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

[mixmastashizz]

My personal feelings about player/character monster knowledge is similar to how I feel about traps.

The interesting part is not the gotcha of its abilities since that only works exactly once, and once it is known you can never surprise a party with it again. Trying to pretend and not act on that knowledge has been generally unsatisfying in every case in my experiences.

What's way more interesting is how the party overcomes them together using their tools, or how they find a way to survive if they know their limitations but arent prepared for it.

A surprise trap is rarely fun, what's nearly always fun is "Okay this room has insert trap, how are we going to get around it without setting it off or mitigating the harm?"

 

[Staffan]

A surprise trap is rarely fun, what's nearly always fun is "Okay this room has insert trap, how are we going to get around it without setting it off or mitigating the harm?"

A trap by itself is rarely fun. A trap as part of a larger encounter, where an enemy can push you into a pit trap or something, can be great fun.

 

[RoughCoronet0]

I’ve never had a problem with color coded dragons (or color coded creatures/enemies in general).

Having said that, I’ve been expanding the lore of my dragons and giving them other names the different dragon species go by, sometimes with overlapping common names for different species that locals will use.

 

[Hriston]

So the character is aware of what the player is aware of? So if between sessions the player reads monster manual and memorises monster information, the character magically becomes aware of it, even though they previously were not and have not had an opportunity to acquire such information?

How was it established the character was previously unaware of and had no opportunity to acquire information about dragons? Do you play through every moment of the character's life from birth in excruciating detail?

 

[Mecheon]

So the character is aware of what the player is aware of? So if between sessions the player reads monster manual and memorises monster information, the character magically becomes aware of it, even though they previously were not and have not had an opportunity to acquire such information?

If this is some brand new creature, brand new to existence, that's, yeah, not great.

But trolls and dragons are D&D staples in the world for decades now. Their quirks are going to be common knowledge, not some obscure lore known only by the most wizened sages found only in the depths

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How was it established the character was previously unaware of and had no opportunity to acquire information about dragons? Do you play through every moment of the character's life from birth in excruciating detail?

No, but certainly this is perfectly possible. Characters are in wilderness, the hear rumours of Zirconium Dragon on the area. Characters discuss what to do, and what they know, none of them know what these sort of dragons do. Then the session ends, the player googles Zirconium Dragon and learns what they are like. Do their character in the next session that just begins from where the last session ended now know this information?

In any case, I find the whole notion of a playstyle where players memorising monster characteristics is something that is encouraged extremely off putting.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If this is some brand new creature, brand new to existence, that's, yeah, not great.

But trolls and dragons are D&D staples in the world for decades now. Their quirks are going to be common knowledge, not some obscure lore known only by the most wizened sages found only in the depths

Certainly. But @Hriston said that remembering monster characteristic is a player skill, meaning that memorising them and then using that knowledge to their advantage is intended part of the play. I have no issue with troll vulnerabilities and dragon breath/colour associations etc just being common knowledge in the setting, but then it cannot be an area of player skill, as if you have a noob at the table that does not genuinely know these things the GM should just tell them as their character still would know.

 

[mixmastashizz]

No, but certainly this is perfectly possible. Characters are in wilderness, the hear rumours of Zirconium Dragon on the area. Characters discuss what to do, and what they know, none of them know what these sort of dragons do. Then the session ends, the player googles Zirconium Dragon and learns what they are like. Do their character in the next session that just begins from where the last session ended now know this information.

In any case, I find the whole notion of a playstyle where players memorising monster characteristics is something that is encouraged extremely off putting.

No one, not even me, is saying that I think players are encouraged to go off and look up adventures and read the monster manual between sessions?

I (and i partially feel responsible for kicking off this whole back and forth) meant to express that I thought pretending that characters didnt know facts about common monsters thats been around the hobby for 50 years was a chore and we're better served moving on and focusing on other things.

There is a spectrum between "Oh crap a blue dragon! I know what that is!" And "im looking through the adventure the gm is running and studying up the monsters and encounters"

I think that if an avid player just happens to know a lot about different dnd creatures, that they'd share that information with the group and it'd just be part of the game because it is unsatisfying (to me) to intentionally hold back because 'my character wouldn't know that'. The gotcha mechanics of a new monster is not the exciting part of the game for MY group.

It is clear that we play different styles of games and thats okay. Ultimately, you know your players, I know mine, and the level of "dont be a dick" differs from group to group and whatever they tolerate.

 

[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.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

My guess is that it is at least partly inspired by the fact that dragons in heraldry had to be reducible to simple descriptions (blazons) which generally meant each given object has a single color, which tends to be visually striking. But then again that wouldn't explain why other heraldric mythical creatures like the gryphon didn't get the same treatment in D&D. I think historical treatment of dragons as coming in several very different colors in art and literature probably got the ball rolling. The whole thing makes me think of the Prophetiae Merlini with a red dragon fighting a white one, which itself ties back to heraldry.