I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Mannahnin]

Hm.
I wonder how much of that can be attributed to still being so near the wargame root - these were "monster units", and thus not give a whole lot of deep consideration.

See above - a common argument is the idea that you need "just evil" for purposes of having stuff you can kill without much consideration - which sounds a lot like wanting "monster units" for a wargame.

That is basically the origin of alignment in 1974 OD&D. You get a list of creature types under each alignment (Law, Neutrality, Chaos) on page 9 of Men & Magic, which describes alignment as a "stance". Interestly, some creatures appear in multiple columns, like Orcs under both Neutrality and Chaos. Page 12 notes that creatures can be recruited into service "if they are of the same basic alignment as the player-character", and page 12 of The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures tells us that the DM should factor it in as a modification to Reaction Rolls.

Of course we also know that at least as early as 1975 we were seeing "alignment as faction/side" being supplanted or at least supplemented by "alignment as ethos/morality", with the prominent example of the new Paladin class requiring adherence to a particular moral and ethical stance and behavior. His "deeds" are described as needing to be Lawful; not merely him being on Team Lawful.

The TSR philosophy on these things(even if they don't follow it perfectly) is my standard. I see no reason why putting dwarves, elves, humans, etc in the MM, as they were in those days, as an entry with general information, would in any way preclude them for being used as a PC species. It doesn't stop people from playing goblins, for example. Furthermore, having these species exist in the PH but not in the MM artificially separates and "raises them up" in comparison to others. IMO 4e and 5e have been moving in a direction contrary to my preference in this (and other) areas.

Well, remember that TSR also did things like telling us in OD&D and AD&D that Dwarf, Elf, and Gnome Clerics exist, but only as NPCs (see Supplement I: Greyhawk page 7 and PH page 14).

I do have an aesthetic preference for PCs and NPCs functioning by the same broad "rules/laws" in-universe. In theory a PC should be able to learn to do the same kinds of things a similar NPC can do, and vice versa. Though after extensive experience with having NPCs either use the same mechanics or different, more simplified mechanics within the rules framework, I tend to prefer the latter, finding it much more playable and less work for the GM.

 

[Argyle King]

Over 30+ pages, it seems that the conversation revolves around how D&D does bioessentialism badly.

How have non-D&D (ttrpg general) games done it better?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Exactly this.

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

Absolutely.

And in my own game I have constructed Ancestries to have signature traits, skills, and even bonus Attribute Points, but with guidelines for making a character different from other, eg, Döragr, and be graceful and acrobatic instead of tough and clever.

But most Ancestries are also supernatural (pretty much all but humans), and so Puca have an innate language because Puca become Puca and learn their language in that process, while Fir Bolg are literally born with their language like fish are born with an instinctive ability to swim and their language is the root of all mortal languages. Meanwhile Myrkalfar are strong and fast and have keen senses and are inherently athletic because they are descended from spirits of the hunt, while Gnomes are graceful and clever and acrobatic and good at hiding/sneaking because they are descended from a goddess associated with cats and beauty and a quartet of ancient brilliant Döragr craftsmen.

Humans have greater endurance than anyone else but at also able to pick half their skills and attribute points freely.

 

[Micah Sweet]

One group's "better rules" is another group's "worse rules". Hence, do "no rules" when you can get away with it.

"What's the correct way to stat out non-combat NPCs to enhance verisimilitude around species" is sufficiently small potatoes that they can get away with it.

I have no doubt Hasbro can; they can pretty much get away with practically anything without it substantially affecting their profits (which of course is what they care about). It's just very much against my preference.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yup. I largely agree, but because of my mode of play nowadays (largely online with half a dozen different games and with new players occasionally coming along bringing their own assumptions), I feel the need to bend with the trends rather than isolate my table from them. Which isn't a very comfortable place, since I dislike a lot of said trends.. but I gotta make do since I make a living from it

Understood. Whole different story if you're supporting yourself off it. I've had many jobs which made me unhappy to some degree.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah, it seems to me a case of concept creep. There are a few areas of bioessentialism that are genuinely issues--primarily orcs, and more generally anything with a modification to INT, and to a lesser extent CHA and WIS.

And then there are the physical things, which are relatively minor in comparison, and do a lot to make things feel realistic; we all know the 7 foot tall species will have a STR advantage vs a halfling. Getting rid of all such modifications results in a system that feels bland and doesn't accurately reflect the world.

I like your change to athleticism. We'd have to do something with carrying capacity, but that is tracked much less often and not as big a deal.

You know honestly I would like attribute variations better if they were simply larger and unsurmountable. A -2 penalty (which eventually disappears) does not...for me...carry any kind of verisimilitude of the strength difference between halflings and half-orcs. It's just a symbolic penalty, and therefore...again, imo...pointless. I'd be more ok with a maximum Str of 14 for halflings, as long as they got something else cool to compensate.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You know honestly I would like attribute variations better if they were simply larger and unsurmountable. A -2 penalty (which eventually disappears) does not...for me...carry any kind of verisimilitude of the strength difference between halflings and half-orcs. It's just a symbolic penalty, and therefore...again, imo...pointless. I'd be more ok with a maximum Str of 14 for halflings, as long as they got something else cool to compensate.

I think caps are better than bonuses or penalties if you use point buy. That's what I did in my houserules. I have maximums and minimums and then point buy. Everyone gets what they pay for, fair and square, the species just sets some limits.

With point buy the bonuses are basically just a discount, unless you cap the ability, and that doesn't necessarily seem fair to me.

 

[Mannahnin]

I think calling it out specifically would help clarify a few things- for instance, that PCs don't work the same as NPCs.
13th Age explicitly says you're already a hero at level 1, that you stand apart from common folk.
Dungeon World says you're the cleric/wizard/thief. There may be other priests, magic users, and burglars, but you are THE wizard.

TSR editions of DnD did sort of have you as The Everyman, Plowshare to Sword sort of character.. and all the characters were built sort of the same way, whether PC or NPC. 3e we saw NPCs still using similar rules but different classes... so the PCs did stand out a bit since they were PC Fighter class, not NPC Warrior class.

4e and 5e just use completely separate rules for PC vs NPC.

Exactly. As the core assumptions of D&D have changed from classic to trad to neotrad over the decades, the assumed relationship between the PCs and NPCs has changed.

That thing I said earlier, about PCs not being a representative sample of the NPC population, is completely at odds with the assumptions of D&D from the '70s and into the '80s.

For the record, even in the TSR editions PCs were always special. The difference we're talking about is in degree more than in kind.

A first level PC Fighting-Man in 1974 OD&D is a Veteran, with 1+1 Hit Dice, distinguished by that +1 as slightly superior to an ordinary soldier. As Cadence pointed out, 1E AD&D has several other places where it distinguishes how PCs are inherently a cut above the hoi polloi.

Had B2 open recently for some other quotes...

Page 6: The background information for the players and how they compare to typical people.

View attachment 413883

In the 1e PHB (page 17), half-orc PCs are explicitly different from the usual offspring of orcs and humans:

In the DMG (page 12), the PCs are supposed to be viable and NPCs use a different method of getting ability scores from PCs:

Nice citations. I like how the B2 passage also talks about how part of what makes a PC an adventurer is internal- their heart that cries out for adventure, and having it in them to become great.

One thing I enjoy about The Nightmares Underneath is how part of character generation is answering at least one of two questions -

Why is your PC unable to work a normal job? Why are they driven to fight the Nightmare incursions?

A D20 table is provided to give you ideas and let you randomize if you want, but the baseline assumption is that all adventurers are driven to this life for specific reasons, and are unsuited to ordinary work.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think caps are better than bonuses or penalties if you use point buy. That's what I did in my houserules. I have maximums and minimums and then point buy. Everyone gets what they pay for, fair and square, the species just sets some limits.

With point buy the bonuses are basically just a discount, unless you cap the ability, and that doesn't necessarily seem fair to me.

I think you have a point, however if I'm being honest I also really dislike predictable stat increases. :-/

 

[Mannahnin]

You know honestly I would like attribute variations better if they were simply larger and unsurmountable. A -2 penalty (which eventually disappears) does not...for me...carry any kind of verisimilitude of the strength difference between halflings and half-orcs. It's just a symbolic penalty, and therefore...again, imo...pointless. I'd be more ok with a maximum Str of 14 for halflings, as long as they got something else cool to compensate.

I think caps are better than bonuses or penalties if you use point buy. That's what I did in my houserules. I have maximums and minimums and then point buy. Everyone gets what they pay for, fair and square, the species just sets some limits.

With point buy the bonuses are basically just a discount, unless you cap the ability, and that doesn't necessarily seem fair to me.

This is one of the things I learned to appreciate about the racial classes from B/X. Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings have a few minimum ability score requirements, instead of getting bonuses which can be used to min/max.

I think you have a point, however if I'm being honest I also really dislike predictable stat increases. :-/

In any system with level advancement and where the ability scores are going to be used for checks, I do prefer for ability scores to be able to increase. The Nightmares Underneath has a pretty elegant system. Initial ability scores are generated on 3d6 down the line, but every time you level up you can nominate two scores to try to increase.