All yes.... For example, I gave the Aasimar Sorcerer Divine Soul/Celestial Warlock a bonus cantrip as they were granted light twice. Well, if you're going to veer off course you can go on and on forever. There is a difference between redundancy and not making full use of something. Your half-orc example is off point. However, if a player makes a suboptimal choice for RPG reasons, I will reward them with something fun. So, if you play an ORC wizard, with a -2 int, I'll make sure you have fun doing it by giving it some advantages... although not always mechanical. My goal is to remove the elements that discourage people from playing 'suboptimal mechanical choices that might otherwise appear to be fun to the players.
Ah, while I did veer off course with the half-orc example, it was revealing as I now think I see why our observations differ. It seems you are known to your regular players as a DM who offers concessions at chargen. And perhaps, and I'm guessing here, you inform new players at your table you offer concessions for "wasted abilities" before (or while) they come up with a character concept. Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is bad - in fact, it's nice that you do that for your players and the table has fun with it. Fun is the ultimate goal, after all.
And all of those people, wh account for the majority of players, end up having artificual limitations in their character design choices that are not necessary.MMDV. I've had this conversation in my home games, at game store gams, at conventions... and there are very few players that are willing to commit to a long term character that doesn't start out with a 16 in their prime stat, or that have 'wasted' abilities. I want to encourage people to play diverse concepts. I'm not forcing anyone else to do it, but I will reinforce there is a logic to doing so.
Our experiences are similar in that I see the majority of players going for a 16 or higher in their prime stat, too. The same is true for "wasted abilities", however.
So, for your experience - again I'm extrapolating from what you've said - you have set up a self-fulfilling prophecy. You offer concessions to players for "wasted abilities", so they seek those concessions out. Hence your observation of "all of those people" and "majority of players". Methinks that is "majority of players"
in your games and not in the whole D&D player universe. My hunch (and, like you, I have no data to back this up, only personal and second hand experience) is that many players play the concept they want. They may or may not ask for concessions for said "wasted abilities" and a DM may or may not offer concessions. The player plays the concept either way most of the time because they think it will be fun. Concessions therefore do not necessarily correlate with more diverse player options. The majority of
my experience is the DM not offering concessions at chargen (me as DM, my DM when I'm a player, other DMs I've spoken with) and players create diverse characters that they like. And... we have fun, too!
Citation "most people". I see people arguing both sides here, and both sides are getting XP from others that agree. There is no majority perception to be claimed.
This.
