Questions for the designers.

[Derren]

"Doesn't bother you" is not the same as "doesn't bother anyone."

I never used metallic dragons to start with, because a) I hate having color-coded dragons and b) I hate having nice friendly dragons. So the question never really arose in my games. But I can certainly see where the designers are coming from. If one is going to color-code dragons, it would be a good idea to pick distinct colors, which brass, bronze, and copper are not.

a) Does not change. (Except that now its easier to tell different dragons apart which was hard before according to some posters). Also when you tell a player that "They see a dragon with scales which look like copper" I think they will know that they are dealing with a copper dragon and not with a brass one.

b) That is taken care of by metallic dragons not being good anymore. It has nothing to do with bronze/adamantine dragons.

 

[Counterspin]

The designers have already answered the first question. Clear differentiation for devils/demons/dragons, and to make the planes more accessible to lower powered adventurers. You don't like the answer clearly, but that doesn't mean they haven't given the answer.

I too would really be interested in the answer to #3. #2 I don't care about. Why should the inspiration matter?

 

[Derren]

Why should the inspiration matter?

Because it gives us information about what the designers have in mind when they design 4E. This can have a big effect on the game. For example in the beginning of D&D, it was inspired by Elric of Meli,bone and from there it got its focus of Law vs. Chaos (which also seems to be quite prominent in 4E).

This might not be a good reason for you, but for me it is.

 

[Stoat]

I'm not sure that "Silver, Adamantine, Iron" are really that easier to distinguish from "Copper, Bronze, Brass."

How do different folks picture those three metals?

 

[kennew142]

The dragon issue doesn't bother me. I've never used a metallic dragon as anything more than a plot device. Now that dragons are no longer tied to alignment, I may give them another look. If they seem cool ( ) to me, I may use them.

It would have been nice to see the needless draconic symmetry go away with the reduction in the importance of alignment, but that was probably a bit too sacred a cow for the designers.

The alloy vs. base metal issue never bothered me until you all mentioned it. Now it bothers the crap out of me.

The designers have also said that bronze and brass dragons aren't gone. They just didn't make it into MM1.

 

[Derren]

The designers have also said that bronze and brass dragons aren't gone. They just didn't make it into MM1.

But why change the tradition? Simply put the bronze & brass into the MM1 and bring the iron and adamantine dragon in a later book.

 

[Steely Dan]

But why change the tradition? Simply put the bronze & brass into the MM1 and bring the iron and adamantine dragon in a later book.

So, you really like dragons, don't you, Derren; tell me, what's the attraction?


You know what Nitechze said about them, he said they were god's second blunder…

 

[king_ghidorah]

Because it gives us information about what the designers have in mind when they design 4E. This can have a big effect on the game. For example in the beginning of D&D, it was inspired by Elric of Melibone and from there it got its focus of Law vs. Chaos (which also seems to be quite prominent in 4E).

This might not be a good reason for you, but for me it is.

Actually, the Elric Law/Chaos came in later... the law/chaos in early D&D, like the look of trolls and most of the look and height of elves came mostly from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions. This is why OD&D also treated Law as good and Chaos as evil, because Anderson treated chaos as the bad guys.

That's the tricky side of looking at influences, what seem to be obvious influences from one perspective may not be so obvious from another angle....

 

[Cadfan]

Since this is apparently a thread for flogging dead horses after they've long since died, I'll give a few more kicks to the carcass sitting next to me.

Dragon symmetry is one of the least excusable D&Disms in the game. By establishing an unwritten rule that the most defining characteristic of a dragon is his color, lousy dragon design is assured.

First, it creates the need for a LOT of different types of dragons. And once you've done that, you need to give all those dragons characteristics that are actually different. So you assign them things like environments or breath weapon types or whatever based on lists: "Well, we've used up most of the logical environments, and we still have a blue dragon. Lets, um, put him in the desert? Royal blue, lightning, and deserts go together, right?"

Second, it ensures that D&D dragon art is uninspired. Because dragons are defined by color, they end up being nearly monochromatic. You basically never see scale patterns or anything. And this is in spite of the fact that lizards and snakes are some of the most colorful animals in the world. A wealth of inspiration is available for the taking, but it never gets used because someone decided that dragons were one color, and one color ONLY. I want dragons with diamond patterning, dragons with leathery, tiger striped skin, dragons with whatever! Something other than monochromatic design.

The only good thing that has come from the color wheel dragon design philosophy is interesting dragon body shapes. Deprived of the ability to vary dragons in appearance in any natural way, dragons had to be varied in appearance by the shape of their bodies, the type of horns or tusks they had, and the shape and design of their wings. I approve of this, even if, overall, the process by which we got here was kind of lame. I do tend to think, though, that this occasionally goes too far, and perhaps it wouldn't have to if dragons were designed using more than one crayon. I mean, they wanted to make the green dragon look scary and toxic, so they slapped a billion horns on its head sticking out at odd angles? I get the logic, but wouldn't it have been easier and cooler to give it orange poisonous-jungle-frog markings on its back? But nooo, we can't mix orange and green. Its against the dragon code.

Instead of starting with a name and deriving a concept, better design might start from a concept, then derive the name. For example, we could create a Desert Dragon. What does it look like? I don't know, what fits in a desert? Tans with a pattern? What breath weapon fits a desert themed dragon? Fire for heat? What about burning ash? What about skipping the breath weapon in favor of a poisonous bite?

There are a million possibilities that we'll never see because we're so busy filling out a grade school color wheel.

*hauls dead horse to the dumpster out back*

Editted to add:

Look! A crocodile themed dragon! What will they think up next? And by "they" I mean, "not WOTC."

http://www.coolminiornot.com/190

 

[Dausuul]

Since this is apparently a thread for flogging dead horses after they've long since died, I'll give a few more kicks to the carcass sitting next to me.

Dragon symmetry is one of the least excusable D&Disms in the game. By establishing an unwritten rule that the most defining characteristic of a dragon is his color, lousy dragon design is assured.

First, it creates the need for a LOT of different types of dragons. And once you've done that, you need to give all those dragons characteristics that are actually different. So you assign them things like environments or breath weapon types or whatever based on lists: "Well, we've used up most of the logical environments, and we still have a blue dragon. Lets, um, put him in the desert? Royal blue, lightning, and deserts go together, right?"

Second, it ensures that D&D dragon art is uninspired. Because dragons are defined by color, they end up being nearly monochromatic. You basically never see scale patterns or anything. And this is in spite of the fact that lizards and snakes are some of the most colorful animals in the world. A wealth of inspiration is available for the taking, but it never gets used because someone decided that dragons were one color, and one color ONLY. I want dragons with diamond patterning, dragons with leathery, tiger striped skin, dragons with whatever! Something other than monochromatic design.

The only good thing that has come from the color wheel dragon design philosophy is interesting dragon body shapes. Deprived of the ability to vary dragons in appearance in any natural way, dragons had to be varied in appearance by the shape of their bodies, the type of horns or tusks they had, and the shape and design of their wings. I approve of this, even if, overall, the process by which we got here was kind of lame. I do tend to think, though, that this occasionally goes too far, and perhaps it wouldn't have to if dragons were designed using more than one crayon. I mean, they wanted to make the green dragon look scary and toxic, so they slapped a billion horns on its head sticking out at odd angles? I get the logic, but wouldn't it have been easier and cooler to give it orange poisonous-jungle-frog markings on its back? But nooo, we can't mix orange and green. Its against the dragon code.

Instead of starting with a name and deriving a concept, better design might start from a concept, then derive the name. For example, we could create a Desert Dragon. What does it look like? I don't know, what fits in a desert? Tans with a pattern? What breath weapon fits a desert themed dragon? Fire for heat? What about burning ash? What about skipping the breath weapon in favor of a poisonous bite?

There are a million possibilities that we'll never see because we're so busy filling out a grade school color wheel.

*hauls dead horse to the dumpster out back*

Bravo. I'd sig this if it would fit. A perfect summary of why I hate dragon color-coding. (Well, that plus I like more variety in dragon appearance. I don't want all my fire-breathing dragons to have to be red.)