Mind of tempest
(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
I going to see if I can knock out Silver next as I find it equally boring
Are there any that excite you? curiousI going to see if I can knock out Silver next as I find it equally boring
I going to see if I can knock out Silver next as I find it equally boring
no any option I liked is gone so now I want to see if I can remove the next likely winner I still have a final to win.Are there any that excite you? curious
nothing wrong with that it is not personal.Silver Dragons have been my thing since DL.
Again, that was my bad. I snatched four hours of sleep under the tyranny of the Baby Dragon, and am glad someone caught it immediately!Folks, why do we keep dropping a line without a contestant being eliminated?
I guess I just don't understand why dragons need to be weird to be interesting. I don't need to randomly get lychee and durian and loquat flavored jelly beans in order to enjoy them. Vanilla is the most popular flavor of ice cream and does, in fact, have distinctive and valuable flavor all by itself.Again, that was my bad. I snatched four hours of sleep under the tyranny of the Baby Dragon, and am glad someone caught it immediately!
I find the original D&D dragons to be dull as dishwater. Back then, people didn't want a lot of description of their monsters -- they're just experience points in a meat bag, after all; and besides different campaigns will have different ideas how these monsters work, so minimalism in description is better!
Which, of course, misses the point. I will change anything, anything, especially what you, the writer, believe you have set in stone, if it makes the setting/monster/spell interesting to me, the world-builder for my table. If it messes with my players' expectations, even better.
But later, after countless novels and modules and Ecology articles in Dragon magazine, they started putting loads of detail into monster descriptions. Sometimes it was great, but a lot of times it read like dry academic texts. You can do it well (see, for instance, the excellent A Folklore Bestiary by the Merry Mushmen), but a lot of authors felt like they needed to put in details but weren't inspired to come up with anything cool.
As for the original dragons, they were by then in everybody's campaign, so they got the blandest of official interpretations, so that they would hopefully fit in the most campaigns just fine, I suspect. When people came up with brand new dragons, they didn't feel constrained by those limitations, and a lot of the newer dragons are weird, and cool, and interesting as a result. For an example of this, see the free Cosmic Dragon Breviary by Tony Caspar; it's got a whole new type of dragons, and they're very different from the Chromatics and Metallics, and they seem at least somewhat interesting to me.
I guess I just don't understand why dragons need to be weird to be interesting. I don't need to randomly get lychee and durian and loquat flavored jelly beans in order to enjoy them. Vanilla is the most popular flavor of ice cream and does, in fact, have distinctive and valuable flavor all by itself.
Weirdness for weirdness' sake alone just comes across as trying too hard. "Look how cool this thing is! Isn't it just the coolest! It's so different it just HAS to be cool!"
They don't need to be weird in order to be interesting. We just need to convert the Council of Wyrms setting to 5e.I guess I just don't understand why dragons need to be weird to be interesting.
Then your experience is bad, don’t blame the dragons!Conversely, I don't understand why metallics get so much hate, while chromatics are 99.9% dull Saturday morning cartoon villains in my experience. They don't even reach "magnificent bastard" status.