D&D 5E What is the appeal of the weird fantasy races?

[MGibster]

I've only run a handful of D&D campaigns since 5th edition was released, but as best I can recall humans have been the minority in every party. My last campaign was Acquisitions Incorporated set in the Forgotten Realms and not a single PC was human.

Halfling Fighter
Tiefling Warlock
Gnome Artificer
Kenku Cleric
Gensai Druid

I can't pretend that my experience is universal. But I know I've created plenty of characters at D&D Beyond that were never ever played as PCs or were simply used as NPCs. I don't know if it's an accurate representation of what people are playing.

 

[Undrave]

Edit: @Undrave invoking "correlation does not imply causation" should not have cconfused you enough to reach that conclusion. There is no doubt that humans are
"popular", but it's absurd to dismiss & downplay the importance of six +1s or +2 & a feat as was done.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand how the person you quoted downplayed the mechanics of the human? They never even mentioned mechanics? So I just feel like you quoted the wrong person.

I've only run a handful of D&D campaigns since 5th edition was released, but as best I can recall humans have been the minority in every party. My last campaign was Acquisitions Incorporated set in the Forgotten Realms and not a single PC was human.

Halfling Fighter
Tiefling Warlock
Gnome Artificer
Kenku Cleric
Gensai Druid

I can't pretend that my experience is universal. But I know I've created plenty of characters at D&D Beyond that were never ever played as PCs or were simply used as NPCs. I don't know if it's an accurate representation of what people are playing.

When I played Adventure League, that bonus feat for variant human made them SUUUUPER attractive to make your character more interesting at first level. I played multiple myself. A Fighter with Heavy Armour Mastery, a Cleric and a Paladin with Magic Initiate and at least one more I forgot, to say nothing of other players.

 

[MGibster]

When I played Adventure League, that bonus feat for variant human made them SUUUUPER attractive to make your character more interesting at first level. I played multiple myself. A Fighter with Heavy Armour Mastery, a Cleric and a Paladin with Magic Initiate and at least one more I forgot, to say nothing of other players.

I've only ever played a human in D&D 5th edition myself. And I've always done the +1 to every attribute version.

 

[Minigiant]

I almost always do, but I notice an employment trend in monstrous race player, they tend to lean heavily into careers where stressful emotional labor is a significant chunk of their work

I'm now realizing as a DM I use my Sales voice for Tieflings, and Dragonborn,

I knew I used my Customer Service voice for halflings, gnomes, goblins, and foxfolk and my full Brooklyn accent for Orcs and Goliaths. But I now realized that I have been acting fake intentionally for tieflings.

 

[Undrave]

Honestly, questioning the motivation of people on why they play what they play (in general, not in the 'oh what is the concept behind your character?' way) has a faint whiff of gatekeeping and I'm not comfortable with that at all.

I've only ever played a human in D&D 5th edition myself. And I've always done the +1 to every attribute version.

Play one with a feat sometimes, it's fun.

 

[dave2008]

I would expect to get a chance to explore what the clan of my character is, how it formed my character's world perspective, etc. I would expect it to matter in the game, not just as a vague afterthought. I have yet to meet a dragonborn player who spoke about its clan as more than a throwaway line in its background.

From my experience I am more likely to see that type of in-depth background with a non-traditional races. IME, people you make this choice are more invested in their characters story than people you pick humans. My players who chose dragonborn, yuan-ti, and lizard-folk characters developed an extensive story and background for their PCs. So much so, it altered the concept I had for the campaign world. The players with human characters just picked a background and class - no story at all (I ask players to make a story, but don't require it).

 

[DND_Reborn]

My players who chose dragonborn, yuan-ti, and lizard-folk characters developed an extensive story and background for their PCs. So much so, it altered the concept I had for the campaign world. The players with human characters just picked a background and class - no story at all (I ask players to make a story, but don't require it).

IME that is because they are unusual so you need a backstory reason why they are among the more typical races in the world--otherwise it makes no sense for them to be there.

If they were part of the status quo, I doubt people would develop strong backstories for them, either. Otherwise, it is more likely just player dependent I would think?

 

[dave2008]

IME that is because they are unusual so you need a backstory reason why they are among the more typical races in the world--otherwise it makes no sense for them to be there.

If they were part of the status quo, I doubt people would develop strong backstories for them, either. Otherwise, it is more likely just player dependent I would think?

Possibly, but I don't run published settings, nor do I have many preconceived ideas about the campaign world. In our session zero I bring a loose outline and I ask the players to bring a story about their character. I then try to combine the two. So maybe the players felt like they needed it, but it was not like it was needed to explain their place in an existing or predetermined setting. we built the setting around their ideas, the humans just got the shaft because they didn't bring much to the table!

So in the end, the "odd" races made more sense in the world than the humans.

 

[Scott Christian]

You missed the point of my comment. We're agreeing on things, friend.

I must have. Sorry. And I didn't mean it derogatorily. Just different ways to view things.

 

[Scott Christian]

Well, we never play in published settings and rarely use published adventures. Of course surveys suggest over 50% of D&D players use their own homebrew setting so there is that.

I get it. And I commend you for starting session zero with almost no preconceived notion of what your world looks like. If it works for you and your group, awesome. But, the generic version of D&D, is human centric. And 50% play that version. So that makes playing a really odd group of people, many of whom are rare, awkward for 50% of the groups playing. Of course, one can just not care. And that is what usually happens. I just think it is a shame, because it takes away from some of the setting, and even further, from character arcs that could be interesting to the player.