I don't get the arguments for bioessentialism

[Corinnguard]

Because being an adventurer is super dangerous and part of the setting is the assumption that people wouldn't do it if they didn't have to?

Sorry, I do need to correct myself- the game calls for EITHER being unable to work a normal job OR having a motivation which drives you to fight the Nightmare incursions. I think both is even better, but that's my aesthetic preference.

View attachment 413901

This kind of reminds me of Destiny in A5e. From the Adventurer's Guide:

Every hero has something that drives them forward, an inner spark or outward goal that compels them to risk everything for a life of adventure. Choosing a destiny provides important roleplaying cues and features that help shape your character’s identity. Why are they an adventurer? What drives them into a life of danger? Is destiny thrust upon them by circumstance, or do they have a burning desire for a future they wish to claim for their own?
Example:
Coming of Age
Not all heroes have a clear path ahead of them. Some are still finding their footing and are dreaming big all the same: of adventure, the open road, a chance to prove one’s worth, and having a life worth living.
Special Feature: Finding Yourself. Sometimes it takes a journey to find yourself. You may exchange this destiny for another destiny at any time.
Source of Inspiration: Yes to Adventure. You draw inspiration from setting out with adventure in front of you. You gain inspiration whenever you achieve a personal milestone.
Join a new guild or organization, travel somewhere new and far from home, accept a new major quest or mission, change worldviews and grow as a person.
Inspiration Feature: Ready to Learn. You haven’t had training in everything but you’re determined to give it your all anyway. As a bonus action you may spend your inspiration to gain proficiency with a weapon, armor, skill, or tool for the next hour.
d6 Motivation for Coming of Age Destiny
1 Room to Grow: You’ve been too cooped up and want to explore.
2 Prove Yourself: You want to show what you’re really worth.
3 Curiosity: Mystery knocks at your door and you’re desperate to answer.
4 Boredom: You crave adventure and escape from monotony.
5 Your Role Model: You’re determined to follow in the footsteps of your hero.
6 Young Love: Adventuring is sure to impress the object of your affections.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Sure, but if you are not careful with it, you might mess up the message of your allegory when you consociate it with your mythopoeia. Like for example if you have hobgoblin nazi-analogues as allegory to the human evil of xenophobia, then if the hobgoblins are born like that, as hateful things that just want to exterminate the other, then in the setting it actually makes sense to judge them by their character by their appearance, and your allegory actually ends up justifying what it was aiming to criticise.

I wasn't thinking in terms of ideas as specific as nazi-analogous xenophobes, but more in terms of a general sweep. Different peoples represent different functions of the human psyche (e.g Tolkien orcs=wanton mechanized brutality; hobbits=inhabitants of a bucolic idyll. ). Or the Star Trek distillation of nonhuman species to represent different human aspects (Klingons, Vulcans, Betazed.... whatever).

I think this kind of ethnopsychic portrayal is innate to most mythology. While I understand the danger of it leading to some uncomfortable parallelism with real world cultures, I appreciate the mythic/folkloric/archetypal dimension; such stories are about evoking changes in the internal state of the reader/listener, rather than reflective of an external reality.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I wasn't thinking in terms of ideas as specific as nazi-analogous xenophobes, but more in terms of a general sweep. Different peoples represent different functions of the human psyche (e.g Tolkien orcs=wanton mechanized brutality; hobbits=inhabitants of a bucolic idyll. ). Or the Star Trek distillation of nonhuman species to represent different human aspects (Klingons, Vulcans, Betazed.... whatever).

I think this kind of ethnopsychic portrayal is innate to most mythology. While I understand the danger of it leading to some uncomfortable parallelism with real world cultures, I appreciate the mythic/folkloric/archetypal dimension; such stories are about evoking changes in the internal state of the reader/listener, rather than reflective of an external reality.

The weakness of such allegory is that as by externalising these aspects of human experience to distinct and fixed groups, you elide the aspect of the fluidity of the psyche. That one human may go from "hobbitish" to "orcish" in their behaviour. And I think this elision is rather significant one and changes the message in fundamental level.

Though if Star Trek qualifies for what you mean, that seems fine to me. Whilst different species certainly often are analogues to human qualities, there also is some xenofiction in there, nor are the qualities essentialist in a sense that one's species would determine their outlook. We did see many characters (Spock, Worf, Nog) who had conflicted relationship with the dominant culture of their species. I think this is rather different than always cruel orcs of Tolkien.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Reading this, a thought occurs, with respect to showing something like the inate physical strength of a specied in a game like D&D. Setting a floor might better than a stat boost.
Thus for goliath, the ability " +STR mod/long rest minimum 1, the goliath can convert a die roll less than 10 into a 10 for s STR check/save" may be better than a +2 Str.
It sets a floor to performance, the halfling may succed when the goliath does but the goliath is now very unlikely to fail where the halfling succeds.

 

[Flying Toaster]

I think 2nd breakfast more than compensates the halfling for any penalties they might receive.

In a game with a humorous tone this could be a special power-up for halflings.

“Whot’s that, eh? Necromancer and his skeleton warriors robbing the local graveyards? Time for second breakfast!”

* cue theme song from the old “Popeye the Sailor Man” cartoons *

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Reading this, a thought occurs, with respect to showing something like the inate physical strength of a specied in a game like D&D. Setting a floor might better than a stat boost.
Thus for goliath, the ability " +STR mod/long rest minimum 1, the goliath can convert a die roll less than 10 into a 10 for s STR check/save" may be better than a +2 Str.
It sets a floor to performance, the halfling may succed when the goliath does but the goliath is now very unlikely to fail where the halfling succeds.

I don’t think that or a ceiling are a bad idea.

 

[Faolyn]

Well, much like Tolkien orcs, Klingons were not originally a simulation. But, they did serve a different rhetorical purpose.

Tolkien orcs were an expression of the effects of Evil.
D&D orcs were a monster-unit for PCs to kill.
Trek Klingons were originally vaguely Soviet-analog antagonists for nigh utopian space opera & morality plays.

As we move away from any of these narrative purposes, the described creature and culture will change. D&D and Trek have changed over the years, so, orcs and Klingons have changed.

To add: back in TOS, don't forget Klingons had the proverb "a running man can slit a thousand throats in a single night," because back then they were sneaky, devious soviets. Nowadays, that running man is WITHOUT HONOR!!1!

(And back in 1e, half-orcs had no level limits as an assassin. Coincidence? I think not.)

 

[Faolyn]

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?

Level Up doesn't do racial stats, and while each heritage has a couple of traits, they also each have a selection of traits they can choose from (heritage gifts) and when they reach tenth level, they can choose from a selection of paragon gifts. This means that while all elves will be similar, they're not going to be cookie cutters of each other. Draw Steel does something similar, where each ancestry gets one trait and 3-4 points to buy additional traits from a list.

A lot of games don't have species traits at all--it's all purely cosmetic. Or there are traits you can buy through non-species means but pretend they're from your species. E.g., play a catfolk, take a class with an unarmed attack, say it's claws.

Many games I've seen may try to deal with different cultures for different species, and rarely even multiple cultures for a single species. Very few of them try to think of non-"gamey" biological differences. For instance, some species shouldn't be able to digest certain foods, or may even be deathly allergic to them. (The only time I see this is with purely carnivorous species or plant-based species that photosynthesize.) Some species should have vastly different ways reproductive habits (although this is difficult to do tastefully in a game.) We rarely see cultures, either human or nonhuman, that have "ugly" cultural practices unless they're also supposed to be evil cultures; for instance, no "good" culture that, due to scarce supplies, practices infanticide or senicide. The only one I can think of off-hand is D&D's lizardfolk and their willingness to eat dead sentients.

 

[Faolyn]

I'm not a fan (and never have been) of the idea of different maximums for species in D&D. For my money, halflings having to invest more to reach a Strength of 20 than a goliath does quite enough to satisfy my sense of species differences while allowing a halfling fighter or barbarian to reach the pinnacle of their class's powers. In other words, their potential as PCs isn't pinched off, they just have to work harder (or less for goliaths) at some of them because of their natural, physical differences.

Yeah, I'm not thrilled with the idea either. If it were up to me, I'd redesign the races with more impressive traits--but that would also mean redesigning the system in some way. 5e isn't built to accommodate "+10 bonus to Feats Of Strength" types of abilities.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Burning Wheel has all elves embodying Grief. They have seen so many sad things and experimented that things never change over centuries that they have a Grief stat that can increase by rolling with "experience" of sad things happening in the course of their adventure. They can mitigate it by lamenting, but at some point they'll reache Grief 10, and they either wither out or die, or leave the Mortal world for the West never to be seen again before the end of time. They learn slowly, but are immortal, so depending on age a starting character will have 20-40 stat points while a human will have 15-23.

Dwarves are embodiment of Greed, they must resist the urge to acquire things of notable value. At 10 Greed, they shut themselves down in their halls, thinking everyone will try to rob them, and become utterly sociopathic. That's why they'll probably kill a few people to acquire their coveted things when they reach Greed 8 or 9... When you resist Greed (by not taking the thing [or person] you crave), it increases (of course).

Orcs are the embodiment of Hate. It increase as they are confronted to violence (from witnessing a murder or being exposed to sunlight, losing a battle (mid-level), being mind-controlled or surviving a mortal wound (very hard). You might have noticed the pattern that if Hatred reach level 10, the character can no longer be played, having lost all remainder of free will and possessed by a destructive frenzy -- he has the choice to become suicidal instead of killing his friends in a murderous frenzy. Also, orcs can use Hatred as a bonus for a lot of situation... It's not that the orcs are stronger than human (they are, on average, with twice has many stat points) but even the weakest member of the species can tear a knight in two with his bare hand when enraged.

en are free willed and don't have any overpowering emotion that take control of their mind (unless they trade their soul away for magic or pledge it to a higher power, but the initial choice is always theirs).

Different creature operate on a different scale. Orcs have 10-19 points to spend on physical attribute, 3-9 on Mental, while humans have 5-7/9-16, dwarves 6-12/12-18and elves 7-16 and 13-24.

So, yes, some other creatures are sometime on a different scale than humans but the system forces you to avoid, if non-Human, making experience checks for your governing emotion, basically roleplaying the traits associated with the group of creature you're an example. You could ignore this stat and play yourself with pointy ears, but you'll probably be removed for play in adventure 3. Or you'll be aloof and uncaring, because if you attach yourself to humans, you'll see them die in droves of old age and make lots and lots of Grief tests.

It's a little heavy-handed, but it does bioessentialism better than D&D.

No amount of cultural explanation will explain why you can die of not having the Arkenstone or the halls of Moria.

Edit; note that it isn't Tolkienesque. The line of Feanor struck me as a good illustration of BW's Dwarves, for example, preferring to throw them into a chasm to the center of the world rather than give up on the last Silmaril...