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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It can be, but sometimes it's hard. If you choose Halfling or Gnome, the size is a story thing that you might want to also see represented mechanical. If you get some "heritage ability" picks, you might run out and for some reason your tiny pixie with wings can't fly and is as easy to hit as a Giant. And balancing them becomes harder (flying is probably more powerful than scent. Well, in many campaigns.) if you need to do it piece by piece, and character creation becomes more complicated. B

But the story side seems also very important, and is a reason why I personally would probably not want to play a Tortle in, say, Eberron, because it just doesn't seem to have a particular story why it exists and what it is connected to (and that is true even if it has just the right package of mechanical traits for my build idea). Of course, some might be looking for that so they can be an outsider and maybe have some mystery where they come from (or how they can return home). Others might rather play an Elf because they are linked to a house they are interested in (even if these game rules would allow anyone to have that Dragonmark, it still is linked in the story to that house).

 

[Voadam]

In 3e with stat bonuses and penalties there was a decently big mechanical incentive to play to a race's strengths and not to play to a race's weakness. So charisma penalty dwarves were a couple steps back comparatively if they were a Charismas class sorcerer.

I much prefer B/X style no stat modifier or the floating ASI so that people can play the character they want without being mechanically detrimented by not playing to specific strengths.

I recently played in a D&D flavored/reskinned Kids on Bikes fantasy game and I played an elf with no mechanical elf aspects. It was a decently important part of my play experience that would have been different if I was roleplaying the character concept as a dwarf.

 

[overgeeked]

People who care more about the story would pick the same race regardless. Optimizers would complain about lack of mechanical benefits, then they’d pick something that used to be mechanically “bad” for the novelty.

 

[Vaalingrade]

What about people who pick the species for the species fantasy but then get disappointed when their dragon man can't dragon man?

 

[Umbran]

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.

But, homebrew isn't what leads to heritage mattering. GMs leaning into heritage mattering is what makes heritage matter.

If the GM doesn't care to make heritage matter, their homebrew will be heritage-blind. If the GM does care to make heritage matter, running a published adventure is not a barrier to making it matter in play.

 

[MGibster]

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.

I am more than happy to recognize that you may very well be correct. I know in the past, several people on this very board have told me it was important in their campaigns, and as crazy as this sounds, I tend to believe people when they tell me about their personal experience.

 

[Yaarel]

A D&D without species mechanics is moreorless how many superhero genre games work.

The powers actualize the character concept. The species is an optional part of the origin story.

In D&D jargon. Class is what happens now. Species is an optional background.

 

[lall]

All I ever wanted was to play a small-sized species that I find physically attractive without a head (halfling) or nose (gnome) the size of the Grand Canyon. Fairy loyalist, even if they had no mechanical bonuses.

 

[Kurotowa]

Depends. Are we talking out straight up removing an entire axis of character customization? Or are we assuming that all those traits are being pushed into free form pool of "inherent abilities" that everyone gets to pick a custom assortment from?

Honestly, I don't like either of those. Removing a major axis of character customization makes the game less fun, and if your race has no mechanical weight then why even have it. But on the other hand, I like D&D for the simplicity of its pre-bundled character options. Freeform ability selection can be overwhelming with too much choice, and it's very easy to get it "wrong" and pick very badly or get it too "right" and minmax the choices to the limit.

My personal feeling is that the current state of affairs is roughly in the happy middle. Removing the inherent ASI lifted my main complaint about them being too restrictive, especially with the MotM options added in, and yet they give enough structure that I can pick one that feels right an be happy that it matches flavor with mechanics relatively well.

 

[Clint_L]

How many players chose mountain dwarf, specifically, for their martial character almost entirely because of that extra +1 to str/con at character creation? In my experience, quite a few. There are also lots who go for concept first and don't give a fig about mechanics, but I don't think it's as a black and white as the OP suggests.

I don't think species should affect ability scores, languages, or skills. However, I do think species should allow for specific traits such as darkvision, and that's where balance becomes an issue.