How invested are D&D players in D&D dragons?

[VoxRationis]

Trying to take a quick poll here:
If a D&D setting changed dragons significantly from their depiction in the Monster Manual (across many editions), would you still be interested in it (assuming the rest of the setting were to your liking)? Would that be a problem? Would it be something you swallow but with distaste?

[veti]

Despite the name, a D&D setting isn't actually required to include dragons at all.

And "changing absolutely everything the Monster Manual says about any, and for that matter every, entry" is completely within the scope of what a DM is allowed - nay, expected - to do.

So knock yourself out.

[VoxRationis]

In theory, yes. But I am hoping to publish settings, and in my experience (both IRL and on this forum) players can get a little upset when you mess with the core rules.

[Slipperychicken]

If a D&D setting changed dragons significantly from their depiction in the Monster Manual (across many editions), would you still be interested in it (assuming the rest of the setting were to your liking)? Would that be a problem? Would it be something you swallow but with distaste?

Depends on how you changed them.

If you came up with a monster that has nothing to do with dragons, then called it a dragon, I wouldn't be too happy with it. If you just made them big dumb flying lizards and took away their special powers aside from breath weapons, I'd probably be okay with that interpretation of what a dragon is.

[Fable Wright]

Find something interesting to do with the trumped-up godlizards. That's all I ask. Xorvintaal? Argonessen dragons? Oriental dragons? Discworld dragons? All good.

Generic treasure-hoarders? Feel free to mix it up as much as you possibly can.

[Segev]

As long as the changes are clearly spelled-out, rather than sprung on them, most players would probably be fine with it. Even if it's just an opening of, "In this setting, dragons are not color-coded for your convenience, and do not necessarily have breath weapons nor powers of the sort you might expect from the MM."

I only get annoyed, personally, when I was given to expect "D&D except where stated otherwise" and I only learn about the "otherwise" when it's right on top of me and I was already halfway through making decisions based on "D&D" rather than the "except otherwise" I didn't know about.

[Vitruviansquid]

Yeah. I don't really care about the dragons.

[VoxRationis]

If you just made them big dumb flying lizards and took away their special powers aside from breath weapons, I'd probably be okay with that interpretation of what a dragon is.

That was more the direction I was thinking of, though there are creatures in the setting that are referred to as dragons even though everyone knows there's no particular relation (much as we have "firs" which are actually pines, two families of unrelated vultures, etc., and of course creatures called "chimeras" or "dragons" even though there are no such things in the vein of the storybook monsters).

[Honest Tiefling]

I probably wouldn't really care. I don't like how DnD dragons are color coded masterminds except white dragons for some reason. But there's nothing to say you can't throw in a side bar or article about adapting the current breed of dragon with the new one. I respect 4e for trying new things, but I think it made Forgotten Realms into such a controversial issue because it changed something that already existed, and stopped supporting the old stuff. For someone invested in Living Forgotten Realms, that must have sucked big time.

I would be more okay with a smaller company being forced to take one idea and run with it. Make me like it. But something as large as WoTC? You've stopped supporting so many fan favorite settings, please stop. Just run different lines and let the grognards keep their old style dragons with conversions and in the proper settings, and let the people who want to change everything for the sake of change see something new.

If you are writing a new setting intended for DnD, I would say, do something new, at least if it is 3.5. I don't know about the other editions, but 3.5 had the Draconomicon. It's been done, it's right there! There's not a lot of need to make the whole DnD dragons all over again with a few minor tweaks here and there. (One could improve it, but I would still like to see more then minor bits changed.) But new style of dragons? Bring it! The more ideas, the merrier! And for your setting, focus on making a cohesive, fun, enjoyable whole as opposed to a giant mess that has everything stamped with the OGL license in there. A few good, well fleshed out races in a well thought deep campaign setting are going to be better then a Fantasy Kitchen Sink. But that's my opinion, some people refuse to play if they can't play their favorite race.

...I know about the name. I do occasionally play non-tieflings!

[Berenger]

...I don't even require dungeons.

[TheIronGolem]

My main thing is, I don't like dragons being spellcasters. if you tell me that dragons are smart, sure, I'll buy it. But tell me they're also wizards? That always felt to me like Gygax kludged it in when the players in his game started beating them more easily than he expected. "Oh, the dragon's claws and bites aren't beating your armor class? Fine, now he's casting finger of death! Save or die, sucker!".

I like different kinds/colors of dragons coexisting, and each type having different powers/breath weapons. I do not like the "metallic good, chromatic evil" trope.

[Slipperychicken]

As long as the changes are clearly spelled-out, rather than sprung on them, most players would probably be fine with it. Even if it's just an opening of, "In this setting, dragons are not color-coded for your convenience, and do not necessarily have breath weapons nor powers of the sort you might expect from the MM."

I only get annoyed, personally, when I was given to expect "D&D except where stated otherwise" and I only learn about the "otherwise" when it's right on top of me and I was already halfway through making decisions based on "D&D" rather than the "except otherwise" I didn't know about.

I don't see that as a world-building thing. That's just your DM trying to snag you with a gotcha because he can't handle the thought of players being prepared for his monsters.

[Professor Gnoll]

My main thing is, I don't like dragons being spellcasters. if you tell me that dragons are smart, sure, I'll buy it. But tell me they're also wizards? That always felt to me like Gygax kludged it in when the players in his game started beating them more easily than he expected. "Oh, the dragon's claws and bites aren't beating your armor class? Fine, now he's casting finger of death! Save or die, sucker!".

I'm inclined to disagree. Dragons are just as smart, if not smarter, than playable races- and every playable race can be a spellcaster. Why wouldn't some dragons pick up some spells? Especially since they seem to be such an intrinsically magical beastie.
Now, not every dragon should be able to cast spells. But I think at least some should have the ability.

I like different kinds/colors of dragons coexisting, and each type having different powers/breath weapons. I do not like the "metallic good, chromatic evil" trope.

Agreed. I'm fine with colours/metal informing personality aspects, but it shouldn't be a blanket alignment for each type. That just feels kind of lazy, and restrictive.

[Stan]

I probably wouldn't really care. I don't like how DnD dragons are color coded masterminds except white dragons for some reason.

Same here. I always found the color coding dorky and have redone dragons in homebrew settings because of it. If it's in the lore you give the players and it's not a surprise, what's the problem?

I like dragons having magic. That could be because one of my first real exposures to dragons was the Earthsea books - there magic was naming rather than spells but dragons were better than most at it.

[ExLibrisMortis]

As long as your redone dragons are pretty big and powerful, it's fine with me (or a parody of that, if it's a comedy campaign). A change to 'just another beastie with claws and teeth' is a) not very useful and b) does not match my expectation of dragons, in any setting.

[Knaight]

I despise the default D&D dragons, and would be happy to see them changed. I'm not a fan of the color coding, I'm not a fan of dragons as spellcasters (dragons as having some sort of innate magic, sure, dragons as actually casting spells or SLAs, no), I think that electricity breath and ice breath and similar are incredibly cheesy, I'm not big on the dragons being hyper intelligent and I'm especially not big on the idea of baby intelligent dragons as fodder to be killed.

This isn't some dislike of all D&D flavor either - I quite like the demons and devils for the most part.

[NichG]

On the one hand, I'm of the opinion 'its a new setting, do what you want'.

But I'd caveat that by saying that when you change something, you should try your utmost to make that change both interesting and somehow significant or meaningful. Because otherwise, every change you make is just asking the DM to memorize facts without providing hooks or inspiration to help anchor them. A change is harder to remember than just removing something, so if you're changing things just to take them out of the spotlight it might be better to remove it than to change it.

So from that point of view, I would tend to not change dragons just because you don't like the details about D&D dragons or to de-emphasize them. Instead I'd either find a change to something important and tied to the setting deeply (even if it changes them from their traditional role, so long as it gives them a different but similarly important role), or I'd remove them entirely. An absence is more mysterious than a change, so DMs who really want things to be about dragons despite your setting de-emphasizing them can make a big plot about 'where did all the dragons go?' or 'no one has ever seen a dragon until now' or things like that.

For example 'dragons are just big dumb flying lizards with breath weapons; however, their breath nodes are potent alchemical ingredients that are needed to sustain elemental energies in places that have been affected by the Severing, a distancing between the world and the elemental sources; as such, dragons have been hunted nearly to extinction and are now under the protection of the Millenium Church, an organization that wishes to ensure the continued sustenance of life for the next thousand years. Killing a dragon without permission will draw down the wrath of that church, which has branches in every major city and strong political influence.'

[Jeff the Green]

I care about them so little that in my home setting there are no dragons. (At least, no true dragons. There are things like wyverns and dragonwrought kobolds and sea serpents.) They're entirely mythical.

As long as the treatment of them is halfway interesting, I'd be happy to use it over the default.

[Max_Killjoy]

How invested are D&D players in D&D dragons?

I diversified my portfolio years ago; luckily this was before the Great D&D Dragons Crash of '08, and therefore I didn't lose everything.

[Mr.Moron]

I like Dragons as general concept. I've seen a lot of variations on dragons. I generally find the color-coded "Jewerly box colors are good" "Crayon box colors are bad" version of Dragons to be one of the least cool incarnations of Dragons I've seen. You certainly wouldn't find me objecting to any games that ditched the standard dragon model, I've never used it any of my games.

[Khedrac]

Dark Sun was a very successful campaign setting for D&D and it did not feature conventional D&D dragons at all.

If your setting is good, the absence/presence/style of dragons will not make a difference.

[SilverLeaf167]

In my own setting, I prefer to treat True Dragons as unique, truly fearsome and legendary beasts. Some are intelligent and scheming, like normal D&D, but many are a bit more animalistic, though all are very powerful. Every individual is different and reproduces asexually, laying a single egg that only hatches after the parent's death. Wyverns and other such creatures can fill in when weaker "dragons" are needed.

Hasn't really become relevant yet, but the players haven't really complained about it, either.

[hymer]

Depends on how you changed them.

This. And since we're talking about gut reaction more than anything, it's actually quite hard to predict.
But I'm not particularly invested in dragons. I usually have few of them in my campaign worlds, and they tend to be evil to the last scale. And they don't breathe lightning, because that's bizarre. So my gut instinct is already somehwat against D&D dragons.

[2D8HP]

Despite the name, a D&D setting isn't actually required to include dragons at all.

Well not all the time maybe, it does make it hard for the PC's to survive. ...

...I don't even require dungeons.

Sure wilderness adventures can be cool....

Yeah. I don't really care about the dragons.

*sputter*

Blasphemy!

Dragons even when they can't speak (maybe even especially then) are simply BADASS! With Awesome! on top of Awesome!, next to the Awesome!, with a side order of AWESOME!

And they know it!

My wife likes to watch Game of Thrones, the brutality of which would frankly make it unwatchable for me if it weren't for the Dragons!

Or take the movie Dragonslayer which with an Ogre or a Giant would be as forgettable as "The Sword and the Sorcerer" (which came out the same year), but Vermithrax makes it a must see!

Now while they are some degenerates in need of treatment that prefer boring RPG's (Cyberpunk, Vampire etc.) with settings that lack Dragons, it is clearly evident that the deficit of AWESOME renders such settings as LAME!
You may change it around a a little bit , but for me as long as the game features a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon and you play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a Warrior in armor, wielding a longbow, just like the picture on the box I picked up in 1978, whatever the edition, I want to play that game!

SAVE THE DRAGONS!

[MrStabby]

So I have no problem with dragons being changed, however I find it useful to not change them, especially as I change so much else in the world.

Dragons act as a point of reference to the players. If the antagonist has a dragon ally who treats him as an equal, then it says a lot about that guy's strength. The trope of colour coded dragons is useful when I want to introduce hack and slash to a more in-depth campaign and to have a really tough fight with no moral questions asked for a bit of a change in pace.

Likewise if you have a group of more paranoid players in a campaign a silver dragon that gives advice or brokers discussions with other parties can act as a point of trust to push the campaign forward.

Mechanically, a big creature that can fly, has an area weapon, is tough and has some spells as well as being smart enough to avoid traps is a good pivotal encounter that is almost always hard and can't be simply defeated by a single simple strategy.

[Millstone85]

An idea I would play with is that of pseudodragons and wyverns not being merely related to true dragons but in fact juvenile versions of them.

This way, a character could say that, yes, they do have a tiny dragon perched on their shoulder. Years later, the same character could say that, yes, they are in truth a dragon rider. And long after this character's death, a wise old dragon might reminisce about the person who took care of them when they were only of beast-like intelligence.

[BWR]

D&D dragons are cliché at this point, and things become clichés because they work. There is something about it that appeals to people.
Does every setting need them as commonly portrayed in the base game? of course not. Altering or ignoring clichés is fine and good. Look at Dark Sun - only one full 'dragon' there and he's quite different from normal D&D dragons.
Should D&D dragons henceforth be ignored in all settings as passe or stupid or unimaginative? **** no! Like dungeons, I like them and they have an important place in D&D.

[Yora]

I only use Dungeons & Dragons rules in my campaign, but don't run them in a D&D world. Almost all my monsters are homebrew creations.

[AslanCross]

Find something interesting to do with the trumped-up godlizards. That's all I ask. Xorvintaal? Argonessen dragons? Oriental dragons? Discworld dragons? All good.

Totally agree. I really liked the removal of color-coding in Eberron, for example.

[Jay R]

The introduction to my last campaign included the following.

DO NOT assume that you know anything about any fantasy creatures. I will re-write many monsters and races, introduce some not in D&D, and eliminate some. The purpose is to make the world strange and mysterious. It will allow (require) PCs to learn, by trial and error, what works. Most of these changes I will not tell you in advance. Here are a couple, just to give you some idea what I mean.
1. Dragons are not color-coded for the benefits of the PCs.
2. Of elves, dwarves, gnomes, halflings, kobolds, goblins, and orcs, at least one does not exist, at least one is slightly different from the books, and at least one is wildly different.
3. Several monsters have different alignments from the books.
4. The name of an Undead will not tell you what will or won’t hurt it.
5. The first time you see a member of a humanoid race, I will describe it as a “vaguely man-shaped creature.” This could be a kobold, an elf, or an Umber Hulk until you learn what they are.