Dwarves aren't cool anymore

[Trask]

Anyone notice this phenomenon? I play D&D/Pathfinder with my fair share of people and I've noticed that dwarven PCs are pretty rare. As are gnomes and halflings for that matter but IME they've always been a bit rare. But dwarves, I'm used to dwarves being cool. I remember everyone wanted to have a Gimli type character and have fun with a hokey Scottish accent, cracking heads and roleplaying high functioning alcoholism, great fun.

But in recent years I find dwarves really rare. And not just rare, but an active sense of "ew, why would I ever pick that" when I bring up dwarf as a possible race for a player thinking about a character. Is that anyone else's experience?

Not a hate thread for "the young people not playing D&D my way", people can and should play what they want (even if its a horde of pink haired tieflings in tutus) but I still lament the fall from grace of this particular fantasy species in my circle of players. Dwarves are one of my favorites, and Durkon was always my favorite OotS character. My brother and I were crazy for them when we started, still one of my favorite characters I've DM'ed for is my brother's Dwarf cleric of Torag in Pathfinder 1e

Tell me if you feel this way or many other fantasy race that you feel this way about?

[Atranen]

I have seen this...rare to see a dwarf in my public AL games. My impression is that it has just had its time. Everyone knows the stereotype, and then there is not much to explore beyond that (at least, officially supported). So people are looking for something new.

[OldTrees1]

But in recent years I find dwarves really rare. And not just rare, but an active sense of "ew, why would I ever pick that" when I bring up dwarf as a possible race for a player thinking about a character. Is that anyone else's experience?

Question: Is the "ew, why?" about optimization, flavor, or some 3rd aspect (Dwarf species not living up to the fiction of a Dwarf species for example)?



I have found Dwarves rare. I went back to 3.5/3.P and mostly see a mixture of human and species ~2 steps removed from human (dragonborn, ratfolk, shifter, etc), and commonly see species 4+ steps removed from human (Illithid, Dragon).

When I was playing 5E, I rarely saw Dwarves. Personally it was because the species available were all bland (no points for guessing I played the Illithid) and thus I mostly picked them based on how they would enhance the class choices. So Dwarf was not a likely pick for me. (hence my question about what kind of "ew")



Further differentiating Dwarves from Humans might reignite some of the spark.

[Psyren]

They're not faring any better in Baldurs Gate 3 either.

If there's indeed a trend happening, I can think of a few reasons why:

Spoiler

Show

1) They've gotten a reputation for being/feeling very samey across multiple settings and even genres. (Obligatory TVTropes link.)

2) Related to #1, they're commonly picked to be the "tough guy" who is wary of magic. But now there are better "tough guy" races (e.g. Goliath, Orc, Dragonborn etc - all of which are not only much more imposing for those going for that archetype, but are going to be core this year - and depending on your campaign there will be even more, like Warforged, Minotaur, Bugbear, Earth Genasi etc.) Not only are these races more exciting narratively, almost all of them have better mechanics too.

3) Related to #2, in most editions their benefits have been saddled with drawbacks. Being ugly or uncharismatic is often forgiveable, but being slow comes up quite a lot in play, and they've been stuck with that one for decades. Being bad at magic mechanically is another, though each successive edition of D&D at least loosened that one before Tasha's finally killed it.

4) (CRPG-specific) their height difference at best makes them the butt of the joke, as weird camera angles, incredible growth spurts, or NPCs gamely leaning over are used to accommodate their puerile proportions. At worst, it can actively cause them to miss out on content - in DAI for example, Dwarf Inquisitors have the least number of romance options in the game, and no Dwarf NPCs are available for a full romance.

OneD&D is giving them a couple of cool abilities and completing the removal of their drawbacks, but I expect it'll be too little too late for their popularity until some other big CRPG or other major release has a prominent Dwarf character. that people want to emulate.

[TaiLiu]

Personally, I've never been interested in dwarves, possibly for the same reason I'm not interested in playing humans. While fun to interact with, I think dwarves are kinda boring to play. They're honor-bound stocky peoples who maybe live underground and love a good drink. All right. But those seem like boring racial traits. The most interesting aspect about them are their underground lives.

But they don't often feel of the underground. If dwarves were partly coal or earth elemental or mushroom... If they could speak to the earth or turn into stone... Then maybe I'd pick them. But in most games, those aren't traits they can draw upon.

This is just a personal response. I'm not sure why your players don't wanna dwarf it out. Maybe ask them.

[wilphe]

Playing a dwarf isn't about being cool

Playing a dwarf is about doing your duty, even if it makes you uncool.

++++++++++++

Also have to ask if dwarves were ever popular pre LOTR and this is just a reversion to the norm.

Bet if similar stats were available for BG1&2 dwarves would be near the bottom too

[Telok]

Funny, I play dwarves, gnomes, and halflings almost exclusively in fantasy games. Of course my dwarves are from DwarfFortress and only partially sane, the gnomes tend to be a bit hardcore into hot electric death or rabid giant otters or such, and the halflings act like mobsters to the point of joining or founding major criminal organizations. Although I do switch it up at times with Godfather style gnomes, Mad Max mammoth riding dwarves, or "lightning bolt solves all my problems" halflings.

My next game is looking at the PCs dealing with paper pushing ork clerks and donut addicted overweight elf rent-a-cops while hunting dire platypus on a river system infested with chainsaw-fish. I've got a dwarf cyborg haunted by a wraith, demon gnome wanna-be dragon, ork wizard/cleric famous brain surgeon, and an assimar ex-space marine with a bounty on his head.

Its probably just a swing through some people not being able to break past some stereotypes and thus avoiding the whole set of them.

[JellyPooga]

Back in the 80's, many adult gamers were hairy, leather clad bikers with blue-collar jobs like mechanics and construction workers (at least in the UK). They could identify with hairy, hard-working, hard-drinking craftsmen with a penchant for kicking evil's butt with a big ol' axe or hammer. It was a simpler time and (literally) down-to-earth was popular and relatable. Dwarves were Metal.

The modern day gamer has much more varied tastes, more varied backgrounds and has much more variety to choose from. Is it any such wonder that people are choosing any race less frequently when there's so much more to choose from? Dwarves are now just a sub-genre of Rock.

Just my observations as an armchair philosopher and long-time gamer.

[Satinavian]

I observe the same thing.

Reasons ? Well, Dwarves tend to be not very varied in depiction. For many that results in a been there- done that phenomenon. I see way more Dwarves in Shadowrun, where Dwarven culture does not exist and Dwarves are varied than in classical fantasy games where you either play an archetypical Dwarf or a subversion.

Then there is the lack of things that Dwarves actually excel in even per lore. They are generally not the greatest fighters. Sure, they are a bit sturdy, but not particularly strong and they are slow and have reach problems. They archetypically don't do magic.

The one thing they do have per lore is excellent crafting - but even here are severe problems. In most systems they don't get any mechanical benefits to crafting because mundane crafting is the same for everyone and their aversion to magic makes them even worse at crafting anything that matters.

It is also a problem that nearly all well known dwarfs in fiction are male. People preferring female PCs often don't think of dwarves.

Also have to ask if dwarves were ever popular pre LOTR and this is just a reversion to the norm.

Sure they were already popular based on the books long before the films existed.

[wilphe]

Sure, but as popular as elves?

Who were the golden child of AD&D2 in both crunch and fluff

CBoE is merely the most notorious example.

[icefractal]

I have found Dwarves rare. I went back to 3.5/3.P and mostly see a mixture of human and species ~2 steps removed from human (dragonborn, ratfolk, shifter, etc)

I realized I often do this. That is, if the character's race is supposed to be a significant part of their story / style, then I'm probably picking something farther afield than Dwarf, and/or something with more hooks to use. If it isn't, then I'm generally just going Human (in PF1, a reasonable choice for any class) for conservation of detail and since it simplifies things.

I have played several Dwarf characters, and enjoyed it fine, but it's not usually the option that comes to mind in the last few years. Partly because yeah, in a lot of settings they don't get that much characterization. And mechanically they're fairly niche, so it's unlikely to come from that direction.

[Lord Raziere]

It is also a problem that nearly all well known dwarfs in fiction are male. People preferring female PCs often don't think of dwarves.

As someone who has shifted long time ago to preferring female PCs, I can say this is true at least for me.

If I want classic femininity, go elf. You can't really go wrong with that.

If I want an amazonian strong girl, I'd go goliath or Orc/half-orc or an oni-inspired tiefling, or even bugbears! Like, nothing against dwarven women, but its hard to compete with those options, warrior wise.

and if I want small well.....don't feel like that often to be honest. but Fairy seems more like something I'd go for, but if we're talking core races, halfling or gnome is more likely, and I've already played a female goblin inventor-type of character, so crafting probably be that or a gnome.....and female halfling would actually be the better play for smol warrior, because everyone expects a dwarf to do that sort of thing, but halflings doing something brave/crazy is ironically, an expected subversion.

so dwarf women have to compete with that, life is tough for dwarf women PC-wise. like what do you even do with a dwarf PC to make them interesting?

well dwarven society is very traditional, so maybe there is some potential to be mined from that. dwarves are often relegated to just being harmless good guys, but its quite easy to observe that tradition isn't always good and that not every dwarf is going to like their society, as OOTS has demonstrated. there could be many dwarven women like hilgya fed up with tradition and intentionally going out of their way to be something different. but thats the obvious answer.

there is potential for.....a transgender dwarf. see, dwarven society can be quite rigid in its gender roles. so a transgender dwarf would probably not like it. a dwarven woman can easily be one who left to find a way to transition and live outside the strict confines of her society.

putting that aside though, there is potential in perhaps, the Ronin/Knight-Errant/Cowboy Dwarf. Dwarves are known for being very honorable and whatnot. So what if a dwarven warrior breaks some sacred rule of honor in their society that doesn't necessarily get them killed but dwarves just don't like? well they get exiled, and now that dwarf wanders having to live by their own code of honor that they make, knowing they've did a dishonor that no one other society would consider such. done right, a dwarf can be a Rurouni Kenshin/Usagi Yojimbo/Vash the Stampede like figure, riding into towns, getting tangled in local problems and their greater wisdom, good nature and tenacity solves the problem. dwarven grit and stubbornness mean they can desire peace while still being willing to kill for it- a staple of these kinds of knight-errant heroes.

paired with that, put dwarves in a warring states situation against themselves. too often a race is treated as united and without conflict, ruled by a singular king that speaks for all of them, but what if that king is dead and the dwarves haven't figured out a new successor in hundreds of years and their lords are still trying fight for power among themselves? that could lead to a few character concepts that could happen if the dwarves are just at peace mining underground without anything to bother them other than outside threats. a dwarven adventurer could be on a journey to become stronger so they can return and unite their people once more, and it makes sense for dwarven warrior traits and dwarven stubbornness to combine into fighting each other in a long drawn out conflict that doesn't really go anywhere.

another way dwarves can go is martial arts, like say, the monk. like their beards are already old wise master level to start with, they just gotta unlock their chi and they can just start spouting mystical wisdom. that and their ethic of hard work, discipline, regimented lifestyle....dwarves are very well suited to be martial artists and they'd probably get a lot of mileage out of coming up with a martial arts style to defeat foes that are taller and bigger than them. and obviously they are a shoe-in for a fantastic drunken master style, seriously how are there not entire monasteries filled with dwarves doing katas and cultivating their chi? they're practically made for martial arts stories. a dwarf going super-saiyan? sounds more plausible to me than an elf doing it. oh and need I say dwarves would love wrestling in all its forms? like if your not into anime or wuxia, make a dwarf monk and turn into them a wrestler, watch a few wrestler intros and imagine a dwarf saying them-DBZA showed the potential of this with Recoome and the same potential exists in dwarves.

finally, consider this: dwarves would make great Jojo's Bizarre Adventure protagonists, because they'd react seriously to any situation no matter how bizarre or outlandish it is. think Jotaro Kujo but shorter and with a beard. they could be THAT if you do it right.

and if Warhammer and WH40k taught me anything is that old traditional societies love their bling, so if all else fails, bling up your dwarves. give them the fanciest old european fashions you can find, decorate them head to toe in symbols, make their helms and armor both functional AND decorated works of art, overdesign it to baroque perfection, they're supposed to be master craftsmen, and if human blacksmiths didn't settle for just making functional stuff, don't let your dwarves do so either, because whats the point of being a race of master craftsmen or whatever if you can't go around showing off the bling you created with your expertise? crafting stuff ain't just for technology its for art! for looking good! swagger on in to an elven embassy looking your sunday best and watch elegant elven sensibilities cry as they behold your drip. make your hammer's head into the most intricately detailed boar head that your enemies will ever see and get killed by, find the biggest most ridiculous hat anyone will ever see, wear it and act like everyone else is crazy for not recognizing style. your a dwarf, you may be a tough, hard-working warrior but you got standards of fashion to keep, your ancestors bedecked themselves in art, so why not you?

[Satinavian]

CBoE is merely the most notorious example.

Oh yes, i hated that. Of course the authors couldn't even let the Dwarves have the crafting crown. No, Elves needed to be the best even here.

Luckily i hardly played AD&D then.

[Ignimortis]

Dwarves have never been cool.

*hides suddenly pointy ears*

But to be less facetious, it's a whole thing. IME, the only people who play dwarves are the people who play dwarves. As in, people who play dwarves prefer to play dwarves or halflings or somesuch, and people who play many different races tend to not play dwarves for one reason or another. Therefore, unless your group has a dwarf-player, you usually won't see any dwarves, and if it does, you'll see plenty.

One of my regular groups has a "dwarf fan", and another doesn't. The first one has seen several smaller characters over the last two years, the second one hasn't seen a dwarf PC in ten.

All that I know, however, is that if a game involves me in any capacity, there will be an elf. Or something elf-adjacent. My current tiefling would be unrecognizable as a tiefling to post-3e players - no horns, no hooves, no red/blue skin, etc. Just some very nasty shark teeth, inhuman eyes, sharp ears and unnatural, uncanny gauntness of figure. In short, an elf as some folk tales would paint them.

[Unoriginal]

I can"t say I've observed that.

Among the four people I regularly play with, three of them played Dwarves in recent years. and one of them has fun with Dwarf NPCs when he DMs.

In 5e discussions, Dwarves are also regularly suggested as a build option, as they have a number of nice perks. Duergar is one of the best option for a grappling build, for example, and armored Dwarf Wizard has been recognized as a nice combo since the 2014 PHB.

One of the players I mentioned above plays a chaotic evil Conquest Paladin with a marked tendency to try touching stuff to see what it does. This has resulted in some positive if weird consequences (like getting proficiency in Arcana after getting a tour of the cosmos in accelerated) and some negative if weird ones (like giving the BBEG an excuse to declare the PC broke the rules of hospitality by checking what was blocking the path by which the group entered).

[Beelzebub1111]

Dwarfs are the best! I don't know what you're on about. Whether it's the inventive smith, the death-seeking berserker, or the humble priest I rarely have a game without a dwarf of some kind.

[Grod_The_Giant]

well dwarven society is very traditional, so maybe there is some potential to be mined from that. dwarves are often relegated to just being harmless good guys, but its quite easy to observe that tradition isn't always good and that not every dwarf is going to like their society, as OOTS has demonstrated. there could be many dwarven women like hilgya fed up with tradition and intentionally going out of their way to be something different. but thats the obvious answer.

there is potential for.....a transgender dwarf. see, dwarven society can be quite rigid in its gender roles. so a transgender dwarf would probably not like it. a dwarven woman can easily be one who left to find a way to transition and live outside the strict confines of her society.

That can definitely make an interesting character.

[Xervous]

I only find myself hearing proportionally less about dwarves because they don’t fit the themes of the groups I happen across. For a happy dwarf there are many that pick halfling, for a crafty dwarf there are many that pick gnome. Elves are thought of as a broad and general package that includes a rainbow of skin tones plus your choice of world perspective.

The group that shows up with a party looking for Adventuwus in the Furgotten Realms is probably not seeking a game that meshes well with dwarves. Dwarves are a subtle flavoring in an era where most dishes are oversaturated with sugar or spice.

[Kane0]

If they were say one of six options in the past, you'd expect to see roughly one in every party or so.
Nowadays you may well have double or triple that number so you'd expect to see them proportionally less, all options being roughly equal.
Then factor in other stuff like being a largely unchanged option for decades tends to stagnate the experience so those that have made a stereotypical dwarf will have moved on to playing other characters years ago. Or that traditional thematic or mechanical dwarf niches are now being shared with other choices.

There will always be the diehards, my group has a serial dwarf fighter player even, but yeah it's not just you.

[NichG]

I guess I'd tend to consider dwarves more pridefully obsessive than honor-bound exactly? Like, the sort of person who will spend 150 years finding the exact amount of air exposure, initial water temperature, angle of the container, heat capacity and conductivity of the materials, shape of the glass, etc to make the perfect cup of coffee. Not quite the same as Krynnish tinker gnome life quests (where it seems to be more 'we as a culture need these because we get so easily distracted by the latest cool thing that we wouldn't ever finish anything without this' to me), more in the consummate craftsman's pride kind of sense. The strong sense of tradition comes from that gradual process of refinement - no one is just calculating the perfect hammer blow angle from first principles, they're spending four centuries trying very small variations, passing those on to their apprentices, who spend another four centuries trying very small variations, and so on, until it reaches a kind of uncanny perfection - at least when dealing with things that don't change on their own, like the properties of steel or stone.

So yeah in that culture you don't just throw that away and do something random, because that collection of details was painstakingly and very precisely gained from trial and error. And since at that fine level no one can say exactly why this detail should be this way rather than that way (oh, they may tell a story about it, but really the answer is always 'we tried 10000 ways and this was the best') there is a justifiable worry that if someone changes something fundamental about a way of doing things, all of that fine-tuned detail won't transfer over to the new base and now you've lost a thousand years of progress you'll have to get back. I'd imagine that someone who does that, but also shows commitment to actually re-tuning those details before trying to have their innovation be accepted by the rest of the society would be honored rather than shunned - at least in the sort of generic stereotypical dwarven societies I tend to imagine.

Similarly, dwarven relationships and personal bonds might be approached with the same level of care for detail - knowing enough about someone else's day to day living and trials and aspirations that there isn't this scary moment of 'I have no basis to think about this situation, what do I do, what do I say?' when interacting with them. More the sort of thing where you can have a conversation like 'How's the shop doing? Repaired that chip in the anvil yet? Your hip still giving you trouble?' friendship with someone than the kind of 'you seem to be an awesome person and you're into the stuff I'm into, so lets do those things we both enjoy' kind of friendship. Which of course takes both time and a kind of radical transparency that wouldn't be instinctually natural to offer for a lot of others. Whereas comparably I would see elven culture stereotypically as seeing friendship being more about the sort of person someone is than that kind of comfortable interaction - drawn more to the potential someone represents or the myth they could inhabit or even just the emotions evoked in moments of interaction.

Plus I think that's a bit more interesting than honor-bound dutiful Scottish samurai.

That said, would I necessarily choose to play a dwarf to play a character who exemplifies those attitudes? The last character I played who was this much this way was in L5R, so it wasn't an option at that time. I don't know, I guess the issue is I don't know that D&D really mechanically supports this kind of consummate craftsman archetype very well. The L5R character was a swordsmith who used iaijutsu as part of his smithing process, and there was mechanical gimmickry that supported that along with things like 'the better the smith, the better the weapon you can make' that isn't really how any crafting in D&D works. So I guess I like the archetype, I like dwarves for that archetype, but I don't like that archetype in D&D.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Over the last lots of parties (17 I can identify, not counting one-shots or public games), I think I've had 3, maybe 4 dwarves. So yeah. I agree.

Spoiler: Race breakdown

Show

* Dragonborn: 10
* Mhkulu (sorta-kinda ithilid): 1
* human: 19
* goliath: 3
* half-elf: 5
* dwarf: 4
* high elf: 7
* wood elf: 5
* half-orc: 1
* halfling: 3
* tiefling: 5
* soulforged (sorta-kinda warforged): 5
* aasimar: 2
* genasi: 4
* goblin: 1
* kenku: 1
* tabaxi: 1

Wood elves and high elves are separated for setting reasons. So looks like dragonborn and elves (combined) are popular, humans always are, and then half-elves, tieflings, soulforged, genasi, dwarves, and then the rest.

This has been a number of different players (not quite 1/character, but closer to that than to more).

[Mordar]

Also have to ask if dwarves were ever popular pre LOTR and this is just a reversion to the norm.

Playing (A)D&D since 1982 in home games, convention games and store games, covering thousands of characters, I recollect exactly one dwarf PC that was not a pre-generated character (and most of those were named Flint Fireforge!). So yeah, I think this is reversion to the norm.

For the record, that one dwarf PC was created to address how poorly LotR films treated Gimli!

Back in the 80's, many adult gamers were hairy, leather clad bikers with blue-collar jobs like mechanics and construction workers (at least in the UK). They could identify with hairy, hard-working, hard-drinking craftsmen with a penchant for kicking evil's butt with a big ol' axe or hammer. It was a simpler time and (literally) down-to-earth was popular and relatable. Dwarves were Metal.

Reading this I was struck by how absolutely contrary that was to my experience...and then I thought "I wonder if Jelly is from England"...and then I looked.

Dwarves have never been cool.

Now this matches my experience. Trotting out that first dwarven PC above was met with great surprise.

- M

[KorvinStarmast]

Anyone notice this phenomenon? I play D&D/Pathfinder with my fair share of people and I've noticed that dwarven PCs are pretty rare.

Not my experience.
First Original (before Greyhawk) game: the entire party was dwarves.
Second Campaign (Included Greyhawk): Two dwarves in a seven person party.
AD&D (both eds): usually a dwarf in the party. (This was back when I played a lot of hobbits/halflings)
BECMI: usually a dwarf in the party
3.x: usually a dwarf in the party
4e: no play
5e: 1st party 1 dwarf, six person party.
2d party: 1 dwarf, six person party.
3rd party: 1 dwarf, six person party, but now 2 dwarfs six peson party (due to player changes)
Salt Marsh Campaign: on dwarf out of 8 PCs. (Party is max at 5 but I have had a few leave and be replaced).
CoS: dwarf is me. Five person party.
DM of my brother's world: 1 dwarf of five people.

Played in 3 campaigns with PhoenixPhyre, no dwarves in any of the three parties. (I have gone Human in all three).

One shots; a few dwarfs, but there have been so many one-shots that it is hard to pin down.
A lot of us (myself included) tried out all kinds of new races and classes during one shots. (It' show my Boing Boing Monk model was born).

I don't think that I have seen a dwarf monk, though.

As are gnomes and halflings

5e doesn't need them. (OK, I'll duck as you all toss rotten produce at me).

I find that players who like to craft like to play dwarves.

My current tiefling would be unrecognizable as a tiefling to post-3e players - no horns, no hooves, no red/blue skin, etc.

YESS! Bravo for you!

[Cygnia]

In the 5e game I'm running for the hubby's niece & nephew, niece's BF is running a dwarven bard.

Me, I'm currently running a deep dwarf scout/ranger in a 3.5 PBP elsewhere.

[Ignimortis]

YESS! Bravo for you!

I quite prefer early D&D edition tieflings what with them being "vaguely human, but weird in some nasty way". Extra phalanges or fingers, sharp nails and inhuman teeth, constant weak-but-detectable smell of sulfur (yuck, rotten eggs!), eyes and noses that aren't quite right etc. I have played several tieflings over the years, and only one was anywhere similar to what D&D 5e stereotypes them as. An outside observer would've been hard pressed to put any two of those characters into the same "race", much less all of them taken together.

It's kind of weird how tieflings got cut down to a single prolific stereotype and apparently stayed popular, when doing so is usually enough to reduce a race's popularity among the players, case in point being...dwarves.

[Mordar]

It's kind of weird how tieflings got cut down to a single prolific stereotype and apparently stayed popular, when doing so is usually enough to reduce a race's popularity among the players, case in point being...dwarves.

Tangent: The stereotype is an appearance that is scary in a cool, dangerous way. Wonder if that has any impact on why it stayed popular and the short, hairy, bearded sphere did not...

Of course, it could be that people want to play lightly on the edgy side too...

- M

[Metastachydium]

Well, Dwarves are hairy (as opposed to feathery or scaly the way I like my races) and kinda blocky, but not in a cute way. I'll probably get around to put the Reptilian^SS template on one of those or a Maeluth, but I don't think they are for me (even though I tend do give jack **** about the alleged lore of racial monocultures).

First Original (before Greyhawk) game: the entire party was dwarves.
Second Campaign (Included Greyhawk): Two dwarves in a seven person party.
AD&D (both eds): usually a dwarf in the party. (This was back when I played a lot of hobbits/halflings)
BECMI: usually a dwarf in the party
3.x: usually a dwarf in the party
4e: no play
5e: 1st party 1 dwarf, six person party.
2d party: 1 dwarf, six person party.
3rd party: 1 dwarf, six person party, but now 2 dwarfs six peson party (due to player changes)
Salt Marsh Campaign: on dwarf out of 8 PCs. (Party is max at 5 but I have had a few leave and be replaced).
CoS: dwarf is me. Five person party.
DM of my brother's world: 1 dwarf of five people.

Yeah. I basically only play 3.5 and PF1, and pretty much only on these site, and I still have a balance of
–1 game with multiple Dwarves;
–4 games with one Dwarf; and
–1 game with a Changeling who so far quite consistently only ever looked like a Dwarf.

Played in 3 campaigns with PhoenixPhyre, no dwarves in any of the three parties. (I have gone Human in all three).

5e doesn't need them. (OK, I'll duck as you all toss rotten produce at me).

5e? Nobody need Gnomes, except as food items!

Me, I'm currently running a deep dwarf scout/ranger in a 3.5 PBP elsewhere.

The single most underused kind of Dwarf in the game! It's crazy how much better they are than Hill, and yet, nobody ever seems to pick them.

[Slipjig]

Dwarves are heavily bearded, traditionalist, really into their heritage, and very blue-collar.
None of which are are traits considered cool (let alone sexy) by a majority of the current player base.

[LibraryOgre]

IME, dwarves were relatively popular in 2e days, and pretty popular in 3.x (I seem to recall being a dwarf was part of several important builds in 3e). We also liked them in 4e... minor action Second Wind and resist push/pull/slide, and being prone were all nice traits. That's all my experience, however.

[Kurald Galain]

Anyone notice this phenomenon? I play D&D/Pathfinder with my fair share of people and I've noticed that dwarven PCs are pretty rare.

Not in my experience. In a decade of playing Pathfinder, I find dwarves are middle-of-the-pack when it comes to Core races, and well ahead of anything non-core. For that matter, the same applies to 4E.