D&D General Why do we color-code Dragons?

[Bagpuss]

Racism.

Next question.

 

[Corinnguard]

Now another question is why it is like that, and indeed why it is like this for dragonborn. After all, both are species only very distantly related to true dragons, so it would be a bit weird if they just happened to have the same colour categories with associated breath weapons (should they have any.)

4e originally had the Dragonborn not resembling the dragons in terms of colors, and there was no sure way to know what kind of breath weapon they had (until they used it). The association between color and breath weapon for Dragonborn is a 5e thing.

4e was also the edition where WoTC tried to fill out the color grid by having some metallic dragons with a metallic color.

Chromatic Blue
Metallic Blue (4e Cobalt Dragon)

Chromatic Red
Metallic Red (4e Orium Dragon)

Chromatic Black
Metallic Black (4e Iron Dragon)

 

[Corinnguard]

I've come across that in several adventures, going back as far as third edition. No special abilities, but colour and markings indicate tribe or draconic affiliation.

Pathfinder has the Kobolds being color-coded.

Kobold (5 RP) – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Racism.

Next question.

Is it also due racism that bluejays and robins are of different colours?

Though if you merely mean colour-coded morality, then I definitely agree with you. But not about colour-coded capabilities.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Pathfinder has the Kobolds being color-coded.

Kobold (5 RP) – d20PFSRD

www.d20pfsrd.com

Yeah, comes from 3rd edition.

Maybe the introduction of dragonborn caused mainline D&D to forget it?

 

[el-remmen]

As far as so-called meta-gaming monster knowledge goes I follow these simple steps:

1. Assume good faith from players (and probably don’t play with folks for whom you simply cannot assume good faith).
2. Let the individual player decide how much of the “classic monster knowledge” their character has.
3. Run both standard and non-standard versions of monsters at different times so the frisson of properly using such knowledge and the mystery/delight of realizing this is something different can both be experienced.

 

[Hriston]

No, characters certainly can have knowledge of dragons and all sort of other things. <snip> It is just that this that this knowledge does not necessarily correspond with the knowledge the player has.

Nor does it necessarily not correspond. You're assuming that when you call the player using their knowledge "metagaming".

And are you now differentiating the player knowledge based on how it was acquired? You emphasis on "acquired in gameplay" seems to imply so.Now if the character acquired the information during gameplay that is of course fine. But I would not expect that information automatically be transferred to all characters of that same player irrespective of their circumstances.

I have always in this thread been talking about knowledge acquired by a player through gameplay. In my first post I talked about an encounter with a dragon of a particular color from which a player could learn the type of breath weapon to expect from dragons of that color. I believe it was you who then began talking about players looking up (and memorizing) monster statistics in the rulebooks and other such questionable behavior which was expressly forbidden by the designers of color coded dragons precisely because it violates the skilled play paradigm I've just described. Likewise, they didn't care about establishing how other characters belonging to a player that had acquired such knowledge had learned of it because the important thing under that paradigm is honoring the player skill that has been earned through gameplay.

And how are you expecting to differentiate where the information was acquired from?

I wouldn't bother because I don't care about metagaming.

And I am pretty sure I did not say "filthy metagamers" or anything of the sort. I just identified what is happening in the style you describe.

I'm saying you misidentified it. It's only metagaming if the character lacks the knowledge being used, and you haven't show that. You just assumed it, so you could call it "metagaming".

Playing a chracter who is a different person than yourself by necessity entails assuming they know different things than you do, that they might react to things differntly than you would, that they would express themselves differntly and make differnt decisions.

Likewise, they could very easily know many of the same things you do, react to things similarly, express themselves similarly, make similar decisions, etc. It's all within the realm of possibility, so whose job is it to police the players in the play of their characters?

Now one thing I agree with you, is that in a puzzle solving sense, it is not terribly fun gameplay to solve a puzzle answer of which you know, but you need to pretend that you don't. These things might come up occasionally, if one is to avoid metagaming, but I think the GM can pretty effectively avoid such if they want to. For example I often alter both monster abilities and appearances, so it might not be instantly apparent to veteran players either what they are capable of.

Right, the DM could change the colors of the dragons if they have concerns about metagaming. Metagaming is not why we color-code dragons!

And I'm glad you mentioned the 50 years. The fact of the matter is that, how information was available half a century ago when the game was invented and how it is now are completely different. Like it might have been viable then to the GM not let the players read the monster manual etc and the only way the players could learn information was during the play. But that is not the case any more. If you make "know monster information" a player skill the game tests and rewards, then that is also a skill players can improve by studying and memorising monster information that is freely availabel them via internet. And that sounds far too much like school to be a part of fun leisure activity for me.

When did you think color coded dragons were invented?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Nor does it necessarily not correspond. You're assuming that when you call the player using their knowledge "metagaming".

It is exceedingly unlikely that it always corresponds with plausible characters that are actually roleplayed as people living in the setting as distinct entities from the players.

I have always in this thread been talking about knowledge acquired by a player through gameplay. In my first post I talked about an encounter with a dragon of a particular color from which a player could learn the type of breath weapon to expect from dragons of that color. I believe it was you who then began talking about players looking up (and memorizing) monster statistics in the rulebooks and other such questionable behavior which was expressly forbidden by the designers of color coded dragons precisely because it violates the skilled play paradigm I've just described. Likewise, they didn't care about establishing how other characters belonging to a player that had acquired such knowledge had learned of it because the important thing under that paradigm is honoring the player skill that has been earned through gameplay.


I wouldn't bother because I don't care about metagaming.

Then why were you so upset when I implied your method leads to it? Seems that you care. Besides, that was not the distinction I was talking about, it was about distinction of information learned during play and that learned from books/internet, which by your preceding paragraph you seem to care about quite a bit.

I'm saying you misidentified it. It's only metagaming if the character lacks the knowledge being used, and you haven't show that. You just assumed it, so you could call it "metagaming".


Likewise, they could very easily know many of the same things you do, react to things similarly, express themselves similarly, make similar decisions, etc. It's all within the realm of possibility, so whose job is it to police the players in the play of their characters?

It seems to me that if the character knows the same things the player does, reacts to things the same way and makes same decisions they would, then you're not really roleplaying. You are not playing a role of a persona distinct of yourself.

Right, the DM could change the colors of the dragons if they have concerns about metagaming. Metagaming is not why we color-code dragons!


When did you think color coded dragons were invented?

Decades ago. So was your argument that they originally were fro player skill in environment where that might have made some sense. But if that were the case, why we still have them as such environment no longer exist and has not for a long time? Tradition?

 

[Voadam]

It seems to me that if the character knows the same things the player does, reacts to things the same way and makes same decisions they would, then you're not really roleplaying. You are not playing a role of a persona distinct of yourself.

Roleplaying is not definitionally playing others, the role can be yourself in an imagined scenario. A character can be a lot of yourself and still be playing. How much you make a role yourself seems to me just a matter of taste.

 

[Clint_L]

In some of my groups we've made a general practice of more experienced players usually playing older/or more knowledgeable characters, so the greater player knowledge about creatures, or the setting, specifically makes sense. I've played a dwarf cleric who was the gravelly dad voice of the party (starting age in 3.5 in his 60s), a bold and reckless half-elf who nevertheless had a few decades of life behind him and knew many tales, and I've played young wizards who studied monster lore assiduously before going out adventuring.

Some editions gate some amounts of monster knowledge behind skill checks (4E had them defined for just about every monster, IIRC).

I can get impatient with a desire for players to "play dumb" and pretend ignorance of the weaknesses or traits of classic creatures. There's no objective way to determine WHEN it "makes sense" for the PC to try fire against a troll if we're assuming total ignorance. It's purely subjective. So bearing that in mind, I tend to be open to letting players use this kind of knowledge and assume it to be known in-character from folklore.

If I want monster weaknesses and powers to be mysterious and challenging to figure out, I can make new monsters or just re-skin existing ones. Doing this I never have to try to police the boundary or judge when the player is using in- or out-of character knowledge.

Obviously as Mixmasta indicated this is a different mater from players reading the adventure during the game, which I agree is bad faith play and a violation of the baseline social contract re: surprise and mystery.

Everyone's taste is different. I enjoy roleplaying.

Do you also get impatient when actors pretend to be the character they are playing rather than themselves? Because that's all players are doing when they try to avoid metagaming.

As for "no objective way to know...", sure there is. They can just decide. Then it's the truth. Objectively. Or the DM can decide, or have them role to determine, objectively, what their character would know. There's plenty of methods. It's an imagination game.