Do you exclusively play a single race?

[Angcuru]

Re: Munchkin Humans

I run into the problem of everyone wanting to be human to get the extra feat as well as skill points. That and most players don't want to have any weaknesses associated with changing ability scores (like elves -2 Con). So I will change things around in my next campaign to get some more variety.

that's a little thing that I like to call powergaming. maybe not as extreme as we're all used to, but powergaming still.

 

[cptg1481]

I go Half-Orc because

I find it the closest to my real personality and therefore an easy role play. Besides, they rock......IMO.

 

[Ravellion]

Nope, not really. Variation is the spice of life. Funny thing is, I've never played a gnome. Amusing if you take a look at my avatar.

 

[Angcuru]

I think I can say safely that way too many people play human only. The idea of the game is to get away from your life and have fun in a creative way. You're holding out on yourself if you can't play anythin but what you actually are.

 

[Merlion]

And for those of you who play human as a blank slate for roleplaying to avoid the racial sterotypes....go against the racial sterotypes. Play an intellectual dwarf wizard. or a honest halfling cleric.
Also...most of the other races..especialy elves..actualy have a lot of "sterotypes" not just one vision. Elves(sterotypicaly) love: Nature, magic, music, swordplay, archery, philosophy, langauges. That can lead to a lot of interesting combinations. Like a music loving druid linguist.

 

[Haradim]

Almost exclusively human, with a rare dwarf thrown in.

Nothing else really interests me much (though halflings kinda interest me), and I just about hate elves. Could be because I was usually surrounded by them, and they were, of course, stereotypical elves...meaning, half of them were nobles, and they were universally arrogant and superior.

 

[Reprisal]

I run into the problem of everyone wanting to be human to get the extra feat as well as skill points. That and most players don't want to have any weaknesses associated with changing ability scores (like elves -2 Con). So I will change things around in my next campaign to get some more variety.

Of course, it's not like these same players choose their races out of a need for diversity... It seems that stat-minded people will choose a race to head off a weakness inherent in the stats, or exploit what is already a strength. "Why play a high elven wizard with an intelligence of seventeen when I can play a grey elven wizard?" (Even though playing a high elf in this case makes more "sense" in a campaign sense.)

And for those of you who play human as a blank slate for roleplaying to avoid the racial sterotypes....go against the racial sterotypes. Play an intellectual dwarf wizard. or a honest halfling cleric.

Also...most of the other races..especialy elves..actualy have a lot of "sterotypes" not just one vision. Elves(sterotypicaly) love: Nature, magic, music, swordplay, archery, philosophy, langauges. That can lead to a lot of interesting combinations. Like a music loving druid linguist.

Doing this too often will garner the reputation of having a "weird character schtick." You may embrace it ideally, but I've seen many a fellow player roll his/her eyes whenever that sort of player brings in his minotaur paladin or bugbear bard...

I guess what it is that I'm really against is a sense of extreme change from character to character -- cross-sectionally and longitudinally. By using extreme, I mean disruptively extreme changes that could do damage to the campaign. I dunno, I suppose I've had the campaign boat rocked by some players far too often to really support oddness over character. "Oddness as a crutch," so to speak...

Still, humans are still the way to go -- for me, at least. I don't have to define my character as one that's consciously against the stereotype because, by and large, there is no human stereotype. Diversity is a trait of humanity, it seems that the other races are specializations in the economy of existence.

 

[chatdemon]

For my PCs I've played only humans since switching to 3e. The extra feat at first level is nice, but to me the main advantages are the improved skill points and the flexibility of the favored class.

For my NPCs (since im usually the DM) I obviously have to vary it a little, though when not using humans I tend to use the more interesting and less common races, like Grugach (wild elves) and Ratmen.

 

[Merlion]

Almost exclusively human, with a rare dwarf thrown in.

meaning, half of them were nobles, and they were universally arrogant and superior.

I just have to chime in here and mention thats another of my small problem with the depiction of elves in DnD. Tolkiens elves were benevelont...to everyone(as a rule). Mythical elves werent as much haughty and condecending as they were literaly beyond, or at least outside, normal mortal nature. So why are DnD elves often described as arrogant jerks? Especialy grey elves of course...which doesnt make sense to me since if their so intellegient and knowledgeble they would know better.
Anyway apologies to the original poster for my digression. had to get it out of my system. I feel better now.

 

[Uruush]

I almost always play humans. It feels as though there is much more freedom in developing your character. I find it difficult enough getting into the head of a character of a different socio-economic background, from a low-tech era, without trying to play an entirely different species. If I decide to play a non-human again, it will probably be in a world where there are no humans, and no other "Tolkeinesque" races.