I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Snarf Zagyg]

But yea, B/X works fine as long as you're willing as a group to not think too hard about NPCs and how they work. The fact that a fair number of players DID want to do that extrapolation is one of the things that drove the development of alternate rule sets.

Diversity is great!

But I'd also point out ... that most players don't care. The players that care usually become DMs to do the world-building, and then those DMs become really disappointed when they make all this detailed world-building, and then realize that .... guess what, the players don't care.

And the fact that so many people today now look back at B/X (Moldvay/Cook) specifically as an example of how rules were done correctly back then probably speaks to something.

Personally, I remember that at the time, I thought "Race as class? That's for babies!" Now I think ... "Eh, I can appreciate that."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Way to miss the point. I was responding to a poster that advocated returning to species-as-class, then you respond with a paradigm that ISN’T species-as-class.

Pretty sure that B/X is the quintessential example of "species-as-class." But I might be wrong. Regardless, I don't find this exchange to be productive.

 

[TwoSix]

Diversity is great!

But I'd also point out ... that most players don't care. The players that care usually become DMs to do the world-building, and then those DMs become really disappointed when they make all this detailed world-building, and then realize that .... guess what, the players don't care.

And the fact that so many people today now look back at B/X (Moldvay/Cook) specifically as an example of how rules were done correctly back then probably speaks to something.

Personally, I remember that at the time, I thought "Race as class? That's for babies!" Now I think ... "Eh, I can appreciate that."

For sure, I've absolutely done a similar thought loop. One of my tables is playing Dolmenwood (a B/X derivative) right now, which has race-as-class as an option but not the default. I'm playing an Elf (just an Elf), and it's pretty awesome.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

A species as class is of course super limiting, but I rather feel some sort of additional subclass-like structure might make sense at least for some species. Perhaps your background could work like a subclass, and then for more powerful species that "splat slot" would be consumed by the species instead. Then you could better represent species that have more powerful capabilities, whereas more "mundane" species would use that part of the "power budget" for things related to their background instead.

One issue with balancing species is that they need to be balanced with humans, whereas in fiction a lot of non-human species simply are just more capable than humans. This would be one way to address that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If every dwarf gets the same abilities and levels, then you don’t have a species, and you certainly don’t have coherent society or fiction. Every elf is a cookie-cutter fighter mage, with no Druids, or bards or clerics.

I've seen species as class expanded far beyond "elf" and "dwarf" to reflect the many other professional options. You don't have to do it in the most basic way.

 

[Alzrius]

This is making me nostalgic for the days when elves, dwarves, etc. were all known as "demihumans."

 

[The Firebird]

If every dwarf gets the same abilities and levels, then you don’t have a species, and you certainly don’t have coherent society or fiction. Every elf is a cookie-cutter fighter mage, with no Druids, or bards or clerics.

Species as class alone doesn't get you that. But neither does saying "elves can be about class". It's the start of worldbuilding, not the end. Species as class does give you some constraints which make elves are meaningfully different than humans. It's a good point of departure for species which feel different.

 

[Maxperson]

Being able to breathe air/water and being able to resist the environmental conditions that far below the ocean's surface would be considered a part of their Kuo-toan heritage. If not that, then a heritage gift.

In fact, the Merfolk heritage in the Manual of Adventurous Resources: Complete has such a trait.

Deep Sea Explorer.
You are adapted to survive the environmental pressures of the deepest oceans and even the Elemental Plane of Water.

Are heritage and heritage gifts racial abilities? Because a racial adaption like that is a racial ability.

 

[Maxperson]

Not according to Tolkien’s legendarium- they are a type of human and have no special resistance.

I'll go with the Lord of the Rings books where it was said over your reference that wasn't written by Tolkien, thank you. Hobbits were more resistant to the effects of the rings. Gollum had the ring for 500 years. Bilbo for a long time as well. The men were corrupted almost immediately. Dwarves were also resistant also did not become wraiths.