D&D General I think the choice of Species / Race / Ancestry has more to do with Story than Rules...

[TwoSix]

These are the very words I was seeking before my morning coffee truly settled in.

Like you say, there are narrative truths to each species that, I think, are more important to most players than the mechanical benefit. Being an elf means something, even if you don't get a +2 to Dex and proficiency in longswords.

The mechanical benefits help, of course, but I think one of the reasons a lot of discussions on species mechanics gets lost in the weeds is because for most players mechanics are a secondary incentive. The narrative truth is the primary incentive.

It's complicated.

The more potent a race's mechanical benefits are, the more likely they are to be the driving factor in character creation. When they are less potent (or nonexistent), then aesthetics and concept will become the driver.

But, a lot of people don't want their racial/species/ancestry choice to be only as mechanically consequential as the color of their armor. Since it's a significant portion of the character's total concept, they want it to have mechanical weight commiserate with its importance.

Also, since race/ancestry does carry a lot of presumptions and narrative weight, trying to determine what the race can actually do narratively can be fraught within the game, with a lot of DM adjudication and potential argument. Just because you might think your halfling can gain cover behind an ally, doesn't necessarily mean the DM will agree!

 

[Baron Opal II]

Let's say you sit down to play D&D, and the DM has introduced a house rule... There are no mechanical differences between the species. Whether you choose to play an Elf, a Human, or a Tortle, you gain no mechanical benefits. (Let's ignore flying races for right now and say this DM has come up with a way to boost character stats and powers in another way.)

What species would you play?

It wouldn't matter because they're all the same. Human, I guess?

Why would I play an elf or dwarf if there is nothing that makes me more elvish than being tall and slim or dwarvish by being short and stout? I might as well roll a die. Or, play a dwarf since I look like one. That's casting to type, however.

 

[Scribe]

Let's say you sit down to play D&D, and the DM has introduced a house rule... There are no mechanical differences between the species. Whether you choose to play an Elf, a Human, or a Tortle, you gain no mechanical benefits. (Let's ignore flying races for right now and say this DM has come up with a way to boost character stats and powers in another way.)

What species would you play?

How would that house rule impact the choice you make?

I have an untested theory that lots of players would still choose to play the same species they would have with the mechanical benefits. In other words, if you wanted to play a Dwarf Fighter, you would choose Dwarf whether there was a mechanical benefit or not.

This is because, in my opinion, the choice of species has more to do with the story a player wants to tell (or experience), and less to do with mechanical benefits. A player who wants to be an elf is going to play as an elf whether they receive a +2 to Dexterity or not. A player who wants to be an Ooze is going to play as a Plasmoid even if they don't have explicit rules about sliding under doors.

Now I think mechanical benefits can help tell that story too. But I really do wonder if they are secondary to the narrative power of the species.

What do you think? Do you think players are more motivated by the mechanical benefits of a species, or by the story potential? What kind of choice would you make in the given scenario?

With how mechanically boring the majority of species in the game are? I think you are right.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Considering the absolute only reason I'd ever touch humans is to get a feat, prepare to get weird.

 

[M_Natas]

The only reason I play human is for the extra feat to get certain character ideas going.
Like my Celestial Warlock who pretends to be a Bard (got thrown out of bard school and is embarresed to have a unicorn as a patron) - having magic initiate to get vicious mockery and a lvl. 1 Bard spell helps really sell the concept.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Let's say you sit down to play D&D, and the DM has introduced a house rule... There are no mechanical differences between the species. Whether you choose to play an Elf, a Human, or a Tortle, you gain no mechanical benefits. (Let's ignore flying races for right now and say this DM has come up with a way to boost character stats and powers in another way.)

What species would you play?

How would that house rule impact the choice you make?

I have an untested theory that lots of players would still choose to play the same species they would have with the mechanical benefits. In other words, if you wanted to play a Dwarf Fighter, you would choose Dwarf whether there was a mechanical benefit or not.

This is because, in my opinion, the choice of species has more to do with the story a player wants to tell (or experience), and less to do with mechanical benefits. A player who wants to be an elf is going to play as an elf whether they receive a +2 to Dexterity or not. A player who wants to be an Ooze is going to play as a Plasmoid even if they don't have explicit rules about sliding under doors.

Now I think mechanical benefits can help tell that story too. But I really do wonder if they are secondary to the narrative power of the species.

What do you think? Do you think players are more motivated by the mechanical benefits of a species, or by the story potential? What kind of choice would you make in the given scenario?

Thinking more about your interesting question …

I love dwarves including gray dwarves aesthetics. However, I would be very disappointed to lose their racial benefits, frankly.

To the point of asking the DM to reconsider…and if it was not my main group maybe even thinking about not playing.

 

[Umbran]

What do you think? Do you think players are more motivated by the mechanical benefits of a species, or by the story potential? What kind of choice would you make in the given scenario?

I don't know that we have evidence to support an answer to the question.

And, if there is a narrative leaning, I don't know that it is about "story potential". "Story" typically includes notion of plotlines we expect to approach, and those are usually set up by the campaign conceits, which are usually broadly defined before we get to character generation. F'rex, if I am playing "Dragon of Icespire Peak", the story is about building up to go deal with the eponymous dragon, whatever species I pick.

If we must surmise something other than stats that players are looking for species to define, it is perhaps more specifically about characterization. Species typically gives us some stereotypes (to play with or against), that inform who the character is, what kind of person they are.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Like you say, there are narrative truths to each species that, I think, are more important to most players than the mechanical benefit. Being an elf means something, even if you don't get a +2 to Dex and proficiency in longswords.

The mechanical benefits help, of course, but I think one of the reasons a lot of discussions on species mechanics gets lost in the weeds is because for most players mechanics are a secondary incentive. The narrative truth is the primary incentive.

What impact does being an elf have narratively? What does being an elf mean?

Now, that in of itself could be an interesting discussion. But if I'm going to play an elf with no mechanical benefit, and I'm thinking of an entity that is agile, perceptive, strange mindset and sleep requirements, and long-lived enough to be immortal to other ancestries, how does that come into play? How am I different from any other ancestry?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I suspect most players choose their species because of both ways. Many will choose based upon story or species idea-- elves have been popular for so long due to their essence of the race and people just like it, the half-races are often chosen because players either appreciate the mixed ancestry concept or the "being between two worlds" idea, tieflings and dragonborn have that esoterica that just seems fun to play.

But at the same time, there are those players who want Darkvision at all cost because they believe the game will be easier having it. Those who can get flying will take it because they can beat encounter roadblocks easier. Some want the extra speed, some just want the 1st level Feat.

So species choice really comes down to what a player finds important when playing the game-- telling a character's story, or trying to "win" the game the DM places in front of them. And choices will go both ways.

Yup. Not every player (even nowadays) is primarily interested in the story they're telling with their character. That strongly assumes a style of play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For the vast majority of D&D games, I don't believe a player's species makes any significant impact on the game outside of the player's head. If you're playing Curse of Strahd or Tomb of Annihilation, it simply doesn't matter whether your Fighter is a dwarf, tortle, or goliath because your gaming experience will be largely the same. I think most players are interested in archtypes, will pick the species that best exemplifies that archtype for them, and that is, or would, have included ability score bonuses/penalties in the past.

I would posit that the vast majority of D&D games are homebrew, where heritage is much more likely to matter than the, "one size fits all parties" style of published adventures.