I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

Well, if you want do that, then you do not need to have non-human sapients at all.

Not just "if you want to..."

It is, "if the differences between humans and non-humans are too small, you don't really need the non-humans."

You know how everyone complains that non-humans just seem like humans in costumes? Well, that means your non-humans are not distinctive enough.

I think the point of non-humans are that they are some way different than humans, otherwise they would just be humans!

Right, but then you have to actually make them DIFFERENT. Being a little stronger faster, or tougher doesn't really do it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It is, "if the differences between humans and non-humans are too small, you don't really need the non-humans."

You know how everyone complains that non-humans just seem like humans in costumes? Well, that means your non-humans are not distinctive enough.
I don't know why they complain about that though. We're telling human stories for regular humans. People like my regular human bartender friend Jackie Daytona. Star Trek does this of course and it's not because the writers can't come up with alien aliens, it's because they're telling human stories. When Star Trek has alien aliens the story usually centers around our protagonists dealing with it rather than from the point-of-view of the alien.

It's why I'm a big fan of choosing a species based on what kind of story you're trying to tell. Sure, you could just do it with a human, I guess, but what's Tolkien or Star Trek without a little of the fantastical?
 

The biggest problem is that in most games the different species are just humans in disguise. Humans with pointy ears, humans with different skin and teeth, little human etc. and than they get traits like "being less intelligent" in general AND on top get described traits that are cultural, not biological. And than on top we have the morality/alignment. Ah, the stupid but strong human with different skin color and teeth lives like a primitive in tribes and is evil and thus ok to be killed on sight.

These silly sensitive guardians of purity, what problem do they see here? /s
 

I just wish RPGs had a way to elegantly and meaningfully tackle long lifespans in a way that actually impacts the game.

People will hand waive the 400 year old character as having a “slower mentality” or “matures very slowly” or something but if that’s the case why bother with a long lifespans other than decorative fluff?

It’s like the warhammer 40k problem with the Aledari (space elves) or frankly any setting with elves or elf standins. They’re always emphatically described as utterly alien and incomprehensible to humanity, yet they basically act like arrogant, snobby traditionalists in a very human like way. Generally speaking.
 

The biggest problem is that in most games the different species are just humans in disguise. Humans with pointy ears, humans with different skin and teeth, little human etc. and than they get traits like "being less intelligent" in general AND on top get described traits that are cultural, not biological. And than on top we have the morality/alignment. Ah, the stupid but strong human with different skin color and teeth lives like a primitive in tribes and is evil and thus ok to be killed on sight.

These silly sensitive guardians of purity, what problem do they see here? /s

I think part of it is not just whether a game designer can create a fantasy species that is suitably alien to not simply be a human with pointy ears, but it also must be a species that people are interested in playing. I suspect the farther you get away from what people know, the harder it is for them to engage with it.
 

Because being an adventurer is super dangerous and part of the setting is the assumption that people wouldn't do it if they didn't have to?

Sorry, I do need to correct myself- the game calls for EITHER being unable to work a normal job OR having a motivation which drives you to fight the Nightmare incursions. I think both is even better, but that's my aesthetic preference. :)

View attachment 413901

I mean, plenty of people actively seek out dangerous challenges without being bad at normal life. I’d go so far as to say that enjoying fear and near-death adrenaline highs is a normal human trait. Not universal, but certainly fairly common.

We see the aurochs and think, “Bet I could jump on it’s back and stab it to death” and even if twenty of our friends die trying, if we manage it and survive we then go on to have a dozen babies because everyone in the tribe thinks we are cool as heck.

Like a species that historically has often designed actively less protective armor than they are capable of making because it looked better, isn’t staying home because the high-reward-high-glory-protect-your-neighbors job is dangerous.

A blind man climbed Mt Everest.
Climbing that death trap is so much more foolish than fighting monsters, but I wouldn’t for a second assume that everyone who has done it couldn’t work an office job or as a mechanic. That would be absurd.
Sounds like you are agreeing with Johnstone Metzger and the game that requiring merely one half makes sense to you (the "you must fight" half of the chart). That just being a thrill-seeking personality is enough, without the other compelling reason of being unsuited for a regular job. :) I rather enjoy the aesthetic of desperation of having both, but your preference and the way the game lays it out do allow for a broader variety of character concepts.
 


The biggest problem is that in most games the different species are just humans in disguise. Humans with pointy ears, humans with different skin and teeth, little human etc. and than they get traits like "being less intelligent" in general AND on top get described traits that are cultural, not biological. And than on top we have the morality/alignment. Ah, the stupid but strong human with different skin color and teeth lives like a primitive in tribes and is evil and thus ok to be killed on sight.

These silly sensitive guardians of purity, what problem do they see here? /s
Yeah you gotta give them green blood and tentacles before genocide is ok. /s?
 

For longlived races you can argue that the humanoid sized brain can only hold a few centuries of data. So dwarves can just about remember everything, which makes them officious grudgy gits. Elves however have to edit their memories, which makes them flighty, apparently callous, nitwits.
 

Right, but then you have to actually make them DIFFERENT. Being a little stronger faster, or tougher doesn't really do it.

Especially when "a little" isn't even a universal thing but just a slightly different median of a distribution curve that mostly overlaps with the other races.

How much more graceful than Dwarves are Elves if you have to gather statistics from a lot of each in order to discern the difference?
 

Remove ads

Top