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

[Hriston]

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.

Who said it always corresponds? There's a huge gulf between always corresponds and never corresponds. It has to never correspond for it to always be metagaming and make your claim, that it's metagaming, actually true.

Then why were you so upset when I implied your method leads to it?

You didn't "imply" that it "leads" to anything. You straight up called it metagaming, which is false. Also, it isn't "my" method. The OP described a feature of every published version of D&D, multicolor dragons, and asked why it exists. I gave my opinion on that question.

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.

This is also complete BS. There are many differences between different people, yes, but there are also many similarities. Just because we're playing fantasy races doesn't make that less true. We're all humanoids after all. When I roleplay, I'm not interested in "playing a role of a persona" except insofar as I have an idea of who my character is that I sometimes reference when I don't have a clear course of action in mind, which is actually very meta. I.e. it actually takes me out of character to have to think about who my character is. I mean, when you make decisions in your real life, do you first have to check in with who you are? What I'm interested in is feeling like I am my character and that I'm in my character's position making decisions as my character, and it's the commonalities I have with my character that make my character relatable that allow me to do this. You telling me I'm not roleplaying just reveals your one-true-wayism.

Also, I don't see how this is relevant to the thread or our discussion of skilled play unless part of the character's persona is "knows nothing about dragon-color". I've never seen anyone write something like that on their character sheet.

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?

Yes, the question is why there are color coded dragons. I'm not answering on behalf of a collective "we" and prescribing a play-style for others to follow. I'm answering objectively as to why color coded dragons came to be. Of course, we don't know for sure what was in the minds of the designers, so this is my opinion on the matter. It was done for the same reason that so much attention is given in the AD&D 1E MM to the various colors of, say, hobgoblins versus orcs for example. Miniatures could be painted or monsters described in such a way as to be recognizable and distinguishable to the players for the purpose, in my opinion, of skilled play. Why you make the assumption that absolutely no one is interested in skilled play anymore (thus leading to skilled play environments no longer existing) is beyond me, but I hardly see how it's relevant. Published versions of D&D have continued to retain design decisions that were originally made when the game was geared towards skilled play long after it had ceased to be the larger design's main focus, which was around 1983 or thereabouts. I wouldn't call the motivation to retain such features "tradition" but rather a reluctance to depart too much from a formula that had sold well in the past, borne out of a desire to avoid alienating a customer base that had come to expect certain things from D&D. By that time, dragons of certain colors had become a recognizable part of D&D's brand, so I guess that's the answer you're looking for.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Who said it always corresponds? There's a huge gulf between always corresponds and never corresponds. It has to never correspond for it to always be metagaming and make your claim, that it's metagaming, actually true.

You didn't "imply" that it "leads" to anything. You straight up called it metagaming, which is false. Also, it isn't "my" method. The OP described a feature of every published version of D&D, multicolor dragons, and asked why it exists. I gave my opinion on that question.

If the information does not always correspond, then it sometimes leads to metagaming. Simple as that.

This is also complete BS. There are many differences between different people, yes, but there are also many similarities. Just because we're playing fantasy races doesn't make that less true. We're all humanoids after all. When I roleplay, I'm not interested in "playing a role of a persona" except insofar as I have an idea of who my character is that I sometimes reference when I don't have a clear course of action in mind, which is actually very meta. I.e. it actually takes me out of character to have to think about who my character is. I mean, when you make decisions in your real life, do you first have to check in with who you are? What I'm interested in is feeling like I am my character and that I'm in my character's position making decisions as my character, and it's the commonalities I have with my character that make my character relatable that allow me to do this. You telling me I'm not roleplaying just reveals your one-true-wayism.

You internalise the persona of the character, then you do not really need to think of it. It is like method acting. Also just basic roleplaying.

Also, I don't see how this is relevant to the thread or our discussion of skilled play unless part of the character's persona is "knows nothing about dragon-color". I've never seen anyone write something like that on their character sheet.

No, probably not in those exact words, but certainly different character concepts imply that they know different things. Like some backwater farmboy from a land where there are no dragons probably does not know much about them. A draconic sorcerer who has made studying dragons their life's work will probably knows quite a bit more.

Yes, the question is why there are color coded dragons. I'm not answering on behalf of a collective "we" and prescribing a play-style for others to follow. I'm answering objectively as to why color coded dragons came to be. Of course, we don't know for sure what was in the minds of the designers, so this is my opinion on the matter. It was done for the same reason that so much attention is given in the AD&D 1E MM to the various colors of, say, hobgoblins versus orcs for example. Miniatures could be painted or monsters described in such a way as to be recognizable and distinguishable to the players for the purpose, in my opinion, of skilled play. Why you make the assumption that absolutely no one is interested in skilled play anymore (thus leading to skilled play environments no longer existing) is beyond me, but I hardly see how it's relevant. Published versions of D&D have continued to retain design decisions that were originally made when the game was geared towards skilled play long after it had ceased to be the larger design's main focus, which was around 1983 or thereabouts. I wouldn't call the motivation to retain such features "tradition" but rather a reluctance to depart too much from a formula that had sold well in the past, borne out of a desire to avoid alienating a customer base that had come to expect certain things from D&D. By that time, dragons of certain colors had become a recognizable part of D&D's brand, so I guess that's the answer you're looking for.

People are still interested in skilled play. But "know monster stuff" is not good player skill to test when all that information is readily available to everyone all the time.

 

[mixmastashizz]

You internalise the persona of the character, then you do not really need to think of it. It is like method acting. Also just basic roleplaying.

This thread does NOT need to delve in what roleplaying is or isn't, but this bar of 'basic roleplaying' being akin to method acting is bananas.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This thread does NOT need to delve in what roleplaying is or isn't, but this bar of 'basic roleplaying' being akin to method acting is bananas.

It’s how I do it. And yes, I have had acting lessons.

 

[Clint_L]

This thread does NOT need to delve in what roleplaying is or isn't, but this bar of 'basic roleplaying' being akin to method acting is bananas.

Yet this thread did go there, and for good reasons - we were debating whether it would make sense for characters to know the specific strengths and weaknesses of different coloured dragons just because their players know. I am sure the mods will step in if they feel we've lost the plot, but any long running thread takes twists and turns.

As for "bananas," trying to play your characters according to their knowledge and personality rather than your own is pretty basic roleplaying. The ranger from the north, in my current home game, would likely have pretty good knowledge about white dragons. The goblin artificer, probably not, but they might have a lot more insight into golems, and so on.

For a lot of players, including me, it is fun to try to imagine and play within the limitations of your character. And that means basic acting (e.g. playing a role). Roleplaying is literally acting.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I have never roleplayed a banana, but I suppose there's a first time for everything.

Back on topic ... if the different dragons are separate species, then why does it seem like they can interbreed with anything with a pulse? Half-dragons, dragonborn ... yet no purple dragon crossbreeds (red + blue) though I assume the green dragons are actually a cross-breed of a blue dragon the near-mythical yellow dragon.

In what supplement do I find the draconic color wheel?

 

[Mecheon]

I have never roleplayed a banana, but I suppose there's a first time for everything.

Back on topic ... if the different dragons are separate species, then why does it seem like they can interbreed with anything with a pulse? Half-dragons, dragonborn ... yet no purple dragon crossbreeds (red + blue) though I assume the green dragons are actually a cross-breed of a blue dragon the near-mythical yellow dragon.

In what supplement do I find the draconic color wheel?

Species is always a rough thing because technically 'species' is just a specific population we're determined as distinct enough to count as different, they're not a real thing

That purple was around back in 2E as the energy dragon, just never got updated

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

I, too, enjoy roleplaying. I'm glad we have that in common.

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. "I can get impatient with a desire for players to play dumb" primarily when that desire is externally imposed and judged. There is no objective way to know from the outside whether the player is in good faith or trying to gain an inappropriate advantage. How many rounds is it appropriate to expect the players to fumble around and try everything but fire or acid? There is no clear answer and cannot be. And sure, the player can just make a decision, but it's equally arbitrary and what they think best fits their immersion may not match up with what makes sense to the other players (including the DM). While we can negotiate and discuss that explicitly, our yardsticks for judging are all inherently subjective and internal.

I could potentially get impatient with a player struggling and handicapping themselves and the group out of a well-intentioned desire to simulate ignorance, but if I do that's probably on me if I'm the DM for not communicating better and making sure we're on the same page about character knowledge.

I definitely prefer for myself and other players to avoid metagaming in the sense of using knowledge their characters could not possibly have access to. When it comes to general monster knowledge, I think there are good techniques available which prevent the issue from coming up in the first place, making the game less fun and potentially eroding trust.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I, too, enjoy roleplaying. I'm glad we have that in common.

Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough. "I can get impatient with a desire for players to play dumb" primarily when that desire is externally imposed and judged. There is no objective way to know from the outside whether the player is in good faith or trying to gain an inappropriate advantage. How many rounds is it appropriate to expect the players to fumble around and try everything but fire or acid? There is no clear answer and cannot be. And sure, the player can just make a decision, but it's equally arbitrary and what they think best fits their immersion may not match up with what makes sense to the other players (including the DM). While we can negotiate and discuss that explicitly, our yardsticks for judging are all inherently subjective and internal.

I could potentially get impatient with a player struggling and handicapping themselves and the group out of a well-intentioned desire to simulate ignorance, but if I do that's probably on me if I'm the DM for not communicating better and making sure we're on the same page about character knowledge.

I am reminded of a Knights of the Dinner Table issue where the secondary protagonist group (game shop crew) were running a game and introduced a new character. The player wanted to be 'deeply immersive' and would answer questions about what level he was or similar with 'prey sir, what are these levels of which you speak?' and such. So they set up a mock fight with sticks to determine his attack rate and he ended up (through happenstance) clipping the other character in the family jewels (1 hit KO, apparently) and they erroneously concluded he was an epic character.

I definitely prefer for myself and other players to avoid metagaming in the sense of using knowledge their characters could not possibly have access to. When it comes to general monster knowledge, I think there are good techniques available which prevent the issue from coming up in the first place, making the game less fun and potentially eroding trust.

Once again, I think this whole thread side tangent can be summed up with group agreement, good communication, session 0, yadda yadda yadda. The right answer to whether the group knows the red dragon breaths fire or the giant that looks warty but not froglike needs fire or acid to kill (or that the creature that looks like vacuum cleaner-- something the characters are unfamiliar with--will destroy their metal equipment) is whatever the group decides -- preferably ahead of time, certainly at the start of the battle in which they are introduced.

 

[Voadam]

I find as a player and as a DM that I enjoy a mix of familiar and new in things like monster stuff.

As a DM I generally mix core MM stuff most everybody knows with 3rd party stuff only I have. So when I was running my 5e conversion of the Iron Gods AP the gangs of Scrapwall included humans and hobgoblins and orcs, but also a conversion of the Pathfinder ratfolk and hedgehog/echidna people from a 5e Kobold Press monster book I have. Lots of familiar D&Disms to interact with and new stuff to be surprised by. Too much new stuff for me makes it feel like I am playing in an entirely alien world, it is good to have some familiar enjoyable elements as well.

I think it can be cool as a newbie to be surprised by a rust monster's abilities the first time you come across them with no warning.

I think it can also be cool for a newbie to have some clues and foreshadowing before encountering one, such as coming across a warrior corpse where the the nonmetallic items like the padding under armor and sword belt and sheath are left with no armor and sword.

It can be cool to know the rust monster abilities and get the freak out when you are a fighter in plate mail and encounter one knowing what it can do and try and figure out how to deal with it.

It can be cool to come upon a rust monster, know about them and target them from a distance with magic missiles, only to find out it is a variant that feeds on magic as well and gains bonuses from doing so.

If someone who knows about rust monsters wants to roleplay not knowing a rust monster's abilities that can be fun, however if the player feels unfairly penalized by the situation they can feel that roleplaying out the bad result and going on with the consequences is not really fun.

For dragons in my own games I have used mostly the core color coded and metallic dragons and worked in a lot of lore about them from a variety of sources including some of my own original ideas about chromatics being representative of deadly sins with each color being more associated with a specific one (red - wrath, blue - pride, etc.) but also used things like a gray dragon from the 3rd party Book of Beasts in a planar adventure.