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.