I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[dragoner]

Bio-essentialism is the idea that we are more biologically based, than social, is wrong; we are a social animal. Even the old idea that genetics are a blueprint is also wrong. Evolution is not like a shrubbery, with branches and such, except more like thousand streams creating a lake.

The thing about pc races, or species, is that too often they are "planet of hats" trope.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Imagine if fiction writers were similarly constrained by arbitrary game rules.

Hobbits wouldn't go on adventures. And then where we would be? Not just missing out on some great fiction but also servants of the Dark Lord. (And probably forced to play RPGs in which wights and dragons are the good guys.)

 

[Bill Zebub]

it doesn't even properly exist in game/world design until people start applying real-world offense to fictional things. Let games be games, folks.

I'm really sick of this argument because it misses the point by trying to redefine the point.

The problem is NOT (for example) that "Orcs are meant to be Black people."

The problem is that:
1) The way orcs are portrayed as "bad" in a way that most readers will immediately understand is by painting them as dumb, uncultured, violent, promiscuous, superstitious, and with physical features that evoke cavemen.
2) The reason those work as a kind of anti-virtue-signaling shorthand is because that's how we have have always portrayed people we want to subjugate and exploit.
3) It does not matter whether or not the authors were aware they are doing this. This issue exists completely independently of authorial intent.


So, no you are completely wrong: those tropes do exist in the real world, and when we replicate them in a game world they exist there, too. I personally am not offended by any of it, but I can understand why people of other backgrounds would find it hurtful. (And just because some people of those ethnicities don't seem to care, it doesn't invalidate the point.)

Now, you are free...in my opinion...to still include them in your own game world at your own table. I know some people will still scream at you and tell you that you are wrong for doing that, but it's only a loud minority that is that extreme.

The only thing I, and many others, are saying is that if such content is included in commercial products, don't be surprised if it alienates a lot of potential gamers. Hasbro is a for-profit company and I don't fault them at all for wanting to appeal to a larger audience.

 

[The Firebird]

Hobbits wouldn't go on adventures. And then where we would be? Not just missing out on some great fiction but also servants of the Dark Lord.

This example doesn't work for me; isn't the point of Frodo taking the ring require that he his less fit for adventuring and ruling than Aragorn?

 

[Bill Zebub]

This example doesn't work for me; isn't the point of Frodo taking the ring require that he his less fit for adventuring and ruling than Aragorn?

I was really thinking of Bilbo. If he hadn't gone on his adventure then Frodo's role would be irrelevant.

But the point also holds for Frodo: if you extrapolate the claims of some posters here, when Frodo said, "I will take the ring, although I don't know the way" the DM should have interrupted and said, "Sorry, that's not what a Hobbit would do. Roll a Ranger or a Wizard if you want to play that way." (So less about physical attributes, and more about "racial inclinations".)

 

[The Firebird]

I was really thinking of Bilbo. If he hadn't gone on his adventure then Frodo's role would be irrelevant.

But the point also holds for Frodo: if you extrapolate the claims of some posters here, when Frodo said, "I will take the ring, although I don't know the way" the DM should have interrupted and said, "Sorry, that's not what a Hobbit would do. Roll a Ranger or a Wizard if you want to play that way." (So less about physical attributes, and more about "racial inclinations".)

I read the subject of dispute as about things like "should halflings have a STR penalty". That seems fine with LotR to me. Likewise class restrictions, like "Frodo has to be a fighter or a thief", or species-as-class, like "Frodo will use the halfling class".

I think most people here would not want those rules to be core, but are ok with the GM imposing them for their table, correct?

 

[NN]

I dont grasp how

“be senstive to the way racist ideologies have portrayed outgroup humans as sub-human”

means that halflings shouldnt be +2 Dex -2 str

 

[Bill Zebub]

I read the subject of dispute as about things like "should halflings have a STR penalty". That seems fine with LotR to me. Likewise class restrictions, like "Frodo has to be a fighter or a thief", or species-as-class, like "Frodo will use the halfling class".

I think most people here would not want those rules to be core, but are ok with the GM imposing them for their table, correct?

Attribute scores were introduced as a related/secondary concern. I think the OPs question was more about racial inclinations and personality.

 

[TiQuinn]

Bioessentialism is also what gets us things like stat bonuses or penalties for gender.

Again, it's fiction. Whether or not you believe that such things exist in the real world doesn't matter in a fictional setting or the context of game rules—but it may affect your ability to suspend disbelief or your personal enjoyment, but there's no accounting for taste.

To overgeeked's point, it's all just innocent fiction until it's also supposed to be simulation of the "real world" which leads a game designer like Len Lakofka wanting to insert their thoughts about how female characters should have to roll smaller dice or derive scores from a different table as male characters. Suddenly, it's not about a fictional fantasy world - now, it's just simulating their particular world view, i.e. men are stronger than women, even though it is supposed to be fantasy.

Bioessentialism isn't an insidious aspect of game/world design—it doesn't even properly exist in game/world design until people start applying real-world offense to fictional things. Let games be games, folks.

Which is why bioessentialism really no place in the discussion at all because if you want to apply the typical definition of it, it's absolutely insidious as it has been applied to human beings, and largely to denote someone as either inherently superior or inferior, and that is inescapable.

It is not typically used in the same context as this species has wings and can therefore fly, while this species has gills and can therefore breathe underwater.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I read the subject of dispute as about things like "should halflings have a STR penalty". That seems fine with LotR to me. Likewise class restrictions, like "Frodo has to be a fighter or a thief", or species-as-class, like "Frodo will use the halfling class".

I think most people here would not want those rules to be core, but are ok with the GM imposing them for their table, correct?

I have no problem with such rules existing in the text of a game (I have several that use race as class and have zero issue with the practice), but if you're being Hasbro and just care about the money, using a more popular system as the default option is probably best.