On the Origins of Dragon Species

Guest 6801328 · May 10, 2019

Plutonium dragon. Its breath weapon causes random mutations.

77IM · May 11, 2019

Red Box Basic Set (1983, Elmore cover) had six dragons -- red, blue, green, black, white, gold (a.k.a. yellow).

And even back then, my 9-year-old self hated it. "Really? Color-coding? I mean, I know they need some variety, but is this really the best they could do?"

Aldarc · May 11, 2019

Morrus said:
I’m not sure I understand the criticism. Just because we didn’t discover something until the 1700s doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. If dragons were real, nature wouldn’t limit their species only to to things humans had discovered.

It would potentially limit how they are called or how we understood their natures. But I'm not sure if it is reasonable that D&D (and its world of magic) would be restricted to a Middle Age conception of science, philosophy, or alchemy.

aco175 · May 11, 2019

I'm not sure my games have enough dragons that I need/want to change them from the more normal types. There are some that the PCs can find if they go looking and maybe once or twice a campaign they end up encountering one. I cannot remember the last time there was a good dragon around that interacted with the PCs.

Guest 6801328 · May 11, 2019

Morrus said:
I’m not sure I understand the criticism. Just because we didn’t discover something until the 1700s doesn’t mean it didn’t exist. If dragons were real, nature wouldn’t limit their species only to to things humans had discovered.

Yeah, this.

I mean, I'm all for rethinking assumptions and trying to make the game more fun. But trying to rationalize design ideas by arguing that they are more historically accurate, or more scientific, or whatever, is kinda pointless in my opinion.

So let's say we reconfigure all the dragons to meet the expectations of the OP. How will that make the game more fun? That's kind of all that matters.

(And, no, "inconsistencies in the fluff annoy me and make the game less fun" is not a persuasive argument.)

Aldarc · May 12, 2019

SkidAce said:
I divorced my dragons from standard colors and "factions".

They still influence or are influenced by terrain, so most "black" dragons like shadows or swamps, and since shadows and swamps are not nice...

However, the characters were surprised and enjoyed meeting "Gazorix Justicarius Rex" a female old red dragon that was the founder of the LG Knights of the Flame.

...and then there was the evil yellow/gold political manipulator behind the throne dragon, Eldeth (The Elder Death).

This seems closer to the Eberron approach. Some of the deities are depicted as dragons that would not otherwise seem obvious based upon the alignment of the deities or the MM alignment of the dragons. And this phenomenon is likewise encountered with dragons in the world of Eberron. Eberron only suggests that chromatic dragons are more susceptible to the influence of the "daughter of Khyber" named Tiamat.

Charlaquin · May 12, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
Yeah, this.

I mean, I'm all for rethinking assumptions and trying to make the game more fun. But trying to rationalize design ideas by arguing that they are more historically accurate, or more scientific, or whatever, is kinda pointless in my opinion.

So let's say we reconfigure all the dragons to meet the expectations of the OP. How will that make the game more fun? That's kind of all that matters.

(And, no, "inconsistencies in the fluff annoy me and make the game less fun" is not a persuasive argument.)

I don’t think “more fun” is necessarily the right metric to use here. A game with a cohesive setting is not necessarily “more fun” than a game with a hodgepodge setting, but depending on the interests of the people playing, either may be preferable to the other, for reasons other than being more fun. Fun is also very difficult to quantify, which makes proving that a fluff change makes the game “more fun” very difficult, and therefore this metric would seem to strongly discourage fluff changes. Better to ask “how does this enhance my enjoyment of the game?” than “how does this make the game more fun?”

To answer how this change enhances the game, the current set of metallic dragons is arbitrary and confusing. Most people can’t remember the difference between copper, brass, and bronze dragons off the top of their heads. Brass and bronze are alloys while copper, gold, and silver are elements. And why those five? With the seven alchemical metals, there’s a unifying theme. Instead of five metals chosen seemingly at random, there’s a reason each one is part of the set. Or if you want to keep it to five, maybe go with copper, silver, electrum, gold, and platinum - the five coin metals of D&D. Or go with dragons for each of Heaiod’s ages of man - gold, silver, bronze, mithril (since “heroes” isn’t a metal), and iron. Or go more historical with it, with stone, bronze, iron, steel, and silicon. Anything that doesn’t leave you without an answer to “why those five?”

Tony Vargas · May 12, 2019

Frankie1969 said:
why the founding nerds picked those 5 colors and 6 metals for the core dragons.

May not mean anything, but: B&W, RGB. They're primary colors.

In heraldry you have: argent, gules, sable, azure, vert, and or. With argent pulling double-duty as both white and silver, that covers the cheomatic dragons, with gold as a bonus.

Voadam · May 12, 2019

I didn't think about it much but I read that Gygax wanted variety to surprise his players. So green is standard for lizardy things and most people would probably expect a dragon to be green. Red is Smaug. Black is from Sleeping Beauty. That seems a reasonable start. White for cold seems obvious and blue for sky with lightning kind of works and then gold has the good chinese dragon motif stuff I'm not super familiar with but assume is sort of out there.

As for why the five metals, it all started with gold, so silver and bronze seem natural extensions for the olympics association, and for the D&D coins you add in copper, and then to get the full five match up to the chromatics you've got the city of brass? I would have expected Iron but the good dragons were always little used oddballs anyway so they got less mind space than the chromatics and I never really thought about it.

Frankie1969 · May 13, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
May not mean anything, but: B&W, RGB. They're primary colors.

In heraldry you have: argent, gules, sable, azure, vert, and or. With argent pulling double-duty as both white and silver, that covers the chromatic dragons, with gold as a bonus.

I hope RGB (additive) is being taught as the primary colors today, but in the 1970s anyone who didn't work in television or printing definitely thought of RYB (mixing) as the primary colors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtractive_color#RYB

Thanks for bringing up heraldry; surely some of the TSR folks had studied that topic. If the dragons were based on heraldry colors, wouldn't they have included purpure (purple)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subtractive_color#RYB