[UPDATED] Most D&D Players Prefer Humans - Without Feats!

I've played in games that don't allow multiclassing, but never games that don't allow feats. Go figure.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I'm not sure that I agree with this generalization.

I can think of two quick and easy (albeit anecdotal) counter-examples.

Regarding "casual fans" or "beginning D&D players," at least in terms of kids, I find that they are more open to non-human races. As I run games for kids on a semi-regular basis to teach them D&D, I often see that they are interested (after the introductory session) in Dragonborn and Tieflings (to use two examples). Even when I restrict the races to start, they never want to play humans.

On the more advanced gamers, my regular grognards are almost exclusively human; with the occasional classic (OD&D) race thrown in. Not so much because they aren't hard-core fantasy fiction and gaming, but because we've already done it all, in many systems, and are looking for a ... stripped down experience for our D&D.

If anything, I might think that age may be a relevant, if not dispositive, factor in terms of preferences.

As a Kid, Lizardman would have appealed to me more than just about anything. As an adolescent, I would have been embarrassed my my "childish" desire, and would have gone with something terribly emo fallen Aasimar or something like a Half-Elf tossed between two worlds, but will never be accepted in either. As a colledge student, I would would have been terribly embarrassed by my former emoness, and chosen a Conan like human struggling against spells and hostile environments. I still use the last one as the start of most of my character concepts.

 

[Ath-kethin]

Add gods to the list of options that go in a separate book.

I'm down with that too. Or leave "gods" in the monster book with the other extraplanar foes.

 

[lkj]

I find these tidbits of information fascinating, and I hope Jeremy is willing to keep sharing them. While I think it's fair if some folks want to disregard it without seeing the data, for myself, I'm just geekily happy to get a sneak peak into the kind of information they have. Sure, if I were engaged in a debate with Jeremy that might have some meaningful outcome, I would probably want access to the data. But I'm not. For me it's just fun stuff related to a hobby I enjoy.

AD

 

[Jacob Lewis]

This just in! Someone tweets something obscure and meaningless, internet responds vehemently with forum posts equally obscure and meaningless. That is all.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not sure that I agree with this generalization.

I can think of two quick and easy (albeit anecdotal) counter-examples.

Regarding "casual fans" or "beginning D&D players," at least in terms of kids, I find that they are more open to non-human races. As I run games for kids on a semi-regular basis to teach them D&D, I often see that they are interested (after the introductory session) in Dragonborn and Tieflings (to use two examples). Even when I restrict the races to start, they never want to play humans.

On the more advanced gamers, my regular grognards are almost exclusively human; with the occasional classic (OD&D) race thrown in. Not so much because they aren't hard-core fantasy fiction and gaming, but because we've already done it all, in many systems, and are looking for a ... stripped down experience for our D&D.

If anything, I might think that age may be a relevant, if not dispositive, factor in terms of preferences.

That’s an excellent point, I’ve never played with kids, so that might well be a big factor. In my own experience, Tieflings have been by far the most popular race at my table, followed by elves. And humans are not generally very popular among people I play with, the sentiment being “I’m a human all the time in real life, why would I want to be one in a game if I have the option of something more interesting?” But, I still tend to see the players who are more casual fantasy fans gravitating towards elves, dwarves, half-elves, and half-orcs, while those who are big fantasy buffs go more for tieflings, dragonborn, eladrin, goliaths, etc.

I actually don’t think that children leaning more towards the latter camp is necessarily breaking this trend though. In my experience, the trend has less to do with D&D experience, and more to do with general familiarity with the fantasy genre. It doesn’t come as a surprise to me at all that kids, and especially kids growing up today, would be more familiar with the genre than many adults.

 

[Blue]

"100% of level 1-3 characters at my table do not use feats."

Also in, I don't allow the variant human.

Using feats on any particular level for any particular build is a lot different than wanting the option to have feats. Maybe you want feats but not until 12th, and the game ends at 9th.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I've only played one session of 5e. We didn't use feats. One player wanted to but we all said "No, only powergamers want to use feats. You're a powergamer, Mark." And he was rightly ashamed. Ashamed and alone.

 

[Bradley Hindman]

On the more advanced gamers, my regular grognards are almost exclusively human; with the occasional classic (OD&D) race thrown in. Not so much because they aren't hard-core fantasy fiction and gaming, but because we've already done it all, in many systems, and are looking for a ... stripped down experience for our D&D.

If anything, I might think that age may be a relevant, if not dispositive, factor in terms of preferences.

This is an excellent description of my gaming group. As we've gotten older, almost all characters have become human. There are probably three reasons for this:

1) The novelty of playing a nonhuman has worn off.

2) Most of us realized some time ago, that its a lot of work to play a character with a truly alien world view. Thus, in our experience, most elven characters get played as humans with pointy ears. Most halfling characters are played as just tiny humans.

3) Finally, the biggest reason is that our campaigns have changed. Instead of being based on modern fantasy, most are strongly rooted in real world mythology. For example, the last three long-running campaigns have been rooted in the Arabian Nights, Celtic mythology, and now Norse mythology. We find mythology has more resonance for us, plus if the DM says, "This campaign will be based on Norse myth," all of the players instantly know the genre and the expected character archetypes. In mythology the elves, dwarves, djinn, etc. are the mysterious "other". The point of playing in such a game is often to explore those mysterious elements, which is harder to do if you are yourself one of those elements.

 

[Ebony Dragon]

Another piece of D&D data: a majority of D&D characters don't use feats. Many players love the customization possible with feats, but a larger group of players is happy to make characters without feats. Feats are, therefore, not a driving force behind many players' choices.

This speaks much more about the poor way feats were implemented into the game, than it speaks to players preference. Feats should have been obtainable without having to pass up your ASI.

 

[StormbringerAUS]

This almost sounds like a politician setting up for some unpopular legislation.

Feats aren't popular - get it in the mindset.
We are getting rid of feats - and everyone thinks thats ok no one likes them.

Don't think this will happen just how it happens.

I am an avid user of feats on characters I play and I find they help in the character conception, the game I DM feats are common enough some players much more than others.