Dwarves aren't cool anymore

[Mordar]

Even if DnDBeyond represents some fraction of the 5e playerbase, I see no reason not to consider it representative. Or to put it another way, I don't think there's anything about DnDBeyond specifically that would cause its users' play habits to differ materially from the whole. All their other stats line up with what I'd expect from the 5e playerbase at large, e.g. humans being the most popular race, fighters being the most popular class, most characters being in Tier 1 etc.

Thought about this a bit more, and my conclusion was that if there were any skewness in the sample it would likely be towards newer players, and if dwarves fall ahead of the median with newer players that is probably a good thing if you are pro-dwarf.

- M

[Psyren]

Thought about this a bit more, and my conclusion was that if there were any skewness in the sample it would likely be towards newer players, and if dwarves fall ahead of the median with newer players that is probably a good thing if you are pro-dwarf.

- M

I don't disagree but I think we're in for some shake-ups. If the new hybrid rules drop as expected, half-elves will likely no longer be a distinct category in their stats - most of those characters will probably be aligned with elf or human (since "half-elves" will be counted as one or the other crunch-wise) but some of those might jump ship entirely e.g. to Tiefling. Goliaths are already popular enough to be on the board despite not being core, so I expect them to shoot up in popularity once they're in Basic and new players won't need to have bought or shared any books to play as one. Lastly, Dragonborn are getting some pretty notable buffs like darkvision, better breath weapon action economy and scaling, and flight.

With all three "cool big races" (Dragonborn, Orcs, and Goliaths) in Basic, I expect Dwarves to take more of a hit in next year's stats and beyond, no pun intended.

[Amnestic]

I blame Warcraft.

You could blame them for gnome perception, but dwarves get a decent spread of personality traits in Warcraft/WoW (when they actually show up). They're not a 'comedy' race, nor stereotypically grumpy. Their alcoholism is a throughline (much as other dwarves) but they're rarely ever the butt of the joke for it.

WoW's dwarves having three major pillars (Bronzebeard, Wildhammer, and Dark Iron) gives them a bit of cultural/aesthetic diversity - Wildhammer especially hit on some of the 'desired' variant notes, being more air/wind themed and taking to the skies on gryphon-back. They could do more (and I've got my own concerns with making the dark skin dwarves the 'evil' ones, though that's hardly new to WoW either) but they're generally doing okay.

I mean, aside from neutering the scheming Moira and making her soft+nice out of nowhere, but that's really just my personal hangup I've got.

[LibraryOgre]

You could blame them for gnome perception,

What I know about Warcraft gnomes borrows heavily from Dragonlance's gnomes.

[Satinavian]

I still think that this is party true.

Settings that have gnomes as the tinkerer/gadgeteer race tend to downplay dwarves as master crafters. And dwarves don't work well as "big guys". They are tough, sure. But they are slow and not particularly strong. There is a reason so many of the old stories had the "big guy" hero be a human but with dwarven gear, not actually a dwarf.

I mean, how many franchises stories besides Frieren do you know that have the dwarf be the primary protagonist martial and not just a companion to a human in that role?

[KorvinStarmast]

What I know about Warcraft gnomes borrows heavily from Dragonlance's gnomes.

I've got a flying machine!
Yep.
My favorite Warcraft game is still WarCraft II.

[Ionathus]

Playing a dwarf isn't about being cool

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

Not sure if this is a direct reference to OotS, but the recent book focusing on Durkon and his upbringing really made me appreciate the storytelling opportunities of honor-bound Dwarven culture.

Though that could just be that anything Rich Burlew writes about becomes more interesting to me! He's a good storyteller

[DragonEyeSeeker]

The problem with Gnomes is that their two most iconic archetypes basically eat into the niches of Elves and Dwarves. Tinker Gnomes are just Dwarves who build crazier & wilder things, while Forest/Sprite Gnomes are just wee lil' Wood Elves.

I think one of the weaker aspects of the Dwarves is that they do not have a good niche outside of their stereotypical archetype of being a good warrior, loving mining & crafting high quality arms & armor. The difference between Hill & Mountain Dwarves is very shallow compared to the difference between Wood, High & Dark Elves.

I mean, how many franchises stories besides Frieren do you know that have the dwarf be the primary protagonist martial and not just a companion to a human in that role?

I think this is a real problem for Dwarves as a whole. They are almost always the Samwise to some one else's Frodo. They are always the buddy, never the main character. One of the most prominent Actual play Dwarves was Binwin Bronzebottom from Acquisitions Incorporated and he always felt like he was second banana to Jim & Omin. Critical Role & Dimension 20 do not have Dwarven character PCs in their main campaigns.

[Errorname]

Dimension 20 do not have Dwarven character PCs in their main campaigns.

D20 does usually go more out there with their campaigns and characters, they usually aren't doing stock D&D stuff.

[Mordar]

I think this is a real problem for Dwarves as a whole. They are almost always the Samwise to some one else's Frodo. They are always the buddy, never the main character. One of the most prominent Actual play Dwarves was Binwin Bronzebottom from Acquisitions Incorporated and he always felt like he was second banana to Jim & Omin. Critical Role & Dimension 20 do not have Dwarven character PCs in their main campaigns.

Reinforcing what I mentioned a ways above...they aren't even the Samwise. Flint and Burenor, the most famous "recent" literary dwarves similarly fall below the main character and side-kick level. They fall to mentor, c-list or similar most of the time.

- M

[awa]

Reinforcing what I mentioned a ways above...they aren't even the Samwise. Flint and Burenor, the most famous "recent" literary dwarves similarly fall below the main character and side-kick level. They fall to mentor, c-list or similar most of the time.

- M

this is definitely true, most often in media they are just the black smith not even a character, just a bit of set dressing to show this is a skilled smith.

[Yora]

The problem with Gnomes is that their two most iconic archetypes basically eat into the niches of Elves and Dwarves. Tinker Gnomes are just Dwarves who build crazier & wilder things, while Forest/Sprite Gnomes are just wee lil' Wood Elves.

I think one of the weaker aspects of the Dwarves is that they do not have a good niche outside of their stereotypical archetype of being a good warrior, loving mining & crafting high quality arms & armor. The difference between Hill & Mountain Dwarves is very shallow compared to the difference between Wood, High & Dark Elves.

My perception has long been that there's really mostly just one dwarf.

He's a miner and a smith, only fights with axes and hammers, he has an unhealthy obsession with gold and beer, and he rally hates goblins. And orcs. And giants. And elves. And he's not fond of humans either. He's Scottish, but also a Viking. Doesn't want anything to do with magic, except making magic weapons. Lives underground, doesn't like forests, and apparently doesn't do any farming.

The big question is, which one of these traits are essential for making a dwarf and are shared across all dwarven cultures? And which of these are the distinguishing features of only one dwarven culture, that are not necessary to get the main theme of dwarves across?

This seems like a necessary first step to begin making dwarves at least two-dimensional. But after 60-70 years of always only seeing this one specific type of dwarf everywhere, I feel that all of these traits appear as being essential now.
But that's coming from someone who openly doesn't like dwarves in the first place.

[Cluedrew]

I mean, how many franchises stories besides Frieren do you know that have the dwarf be the primary protagonist martial and not just a companion to a human in that role?

The Dwarves did a very good job of that. Yes, I own a book called The Dwarves and although it doesn't do a lot to push beyond the stereotypes it does explore them in detail.

But yeah, that is by no means the norm. There is probably a lot of complex history to it, but I think there is a bit of a self-fulfilling aspect to the fact people don't write important dwarf characters and so it doesn't inspire important dwarf characters.

[LibraryOgre]

I mean, how many franchises stories besides Frieren do you know that have the dwarf be the primary protagonist martial and not just a companion to a human in that role?

Dragonlance did a few (Flint the King and the Dwarven Nations Trilogy), though they were not the norm.

Of course, you have The Hobbit; while Bilbo was the protagonist, I don't think you could really argue that Thorin, at least, was just a sidekick.

I'm not as familiar with the Earthdawn novels, but given the prominent place of Dwarves in Barsaive (they are the preeminent people, with Throal, their kingdom, being the cultural and trade center of the region), I'd be surprised if there were no novels with dwarf main characters.

But, notably, those are also all many years old at this point.

[Jay R]

Playing a dwarf isn't about being cool

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

Love it.

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

I know you probably meant the movies, but there is *no* role-playing before LotR. None. Those books were incredibly popular with the subset of boomers who became gamers.

It is impossible to overstate the influence of LotR on 1970s college student nerds. In original D&D, the races available to play were men¹, elves, dwarves, and hobbits². The game included ents and balrogs. Even orcs, as a human-sized humanoid race, is a purely Tolkien invention, using an older word that had a very different meaning. Rangers were added in a magazine article a year later.

¹Yes. It was a different time.
²No, not halflings. Hobbits. That's what the rules said.

I assumed that I could refer to a line from the books and expect all the players to recognize it -- like Monty Python soon after. The first time I met a D&D player who wasn't a major LotR nerd I was almost shocked.

And yes, dwarves were popular back in the 1970s. My first few characters included a hobbit and a dwarf.

[SerTabris]

Out of curiosity, I went back to some older DDB stats to compare the 2023 ones to and I think you're onto something. Here's a 538 analysis from data that DDB released in 2017 that had Half-Elves and Dwarves considerably higher in the rankings. Back then, both were ahead of Tieflings and Dragonborn.

What I found particularly interesting was the huge increase in characters over that timeframe, e.g. from 25k humans to over 700k. It makes me wonder, how much of the Dwarven fall was due to the general shift in their perception of coolness among the playerbase we've been theorizing, and how much of it was due to shifting demographics, i.e. an influx of players who don't identify with the way they've seen dwarves portrayed, and who feel more affinity for tieflings and dragonborn?

That's certainly been my experience when discussing tabletop RPGs in LGBT+ communities; I've seen a good variety, but tieflings are very popular and dragonborn are fairly popular as well. And I'd say that on average LGBT+ people feel more welcome in tabletop gaming today than ten years ago.

[Jay R]

Out of curiosity, I went back to some older DDB stats to compare the 2023 ones to and I think you're onto something. Here's a 538 analysis from data that DDB released in 2017 that had Half-Elves and Dwarves considerably higher in the rankings. Back then, both were ahead of Tieflings and Dragonborn.

What I found particularly interesting was the huge increase in characters over that timeframe, e.g. from 25k humans to over 700k. It makes me wonder, how much of the Dwarven fall was due to the general shift in their perception of coolness among the playerbase we've been theorizing, and how much of it was due to shifting demographics, i.e. an influx of players who don't identify with the way they've seen dwarves portrayed, and who feel more affinity for tieflings and dragonborn?

Yes, this reflect a real demographic shift. Tieflings and dragonborn are D&D inventions. Originally, all D&D players came from a background of reading lots of fantasy literature (especially Lord of the Rings). We were playing D&D in order to duplicate (poorly) the feel of our favorite books. We wanted to play elves, dwarves and hobbits, and would have had no interest in playing tieflings or dragonborn.

Now that D&D is such a huge phenomenon (by comparison), lots of people play D&D in order to, well, ... play D&D. The idea of playing a tiefling or dragonborn doesn't feel different from playing an elf or dwarf.

[Psyren]

That's certainly been my experience when discussing tabletop RPGs in LGBT+ communities; I've seen a good variety, but tieflings are very popular and dragonborn are fairly popular as well. And I'd say that on average LGBT+ people feel more welcome in tabletop gaming today than ten years ago.

As an LGBT+ person myself, with many LGBT friends joining the hobby, I can cosign It helps that many of the WotC team including the lead designer are 'family' too!

Yes, this reflect a real demographic shift. Tieflings and dragonborn are D&D inventions. Originally, all D&D players came from a background of reading lots of fantasy literature (especially Lord of the Rings). We were playing D&D in order to duplicate (poorly) the feel of our favorite books. We wanted to play elves, dwarves and hobbits, and would have had no interest in playing tieflings or dragonborn.

Now that D&D is such a huge phenomenon (by comparison), lots of people play D&D in order to, well, ... play D&D. The idea of playing a tiefling or dragonborn doesn't feel different from playing an elf or dwarf.

I can get behind this, but I also find it interesting that elf popularity seems to transcend their Tolkien origins. But we saw that with Warcraft also, where Blood Elves became the most popular Horde race the moment they were introduced (especially in China.) Turns out that the popularity of "conventionally attractive and slender human with pointy ears, great senses and long life-spans" transcends origin, who knew.

[Mordar]

I can get behind this, but I also find it interesting that elf popularity seems to transcend their Tolkien origins. But we saw that with Warcraft also, where Blood Elves became the most popular Horde race the moment they were introduced (especially in China.) Turns out that the popularity of "conventionally attractive and slender human with pointy ears, great senses and long life-spans" transcends origin, who knew.

Ah, providing a reconciliation between the competing "I wanna be edgy by being the BAD GUYS!" drive and the "I wanna be cool and sexy like the Elfises!" motivation. Who could have foreseen this?

- M

[Notafish]

In 5e, I avoid playing dwarves because they are slow, which makes them unfun to play as melee fighters compared to the other medium-sized races.
And playing a ranged-combatant dwarf just doesn't give the same perverse thrill as playing, for example, a halfling barbarian.

[Xervous]

Ah, providing a reconciliation between the competing "I wanna be edgy by being the BAD GUYS!" drive and the "I wanna be cool and sexy like the Elfises!" motivation. Who could have foreseen this?

- M

Something something magic vampires that don’t have the sunlight or garlic issues.

broad gesture at all the vampire media

[Witty Username]

I feel like there is a desire towards the "different" as well.
Elf, dwarf, whatnot can be gotten in alot of fantasy.

Tiefling, Dragonborn, historicly Kobold, personally Gith are all more specific to D&D. And tend to not have readily available equivalents. Heck, I have made a dwarf in BG3, but being Duergar is still leaning into this some as it is a much more D&D specific take on how do.

I can't shake the idea that there is a body image portion as well though. Dwarf tends to be conventionally unattractive, which could be why it has had a drop off over time.

[OldTrees1]

I feel like there is a desire towards the "different" as well.
Elf, dwarf, whatnot can be gotten in alot of fantasy.

Tiefling, Dragonborn, historicly Kobold, personally Gith are all more specific to D&D. And tend to not have readily available equivalents. Heck, I have made a dwarf in BG3, but being Duergar is still leaning into this some as it is a much more D&D specific take on how do.

I can't shake the idea that there is a body image portion as well though. Dwarf tends to be conventionally unattractive, which could be why it has had a drop off over time.

There definitely is a desire towards the "different". Dwarf used to be better at satisfying that desire, even when competing against even greater diversity (3E Dwarf). However the 5E Dwarf is not nearly as good at satisfying that desire. Is it just an idea that was done to death? Is the current version not making them as interesting? Both?

[Psyren]

Going back to the recent DDB character statistics, I missed commentary in the written version that might shed some light:

Taking a look at the most popular species for characters on D&D Beyond, humans are firmly the most popular pick and, unsurprisingly, followed by the rest of the Basic Rules species except the gnome (sorry, gnomes).

The genasi are punching above their weight class by snagging a spot in the top 10. And yes, we see you, the roughly 80,000 aarakocra players. Couldn’t resist that 1st-level flight, eh?

Strangely, compared to their gold-medal showing in Baldur’s Gate 3’s opening weekend stats, half-elves finished a disappointing fifth in our 2023 round-up. Those armor and weapon proficiencies for BG3 half-elves must really make a difference!

Unfortunately for the smallfolk, dwarves, halflings, and gnomes are apparently among the least popular standard races based on our data and the opening weekend stats from Baldur’s Gate 3. I guess what they say is true: Movement speed does matter.

While the (tongue-in-cheek) narration lays the blame at the short races' movement speed penalty, I think the real common denominator is simply their stature itself; I think a lot of people like characters to be average size or taller. But if movement speed truly was the issue, I suppose we'll find out when that gets normalized across species this year.

[NichG]

Going back to the recent DDB character statistics, I missed commentary in the written version that might shed some light:


While the (tongue-in-cheek) narration lays the blame at the short races' movement speed penalty, I think the real common denominator is simply their stature itself; I think a lot of people like characters to be average size or taller. But if movement speed truly was the issue, I suppose we'll find out when that gets normalized across species this year.

When I was playing Solasta, basically every character I made was a Wood Elf because the +5ft of movement speed was basically miles better (and less possible to get from other sources) than anything else on offer, and you still got the other really essential feature of darkvision.
In BG3 I didn't feel it was nearly as urgent a pick. There were more ways to conveniently obtain alternate movement modalities or expand on your mobility between random magical items giving Misty Step to the generous Jump rules to +movement items being relatively common and stackable.

In tabletop? I'd probably care more about movement mode than movement speed, but if I'm playing a melee character then movement speed becomes extremely important, basically can be the equivalent of losing vs winning initiative. And for a melee character who is very positioning-dependent like a rogue, even more so. So I can definitely see how the slower lineages corresponding to also having more melee-forward archetypes is a particularly bad combo there, outside of the aesthetics of height.

I mean, I've played a kobold (support mostly) and a gnome (caster) before and the height aesthetic doesn't bother me at least. But losing 1/6th of my ability to position to flank for sneak attack when playing a stereotypical halfling rogue would really suck. Or taking an extra round to arrive at the fight as an archetypal full plated dwarven fighter.

I guess if I wanted to counter that without just making everything the same, keep dwarven movement at 25ft but give them something like a Momentum feature where if they commit to an attack and run at the enemy (like a 3ed Charge) then each round it takes them to get there they get to add another Weapon Damage+Str mod to the damage they eventually deal on the attack (maybe up to 2 rounds of extra oomph), and if the attack lands on a different round than they initiated it then the attack roll has Advantage. So that way if they get to the fight late, they're not losing the damage they could have caused in that previous round. And for Halflings, it would go a long way to pay for the movement penalty if they just outright were immune to opportunity attacks from creatures bigger than them. So they're moving less in total, but there are more places they can safely move than other characters with higher movement speeds.

[Beelzebub1111]

I wonder if untying attributes from race had something to do with it.

Dwarfs were the only way to get a +2 con bonus in 5e but now that everyone can have it, it seems like it's unnessicary. I'm sure if, in BG3, they kept racial bonuses tied to your race we would be seeing more dwarf barbarians.

[LibraryOgre]

I can get behind this, but I also find it interesting that elf popularity seems to transcend their Tolkien origins. But we saw that with Warcraft also, where Blood Elves became the most popular Horde race the moment they were introduced (especially in China.) Turns out that the popularity of "conventionally attractive and slender human with pointy ears, great senses and long life-spans" transcends origin, who knew.

I mean... drow.

For those who missed the 90s, drow were the go-to race if you wanted an edgy tragic character. Heck, when I was not allowed to play a drow, I played a half-drow. Because you got the edgy backstory of "rejected by my people" and you looked cool and different.

Now? I hardly hear a peep about people playing drow.

[OldTrees1]

I wonder if untying attributes from race had something to do with it.

Dwarfs were the only way to get a +2 con bonus in 5e but now that everyone can have it, it seems like it's unnecessary. I'm sure if, in BG3, they kept racial bonuses tied to your race we would be seeing more dwarf barbarians.

In BG3 dwarf offers very little to barbarian. Their relevant features are either +1hp/HD or Invisibility at-will and Enlarge 1/day.
Note: Darkvision is not relevant in BG3 due to itemization and location.
Note 2: There is a dwarf specific throwing weapon. Disguise self works too.

Yes, if dwarf in BG3 had a racial bonus to con, then there would be a few more dwarf barbarians. As would any increase in relevant features. If dwarves had DR 1/- then there would be more dwarf barbarians.


I also wonder how much of the BG3 stats are skewed by the origin characters (8/11 are humans, elves, or both).

[Yora]

I mean... drow.

For those who missed the 90s, drow were the go-to race if you wanted an edgy tragic character. Heck, when I was not allowed to play a drow, I played a half-drow. Because you got the edgy backstory of "rejected by my people" and you looked cool and different.

Now? I hardly hear a peep about people playing drow.

I mean, D&D stood for Dungeons & Drow for what seems to have been some 15 to 20 years.

And perhaps, with tieflings and dragonborns in the Player's Handbook, drow aren't sufficiently unique, special, and edgy anymore...?

[awa]

A large part of the drows popularity was Drizzit, but those books were a long time ago (relatively speaking) I dont think we have anything comparable recently.

Sure new books have been made more recently but I dont think they have the same cultural weight the originals did.