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

[MGibster]

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?

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.

 

[payn]

I can only speak for myself, but when the two collide is when i'm happiest. For example, the Paizo Players Guides for the APs are great. They offer all kinds of great ideas for the campaign and you are able to link story and mechanics.

That said, I also often play humans because i'm more concerned with setting elements and interacting with that. Political intrigue, faction based play, Social > Exploration > Combat. So, ive never needed a pile of ancestry/species in my RPGs because you can explore a myriad already with just human.

 

[billd91]

I think it's a pipe dream to think that people would make their ancestry choices without considering the mechanics. I mean, it's true that there are people who do, but the many arguments over inherent stat bonuses vs floating bonuses and the design decision to go with floating bonuses kind of underscores that a lot of people make their characters - at least the ancestry + class choices - based on the mechanical benefits given to stats and that has, pretty clearly, shown up in the feedback available to WotC.

 

[payn]

I think it's a pipe dream to think that people would make their ancestry choices without considering the mechanics. I mean, it's true that there are people who do, but the many arguments over inherent stat bonuses vs floating bonuses and the design decision to go with floating bonuses kind of underscores that a lot of people make their characters - at least the ancestry + class choices - based on the mechanical benefits given to stats and that has, pretty clearly, shown up in the feedback available to WotC.

My issue is that in most cases those few simple mechanics are all that separates ancestries/species from each other.

 

[Deset Gled]

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.

If you want to tell the story of the tortoise and the hare, the lion and the mouse, or the frog and the scorpion, then the mechanical differences between the species are pretty important to the narrative.

 

[Mephista]

I don't think Stat bonuses are species-defining mechanics.

Dragonbreath, shapeshifting, flying, smolness and giantism, innate luck... those are fantasy-race defining traits.

 

[el-remmen]

I don’t mind players choosing a species for its mechanical benefits. I mind when that is all they choose it for and have no interest in that lineage as it exists in the setting.

 

[TwoSix]

I think if you don't assign the race explicit mechanical powers, they're still going to have a bunch of narratively assumed powers.

If I'm playing a Plasmoid, I'm going to assume I CAN ooze under a door, even without an explicit power, because that's part of the existing narrative of the race. If I'm a halfling, I'm going to hide behind the orc fighter and ask if I get total cover because I'm so small. That sort of thing.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I think if you don't assign the race explicit mechanical powers, they're still going to have a bunch of narratively assumed powers.

If I'm playing a Plasmoid, I'm going to assume I CAN ooze under a door, even without an explicit power, because that's part of the existing narrative of the race. If I'm a halfling, I'm going to hide behind the orc fighter and ask if I get total cover because I'm so small. That sort of thing.

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.

 

[payn]

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.