[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.

 

[Prakriti]

Good. Now if they could just move feats and multiclassing into the DMG, so people will stop assuming that they're allowed by default, that would be great.

 

[Morrus]

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

*Shrug*

I guess choosing not to believe him is a choice you can make. I'm not sure *why* you'd make that choice, but it's your choice, I suppose.

 

[jasper]

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

And how much are all you willing to pay for a copy of the inhouse data?

 

[Gradine]

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?

Oh, I have no reason to doubt Crawford is true; I just found it amusing that my own experiences are so different from the apparent baseline!

 

[Schmoe]

I'm not surprised at all. The people on these forums are a small self-selected group of a vast population of D&D players, and people here commonly believe that what's important to them should be important to everyone. I have no reason to disbelieve Jeremy Crawford, and in fact I find it amusing there has been a bit of self-righteous indignation at Jeremy for giving data that lends credibility to a play style that some people here might not approve of.

 

[BookBarbarian]

It make sense to me.

We're at a point where there are more new players to D&D than.. well ever. Are they more likely to play what they've seen in LoTR or something like a dragonborn or Tiefling?

Are they more likely to use an optional rule like feats or skip it so they don't have to learn something else new? Even the basic rules can be intimidating to a newbie.

 

[Gammadoodler]

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?

Whether suspicion is warranted or not, the burden of proof is on the party making the positive claim. With no reference to the specific data WOTC is using or how they analyzed it, it would seem JC’s claims are equally anecdotal, more persuasive perhaps, given his position, but still anecdotal.

I don’t have any reason to doubt JCs claims and I have insufficient experience to make a supporting or contrary anecdotal claim. However, I don’t think that it is inappropriate for others to doubt those claims if they conflict with those players’ experiences to date.

 

[Morrus]

Most D&D Players Prefer Humans - Without Feats!

Whether suspicion is warranted or not, the burden of proof is on the party making the positive claim.

In a court case or a scientific study. Not in a casual Twitter conversation.He doesn’t need to prove it. And he doesn’t need anybody to believe him. But if anybody finds this tidbit mildly interesting, its there.

On the other hand, WotC doesn’t need me to defend it.

 

[Kinematics]

Most people playing humans, elves, and dwarves? Easily believable. Standard distribution with a long tail always looks like that, and the races that are only available in secondary resources will be especially rare.

Recent and current campaigns:
3 elves, 1 human, 1 half-orc, 1 aasimar, 1 yuki-onna.
5 humans (1 variant), 1 gnome.
3 human, 1 shadar-kai, 1 gnome, 1 firbolg, 1 tabaxi, 1 goblin.
3 humans, 1 dragonborn, 1 half-orc.

Not actually sure if more of the humans used variant builds.

One campaign actually just hit level 4, and I have to choose between a stat boost and a feat. Despite the feat being part of how I pictured this character developing, I ended up deciding that I needed to get the foundations (stats) built up first.

And considering that the vast majority of games never make it past level 10 (and a fairly large portion won't make it past 7), I would likewise be completely unsurprised if the vast majority of ASI selections are for stats, to "build up the foundation", before considering feats, which end up never getting taken because the game ends. Moreso for point-buy builds, which are likely to be a greater proportion of the source of JC's data due to AL.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Its amazing that a person with a position to have access to the raw data a company compiles on its players is called out for having some kind of agenda when he states what conclusions that data points too. I guess this is a good reason why there are not endless books of feats and power ups no matter how much some people claim that is what every player wants.