Quote Originally Posted by Mordar View Post
Sort of, to me. I started in about '82. Nobody chose Human for a race because we wanted to play things that were different (exception: when we wanted to be Paladins).
I remember a lot of people picking humans simply because humans didn't have class level caps and everyone else did. Even if you knew nothing about minmaxing or munchkins, etc it just looked "bad" to see Dwarf Fighter capping at 9 and Humans with that "U". The chance of actually getting to 9 was minimal but still! Of course, what happened in my neck of the woods doesn't reflect yours.

I'm kind of detached from the "But WOTC says!" part of the debate because I always made my own settings anyway and because I viewed the thread as more system agnostic. How can dwarfs be more interesting (not just in D&D 5e)? How/Can "Always Evil" (for certain definitions of always) races be justified in a game setting? WOTC is in the business of selling as many books as they can to make stockholders happy; I'm not about to view them as an absolute authority on anything, though some people are far more attached to them. And as for "Well, no one will stop you from making your own..." I mean, duh?