What do you think about humans with +2 constitution, +2 intelligence and -2 Wisdom?

Yes, although substitute +2 int with +2 cha. Other races tend to have insular memes because they're made to represent archetypes, while humans can relate with just about anything (because irl humans are the ones who created the races that they're interacting with in-game). While this makes humans adaptable it also means they're not as specialized or likely to go as in depth with certain schools of knowledge like other races, and the two balance out to no modifier to int in general. It does make them better at interaction, though, because they're less likely to have deep genetically ingrained conflicts with other races.

>Telling a D&Drone to play not D&D
Hhahahaha.

rubbish idea, due to very extensive variation within races. e.g. orcs are strong, but you're asking us to endorse a world in which it is literally not possible for an orc to be smarter than it is strong.

I'd rather give humans some traits which help them reduce exhaustion and let them occasionally do a forced march without accruing any. Also bonuses in interactions (CHA-based skill checks) with other humans and half-humans.

>detriments are better
I'd imagine detriments would only encourage min/maxing even more. D&D 5e doesn't have detriments any more. If a half-orc had +2STR -2INT then you'd never play them as a wizard. But since it's just a bonus to STR and CON you're not making a bad build, just a poor one that doesn't play to your races strengths. So you can be a half-orc muscle wizard and not feel penalized.

Abilities & detriments themselves are pretty inherently min/maxy.

But dwarves are tougher than us

if you're going to do it that way, +2 to any two stats of your choice, -2 wis

I can't think of a single game without racial modifers, maybe that Witcher one?
Also
>Be elf
>described as being beautiful, fast, and agile
>Don't have the stats to back any of that up
>This is somehow encouraging flavourful rp

Humans as the "mad wizard" or "unhinged explorer" type would be neat. They can do pretty spectacular stuff consistently, but should they have? Have they fucked themselves over because they didn't realize that maybe the fire/zombie plague/endless declarations of war would spread BACKWARDS?
It'd make some sense as to why they're common; they set up shop everywhere, even where it's a bad idea.

elves they are human with pointed ears

orcs are muscular humans,

dwarfs are short humans,

halflings are short humans,

gnomes are short humans

This.

The problem with the "have you tried not playing D&D" is that people use it more often than not when playing a different system wouldn't solve anything.

Few problems discussed on this board can be solved just by switching systems, largely because at the end of the day, the system is actually only a small component to the game that's being run, and that switching systems just leads to a new veneer on the same old problems.

"Try X system" is not always bad advice, but it's not particularly helpful in a thread about problem players, or about story issues, or even alignment arguments, because even in the last case it's just a name (or a different name) for things you'll find in find in almost every other game. Even games "without" alignments still have degrees of morality to them or factions with codes of conduct, and most alignment arguments typically revolve around these two features of alignment.

Does D&D have flaws? Certainly, but most of these are remedied in far less time than it takes to learn a new system, and the idea that you should abandon a system just because something didn't work out is why we find a lot of people hopping through multiple systems hoping that a change of game will solve their problems.

Most of the whole problem with system discussion is that it's actually political in nature. Play X game or play Y game is a tactic to try to garner support for one game or dissuade people from playing another, and is largely dishonest in its lack of transparency. D&D becomes a target not because it's a bad game by any measure, but because it's popularity means people are less inclined to play other games.

As a person who has played his share of everything under the sun and now plays homebrews almost exclusively, I've really gotten tired of people claiming system superiority or inferiority when they're all just talking about the same inferior games just under different disguises.

If only they knew how amazing Duck in the Circle was.

Have you tried following pic's advice? It's really good advice

>3.5e/pathfinder
ew

Umm...yeah. We're persistent and clever but prone to stupid mistakes. I can totally get behind this.

>encourages flavorful options rather than shutting them down with crunch

Contradictory. If the flavor isn't supported by crunch then it's not really there.

Why are you like this?

>even though it's commonly used in almost every single game system that isn't the one i hate
How many different systems have you used? Please note that D&D and Pathfinder do not count as different systems.

...