Do you exclusively play a single race?

[Abraxas]

Humans only - those extra skills are just to hard to pass up plus my character concepts often need very odd class combinations/levels.

 

[Jeph]

I play mostly humans and elves. I would play half elves, but they're just so inferior, statistically . . .

 

[shilsen]

I usually play a different race every time, but then I tend to play different classes, alignments, genders, etc. whenever creating a new character.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Humans, always humans. I agree with previous statements that they provide a blank slate to apply whatever I can create.

However, I tend to take it a step forward. I dislike play character classes that tend to describe how my character should be. The biggest example is the wizard class. Mainly, I play fighters and rogues as they provide the largest "blank slate" on which to paint my character. Druids, Barbarians, and wizards I tend to avoid.

 

[Andrew D. Gable]

I'm not a "monochrome" sort of gamer, but I do pretty much restrict myself to playing solely exotic races. Nonstandard stuff. I'm weirdly partial to lizardmen, actually.

 

[bwgwl]

i'm with Dragongirl -- i tend to avoid humans. so far in 3e i've played a dwarf, an elf, a lizardfolk, a halfling, and most recently a zenythri (lawful planetouched race from MM2). if i have any particular preference, it is for dwarves (i like lawful characters).

 

[drothgery]

I voted human, and then immediately realized that I shouldn't have; I played an elf for about a year...

 

[Gez]

What ? No option for tielfling drow lesbian boink bunny Chosen paladin of Eilistraee ?

Right now, I've played (in D&D) 2 gnomes, 3 humans, 1 half-orc, 1 halfling... I envision playing a dwarf next time.

I'm somewhat surprised people could want to always restrict themselves to only one race. However, I'm not surprised to see that these particular people are either into humans (the "I can't play something that different" syndrom) or elves.

I'm also surprised Angcuru really expects to play a character so long that the lifespan difference between an elf (around 550 years) and a halfling (around 250 years) show up.

If there is any race that you can't play as a dynasty, it's elves. Humans are much more appropriate for this, as you have a real reason to play the new character when you fast forward 30 years in a campaign. Beside, it's easier to flesh out the three previous generations and what they've made than it is for elves.

 

[Oni]

I like humans, I understand humans. Yet they have the most variety of any of the races. I'd rather not have the baggage of racial stereotypes. That's not what an elf would say, thats not what a dwarf would do. Nope don't want it. You don't ever hear thats not what a human would do.

 

[S'mon]

I pretty much always play humans (except in an sf game where all the PCs were killer robots).

Playing 1e 18 years ago at age 12, I'd play a multiclass elf or half-elf because they were the most powerful. I once played an alcoholic dwarf for light relief.

For anything approaching serious roleplay, it has to be human. I'll play male or female, usually 'real man' warrior types - Paladin, Fighter, Fighter-Barbarian. I played a melee-oriented Cleric Telak last year, but only because it was a no-magic-items game, and my Fighter PC Varioth had got turned into a ghoul; I wanted a PC with some ability to survive in a game with lots of undead and no magic items.

Human warriors are what appeal to me, and have done for quite a few years. They are by far the most common protagonist in myth and fiction, so it's easy to bring plenty of variety to them.