I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[CreamCloud0]

One of the reasons players make the choices they do is they want to play a character who looks attractive. Tieflings are an example of this. Despite being introduced as highly variable, they quickly settled to largely human with small to medium horns and a pointed tail. Characteristics that are culturally associated with “devilishly handsome”. You can see a lot of roguishly sexy tieflings in computer games. Then 4e tried to make them ugly. Perhaps by some puritan reasoning that evil must be ugly (see Star Wars). Understandably, it didn’t stick.

Also notice the sexification of orcs in the way they have been depicted through the editions, as they became more common as PCs.

what you mean sort of like this?

 

[Staffan]

what you mean sort of like this?

 

[AnotherGuy]

View attachment 414211

There is a three-letter acronym (slightly modified) that comes to mind.
I'm not convinced it will pass the grandma test though for these boards.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

First of all these games are games.

The differences between groups of humans in real life are not as large as those between fantasy races.

The point in tying ability bonuses and even behavioral tendencies to a fantasy race was just about differentiating and creating approaches to play.

Races that could multiclass vs those that could not was a game choice in days of yore. Choices were meant to have benefits and drawbacks.

The he same goes for ability scores. A +1 to strength and con where bonuses are lacking was something. Getting that 16 str to 17 meant something. Do I trade level limits and stigma for extra melee in a fighter assassin? Oh yeah, it’s a package deal.

To this day, I enjoy the game of choice and putting together ability mods and abilities.

I like playing against type and always have. Certain bonuses make certain combos less common. “You’re a halfling what?! Never saw that before….” Exactly. “But it will take you and extra ASI to top out!” Yep. That is why I am the only halfling x…and I like it that way.

Others have it all mapped out. In their story arc their half orc was the smartest from the start. They have a story and they don’t want to delay. I get it. But I also still play the game to survive and the hive even though it’s more of a given.

All of that…all of that to say…these are games designed as games. Tastes and approaches change. But that is how it started. Different races were meant to be different approaches to play.

Why would certain species have a statistical likelihood of a higher strength? Or dexterity? Because different species do have different abilities irl. So game creators went with it. These group of tough monsters is usually going to be stronger. ‘+1’ applied.

If that is offensive to you to think about then don’t. Don’t compare orcs and halflings to tigers and house cats. Make them all people where we know genetic differences between ‘groups’ don’t lead to pronounced meaningful differences between groups.

Don’t look at it as a game with a tactical choice during character creation. Focus on telling your story and make any species as good as any other at modeling any other archetype. Most people do.

I just would never look to or take D&D seriously as a comment on real peoples or humanity. It’s a passion of mine but always a game. And it has not made me look at groups of humans differently.

I also admit I am going to play a Zariel tiefling Paladin…had an oath of devotion paladin and character in mind…then thought a little more strength and charisma would be nice and my story and scores changed a bit.

The temptation led me to a different character choice I would not have otherwise considered and I think the rp part will be an enhancement in my fun.

 

[MGibster]

Because they are played by real people at the table. Those real people don't deserve to be shuffled aside as second fiddles just because other media do so.

I'm sure as heck not arguing anyone should be shuffled aside as second fiddles. I don't know how to make myself any clearer, so I'll just drop it.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Why would certain species have a statistical likelihood of a higher strength? Or dexterity? Because different species do have different abilities irl. So game creators went with it. These group of tough monsters is usually going to be stronger. ‘+1’ applied.

If that is offensive to you to think about then don’t. Don’t compare orcs and halflings to tigers and house cats. Make them all people where we know genetic differences between ‘groups’ don’t lead to pronounced meaningful differences between groups.

i've long pointed out in conversations such like this that people need to stop thinking of the differences between a human, an elf and a dwarf as comparable to the differences between an englishman, frenchman and a spaniard, because fundamentally those are all just different types of human, the differences are pretty superficial, you need to think about the differences as more like those between a dog, a cat and a rabbit, they all might have four legs and a tail but they're constructed very differently both inside and out.

 

[Bill Zebub]

According to everyone who wanted get rid of species ASIs that +2 was the difference between a perfectly playable character and unplayable trash, so obviously it is a huge difference!

Yeah that's a pretty wild exaggeration from what was actually said. Sure, probably somebody said something hyperbolic like that...there's always somebody sounding off with extreme arguments (like...cough...your claim that it was "everyone")...but in general the position was that a lot of people tend to choose class first, and then pick a race that has the 'best' ASIs for that class.

 

[Bill Zebub]

True, and one of many reasons I've moved on from WotC's version of the game.

Same here.

But I find it a little ironic, too, since I've seen you post numerous times about how much you're enjoying Shadowdark (yay!) in which literally the only differentiation between Elves, Dwarves, Humans, etc. is that each gets a single ability.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The "humans in funny masks" complaint has been around since the 80s. YMMV.

That phrase really just means "it's not designed exactly the way I want it".

 

[GobHag]

i've long pointed out in conversations such like this that people need to stop thinking of the differences between a human, an elf and a dwarf as comparable to the differences between an englishman, frenchman and a spaniard, because fundamentally those are all just different types of human, the differences are pretty superficial, you need to think about the differences as more like those between a dog, a cat and a rabbit, they all might have four legs and a tail but they're constructed very differently both inside and out.

But played as if they're all hunting dogs by most people.