On the Analysis of Useless Race Data

So the polls are closed, and weirdness.

First Poll: 165 responses

Second Poll: 97 responses

What happened to 68 people between the first and the second!

Ok, so Does your DM allow non-standard races?

I/we only allow humans
  13 (7%)
I/we only allow humans, elves, and dwarves
  18 (10%)
I/we allow all 3.x core races (Human, dwarf, elf, gnome, half-orc, halfling)
  42 (25%)
I/we allow all 4.x core races (dragon people)
  8 (4%)
I/we allow weirdness (Warforged, kobolds, changings etc.)
  84 (50%)

So loyal readers, lets look at what this doesn't tell us. It looks like nearly half of everyone is playing with a non-standard race, with a full quarter running the standard 3.x suite of races. A handful of people play 4e (Isn't that the truth!) and the remaining votes go to either human only, or basic old school campaign race selection.

Which of the following types of games is preferred?
Humans only
  25 (25%)
Core races (human/elf/dwarf) only
  22 (22%)
Standard AD&D/3e/4e races only
  17 (17%)
Anything goes!
  33 (34%)

What's really interesting with this last poll, is in contrast to the other useless data, this useless data doesn't tell us that the preferred type of game is nearly an even split. Slightly more people prefer anything goes, but it is a quarter want human only, and a quarter want core races only.

Well I hope everyone didn't learn anything today and I look forward to talking about more exciting stuff tomorrow!


  1. Well, that's not strictly true, as 4e has plenty of weird races. So, I voted for "Weirdness". I thought this was a poll in good faith.

  2. I'm glad you avoided drawing any conclusions here, because as you said, this is pretty useless data.

    For myself, I prefer games which use restrictions sparingly. If somebody wants to run a human only campaign, if they've got a good reason, then I'm up for it. (I'm planning a human only campaign myself at some point in the future.)

    But my current game allows anything. I've got a Gnoll and a Kobold, along with a number of humans. The racial tensions between the Gnoll and the Wood Elf have been really fun. Their players even came up with some racial slurrs to throw around.

  3. I'm one of those contributing to the uselessness. I'm currently playing in a PF game that allows weirdness, although the only player who carried through with his idea to run a weird character is running a Warforged. Kobolds and Stonegrunts were thrown out as ideas by other players in the beginning.

    But at heart, I like to stick to the classic set of Human/Elf/Dwarf/Halfling, sometimes with Gnomes, Half-Elves and Half-Orcs thrown in.

  4. I've been meaning to ask for awhile, -C, and this seems like a good time.

    How do you reconcile your philosophy of "Never say no to players" with your preference for race restriction?

    1. I don't really - I've let them play whatever race they want. I think it's stupid really. I mostly play humans with an occasional dwarf.

      It's just that - I'd prefer to restrict races, but I don't because I don't like saying no to PC's.

  5. My game started all human. DM rule, I wanted a human centric game. Fortunately, D&D happened and the humans died, so in came Murray the dwarf (who got eaten by a cave bear), Shertwek the kobold shield carrier (who got eaten by zombies), Kolothos the elf (a pole-arm wielding keebler lookalike who retired to a life of leisure after his butler got skewered by skeletons), and now we have... umm, 4 humans, a 7th level goblin magic-user (long story) and a 6th level kobold who started as the torch bearer and now wields a +2 battle axe and one of the fiercest fighters I've ever dm'd.

    But we started all human. (I play the basic version of Labyrinth Lord with some (needed, now) houserules)


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...