I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Micah Sweet]

Really?

Sorry I didn't include an exhaustive list of potential differences in order to validate the point.

If you keep saying ferocious, people are going to think you mean ferocious.

 

[Micah Sweet]

2014 DMG, p. 82. Granted, they fixed that in 5.5.

It says there are no TPKs and monsters always die?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It says there are no TPKs and monsters always die?

Not literally, but it has the encounter building guidelines which basically amount to that.

 

[GobHag]

I think pointy eared human(or guy made of lava) syndrome is really no issue. If playing up the inhumanity is so important to a player then it's up to their prerogative to do so, I see no issue if someone takes humans as their race and makes them actually some hyperadaptive bug race.

 

[SkidAce]

I agree, but that’s the issue, IMO. Making them act differently is left up to the player, which means that it will vary from group to group and player to player. Without guidelines written in the game itself there will be no way to ensure even a basic consistency.

Putting aside the physical capabilities, whether we’re talking arracoccra, thri-kreen, Kua-toa or other creatures, I would think that most writers or creators would imagine differences in their societies that relate to various behaviours or instincts we might assign to birds, insects or fish.

If we were to encounter either of these three as “societies” in a game, we’d likely be more understanding of these generalizations, since the nature vs nurture aspect of this is ambiguous. When someone wants to play one of these as a PC, however, any attempt to develop parameters around how a PC version of either of these ‘should’ differ in their outlook on life or how they relate to the outside world will lead us right back into the same problematic territory.

I dont find it important to have consistency.

My aaracokra probably have a totally different culture than the ones in your campaign. (and my elves etc.).

And thats a strength of the game. IMO.

 

[Distracted DM]

I think pointy eared human(or guy made of lava) syndrome is really no issue. If playing up the inhumanity is so important to a player then it's up to their prerogative to do so, I see no issue if someone takes humans as their race and makes them actually some hyperadaptive bug race.

I have to imagine that this isn't because of the players- it's because the GMs and game designers feel like there should be a difference.
In my setting I run elves as quite "alien" to typical attitudes and expectations, there's a gap in understanding between elves and other folk- they're supposed to feel "other." I don't have a problem if a player wants to play an elf and just plays them as they want, I figure adventurers are already somewhat "different" because they'll regularly risk their lives delving into dark dungeons, so it's fine if their elves don't act as other elves. However, a couple of my more "narratively-sensitive" players, after interacting with a number of elves in my games, now actively avoid playing elves because they don't think they could do them justice.

All this to say.. sure, players can enjoy themselves playing how they like- but that doesn't mean that the game/system/setting can't strive for something like Burning Wheel where they try to make mechanics reflect the narrative, where elves, orcs, dwarves etc. have hard lines that make them actively different from humans.

 

[Mr. Lahey]

Unless....to bring up the Tolkien point again...you have a "race" with a detailed and compelling backstory, maybe as a function of their differing biology, that would explain why members of that group would have a unique, interesting, and near-universal outlook.

I’d say any essentially immortal group (i.e. the elves) would have a very different outlook on life compared to mortal beings. Might different creatures not look on the perspectives of others and assign morality to these tendencies?

 

[Bill Zebub]

If you keep saying ferocious, people are going to think you mean ferocious.

Oh, I meant ferocious. But the fact that I chose one specific characteristic among a long list to which the argument may be applied does not invalidate the argument.

If you want to offer some kind of compelling counter-argument, I'm all ears. But nitpicking that I used one illustrative example, instead of trying to encompass all of them in some kind of ur-argument, is not that compelling counter-argument.

EDIT: My "really" was not questioning the validity of your statement, but rather expressing astonishment that you were taking things in that direction. As in, "Really? You want to do this?"

 

[jmartkdr2]

I think pointy eared human(or guy made of lava) syndrome is really no issue. If playing up the inhumanity is so important to a player then it's up to their prerogative to do so, I see no issue if someone takes humans as their race and makes them actually some hyperadaptive bug race.

I broadly agree; but there's at least a spectrum of ways a game's design might support these kinds of distinctions (or not).

I don't think we're any closer to a consensus on what part of the spectrum is 'better' in any kind of general or objective sense, though many of us know our preferences.

(Obviously there are ways to do this badly, but those are mostly going to be from repeating real-world bigotries, rather that the details of the mechanical implementation)

 

[Corinnguard]

i dunno, i wouldn't trust squirrels to not be pulling a long con on us.

Like this fella?