For you 5e players out there:

Do you think Humans stack up evenly with the other races?  What about the variant?

To me, the vanilla 5e Human is too generic and the Variant is way too good considering how powerful the 5e feats all are.  I like that Humans are supposed to be adaptable.  The last time that I tried to find a middle ground, I came up with the below.  My players seemed to like it, and no one felt "obligated" to go for Human just to get a feat at level one.

Humans

In place of the Human race as put out by Wizards of the Coast, I am using the following Variant Rules.

Stats: Gain +2 to any physical (Str, Con, Dex) or mental (Int, Wish, Cha) stat, then gain +1 to any stat of a type that you didn't choose.

**For example, you can choose to gain +2 to Intelligence, but then would have to put the +1 into Str, Dex, or Con.

Skilled:  Humans are particularly good at mastering a variety of skills.  Gain proficiency in one physical skill and one mental skill.

Craftsman:  Humans are natural craftsman and easily master the use of new tools.  Gain proficiency in one kind of tool.

I actually got into a long argument with someone that claimed that feats were underpowered and the variant was terrible.  Apparently, they never learned to read, which made the fact that we were arguing over Facebook all the more puzzling.

Overall, variant humans are a slightly superior choice to other races when there isn't a clear racial ability synergy.  That has the overall effect of making games a little heavier on humans than other races, but I'd argue that such a bias isn't really a bad thing.  In the 3.PF variants, humans enjoy a similar position, and it worked out well enough.

That's hilarious.

<quote swordchucks>
That has the overall effect of making games a little heavier on humans than other races, but I'd argue that such a bias isn't really a bad thing.  In the 3.PF variants, humans enjoy a similar position, and it worked out well enough.
</quote swordchucks>

That's true enough of the older editions.  There is a slight difference though that I've noted happening.  Some of the new feats give out ability score bumps on top of their other effects, so Humans can get the same amount of ability score bumps that the other races do (+1,+2).  In older editions, Humans traditionally don't get any stat bump or just a single one.  This was mostly because Humans are the "baseline" for comparison, so it made sense for them to have some sort of compensatory prize: the free feat.

Pathfinder moved away from this idea by giving Humans a +2 bump to any stat to reflect their variable nature without taking away the free feat.  I always thought that was a mistake, but I realize I'm in the minority.  Tabletop gaming has evolved to a point where everyone wants parity to exist between the races for character creation instead of realism where everything has bonuses that are just a comparison against baseline humans.  I get that, and I'm actually in favor of that thinking.  However, my opinion is that the free feat is an outdated way of keeping humans viable when they've already received parity in other ways.  I'd even argue that it's even overpowered in a lot of ways (both in Pathfinder and 5e) and should have been replaced with something else.

So you guys see Humans played more often than not when you play?

Do those who play Humans tend toward the variant or go with the Standard?

Well, I tend to have a build/goal in mind, then I go with a race/class that best supports whatever I'm trying to do.  I frankly only recently learned that there are variant humans.

In games I play in and run, I tally about 40% ~ 50% Humans.  In games I run and in my IRL game (the only ones that I know about definitely), 100% of them go with the Variant.

My 5th Ed games, more often than not, still are weighted toward the "token human" party setup, without regard to overpowered/underpowered.

I will say, though, that a feat that may include a single ability score increase is more or less comparable to having all of your attributes increased by +1. If there's a difference to the advantage of one over the other is mostly insignificant, in my opinion. This means that either standard or variant human traits will be mostly comparable. If anything, having the bonus skill proficiency weights it slightly in favor of the variant.

However, it also has the advantage of allowing the DM to have each individual human culture in his campaign favor 2-3 feats/skills, adding flavor to the traits of each culture or kingdom beyond "they're human."

For example, human horse tribes on the great plains could favor Nature as a skill (or substitute Mounts (land) for the skill), and Durable, Medium Armor Master, Mounted Combatant, or Sharpshooter. You could even create a Horse Archer feat that combines effects from the last two.

I see Humans played just as much as average. However, I do see more people go for the variant build. There's just something so nice about not having to wait 4 levels for a feat.

Speaking to numbers, my group seems to have gone through a transition at some point.  Early on in 5e, the group was usually 50-75% human.  In the current game, though, we have no humans at the table.  The biggest selling point for that is that everyone has Darkvision, which makes some things a lot easier.

I only recall seeing one person use a standard human, too, and that was for a specific "have a lot of moderate stats" design.  Overall, the "+1 to everything" means little since most characters really only care about 2-3 stats.