It may also (unintentionally?) serve to limit strong bonds developing on the site and prevent the rise of well-known posters who aren't already HN celebrities for reasons outside their posting on the site, reducing the likelihood or effectiveness of offshoots or schisms that have been a common feature of other large Web forums.
For a long time I resisted the pull of avatars, and thought of them as gimmicky. (This coming from the mailing list / Usenet tradition in large part.)
But having used forums in which avatars are and are not used (G+, Diaspora, and Mastadon amongst the former, HN, Reddit, and Tildes amongst the latter), I feel a palpable difference between the two. Most of us are sufficiently visually-oriented to pick up on a symbolic representation (avatars need not be photographs or faces), and there's a more rapid assimilation of these than there is of just a textual tag.
I've also noticed on platforms / cultures in which changing the visible handle / avatar combination is fairly common (this seems to be the case on Mastodon especially) that this is disruptive. Yes, there's a persistent user name, but changing the associated image and handle ... breaks that recognition. On balance I rather dislike it.
I'd had a brief experience on a site in which serial pseudonymity and a lack of long-term persistent identity was a norm (Imzy). That I think was one of several ultimately fatal mechanisms for the platform --- it was shut down after about a year.
But on old forums there was also the fact that the communities were so small that just hanging out a bit lets you get to know all the regulars. The closest I get to that nowadays is probably guilds in MMOs. There's also Discord, but that's a constant rolling conversation which reminds me of IRC, which was never really my cup of tea.