I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Bagpuss]

Exactly this.

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

I guess you mean sex rather than gender (assuming you are aware of the difference).

But there isn't really a problem with stat bonuses between different sexes of fantasy races assuming they have significant enough sexual dimorphism to be represented by stat bonuses or penalties.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Another thought--there is a difference between improvements in presentation of mechanics and the mechanics as such. The switch from descending AC to ascending AC, for example, doesn't seem to me to properly constitute a new mechanic; the underlying math is the same. Rules like 'roll with advantage', 'all classes level at the same rate', and 'any species can be any class', however, are new.

With that caveat, what new mechanics have been developed that add to the experience of OD&D or B/X? I think the replacement of attack matrices was a clear winner. What about advantage/disadvantage? Mechanics from other games, like the usage die in Black Hack?

And you have to look at your priorities too; Advantage/Disadvantage is clearly a strong simplifier for many people, but its one of the biggest things that chased me away from any interest in 5e, because I think it threw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[SableWyvern]

And you have to look at your priorities too; Advantage/Disadvantage is clearly a strong simplifier for many people, but its one of the biggest things that chased me away from any interest in 5e, because I think it threw out the baby with the bathwater.

Yeah, I don't see much value in looking for things to call "objective" improvements. As you say, Adv/Dis is simplification at the cost of detail; how you feel about it depends on how much you value each of those things in the particular contexts where they apply.

I would be tempted to say that ascending AC is objectively better than the 1e attack matrices, but I'm also sure there are people who disagree, and who am I to tell them they're wrong?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I don't see much value in looking for things to call "objective" improvements. As you say, Adv/Dis is simplification at the cost of detail; how you feel about it depends on how much you value each of those things in the particular contexts where they apply.

I would be tempted to say that ascending AC is objectively better than the 1e attack matrices, but I'm also sure there are people who disagree, and who am I to tell them they're wrong?

Well, they at least should be able to explain why on some level beyond "I'm used to it the other way". I can explain the problems I see with A/D; some people might not care, but they're at least something beyond pure taste issues. As an example, though I might argue whether its as severe as some say, when discussing roll high versus roll low systems, the argument that subtraction is harder for people is sound; its a known fact. Then you can get into the question of whether its so much so, so frequently, to counterweight other advantages.

 

[SableWyvern]

Well, they at least should be able to explain why on some level beyond "I'm used to it the other way". I can explain the problems I see with A/D; some people might not care, but they're at least something beyond pure taste issues. As an example, though I might argue whether its as severe as some say, when discussing roll high versus roll low systems, the argument that subtraction is harder for people is sound; its a known fact. Then you can get into the question of whether its so much so, so frequently, to counterweight other advantages.

When we're talking about a leisure activity, if someone says that they prefer the 1e matrices to ascending AC as a subjective preference, I see no basis for demanding an explanation, or claiming that the preference is invalid without it. That would feel like expecting someone to provide an objective justification for having a favourite colour. The whole point of subjective preferences is that they've very subjective, and not always easy to explain logically. Why does X taste better than Y? Sometimes, I might be able to point out something specific but, sometimes, I don't know, it just does.

The bottom line for me is that, even if there are instances where technically, we might be able to say that one very specific mechanic is objectively better than another, 99% of the time, when someone is claiming a particular system, mechanic, game style, etc is objectively better/best, they're really just trying convince people (or themselves) that their subjective preferences are actually objective truths. The fact that most people find addition a little easier than subtraction often doesn't tell us much of anything that's useful as, in many instances, this fact is going to be overshadowed by dozens upon dozens of other much more relevant (and subjective) facts about the system, what it's setting out to do and how it's explained. And then, of course, one needs to account for the people for whom there is no meaningful difference in their ability to add or subtract and probably even some extreme outliers who find subtraction easier. Their opinions don't cease to count just because they're a minority.

The one main exception is when you are assessing something according to clear, very specific criteria. If my aim is to minimise any addition or subtraction, then it's probably fair to say that D&D 5e-style adv/dis is objectively better than a host of specific, variable modifiers. However, whether it's better overall depends entirely on how important it is to you to minimise addition and subtraction and whether the things lost in doing so matter to you.