[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.

 

[mikal768]

The original post mentions that these are observations across several editions, not just 5e.

Likely, the corporation has inhouse data.

Inhouse data from what? And if it's across several editions, why would it even matter for 5th? After all, 2 editions required feats, 2 editions existed before feats were created!

 

[Arial Black]

Although I've played D&D since the late '70s, my first experience of organised play was for 4th ed.

There was a large group of players with a fair-sized core group and plenty of other players coming and going.

My PC was Arial Black, a rogue built to be a swashbuckler/duellist. She was human.

What's more, in a group where players went through different PCs like socks, she was the only human!

Observing the other players, they (almost without exception) chose a race that gave stat boosts to the two prime stats required by their chosen class (and subclass, although they weren't called subclasses).

It got to the stage where as soon as I knew their race (which I could tell by looking) then I could narrow down what class they must have chosen to one or two.

So my experience is the opposite of JC's. In an allegedly humanocentric world, every adventuring party was an astonishing menagerie of the weird and downright unbelievable. It stetched credulity that this group could walk into a town unmolested, let alone get rooms at the inn without comment.

Instead of the barkeep exclaiming, "What the bloody hell are you lot supposed to be? Is the circus in town? No way I'm letting that get a room in my inn!", he just said, "Ah! Adventurers!"

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Huh. I'm actually a bit surprised...pleasantly surprised, but still surprised... that most don't use Feats. We hated feats in 3.x. We hated feats in PF. We really REALLY tried to like feats in 5e... but failed. However, we don't "hate" feats in 5e, we just don't like them enough, so we don't use them. I know a lot of folks love feats, but I still feel they are a direct path to the 'dark side'.

The more surprising thing is the Human choice thing. O_O Personally, yeah, Humans and Halflings are my favourite races...which is odd because the highest characters I ever played (all in 1e AD&D) were an Elf, a Half-Elf, a Half-Ogre and a Human (levels were 20th, 12/13, 12 and 8 iirc).

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[LapBandit]

I find his claims highly dubious. Making statements as fact without the data that backs up those claims? More so.

 

[Gradine]

My last four campaigns:
3.5
1 Dwarf, 1 Elf, 1 Halfling, 1 Half-Ogre, 1 Githzerai

1 Dwarf, 2 Half-Elves, 1 Half-Ogre (same character as before), 1 Changeling

5e
1 Gnome, 1 Dragonborn, 2 Tieflings

1 Halfling, 1 Gnome, 1 Dragonborn, 1 Tiefling, 1 Half-Orc, 1 Elf, 1 Aasimar

Not a human to be seen! To be fair, though, something 80% of the PCs I played in 3.5 were humans, though none of the 5e PCs I've made were.

 

[Yaarel]

What is difficult to believe? Most characters lack feats? Most characters are human or elf? Most players use standard options rather than variants?

Sounds plausible to me.

 

[vpuigdoller]

In the games I have been dm for 5th edition only one player used a feat as a variant human. My players in the other hand stayed away from elves, halflings and dwarves and favored gnomes, tieflings and dragonborns. Only one played a human and was the same who used a feat.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Reynard]

I find his claims highly dubious. Making statements as fact without the data that backs up those claims? More so.

Just because something does not conform to your notions or anecdotal experience does not mean it is a lie or conspiracy. Presumably Crawford has decades of data, from organized play to various electronic systems to just plain old letters and forum posts, on which he has based his claims.

I find it very strange that so many people are coming into this thread to not just say they don't like to play that way, but to intimate Crawford is actually lying about this. What could the possible motivation be? Is there a human focused splat on the horizon they are trying to drum up support for?

 

[happyhermit]

It's pretty cool, my impression for years when reading forums and the like (especially pre-5e) was that most of the people I played with were some weird fringe of strange preferences. Statements like this from those in the know, survey results, and especially being able to see lots of real games has shown that it's actually more or less the other way around in most ways. Most people are like us in terms of race and class preference, optimization being a lessor factor, most players not wanting a lot of "crunch" or mechanical customization, etc.

It's pretty obvious we aren't some weird edge case in most ways now, though truly "sandboxy" games still seem rare, so we still aren't normal.