or less for goliaths) at some of them because of their natural, physical differences.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

To give an example, in the game I played last weekend, we had a scene where three of us split off from the rest of the party. There's some custom stuff in that game, but it was effectively two monks and a bard. We needed to move an empty steel drum and the DM asked who was going to move it, and we kind of just stared at each other. The high strength characters were back with the rest of the party. The DM then asked what our strength scores were. It was something like 13, 13, 14. He laughed at us and told us that we're all well above the human average, and that any of us could move the drum. Typically when there's a "strong thing" that needs doing, we leave it to the strong character in the party, and as a result we didn't think of our characters as strong.

So although you are correct, IME it seems to have a greater psychological impact than its mechanical weight, at least among the gamers I know.

I think some games make a bad job at explaining attributes and skill. In this particular example, I think D&D instill the idea that the achievable range of stats is 8-20, and the normal range of stats is 8-16 (or maybe 8-18). So people who would use an array of 12 across the board and a single 14 would see themselves as barely above average with a somewhat higher forte, and therefore they would see their STR 12 as "brawnier than your average geek", when in fact they are strong as a bull (maybe litterally, didn't check) and well above most humans who are STR 10 commoners like you, me and The Rock. While also being smarter than most rocket scientists.

They also often fail to explain skill so people could say "I suck at Stealth" when they have 86% in Stealth, because they compare themselves to another PC who has 112% and can hide himself from a guard while taking to him in an empty plaza. I understand that giving numerous exemple of how skills are supposed to work in a game can take some place, but they set the assumption and I think they are needed. Even with experienced roleplayers in my group I sometimes had the question "Is there a chance that I can do jumping from a balcony and reach a chandelier and drop down to fight downstairs?" Because it was a new game and he had no real way to know the level of cinematics allowed (and preferred to check, knowing his character would know, rather than risk hearing: "err, you missed the chandelier by 10 meters, are you a moron? Now you fall, take 20d4 of damage, well, you're lying with your spine broken in the ballroom. Consider rolling another character...").

How skills and stats are applied convey a lot of information on the setting being played in, and I found it often either lacking or disconnected.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I have no doubt I'm in the minority here, but...

I have no problem casting different groups (whichever nomenclature you prefer) with certain embedded characteristics. I think that - for me - the game works best as a kind of psychomachian, mythopoeic, anthropopsychic, ethnopsychic allegory, where different groups stand in for functions of our own consciousness.

Bioessentialism doesn't really figure into it.

 

[Scribe]

psychomachian, mythopoeic, anthropopsychic, ethnopsychic allegory

 

[Bill Zebub]

And this is one of the reasons why I like having a rather limited palette of the species in my settings. Then every species can have good representation among the NPCs, and if the player chooses to play atypical member of that species that actually comes across, as there is something to compare to.

I like that.