I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Umbran]

I also think you're taking his comparison to literally: I think what @Umbran is saying is that dramatically different races with dramatically different physiologies are going to cause balance problems.

With a note that this is a d20 design issue. There are other chassis that can handle this much more cleanly.

 

[Staffan]

Another example: in the PJ movies none of the context is there for anybody who doesn't already know the story, so to give the audience something to latch onto he relies on coarse, unimaginative archetypes such as Dwarves drinking a lot and having Scottish accents, and Elves being all uptight and playing sonorous music on harps.

Speaking of which:

 

[Bill Zebub]

Speaking of which:
View attachment 414230

Call me a Tolkien snob*, but I don't understand how anybody can call themselves a Tolkien fan without understanding the history of the Elves and the Silmarils.

*Pre-Internet you could say things like, "Oh, yeah? What are the seven gates of Gondolin, in order?" Google makes it hard to gatekeep.

 

[MGibster]

That's the irony here, imo. "I want to play something totally different, that has an intrinsically different personality from humans, and could never be mistaken for humans....who makes a living going into dungeons, killing monsters, and taking their stuff. Which nobody, not even humans, would ever do IRL."

Are you kidding? We call those kinds of people bandits, Vikings, raiders, conquistadores, or some other word. If there's gold to be made by breaking into places, killing the inhabitants, and stealing their stuff you will absolutely find people who will try doing that for a living.

​

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Okay, so let us say that is taken as truth.

Then, we have a couple of points...

1) The game mechanics haven't really supported that approach to play, probably ever.

2) The overall game design doesn't really have room for radical differences while maintaining similar effectiveness in play. Putting a bunny in play with a Rottweiler would give D&D balance-heartburn.

I mean that is just due the bizarre idea that every character needs to be equally good in combat. Bunnies are way better at hiding than rottweilers and a lot of cuter too! Like sure, we want characters to be able to contribute in some manner to most aspects of the game, but this does not require that they must contribute equally all the time. Worf is a lot better than Geordi in combat, but Geordi is better at engineering (though both can do both a bit if needed.) I think it would be way healthier to think balance more holisitically, and lot of non-D&D games do.

But if we accept axiomatically that genuine differnces cannot be depicted due balance, then why the hell we are having different species at all? If what you effectively have is just various cultures of humans, then be honest about it and have that!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Bunnies are way better at hiding than rottweilers and a lot of cuter too!

Bunnies are very good at making more bunnies.

Would probably make good bards.

But if we accept axiomatically that genuine differnces cannot be depicted due balance

I certainly don’t. I don’t believe game mechanics have any effect on genuine differences. Genuine differences can only be depicted through role play.

 

[Umbran]

I mean that is just due the bizarre idea that every character needs to be equally good in combat.

Even if you don't go so much as "equally good in combat", and step back to "at least interestingly effective in combat" you get issues in D&D.

A system that goes for less simulationist task resolution could manage it better, imho.

But if we accept axiomatically that genuine differnces cannot be depicted due balance, then why the heel we are having different species at all? If what you effectively have is just various cultures of humans, then be honest about it and have that!

Well, as i already noted, that is a excellent point, and we probably don't need non-humans much on mechanical terms.

 

[Umbran]

So, then I might add...

I have noted that mechanically we probably don't need them much. But, there may be a function of engagement - even if the result is humans with funny ears, there's something to be said for inspiring people a bit.

It just pays to realize that's probably the point these, more than simulation of something really nonhuman, or intense optimization work.

 

[GobHag]

Imo species-as-class gets pretty close to what I want out of species that feel distinctly different while maintaining some degree of balance.

Only if the only classes are Race IMO.

 

[GobHag]

I mean that is just due the bizarre idea that every character needs to be equally good in combat. Bunnies are way better at hiding than rottweilers and a lot of cuter too! Like sure, we want characters to be able to contribute in some manner to most aspects of the game, but this does not require that they must contribute equally all the time. Worf is a lot better than Geordi in combat, but Geordi is better at engineering (though both can do both a bit if needed.) I think it would be way healthier to think balance more holisitically, and lot of non-D&D games do.

But if we accept axiomatically that genuine differnces cannot be depicted due balance, then why the hell we are having different species at all? If what you effectively have is just various cultures of humans, then be honest about it and have that!

I'm perfectly fine if a dogguy, an Elf, and giants to all be called humans yes.

Also here's my argument; Pointy ears are pretty aesthetically appealing in my eyes