I'm returning to DR after a long, long hiatus and starting to sort out the type of character I want to roll up first. I've always been interested in how different online games incorporate real world cultures into their races, and the willingness or un-willingness of players to play non-human characters.

Looking at some of the Census data on players (https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Census) I noticed that Humans, Elves, and Elotheans (the half-elf-ish race) are the top three picks and have been for a long, long time.

Do folks think this is a reflection of people not wanting to RP too far out of their own background or out of a desire to not have a distorted impact on their attributes (for humans) or desire to max-out intellectual attributes for magic characters(for elotheans).

I used to play a Rakash but felt that even when the Rakash village came out, there was far more in-game support for other races and that the Rakash got the short end of the stick.

But I've always been surprised that there are, relatively, so few characters outside of the main three.

Elotheans are the best for minmaxing next to Gnomes.

That probably influences a fair number of people.

---

Thayet
Follow @thayelf on Twitter for absolutely nothing of any value whatsoever!

>>Thetechnocracy: Do folks think this is a reflection of people not wanting to RP too far out of their own background or out of a desire to not have a distorted impact on their attributes (for humans) or desire to max-out intellectual attributes for magic characters(for elotheans).

Mechanical considerations are the dominant factor for a lot of people. (In fact, for some people, racial stat bonuses are so important that when 3.0 "threatened" to fix stats that weren't scaling properly, some players demanded a racial respec.) https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Post:New_TDP_Method_-_10/05/2012_-_04:46

I think one of the main reasons people choose to roll human characters is that their stat neutrality is seen as highly desirable. This is especially true of guilds that don't have one or more clear "dump" stats that players feel like they can safely ignore.

Mechanical issues aside, I don't necessarily believe that the choice of race is a good reflection of how much players truly desire to get away from the familiar. A character's appearance is superficial; what defines him are his personality, philosophy, and background. Many people play exotic-looking races with personalities like their own. And there are others whose portrayal of humanity seems alien.


>>Thetechnocracy: I wonder if this explains why some of the more "classic" fantasy races like Halflings and Dwarves aren't really that much more popular than the really, distinctly non-human races. If you're not going with one of the big three, you're no more likely to go with the usual fantasy trope over something more unique.

Well, if you are the kind of person who subconsciously wants to create an idealized fantasy alter-ego, you will probably choose a race that at least looks human, preferably one that is attractive. Not too many people fantasize about being short and hairy.

I think that female players (or players of female characters) seem less interested than their male counterparts in playing races that are physically unattractive. Gor'Tog and Dwarf characters are overwhelmingly male, and S'Kra Mur tend to be male as well.

---

Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall rank!

Vote for DragonRealms on Top MUD Sites: http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html

>>For Elotheans, is notable that Elotheans and Gnomes are the only races with int/wis bonuses, and Gnomes are pretty far from Human.

Yeah, it's pretty noticeable that there are only two with intelligence and/or wisdom bonuses, which I'd think would make them more popular. Has a GM ever explained why with so many races there aren't more that excel mentally?

Strength gets three, Reflexes seven (!), Agility three, Charisma three, and Stamina four. Only Discipline stands out (the other mental attribute) at only two.

>>S'kra were originally a smart race. I'm not sure why they were changed.

You mean how they are portrayed in game lore, or actual attribute bonuses? I can see parts of the former, but I didn't think the latter was true.

>>S'kra were originally a smart race. I'm not sure why they were changed.

Poor breeding.

>>Mentals are incredibly powerful stats to the point that I actually wish no races got bonuses to mentals because of how objectively better it is to have high mentals vs anything else.

I can see this, but even if you're just trying for no mental disadvantage, you only have Humans, Dwarves, Gnomes, and Elotheans. Even Elves have a disadvantage to Discipline (but maybe that doesn't matter much). Couldn't there at least be more races that just have a balance of pro's and con's between speed and muscle (Reflex/Agility versus Stamina/Strength)?

If there a functional difference in how the math would work for an Elothean vs. Gnome; would the math favor the cost advantage of cheaper Wisdom and Intelligence over much cheaper Intelligence?

>> If there a functional difference in how the math would work for an Elothean vs. Gnome; would the math favor the cost advantage of cheaper Wisdom and Intelligence over much cheaper Intelligence?

Mentals have changed since the last time somebody worked this out, but Gnomes had a definite edge back then IIRC.

>> I don't think mentals mean what they used too. They aren't as great anymore also endgame is closer out the gate.

They aren't as powerful as they used to be but I imagine if you did the math you'd probably be looking at shaving off quite a lot of time from 1-100 with a setup that heavily favors mental stats versus any other.

I'd love to see the math done on it but I doubt anybody has enough numbers to do it.

---

Thayet
Follow @thayelf on Twitter for absolutely nothing of any value whatsoever!

>>Mentals have changed since the last time somebody worked this out, but Gnomes had a definite edge back then IIRC.

I can see an importance in mentals for pure advancement, but curious about the idea that skill pool size versus skill pool draining would have an edge to Gnomes. Your pool size is impacted by one attribute, drainage by another. If you're able to speed down the Intelligence ladder faster, does the advantage just come from the fact that you have a bigger pool to fill and it doesn't matter how fast you drain, you can always just log out for the night and keep playing later? I could see that helping since you're limited by whatever your human (OOC) abilities are to play.

While I'm thinking about it, I do want to challenge the notion that people who play Humans do it because they don't want to stray too far from themselves. I play a black/mixed race transgender woman orphaned at a young age that has spent most of her life being various degrees of homeless felon and presently talks to plants and cuts up dead things for a living. Just about the only thing I have in common with my character is "Human" and "woman" and I picked Human because it fit her background what I wished to convey with the character the best, not because of the proximity to myself.

I'm certain quite a few players are merely playing text-based idealized versions of themselves arrpee-wise, but I haven't actually noticed a correlation with race because I run into just as many S'Kra or Prydaen or whatever that are the same way. The popularity of Elves and Humans (and Humans playing as Half-Elves) could be just as easily explained by their prevalence and prominence in the fantasy genre in general.

---

Thayet
Follow @thayelf on Twitter for absolutely nothing of any value whatsoever!

>>I'm certain quite a few players are merely playing text-based idealized versions of themselves arrpee-wise, but I haven't actually noticed a correlation with race because I run into just as many S'Kra or Prydaen or whatever that are the same way. The popularity of Elves and Humans (and Humans playing as Half-Elves) could be just as easily explained by their prevalence and prominence in the fantasy genre in general.

Totally hear what your'e saying and I think it's a good point, people may have very complex, varied backgrounds while being Elves and Humans. But the other races that are prevalent and prominent in the fantasy genre, Dwarves and Halflings, aren't anywhere near as popular. I can't say why, I don't know what's motivating people, but it's an interesting observation.

>> While I'm thinking about it, I do want to challenge the notion that people who play Humans do it because they don't want to stray too far from themselves. I play a black/mixed race transgender woman orphaned at a young age that has spent most of her life being various degrees of homeless felon and presently talks to plants and cuts up dead things for a living. Just about the only thing I have in common with my character is "Human" and "woman" and I picked Human because it fit her background what I wished to convey with the character the best, not because of the proximity to myself.

Two things; first, I again want to point out this bad language of "want." I am not saying (can't speak for others, though) that people are making a conscious decision to play characters that are close to their actual selves, I am saying that the subconscious mind often tends toward the familiar, which may explain why the game has more Humans and Elves than Prydaen and S'Kra Mur. Second, statements of this nature aren't meant to suggest that 100% of people will follow the trend; in other words, you are an exception, and that is expected. However one data point does not refute the entire model. Challenging a general rule with a specific exemption doesn't accomplish much. I'm also not necessarily claiming an authoritative stance on the issue of causality, I'm just pointing out two things that we do know. One, there are more characters that share physical sameness with humans (Humans, Elves, Elotheans) in the game than not, and two, people tend toward the familiar. I'm suggesting that these two things might be related, and that the latter could be a causal factor for the former; more study would be needed to say so with confidence.

>> I have never encountered any lore that suggested that S'Kra and Gor'Togs are physically related. S'Kra are reptilian; Gor'Togs are not.

This is true. S'Kra Mur are no more closely related to Gor'Togs than Gor'Togs are to Humans. Which is to say there's probably a genetic ancestry somewhere that links them, but it isn't recent by any means. S'Kra Mur came from a proto-lizard, and Gor'Togs came from a proto-troll, which I have no idea how to classify from a genetics standpoint. Are they even mammals? (Trolls, I mean.)

>> In The Ways of the S'Kra Mur, the author says, "We bred [Gor'Togs] for the qualities we found most useful, which we ourselves lack: strength, endurance, and physical hardiness."

The way I've always read this was to say not that the S'Kra Mur were physiologically weak and frail, but rather that strength and endurance - despite coming naturally to them - were not prized characteristics. They had evolved to a place where they cherished intellect over brawn, however their evolutionary path had left them with this nearly vestigial natural aptitude toward physicality. Another way of saying this is that the S'Kra aren't naturally gifted with intellect, however they work very hard at it so that they can appear to be so. They're big into image, and attempting to mask their shortcomings with aloofness.

I

---

Kneebiter Zhunee just arrived.
R>
Zhunee glances around the room and says, "Someone pull my finger."
R>
Kneebiter Zhunee runs west.

On the question of what is a "baseline," if you look at all of the races together and take the fact that DR embraces the "brain versus brawn" idea, it's interesting to note that Humans wind up close to the top in terms of mental abilities just because so many others have negatives. Elotheans, Gnomes, and Dwarves are at the top. And given their relative small numbers, I think it means that for most adventurers their character is fighting an up hill battle on the mental attributes.