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

No, but certainly this is perfectly possible.
It's a possibility, yes, but you've been posting as if it's a preordained certainty in all cases that characters have no knowledge of dragons whatsoever to justify your accusations that a player who uses information about dragons acquired in gameplay is a filthy metagamer. It's stomach turning how little tolerance you have for even the mention of a play style you yourself don't enjoy.

In any case, I find the whole notion of a playstyle where players memorising monster characteristics is something that is encouraged extremely off putting.
It's not surprising that your preferences are different from those of game designers from 50 years ago. What I find odd is a play style in which the players are expected to ignore the characteristics of the monsters their characters encounter and pretend they didn't notice them. Where's the fun in that?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

It's rather interesting to see arguments over something that the Study action was explicitly designed for.

"Can I use the Study action to recall if a troll has any weaknesses?"

"Roll a History check, since trolls are Giants. And since one particular weakness is well known, roll with advantage."

The DM might even assign a low DC for this as well.
 


It's rather interesting to see arguments over something that the Study action was explicitly designed for.

"Can I use the Study action to recall if a troll has any weaknesses?"

"Roll a History check, since trolls are Giants. And since one particular weakness is well known, roll with advantage."

The DM might even assign a low DC for this as well.
Is that new? I haven't kept up with the 2024 rules and dont recall that in 2014.

At first impression I feel like it still doesnt change the circumstances for a group with players that already have the knowledge, but for players/groups who are new its a good and simple way to feed that info.
 

Since kobolds have evolved from being little dog men on the goblinoid "growth track" (kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, etc) to having draconic origins ... should kobolds be color-coded? Perhaps competing tribes of kobolds with different draconic patrons...

I'm suddenly having this vision of a version of Keep on the Borderlands where all the Caves are different competing kobold tribes, each with their own draconic patron, and a cult of Tiamat behind it all.
 

Since kobolds have evolved from being little dog men on the goblinoid "growth track" (kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, etc) to having draconic origins ... should kobolds be color-coded? Perhaps competing tribes of kobolds with different draconic patrons...

I'm suddenly having this vision of a version of Keep on the Borderlands where all the Caves are different competing kobold tribes, each with their own draconic patron, and a cult of Tiamat behind it all.
I disagree that kobolds have evolved, considering both Drak and Alrune are attested "dragon-type" names for certain kobolds in German folklore due to their association with the mandrake. I would rather kobolds, along with other goblinoids, orcs, etc., be depicted as having a strong association with the element of fire in keeping with their origins as household spirits, or lares, of hearth and forge, an association they would share with red dragons in particular.
 
Last edited:

It's a possibility, yes, but you've been posting as if it's a preordained certainty in all cases that characters have no knowledge of dragons whatsoever to justify your accusations that a player who uses information about dragons acquired in gameplay is a filthy metagamer. It's stomach turning how little tolerance you have for even the mention of a play style you yourself don't enjoy.

No, characters certainly can have knowledge of dragons and all sort of other things. We even have various knowledge skills in the game to roughly measure the amount of knowledge they have. It is just that this that this knowledge does not necessarily correspond with the knowledge the player has.

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. And how are you expecting to differentiate where the information was acquired from? Like I for most of my knowledge, I honestly could not tell why I know it. It has been accumulated over decades from various sources.

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. It is not for me, but if you wish to play in such manner, that really is not my problem.

It's not surprising that your preferences are different from those of game designers from 50 years ago. What I find odd is a play style in which the players are expected to ignore the characteristics of the monsters their characters encounter and pretend they didn't notice them. Where's the fun in that?

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.

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.

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.
 

Since kobolds have evolved from being little dog men

Yours may have, mine will always remain dog people!

on the goblinoid "growth track" (kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, etc) to having draconic origins ... should kobolds be color-coded? Perhaps competing tribes of kobolds with different draconic patrons...

I'm suddenly having this vision of a version of Keep on the Borderlands where all the Caves are different competing kobold tribes, each with their own draconic patron, and a cult of Tiamat behind it all.

Dragonborn are like that already, (which I'm not necessarily a fan of) but if one wants, I see no reason one could not do the same with kobolds.

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.) If one wanted such a setup, there are two avenues I'd consider. Kobolds and dragonborn are somehow directly created by dragons, like draconians on Krynn, so that the created lesser draconic creatures share characteristics of the dragon that spawned them. Other approach would be that the dragon colours and associated abilities are not actually hereditary, but an environmental adaptation that happens on each individual. So the elemental auras or other environmental effects of the area dragonic creature is growing up in will determine its colour, and this applies to kobolds and dragonborn just the same than it does to the proper dragons. So in same area all the dragonic creatures would usually share the colour.
 

Since kobolds have evolved from being little dog men on the goblinoid "growth track" (kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, etc)
The humanoid HD track
Kobold d4
Goblin 1-1
Orc 1
Hobgoblin 1+1
Gnoll 2
Bugbear 3
to having draconic origins ... should kobolds be color-coded? Perhaps competing tribes of kobolds with different draconic patrons...

I'm suddenly having this vision of a version of Keep on the Borderlands where all the Caves are different competing kobold tribes, each with their own draconic patron, and a cult of Tiamat behind it all.
3e kobolds were green, 5e ones are red. It is not a stretch to say these are different tribes/bloodlines/ethnicities or just within the scale coloration variation of kobolds.
1757770916277.jpeg

1757770765617.jpeg
 


Remove ads

Top