It hasn't been my experience, I've been around people playing fantastic characters human or no. Though the people I play with/run games for are mostly in a friend group that comes from an RP background before we got into D&D.
It could just be a sample size thing. You just happened to run into a couple groups where the humans were just more interesting. Or maybe you ran into some 'why would you want to play a human in a fantasy game' people who prioritize playing a fantasy species as more interesting than a compelling motivation or personality who made flat orc or tiefling or whatever characters without thinking beyond that. (Which is a fair way to play if that's what they enjoy.) I couldn't really say without interacting with your groups myself and seeing what specifically they're doing.
You both bring up good points. Everyone in my group started playing RPGs with 5e, save for one who started at 4e (gasp). So we generally don't have that much experience with roleplaying or improv.
Just my view, but being a human means that your primary identity is about everything else- what you do, where you came from, etc. Being a human isn't going to be as much of a support to your character identity.
If you're a changeling, then being a changeling is going to factor into how being a changeling has affected your identity.
But why should a dwarf or an elf have more of a base identity than a human? In most worlds, humans live alongside elves and halflings; there isn't much distinction between humans and fantastical races.
Players make ‘less interesting’ nonhuman characters because that is what players want when they play nonhuman characters. How often have people on this forum complained about loosening restrictions on species in chargen with the refrain “you’re just making everybody humans in hats!”? To a large number of D&D players – especially older ones – the tired old “dwarves are miners who drink ale and brag”, “elves are hippies who live in trees and turn their noses up at everything” and similar archetypes are not tired, overplayed, and annoying stereotypes. They’re celebrated building blocks of the fantasy genre and D&D in particular. People want every dwarf to be Dwarfy, every elf to be Elfy, every orc to be Orcy, so on and so forth.
Those expectations are baked deep into the cultural zeitgeist surrounding the game, to the point where brazenly defying them is frankly almost as overplayed and tropey as hewing to them. The standard deconstructions of those tired archetypes are almost as common as the archetypes themselves. The people who cleave to the idea that form does not decide function one-to-one but who acknowledge that form will influence function, i.e. “I am an orc, that is part of who I am, but it isn’t all of who I am”, are drowned out in the cracks. Not to mention actively opposed by old-guard traditionalists who see that sort of flexibility as the defining trait of humanity and humanity alone and hate the idea that ALL sapient species are people and not simply endless carbon copies of The Platonic Ideal of [Critter].
Or, to put it simply: try to play a nonhuman character with the same depth, nuance, and *character* to it as a human character and you get accused of playing a human in a hat. Play to the tropes each nonhuman species is known for, and you get accused of playing a flat, boring cardboard cutout instead of a character. You just can’t win, outside of never playing anything but humans.
But why should a dwarf or an elf have more of a base identity than a human? In most worlds, humans live alongside elves and halflings; there isn't much distinction between humans and fantastical races.
Kinda the same reason that, in many "modern" hollywood scripts, white people get depth of character while other ethnicities are portrayed as stereotypes. The "default" choice has variety (and can "go with anything"), whereas the "others" have types to play to.
Lots of people try not to play into those tropes, but when the PHB describes humans with "With their penchant for migration and conquest, humans are more physically diverse than other common races. There is no typical human." and "Humans are the most adaptable and ambitious people among the common races. They have widely varying tastes, morals, and customs in the many different lands where they have settled." it's hard to avoid. All the other races species are defined as narrow in comparison.
IMHO I do think of humans requiring some level of creativity, although the presence of archetypes given with classes and backgrounds definitely leads to the slippery 2D-character pitfall.
non-human races have a concept or archetype built into them which for a lot of players is the core from which the rest of the character is built. With humans, that core needs to be constructed. Which, depending on if the player decides on the class and background before or after writing their backstory, determines the archetype they might use.
as Caerwyn put it, it’s a good idea to shed off these archetypes that other races have stuck to them so player will be more encouraged to create their own cores to work from. But as I’ve seen with most players and also myself, outgrowing the reliance on a character’s race for their personality is a pretty integral step for a character writer.
I think ... we play stereotypes. And even when we don't, we're just deliberately breaking stereotypes, so we're making 'a well-read, educated barbarian - with glasses ... ooh, look at me!'
I saw a thread elsewhere about reinventing dwarves to not have scottish accents. Which, by the way, I think should be dialects? Anyways, if that's your big change, don't even bother. It doesn't matter how they sound, it's irrelevant, it's just part of the flavor we've assigned to them. And sure, you can swap it around any way you want, have dem speek wit a german accent, if you like, or as posh upper class London snobs. But you're just switching one stereotype for another.
We cannot escape the stereotypes. We're not (generally speaking at least) literary geniuses, who can invent entire cultures - from scratch, with no inspiration.
Learn to love and embrace your stereotypes, and have fun with them. Sneaky goblins, strong goliaths, weirdly fuzzy humans, all of them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I think ... we play stereotypes. And even when we don't, we're just deliberately breaking stereotypes, so we're making 'a well-read, educated barbarian - with glasses ... ooh, look at me!'
There are, in fact, more than just those two options. Reflavoring class and race species features goes a long way there -- I'm currently playing a zealot barbarian in a Spelljammer campaign whose "rage" is just hyperfocus because he's so committed to the cause of freeing the enslaved. He's neither a big brawny grrr guy (It's a DEX build MC'ed with swashbuckler) nor particularly erudite
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There are, in fact, more than just those two options. Reflavoring class and race species features goes a long way there -- I'm currently playing a zealot barbarian in a Spelljammer campaign whose "rage" is just hyperfocus because he's so committed to the cause of freeing the enslaved. He's neither a big brawny grrr guy (It's a DEX build MC'ed with swashbuckler) nor particularly erudite
Obviously. But:
Zealot: Stereotype
Barbarian: Stereotype
Spelljammer: Trope
Rage: Trope
Free the enslaved: Stereotype
Swashbuckler: Stereotype
You're shifting around some factors for others, but you're not breaking the mold. And you shouldn't expect to, or feel bad about it, because ... we're not literary geniuses, we're just playing a game. It's not our job to invent totally new cultures or stories or whatever - it's our job to play around with stereotypes and have fun.
Strip away the stereotypes, and there's no game left.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
There are, in fact, more than just those two options. Reflavoring class and race species features goes a long way there -- I'm currently playing a zealot barbarian in a Spelljammer campaign whose "rage" is just hyperfocus because he's so committed to the cause of freeing the enslaved. He's neither a big brawny grrr guy (It's a DEX build MC'ed with swashbuckler) nor particularly erudite
Obviously. But:
Zealot: Stereotype
Barbarian: Stereotype
Spelljammer: Trope
Rage: Trope
Free the enslaved: Stereotype
Swashbuckler: Stereotype
You're shifting around some factors for others, but you're not breaking the mold. And you shouldn't expect to, or feel bad about it, because ... we're not literary geniuses, we're just playing a game. It's not our job to invent totally new cultures or stories or whatever - it's our job to play around with stereotypes and have fun.
Strip away the stereotypes, and there's no game left.
Uhh, no, you're oversimplifying things. The word "barbarian" is not, in itself, a stereotype
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Players make ‘less interesting’ nonhuman characters because that is what players want when they play nonhuman characters. How often have people on this forum complained about loosening restrictions on species in chargen with the refrain “you’re just making everybody humans in hats!”? To a large number of D&D players – especially older ones – the tired old “dwarves are miners who drink ale and brag”, “elves are hippies who live in trees and turn their noses up at everything” and similar archetypes are not tired, overplayed, and annoying stereotypes. They’re celebrated building blocks of the fantasy genre and D&D in particular. People want every dwarf to be Dwarfy, every elf to be Elfy, every orc to be Orcy, so on and so forth.
Those expectations are baked deep into the cultural zeitgeist surrounding the game, to the point where brazenly defying them is frankly almost as overplayed and tropey as hewing to them. The standard deconstructions of those tired archetypes are almost as common as the archetypes themselves. The people who cleave to the idea that form does not decide function one-to-one but who acknowledge that form will influence function, i.e. “I am an orc, that is part of who I am, but it isn’t all of who I am”, are drowned out in the cracks. Not to mention actively opposed by old-guard traditionalists who see that sort of flexibility as the defining trait of humanity and humanity alone and hate the idea that ALL sapient species are people and not simply endless carbon copies of The Platonic Ideal of [Critter].
Or, to put it simply: try to play a nonhuman character with the same depth, nuance, and *character* to it as a human character and you get accused of playing a human in a hat. Play to the tropes each nonhuman species is known for, and you get accused of playing a flat, boring cardboard cutout instead of a character. You just can’t win, outside of never playing anything but humans.
Ultimately people should just play what they want for their character. If they want to play to type they can, if they want to defy the norms go for it, but there is also a middle ground.
Fleshing out a dwarf's personality and motivation etc to make an interesting character doesn't mean they have to buck all the cultural norms of dwarves. You can take a dwarf that likes his ale and axes and smithing etc while still fleshing out their personality, their view points etc. You could have a full party of dwarves who all appreciate their own culture but have different personalities, personal goals, opinions about things etc.
If someone just wants to play 'a dwarf' that's fine, but it also isn't a binary between 'make shallow character' or 'buck all tradition.'
... If someone just wants to play 'a dwarf' that's fine, but it also isn't a binary between 'make shallow character' or 'buck all tradition.'
Of course. But you know, and I know, and everybody here knows, that the Internet will strip all that away and reduce all dwarven characters to one of two states: "Dwarfy", i.e. an overexaggerated caricature of all things stereotropeically Dwarf, or 'Not Dwarfy' i.e. an equally overexaggerated caricature of the exact opposite of all things stereotropically Dwarf. It's the reason threads like this exist - nuance doesn't exist on the Internet, the stories that fandoms and subcultures propagate are all the most outlandish shit possible. Is it possible to play a nuanced, in-the-middle character that acknowledges their stereotropeical culture whilst being their own distinct person? Of course, but nobody wants to hear about it. They want to hear about Aleson Beardcleaver, dwarven champion of the Drunkenaxe Clan, or about his cousin Ser Perindus McTomesby the snooty teetotaller dwarven wizard. Nobody tells stories about Johann Helm, ordinary dwarven warrior with actual real-person expressions, emotions, and opinions.
Just my view, but being a human means that your primary identity is about everything else- what you do, where you came from, etc. Being a human isn't going to be as much of a support to your character identity.
If you're a changeling, then being a changeling is going to factor into how being a changeling has affected your identity.
I think this effect can go the other way as well. When another player or GM is categorizing one players character, “human” is less likely to be one of the “keyword” than other races, so a human might come off as more nuanced because because they’re judged more nuancedly.
I had a really nice tiefling wizard character who was basically a sad fellow inside who wanted family back from the dead &did not want to lose who they were inside to achieve this goal simple with a great personality was a bit of a kid ect and the campaign I played them in the dm disregarded everything so it did not matter what I wrote. A character doesn't need to be human to be interesting if humans are the most interesting characters at the table it's depressing.
Human backstories are more interesting, to make up for how bland your Human Fighter named Bob Johnson, who worked as an Accountant at H&R Block for the last seven years, and whose wife is constantly nagging him to ask his boss for a raise, can appear, in comparison to Armand Hamar, a Tortle Battlesmith that specializes in thrown weaponry, whose Steel Defender is a Soviet Tortle named SIK-L Hamar, thus making them the Brothers Hamar.
For those curious, the battle between the Brothers Hamar and the Brothers Marius is a blood-soaked and savage one. Wa-HOO!
I want to throw it in there that this is the same as the difference between "Fat People ar Lazy" and "Lazy People are Fat".
Chances are, your player wanted to make a big, serious, muscly outlander with a big axe and bad table manners. They then consulted their list of races and said "Hey, I'll be a goliath!". Another player wanted a mischevious character with no concept of personal ownership outside of their own, and who they can give a silly voice to, and said "Hey' I'll be a Kobold".
And on that front, there are perhaps reasons why these stereotypes exist - because that is what these races in the game were made to fulfil. Goliaths were invented to be huge, strong, outlanderesque characters. Goblins were made to be small, vicious characters. Nobody ever said "I want to be a 9-foot tall barbarian with hulking muscles, I know, I'll be a Halfling!", because they decided the traits they wanted and then picked the race which fit them.
Personality traits are different. I agree that more often than not, people default to the stereotypes, but seeing as these are fictional creations, the stereotypes can in fact be considered "normal" for those races - Goblins are "normally" small and vicious and have bad table manners with little broken voices which use short words. Orcs are "normally" a bit less intelligent but very strong and hard to knock down. Dwarves are "normally" alcoholics who like rocks. Elves are "normally" insufferably haughty and better-than-thou. Dragonborn are "normally" incapable of showing feelings and regard the world through unsympathetic eyes. Lizardfolk do "normally" eat raw corpses and suggest eating everything that moves. So you can make any character, but frankly if you make a halfling who's 9 feet tall and suggests eating everything that moves, people will say that it's not a halfling, and that this is just weird not coming from a Lizardfolk!
This, all of this.
I like playing races a bit more 'stereotypically' because usually im interested in what that race has as their established lore, their physical traits, etc. Sometimes I'll play against type like having a gnomish barbarian being a maniac with impulse control issues. Or a goblin wizard being gentle and shy nerdy poet
The trick with these stereotypes are that they exist for a reason. Kobolds arent just off kilter and mischievous because its funny, they have a full blown culture and survival method based on that. Now sure you can have a kobold who was raised by dragonborn or halflings so there can be more of a nature vs nurture dichotomy within them. Which is fun to explore.
But creating say.. a lizardfolk raised by dragonborn that's completely integrated with dragonborn society, and is largely just seen as a green dragonborn even by themselves with a bite over a breath weapon.. why not just play a green dragonborn? Like its a cute quirk but it'll almost never come up in game if there's no actual interaction between what they are and who they are. Weather its internal, their nature at odds with their nurture, or external, their peers ensuring their difference is noted and them being stereotyped because of it. (Hell tiefling lore is literally entirely about this.)
We like to use our logic that an african baby adopted and raised by a well off american wont have the same cultural drives, but theres also even then some element of nature, like a genetic memory and peer reaction, together likely to make the child aware and curious of their "homeland" like any adopted kid and their birth parents. But this is us also as humans discussing humans, a goblin isnt human, its specifically stressed that other races have notably less diverse cultural and natural tendancies.
goblins were specifically bred by hobgoblins to be vicious little grunts to bully into service, small breeds of dog have a viscous streak because of fear-aggression, their small size makes them vulnerable and afraid, so they get defensive. Even ones raised in a safe space have the instinct. Goblin lore is literally described in a similar vein.
That said, there's a lot of room to play within these racial archetypes, like sure, your goblin is more nervous and high strung than a gnome, how do they deal with it? Drink? Tai chi? Tea ceremonies? Smoking? Pour that nervous energy into their work and be a nervous rambler? Just let the stress build until they have a minor breakdown, go feral and eat the barbarians boots?
For example, my goliath war domain cleric. She's a big strong muscle mommy because the description of goliaths state in two places that goliaths are really damn big and strong. But shes also a cleric without a deity, as goliath lore has them adhere to an animistic faith. And being nomadic tribes, goliaths dont have much great centers of learning, nor are they inclined to study the culture of other races. So she has a lower int and few knowledge proficiencies, Shes also a supportive and protective, fiercely loyal, and keen to prove herself and earn her keep, and likes to take watch over the party when they rest. She finds the party feytouched goblin artificer utterly adorable and gives her shoulder rides regularly.
Playing with type, or playing against type both need a type to exist
Some players pick races because their characters just aren't that complex, and having an archetypal race gives them a sense of validation in being that, many players roll human fighters that borrow heavily from all the grizzled middle aged 'guy with sword' with a gritty/tragic/dark background archetype as well.
The pattern I've noticed is more new players tend to play a more simple character, because its familiar ground in a new game, and you cant be 'wrong' if it's in the book. The mid level players get buck wild, experienced enough to really swim in their creativity. (Admittedly some people are more creative than others. I wish i had come up with some of the ideas I've seen) and then the grizzled veterans tend to settle back to basics making more layered creative characters that dont seem like much up front (an offhand example being like percy de rolo of critical role, standard vengeful human fighter former noble, but the character wins in the subtlety, percy having panic attacks after tense moments like playing hardball with a dragon, etc) and even the Outlandish ideas they make having more depth to them. (Such as CR's Ashton, being a punky genasi, with magic infused glass infused in their body after a near fatal accident giving them powers, but also chronic pain and that part not really coming up till 30+ sessions in) or making really basic characters because its simply less work and dnd is a game we play for fun, not a creative writing course where we have to bring our A game every day, and letting your mind relax playing a basic ass dude while you roll some dice and eat pizza with your buddies can be exactly what you need for your mental health
I've heard this from friends at other tables, but have never actually experienced it.
At tables I've been at human characters often fall into Anime-Main-Character guy syndrome and don't define themselves very well, and when they do they've typically done the same as "Oi everyone! Im the DWARFIEST DWARF IN DWARBERG!" but with their class. "IM THE ROGUIEST ROGUE IN ROGUETOWN!" has largely been my experience with humans
BUT lots of my friends express counter opinions so I suspect it may boil down to some of the human players I play with. (Though the friends who talk about how great humans are tend to also go on about how they hate how many player choices there are in general too)
I'd say every archtype feels more fleshed out at tables I play at when there's more than one person. If there's 2 or more Halflings/Dwarves/Gnomes then suddenly the little traits that differentiate the characters become leaned on more for roleplay.
Uhh, no, you're oversimplifying things. The word "barbarian" is not, in itself, a stereotype
Really? Hm, maybe you're right. Here's what I think: When I say barbarian, the first thing that pops into your (or anyone's, really) brain .... is Conan. Stereotype. Conan basically coined the word, and barbarians are just various Conans.
But yes, I'm picking something apart to make a point. It may not be 100% accurate or fair, but the point is there: Without stereotypes, there's no D&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
This has not been my experience as player or DM, characters wether PC or NPC i found usually get as much detailed backstories regardless of their race.
In two groups I follow consistently, the characters' ethnicities are auxiliary settings to backstory hooks. For each, one could change their origin and still have the same backstory.
For the groups I ran with, it felt to me like we created a backstory first, and then we chose bonuses for mechanical playstyles (which is much less of a thing since TCoE). It seemed to me that we'd create a setting for the backstories from that, but the backstories worked with any setting.
In the past, that might have created playstyles linked to specific bonuses from specific ancestries which could create stereotypical character playstyles, but the backstories seemed less restricted to either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You both bring up good points. Everyone in my group started playing RPGs with 5e, save for one who started at 4e (gasp). So we generally don't have that much experience with roleplaying or improv.
But why should a dwarf or an elf have more of a base identity than a human? In most worlds, humans live alongside elves and halflings; there isn't much distinction between humans and fantastical races.
[REDACTED]
Players make ‘less interesting’ nonhuman characters because that is what players want when they play nonhuman characters. How often have people on this forum complained about loosening restrictions on species in chargen with the refrain “you’re just making everybody humans in hats!”? To a large number of D&D players – especially older ones – the tired old “dwarves are miners who drink ale and brag”, “elves are hippies who live in trees and turn their noses up at everything” and similar archetypes are not tired, overplayed, and annoying stereotypes. They’re celebrated building blocks of the fantasy genre and D&D in particular. People want every dwarf to be Dwarfy, every elf to be Elfy, every orc to be Orcy, so on and so forth.
Those expectations are baked deep into the cultural zeitgeist surrounding the game, to the point where brazenly defying them is frankly almost as overplayed and tropey as hewing to them. The standard deconstructions of those tired archetypes are almost as common as the archetypes themselves. The people who cleave to the idea that form does not decide function one-to-one but who acknowledge that form will influence function, i.e. “I am an orc, that is part of who I am, but it isn’t all of who I am”, are drowned out in the cracks. Not to mention actively opposed by old-guard traditionalists who see that sort of flexibility as the defining trait of humanity and humanity alone and hate the idea that ALL sapient species are people and not simply endless carbon copies of The Platonic Ideal of [Critter].
Or, to put it simply: try to play a nonhuman character with the same depth, nuance, and *character* to it as a human character and you get accused of playing a human in a hat. Play to the tropes each nonhuman species is known for, and you get accused of playing a flat, boring cardboard cutout instead of a character. You just can’t win, outside of never playing anything but humans.
Please do not contact or message me.
Kinda the same reason that, in many "modern" hollywood scripts, white people get depth of character while other ethnicities are portrayed as stereotypes. The "default" choice has variety (and can "go with anything"), whereas the "others" have types to play to.
Lots of people try not to play into those tropes, but when the PHB describes humans with "With their penchant for migration and conquest, humans are more physically diverse than other common races. There is no typical human." and "Humans are the most adaptable and ambitious people among the common races. They have widely varying tastes, morals, and customs in the many different lands where they have settled." it's hard to avoid. All the other
racesspecies are defined as narrow in comparison.IMHO I do think of humans requiring some level of creativity, although the presence of archetypes given with classes and backgrounds definitely leads to the slippery 2D-character pitfall.
non-human races have a concept or archetype built into them which for a lot of players is the core from which the rest of the character is built. With humans, that core needs to be constructed. Which, depending on if the player decides on the class and background before or after writing their backstory, determines the archetype they might use.
as Caerwyn put it, it’s a good idea to shed off these archetypes that other races have stuck to them so player will be more encouraged to create their own cores to work from. But as I’ve seen with most players and also myself, outgrowing the reliance on a character’s race for their personality is a pretty integral step for a character writer.
I think ... we play stereotypes. And even when we don't, we're just deliberately breaking stereotypes, so we're making 'a well-read, educated barbarian - with glasses ... ooh, look at me!'
I saw a thread elsewhere about reinventing dwarves to not have scottish accents. Which, by the way, I think should be dialects? Anyways, if that's your big change, don't even bother. It doesn't matter how they sound, it's irrelevant, it's just part of the flavor we've assigned to them. And sure, you can swap it around any way you want, have dem speek wit a german accent, if you like, or as posh upper class London snobs. But you're just switching one stereotype for another.
We cannot escape the stereotypes. We're not (generally speaking at least) literary geniuses, who can invent entire cultures - from scratch, with no inspiration.
Learn to love and embrace your stereotypes, and have fun with them. Sneaky goblins, strong goliaths, weirdly fuzzy humans, all of them.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
There are, in fact, more than just those two options. Reflavoring class and
racespecies features goes a long way there -- I'm currently playing a zealot barbarian in a Spelljammer campaign whose "rage" is just hyperfocus because he's so committed to the cause of freeing the enslaved. He's neither a big brawny grrr guy (It's a DEX build MC'ed with swashbuckler) nor particularly eruditeActive characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Obviously. But:
You're shifting around some factors for others, but you're not breaking the mold. And you shouldn't expect to, or feel bad about it, because ... we're not literary geniuses, we're just playing a game. It's not our job to invent totally new cultures or stories or whatever - it's our job to play around with stereotypes and have fun.
Strip away the stereotypes, and there's no game left.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Uhh, no, you're oversimplifying things. The word "barbarian" is not, in itself, a stereotype
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Ultimately people should just play what they want for their character. If they want to play to type they can, if they want to defy the norms go for it, but there is also a middle ground.
Fleshing out a dwarf's personality and motivation etc to make an interesting character doesn't mean they have to buck all the cultural norms of dwarves. You can take a dwarf that likes his ale and axes and smithing etc while still fleshing out their personality, their view points etc. You could have a full party of dwarves who all appreciate their own culture but have different personalities, personal goals, opinions about things etc.
If someone just wants to play 'a dwarf' that's fine, but it also isn't a binary between 'make shallow character' or 'buck all tradition.'
Of course. But you know, and I know, and everybody here knows, that the Internet will strip all that away and reduce all dwarven characters to one of two states: "Dwarfy", i.e. an overexaggerated caricature of all things stereotropeically Dwarf, or 'Not Dwarfy' i.e. an equally overexaggerated caricature of the exact opposite of all things stereotropically Dwarf. It's the reason threads like this exist - nuance doesn't exist on the Internet, the stories that fandoms and subcultures propagate are all the most outlandish shit possible. Is it possible to play a nuanced, in-the-middle character that acknowledges their stereotropeical culture whilst being their own distinct person? Of course, but nobody wants to hear about it. They want to hear about Aleson Beardcleaver, dwarven champion of the Drunkenaxe Clan, or about his cousin Ser Perindus McTomesby the snooty teetotaller dwarven wizard. Nobody tells stories about Johann Helm, ordinary dwarven warrior with actual real-person expressions, emotions, and opinions.
Please do not contact or message me.
I think this effect can go the other way as well. When another player or GM is categorizing one players character, “human” is less likely to be one of the “keyword” than other races, so a human might come off as more nuanced because because they’re judged more nuancedly.
Just realised there's two "interesting"-s in the title. Crap.
[REDACTED]
I had a really nice tiefling wizard character who was basically a sad fellow inside who wanted family back from the dead &did not want to lose who they were inside to achieve this goal simple with a great personality was a bit of a kid ect and the campaign I played them in the dm disregarded everything so it did not matter what I wrote. A character doesn't need to be human to be interesting if humans are the most interesting characters at the table it's depressing.
Human backstories are more interesting, to make up for how bland your Human Fighter named Bob Johnson, who worked as an Accountant at H&R Block for the last seven years, and whose wife is constantly nagging him to ask his boss for a raise, can appear, in comparison to Armand Hamar, a Tortle Battlesmith that specializes in thrown weaponry, whose Steel Defender is a Soviet Tortle named SIK-L Hamar, thus making them the Brothers Hamar.
For those curious, the battle between the Brothers Hamar and the Brothers Marius is a blood-soaked and savage one. Wa-HOO!
Whoops, forgot to quote.
This, all of this.
I like playing races a bit more 'stereotypically' because usually im interested in what that race has as their established lore, their physical traits, etc. Sometimes I'll play against type like having a gnomish barbarian being a maniac with impulse control issues. Or a goblin wizard being gentle and shy nerdy poet
The trick with these stereotypes are that they exist for a reason. Kobolds arent just off kilter and mischievous because its funny, they have a full blown culture and survival method based on that. Now sure you can have a kobold who was raised by dragonborn or halflings so there can be more of a nature vs nurture dichotomy within them. Which is fun to explore.
But creating say.. a lizardfolk raised by dragonborn that's completely integrated with dragonborn society, and is largely just seen as a green dragonborn even by themselves with a bite over a breath weapon.. why not just play a green dragonborn? Like its a cute quirk but it'll almost never come up in game if there's no actual interaction between what they are and who they are. Weather its internal, their nature at odds with their nurture, or external, their peers ensuring their difference is noted and them being stereotyped because of it. (Hell tiefling lore is literally entirely about this.)
We like to use our logic that an african baby adopted and raised by a well off american wont have the same cultural drives, but theres also even then some element of nature, like a genetic memory and peer reaction, together likely to make the child aware and curious of their "homeland" like any adopted kid and their birth parents. But this is us also as humans discussing humans, a goblin isnt human, its specifically stressed that other races have notably less diverse cultural and natural tendancies.
goblins were specifically bred by hobgoblins to be vicious little grunts to bully into service, small breeds of dog have a viscous streak because of fear-aggression, their small size makes them vulnerable and afraid, so they get defensive. Even ones raised in a safe space have the instinct. Goblin lore is literally described in a similar vein.
That said, there's a lot of room to play within these racial archetypes, like sure, your goblin is more nervous and high strung than a gnome, how do they deal with it? Drink? Tai chi? Tea ceremonies? Smoking? Pour that nervous energy into their work and be a nervous rambler? Just let the stress build until they have a minor breakdown, go feral and eat the barbarians boots?
For example, my goliath war domain cleric. She's a big strong muscle mommy because the description of goliaths state in two places that goliaths are really damn big and strong. But shes also a cleric without a deity, as goliath lore has them adhere to an animistic faith. And being nomadic tribes, goliaths dont have much great centers of learning, nor are they inclined to study the culture of other races. So she has a lower int and few knowledge proficiencies, Shes also a supportive and protective, fiercely loyal, and keen to prove herself and earn her keep, and likes to take watch over the party when they rest. She finds the party feytouched goblin artificer utterly adorable and gives her shoulder rides regularly.
Playing with type, or playing against type both need a type to exist
Some players pick races because their characters just aren't that complex, and having an archetypal race gives them a sense of validation in being that, many players roll human fighters that borrow heavily from all the grizzled middle aged 'guy with sword' with a gritty/tragic/dark background archetype as well.
The pattern I've noticed is more new players tend to play a more simple character, because its familiar ground in a new game, and you cant be 'wrong' if it's in the book. The mid level players get buck wild, experienced enough to really swim in their creativity. (Admittedly some people are more creative than others. I wish i had come up with some of the ideas I've seen) and then the grizzled veterans tend to settle back to basics making more layered creative characters that dont seem like much up front (an offhand example being like percy de rolo of critical role, standard vengeful human fighter former noble, but the character wins in the subtlety, percy having panic attacks after tense moments like playing hardball with a dragon, etc) and even the Outlandish ideas they make having more depth to them. (Such as CR's Ashton, being a punky genasi, with magic infused glass infused in their body after a near fatal accident giving them powers, but also chronic pain and that part not really coming up till 30+ sessions in) or making really basic characters because its simply less work and dnd is a game we play for fun, not a creative writing course where we have to bring our A game every day, and letting your mind relax playing a basic ass dude while you roll some dice and eat pizza with your buddies can be exactly what you need for your mental health
I've heard this from friends at other tables, but have never actually experienced it.
At tables I've been at human characters often fall into Anime-Main-Character guy syndrome and don't define themselves very well, and when they do they've typically done the same as "Oi everyone! Im the DWARFIEST DWARF IN DWARBERG!" but with their class. "IM THE ROGUIEST ROGUE IN ROGUETOWN!" has largely been my experience with humans
BUT lots of my friends express counter opinions so I suspect it may boil down to some of the human players I play with. (Though the friends who talk about how great humans are tend to also go on about how they hate how many player choices there are in general too)
I'd say every archtype feels more fleshed out at tables I play at when there's more than one person. If there's 2 or more Halflings/Dwarves/Gnomes then suddenly the little traits that differentiate the characters become leaned on more for roleplay.
Really? Hm, maybe you're right. Here's what I think: When I say barbarian, the first thing that pops into your (or anyone's, really) brain .... is Conan. Stereotype. Conan basically coined the word, and barbarians are just various Conans.
But yes, I'm picking something apart to make a point. It may not be 100% accurate or fair, but the point is there: Without stereotypes, there's no D&D.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
This has not been my experience as player or DM, characters wether PC or NPC i found usually get as much detailed backstories regardless of their race.
In two groups I follow consistently, the characters' ethnicities are auxiliary settings to backstory hooks. For each, one could change their origin and still have the same backstory.
For the groups I ran with, it felt to me like we created a backstory first, and then we chose bonuses for mechanical playstyles (which is much less of a thing since TCoE). It seemed to me that we'd create a setting for the backstories from that, but the backstories worked with any setting.
In the past, that might have created playstyles linked to specific bonuses from specific ancestries which could create stereotypical character playstyles, but the backstories seemed less restricted to either.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.