How popular are "beast" races in DND?

Simple enough question; I was wanting to make a beast character for an upcoming campaign with some friends of mine, as well as a public match next year. Was curious how popular the different types of animalfolk were with DND players in general; I know that flying races are often banned outright, Dragonborn are fairly popular in most circles, and that the Tabaxi have a bit of an... odd reputation, but what about the other races, like Lizardfolk, Kenku (since they got rid of the "mimicry" restriction), Leonin, Harengon, or even the Lupin race from the recent Ravenloft book? All I've heard about most of the beast races is that they get banned for various reasons, but what's the general consensus with the community?

I have a friend that I had to stop playing while he DMs because he bans ALL "exotic species" because he feels that if the entire party is made up of non-humans, it doesn't seem to make them seem like exotic species as much as common. 

I am of such a different school of thought that I chose to just stop playing in his games. Nothing is coming between me and my tieflings! 

For my part, I love seeing other species. I am not super keen on people using their species as an excuse to be disruptive, but that is taken care of in session zero if people are having open and honest conversations on needs, wants, boundaries, and expectations. 

I've been playing since 1978 or so and I've never played one.  I've only seen one played in our 5th edition group (some of those same guys from '78, some newer) a few times.  One Tortle, a Leonin, a couple Dragonborn, a Lizardman, a Tabaxi, a Harengon and one Kenku.  So out of over 70 characters created for a dozen campaigns maybe one out of ten.  

However, we prefer a more classic feel to our game.  

Another note, only two of our players really leaned into the role-playing aspects of their chosen species.

Different strokes for different folks, as long as fun is had it's all good!

Anecdotally, I see them pretty regularly. Probably have 1 in most parties, sometimes more. But then in both the games I play in and run, we have pretty kitchen-sink style settings and mixed species nations are the rule rather than the exception.

 
I doubt you’ll find any real consensus. It’s a very, very common thing to ban stuff, but I find it’s also pretty common to just let people go nuts. It all comes down to the DM.

My first campaign had a Tortle. My first one-shot i sat in on had a Haregon. The first campaign I watched online had a Shifter if that counts. My first campaign as a DM has a Dragonborn.

So far I’ve only played a Tiefling, Verdan and Variant Feral Tiefling based on my minis. I do have a Werewolf mini I was thinking about using for a Druid, but it seems too complicated.

I mostly chose my race/species because of World of Warcraft, so I wanted my main Goblin through Verdan, but I’ve also used Tauren (Bull people) and Worgen (Shifters). It just depends on either the minis I have or strategy first and coming up with a story later for me.

Interesting to see everyone else's experiences so far; me, I've seen a few campaigns with a few beastfolk.  My main group had a Tabaxi necromancer at one point, and I think an upcoming one has both the felines and a Dragonborn. Ran a previous duo game as a Tiefling with a Dragonborn as my party member as well; was a good time, really. Was considering running a beast for the upcoming campaign as well, though I'm not sure on the pick; still doing my research.  

Anyone else got any fun stories?

I like them but I've had a lot of boring GMs (and boring players when I GM) who never want anything that wasn't a Tolkien protagonist.

My current campaign I'm running has the entire party playing "beast" races... except for 1 who is still kind of playing one. But it's a homebrew setting where the more traditional non-beast species just aren't a thing.

Rogue Possumkin (Homebrew Possum Species)

Paladin Jerbeen (Mouse people from Humblerwood books)

Barbarian Badgerfolk (Homebrew Badger race)

Warlock Opteran (Silkworm/Moth people from Heliana's)

Bard Giff (Hippo people from Spelljammer's)

Wizard Mycelian (Corpse Puppeting Mushroom race from Heliana's)

We're having a great time with it. The possum player has a bag of holding they're keeping in their pouch. The Giff Bard got a curse that turned his head into a raccoon head so he wears a bucket over his head to hide how hideous he is. The Opteran is currently suffering from Lycanthropy and became a Werejaguar (Weretiger stats) so he's technically a humanoid silkworm partially transformed in to a jaguar. The Wizard is a sentient mushroom colony piloting the corpse of a minotaur. The barbarian badger goes nuts every fight because he has a cursed axe he wont get rid of that makes possibly lose control when he takes damage. And the poor Jerbeen Paladin is trying to herd them all.

Quote from Scholar101 >>

Simple enough question; I was wanting to make a beast character for an upcoming campaign with some friends of mine, as well as a public match next year. Was curious how popular the different types of animalfolk were with DND players in general; I know that flying races are often banned outright, Dragonborn are fairly popular in most circles, and that the Tabaxi have a bit of an... odd reputation, but what about the other races, like Lizardfolk, Kenku (since they got rid of the "mimicry" restriction), Leonin, Harengon, or even the Lupin race from the recent Ravenloft book? All I've heard about most of the beast races is that they get banned for various reasons, but what's the general consensus with the community?

a few things, play what you want within the rules set by the group or DM. Do not conform to what is "popular". Because most people choose the boring option, ie a Human Fighter named Bob is by far the most common DnD character here on DnDB.  There has been posts made by the dev team on it in the past. 

Create a character that make you happy to play. 

Quote from Erik_Soong >>

I have a friend that I had to stop playing while he DMs because he bans ALL "exotic species" because he feels that if the entire party is made up of non-humans, it doesn't seem to make them seem like exotic species as much as common. 

I hate DMs that do this, the Player Characters are the exception to the rules already, and if everyone picks an exotic species to play that's fine, this can be included into the campaign as flavor RP. 

The most fun as a DM I've ever had was a planscape campaign where my players were all small cute monster species. Kobold -Warlock, Owlkin - Barbarian, and an extra small Hadozee ranger. The only character without a negative int was the owlkin barbarian. Which just made the antics hilarious. 

Picture from my campaign list. 

Quote from Scholar101 >>

...and that the Tabaxi have a bit of an... odd reputation...

 Wait, what? What is the reputation? 

As for the question: I'm almost always the DM, but as a player I have played a Tabaxi rogue which was a lot of fun. In one of the campaigns I run I had a PC Kenku, and in another I had a PC harengon and tortle. I never ban any species for PCs at my table. Any official species we have access to is fair game. 

The thing to do is talk to your DM about what species exist in the world. Lots of the time, it'll be anything goes, but if they're doing tighter worldbuilding, there's probably not room for everything. (In my current spelljammer game, I allowed anything, because it's a big universe. In my next game, which is set in a specific environment, it's likely going to be halfling, human, tiefling, dwarf, sea elf, or crab person, because that's how many niches exist.)

As for popularity, the tolkien/PHB species are by far the most popular, but so what? All that really matters is what your DM allows, and, even if they want a limited selection, that doesn't mean the one you want to play can't be one of them. 

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

I like them but I've had a lot of boring GMs (and boring players when I GM) who never want anything that wasn't a Tolkien protagonist.

 I've seen a few groups get outright hostile to anything non-Tolkein; dealt with a couple of players a while back that demanded that anything non-human be an easily killable strawman, than no race should ever have a stat stronger than humanity, couple of guys bragged that they tried to ruin any non-human players they find, etc. Real toxic behavior.

I've seen some grumbling here and there about tabaxi characters often being a bit too chaotic for some tables; others sometimes ***** about furries. They're a good race, they just have a reputation for attracting chaotic neutral players.

Quote from Scholar101 >>

I've seen some grumbling here and there about tabaxi characters often being a bit too chaotic for some tables; others sometimes ***** about furries. They're a good race, they just have a reputation for attracting chaotic neutral players.

 Oh, I hadn't heard any of that. Interesting. 

The short answer is:  Different tables have different rules.

The long answer is:  First, it depends on whether you're playing a private game among friends or a league game at like a tournament or something. A game at a tournament or a convention will typically limit the species, class, and equipment options available simply to allow for faster prep and to ensure a greater degree of fairness among a large number of people who are essentially little more than total strangers. But when it comes to a private game among friends, the only restriction should be your imagination. Of course, the DM may offer suggestions, sometimes even strenuous suggestions, that certain species may encounter more rigorous opposition from certain societies in the game-world, or that certain classes or subclasses may not fit the theme of the game they had planned. For example, if the DM has planned an adventure where the bad guys are a bunch of gnoll warbands attacking innocent villages, then maybe playing a gnoll character could be a hindrance. Or maybe the DM has planned a fun, light-hearted adventure, so maybe the Dhampir Vengeance Paladin might not be a great fit for that theme. 

Some of us old folks remember the early versions of the game where humans were granted special advancement opportunities that other species were denied. That was partly because the handful of guys who designed this game in a basement in suburban Wisconsin didn't necessarily have the most enlightened opinions about people. So some of the folks who grew up thinking humans were "better" or that humans deserved to be the default setting, may continue to assert those claims. Personally, I think that's pure baloney. Humans are just one species in a world of wondrous variety. There is no inherent reason to support any claim that humans could stand out, or even that they should. When I started playing back in 1981, groups were a fairly even mix of human, dwarf, and elf. But that was a very early version of the game that offered far fewer options than we have today, and we had all grown up on J.R.R. Tolkien. Within the last decade, I've played a number of adventures and humans have been few and far between. The last big campaign I ran had two halflings, a dwarf, an elf, a tiefling, and a harengon. Heck, I once ran a one-shot where the players played cryptids! (Bigfoot, Mothman, Chupacabra, Wendigo, and a witch). It was a blast! 

Bottom line is this:  This is a fantasy game set in an imaginary world. Have fun with it. Be whoever you want to be. And if the DM at your table tries to stifle your imagination, don't find a new character to play... find a new DM.