Thoughts On Dragons

[Johnny Angel]

I have a pretty wide variety of fantasy influences. The writing styles and tenets of world building behind those influences often vary wildly. As such, I can, at times, be a bit hard pressed to settle on a baseline power level when it comes to designing a setting. The differences among the material which has influenced me can often be easily seen when I sit and contrast how dragons are portrayed in various stories and games; even among games from the same brand -such as different editions of Dungeons & Dragons- how dragons compare to the world around them can vary greatly.


As a kid, I remember reading The Hobbit and being in awe at how Smaug was able battle an entire army on his own, and that was after being portrayed earlier in the novel as being clever and intelligent when speaking to Bilbo to try to discern the invisible hobbit's location. Even when Smaug does eventually die, it's only after a combination of Bard being such an excellent shot; having knowledge of a specific weak spot, and a special arrow.


I have not yet faced a dragon in D&D 5th Edition. In 4th Edition, they often were not very difficult, and I'd dare say that they tended to be almost easier than some regular monsters due to a combination of what 4th called "Solo Monsters" having trouble with how 4th's action economy worked as a game and 4th Edition PCs being somewhat mythical in their abilities. I've been involved in 4th Edition combats where a group of 4 heroes easily squashed a dragon, and it was little more than a big bag of HP and EXP. Dragons were tougher in 3rd Edition, but the concept of a small team being able to fight one was still part of the game. I have no actual experience playing 2nd or 1st Edition, but my knowledge of Dragonlance and what I've read when it comes to adventure design in older editions lends me to believe that fighting a dragon was a bit tougher then than in the more recent editions.


Even in GURPS, there is a noticeable difference in power level when comparing something like Dungeon Fantasy to Banestorm. Indeed, one of the things I love about GURPS is having the freedom to define my world. Still, from a writing perspective, it can sometimes be hard to decide upon what defines something like a "dragon" because there is such a broad range of interpretations. GURPS Dragons provides several examples.


Conan manages to kill what you might say is a dragon, and he does so with the aid of only one other person. That being said, the dragon in that story is little more than a beast or an animal, and Conan is among the most skilled people in the entire world in which he lives. So, it's a combination of a higher powered hero fighting a 'dragon' which is far below the power level of Smaug.


With those influences in mind (as well as others,) it's often hard to settle on how I want to define things that I write or worlds that I want to create. More importantly, it makes me aware of how different the influences that my audience might have could be. So, how do you see it? In your mind, what defines a dragon? What should a battle against a dragon be like? How does their power compare to the world around them? What do you feel is the more fun experience when it comes to gaming?

[mehrkat]

The truth is it depends a lot on the world.

I've had Dragons that were essentially indestructible and your goal wasn't to defeat it but just to get away from it. Any damage done to it was just to slow it down.

I've had Dragons that were tough smart flying lizards. I've even had relatively weak Dragons that could be tamed and ridden.

I lean strongly towards the really tough to defeat dragons as a minimum.

[David Johnston2]

Smaug is not at all typical of western dragons. In fact he isn't even typical of Middle Earth dragons. It's a "The chickens of the First Age were Chickens of Legend" thing. There are other dragons in Middle Earth's 3rd Age, but they are to Smaug as the spiders of Mirkwood are to Ungoliant. The actual prototype for the western dragon is Fafnr, and Fafnir was killed in single combat by a human champion. Dragons like Smaug fit more into the Eastern "primordial god that happens to look reptilian" category.

[Dalillama]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

The actual prototype for the western dragon is Fafnr, and Fafnir was killed in single combat by a human champion. .

Technically he was killed from ambush by a human champion who didn't think he could take him in a fair fight, but the point remains valid. You've also got Beowulf and Wiglaf taking down a dragon together, St. George and the Dragon, Herakles vs. the Hydra, etc.

[Johnny Angel]

I agree that it depends upon the world.

I think part of what's tough -for me on a personal level- is that there are so many variables. Much like not every person has the same capabilities, there are going to be some dragons which are tougher or weaker than others.

Is there value in determining how the "average" (for lack of better words) dragon compares to the average person? I'm not entirely sure how to even go about defining that.

The closest metric I have is to look at something like D&D and see that the game assumes somewhere around 4-5 heroes as a group. That tends to be the party size that the game measures things against. Granted, that's still attached to an assumed world view, but it at least gives me a vague starting point to adjust from when world building.

What's tough about looking at that material in an attempt to get some kind of guideline is the concept of levels. A lot of creatures are only as tough as they are because the game levels up over time. When building a world (or perhaps a GURPS campaign) in which that is not the assumption, it's not always easy to determine how strong a creature is relative to the things around it.

As I was typing this out, it hit me that perhaps GURPS Supers could be helpful in gauging things. If I recall correctly, there is a page which talks about how to determine scale for superheroes, and it compares them to things like a squad of soldiers, tanks, and etc.

[Flyndaran]

Draconic seems to only have vaguely reptilian and smarter or more cunning than a typical animal as universal traits. Just about everything else is adjustable.
Fire, flight, human-like intelligence, greed, T Rex plus size, even number of limbs, etc.

[Boomerang]

Dragons were made more powerful in D&D 5th edition. Adult Dragons and a small number of other "boss" type monsters were given legendary actions to offset the disadvantage of limited action economy against a party of PCs. My view is that dragons were reasonably powerful in 1e when first introduced but became weaker as more monster and character options became available. Dragons were made more powerful in 2e to reset the balance and make the Dragon the signature monster it was supposed to be. For 3e and 4e the focus was more on PCs, and Dragons became weaker as a result. Finally for 5e they restored Dragons back to the early 1e and 2e power levels where they belong.

When I use Dragons in GURPS, which is rare, I go with the 2e D&D philosophy of Dragons being the most powerful monsters around.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Johnny Angel

As I was typing this out, it hit me that perhaps GURPS Supers could be helpful in gauging things. If I recall correctly, there is a page which talks about how to determine scale for superheroes, and it compares them to things like a squad of soldiers, tanks, and etc.

There's no reason that you couldn't rate dragons as I-, D-, C-, or M- scale. But anything above D-scale is going to be pretty well impossible for a human hero, or even a demigod, to defeat. Remember how often decadal multipliers appear in rhetoric: The Mighty Hercules has "the strength of ten/Ordinary men," Lancelot's strength is "as the strength of ten," even Dracula is rated by van Helsing as equal to twenty men (but vH may be blowing smoke; Renfield is able to wrestle briefly with Drac, and even a lunatic's hysterical strength won't get you close to that).

One of my fancies about dragons has long been that they don't actually have human style cognition or personality. Rather, they have magic, including the magical ability to interact with humans, and in the process they generate an apparent personality. But anything the personality commits to is erased when the interaction stops, like a shell program on a computer. So dragons, unlike men, cannot be magically bound. You might or might not want to use that; I just offer it as a bit of speculation that might suggest ideas to you.

[Flyndaran]

That concept reminds me of an ally of the protagonist from the book, Mute, by Piers Anthony. The non-human animal has equal intelligence of who they're telepathically communicating with at that moment.

[Johnny1A.2]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

There are other dragons in Middle Earth's 3rd Age, but they are to Smaug as the spiders of Mirkwood are to Ungoliant.

More like as the spiders of Mirkwood are to Shelob, but the principle is right. Smaug was one of the older remaining dragons, probably either out of Thangorodrim or immediately thereafter generationally.