Now, I have no idea which edition you are talking about here. Is it the 2e Council of Wyrms (and I know one of my friends managed to play a half-dragon in 2e), is it the 3e concept of ECL by which almost any race became playable, definitely including half-dragons, or is it the way 4e added a few races to the stock list? Because of that set, 4e is the one that least fits your description.
That was in 3.x, and still happens periodically within my group. Vide down below. Bear with me a moment while I explain myself.
If it's a lack of crunch you want, why are you playing D&D? There are so many Indy games that lack crunch - no edition of D&D ever has. And for that matter, why do you look down on people who see and use the storytelling potential inherent in e.g. tieflings. And if you don't look down on players of elves or tieflings, what's wrong with dragonborn?
[sblock]Don't get me wrong, friend. I have nothing against players that wish potential for storytelling. THAT is wicked, and once I almost wished I had not a scarred mind when a player came with a well built Minotaur to me.
He made fluffy background with race specific interpretation and actually spent his time researching how minotaurs act, reproduce, socialize, interact with others, what they eat, etc. He dictated whys and whens and hows so well I could only hug him while I added the character to the game.
In the same session a player made Half-Dragon Dragon Shaman who used skills from Oriental Adventures (because he liked them), was raised by elves (have no idea why) and lived with dwarfs (just because he wanted to have a mithral breastplate). He wasn't acting like a dragon half-breed at all, just a random guy with scales and it was hard to put him with the group, he felt very left aside. But what kind of plot can I show someone that has no personality, no past (worth mentioning), nothing except his complete lack of hair?
Note the same happened in another game of nother friend of ours. His character was a ninja and just... stood there, without a real personality or well built background. The only thing he had was a katana with a demon inside he could summon, much like a Bleach deal.
As you can see my friend, my problem is not with
what you do, it's
how it's done.
A story well told can make you believe almost anything without a drop of doubt, but some people doesn't care for that anymore.
Telling tales is a dying practice nowadays, thought. I feel sad that people cares less and less about it and more and more about balance and what is ruled and what is not. I once felt like writting a book everytime I played a game of D&D (yes, you can tell a good tale and still use many mechanics with it), but now I feel more like a bag of tricks kinda deal and things like habit, personality, family and tradition are lost in the middle of how much damage someone can do.
That's the feeling 4ed passes down to me. They overlook many a good tale, or even where it did came from (Eladrin, Drow, Half-Dragon, to name a few), only for the mere amusement of a massing group that feels no excitment for the real stories. Contrary to what I feel when I read Lankhmar or Elaine Cunningham's Daughter of The Drow (I'm not even sure if she knows what THACO is), even Order of The Stick has more dept than numbers. These kind of thing; the really well woven stories, made along the course of years and years, are what made these games so special. It wasn't the dices or the mechanics, they are complementary and I feel no need to adhere to a game that overlook the former to enphasize the later.
[/sblock]
Again, it's my
OWN PERSONAL OPINION. I have nothing against
what 4ed is or its players. It only ticks me
how people does it and feel its alright to be empty of reason or devoid of emotion. That's all.
PS: A writter takes 5 years to write a good book. WotC took 3 years to make 5 new books and new entire game. Take any conclusions you want.
EDIT: Sorry for the wall of text. Made it more graceous for the eyes now.
