I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Cadence]

(Note: this post is about the behavior of groups of NPCs. It's not about ASIs, and it's not about how individuals behave, especially PCs.)

I don't think we need to be absolutist and say that it's impossible for some species to have hard-wired behaviors, which may or may not be an evolutionary result of different physiology.

It's just that so many attempts to do this in RPGs have failed to be very creative, and instead have ended up as some variation on the way Europeans have traditionally described people they want to subjugate, and in the game this has been a shorthand for "It's ok to kill me!".

So I think by trying to avoid bioessentialism, and trying to rely on cultural explanations for group behaviors, we can avoid lazy characterizations that evoke actual evil. (That's the irony: relying on some tropes as shorthands for evil, we are actually mirroring genuine evil.)

(ninja'd by @Crimson Longinus )

As good as real-life people are at renaming/reframing things so they can still talk down about the groups they want to, and humanity's penchant to target others based on nationality, religion, or whatnot, I don't think the cultural explanations will do what people want either - and we will still get the irony you mention. It feels like even occupational related ones will need some care to avoid blue-collar vs. white-collar and urban vs. rural stereotypes.

 

[Umbran]

Why is "modern design" automatically assumed to be a good or preferable thing?

For roughly the same reasons that we mostly no longer dive Model T cars.

 

[The Firebird]

For roughly the same reasons that we mostly no longer dive Model T cars.

Better gas mileage?

 

[aramis erak]

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.

Palladium, in materials from at least the release of The Mechanoids, uses RCCs (Racial Character Classes). D&D did it first, but (shockingly) Palladium does it better, IMO, in that the RCCs are only for species not well suited for the standard OCCs (Occupational Character Classes). Palladium Fantasy 1/1R didn't use the term, but a number of intelligent monsters don't have access to the OCCs.
Moreover, they sometimes include section on adapting an OCC or two.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

For roughly the same reasons that we mostly no longer dive Model T cars.

And that why modern art is considered universally better than the renaissance art and modern literature superior to Shakespeare.

 

[Umbran]

And that why modern art is considered universally better than the renaissance art and modern literature superior to Shakespeare.

When art comes with "mechanics", then you'll have a point.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It feels like even occupational related ones will need some care to avoid blue-collar vs. white-collar and urban vs. rural stereotypes.

Yeah I feel like by making mental stats, especially INT (which was the biggest problem for race/species, too!) just part of your upbringing or somehow worse, occupational background with 5E 2024's Backgrounds (again, I can reiterate this enough, something nobody asked for, and that wasn't acceptance-tested or playtested!), they really just shifted the problem to an area Americans consider less problematic. And like yeah, it is, by why shift the problem when you could eliminate the problem? All they had to do was nothing!

That's what blows my mind with that decision. All they had to do was nothing. Just stick with how Tasha's did it - let players choose +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 and the attributes. There was no pressure to move the fixed bonuses! People were pretty much in two camps:

1) "I like species-based bonuses"

2) "I like freely choosing where the bonuses go"

And WotC invented a goddamn cursed third way that ensured neither side was happy. They just straight-up chopped that baby in half and acted like they'd chopped the Gordian Knot...

Arhghghghghg!

 

[The Firebird]

When art comes with "mechanics", then you'll have a point.

This is just not a good frame for analyzing art and games. Look no further than Chess. Actually your comment reminds me of Elon Musk's post insisting Chess is a poor game because it lacks fog of war and a tech tree.

But you can also look at CGI and filmmaking, or the development of new painting techniques or new instruments...(Traditional Chant = not so good, not enough strings).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And that why modern art is considered universally better than the renaissance art and modern literature superior to Shakespeare.

I am skeptical that you believe this comparison.

As @Umbran says, this is about understanding and conceptualizing mechanics and achieving goals using mechanics, and we are unquestionably better at that now than 20-40 years ago.

(Also, as a classically trained artist, you are a being a silly sausage even there, because even people who go on and on about "RETVRN" and "Renaissance art was peak" and so on, actually strongly prefer artistic styles that were the result of considerable learning and technique and improvement and conscious efforts at realism and so on, to the naive styles of before. Like "statue guys" always like the more realist later-Roman statuary rather than like, naive early classical Greek statuary. They always prefer late Renaissance art, even post-Renaissance/Early-Modern art to like, "perspective, I've never heard of it" early Renaissance art and so on. So absolutely even there advancement is a real thing.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

When art comes with "mechanics", then you'll have a point.

I think game design is at least part art. Sure, having larger backlog of design to compare to might make designing now easier than back then, but it is not as simple than newer is better. It's not like Monopoly is a better game than Chess even though it is centuries more modern design.