Dinosaurs as Animal Companions - Gamebreaker?

[Rackhir]

I think that you need to reread Mallus' posts, because that is exactly what he seems to be saying. Mallus isn't saying "you don't have to be absolutely inflexible"; he is saying that no player -- DM included -- has the right to tell any other player what he can play.

If I am wrong, Mallus, please correct me.


RC

I've been in Mallus's campaign for 3.5 years now. I've seen him say "No" and "I'm not really comfortable with you doing/being able to do X. Please pick something different/We need to change this." He also listens to the players when they have complaints or are unhappy about how X, Y or Z are being implemented.

He has also been very willing to work with the players to let them make the kind of characters they want to run and in return, we've avoided doing things that might wreck the campaign or ruin things for the other players. He's living proof that working with your players and letting them do what they want, does not equal monsters running out of control. Of course we're all adults and actually bother to communicate with each other.

As a result we've successfully run for 3.5 yrs a party, that strictly speaking shouldn't be able to work in a "conventional" D&D structure and had quite a bit of fun doing so.

Mallus's message (that you seem to be extremely resistant to) is that flexibilty and a REASONABLE amount of accomodation is a GOOD IDEA.

 

[shilsen]

One of your favourite quotes is that "The difference between reality and fiction. Is that reality doesn't have to make sense." The converse to this is that fiction does have to make sense.

I've used that quotation (I believe it's Tom Clancy - "The difference between reality and fiction? Fiction has to make sense.") in my classes when discussing how and why authors do things to create a sense of realism and/or verisimilitude, but personally I don't buy it for a game. A game world where everything makes perfect sense is seriously lacking in verisimilitude for me. Since I tend to pay attention to what goes on behind the curtain, that would strike me as a case of a DM trying too hard and hewing too close to the likely and the probable. As far as I'm concerned, there should be at least a few things that make no sense, which are highly improbable or completely coincidental, simply because that does happen in the real world. I've walked down a street in New York and seen a camel going the other way. It didn't make sense, but I didn't think reality had ceased to exist.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I've been in Mallus's campaign for 3.5 years now. I've seen him say "No" and "I'm not really comfortable with you doing/being able to do X. Please pick something different/We need to change this." He also listens to the players when they have complaints or are unhappy about how X, Y or Z are being implemented.

Good, because overall I've found Mallus to be an intelligent poster that I often agree with. The problem here is that I am going by what he is saying in this thread, not by what he does in real life. If I am misunderstanding him, that is a good thing.

Mallus's message (that you seem to be extremely resistant to) is that flexibilty and a REASONABLE amount of accomodation is a GOOD IDEA.

I'm not resistant to that message at all; I am resistant to the message that flexibilty and accomodation are ALWAYS a good idea.

It seems as though we've been "talking past" each other.


RC

 

[Rackhir]

I'm not resistant to that message at all; I am resistant to the message that flexibilty and accomodation are ALWAYS a good idea.

It seems as though we've been "talking past" each other.


RC

I'm still waiting for you to post where someone has said that you HAVE to permit ANYTHING.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I've used that quotation (I believe it's Tom Clancy - "The difference between reality and fiction? Fiction has to make sense.") in my classes when discussing how and why authors do things to create a sense of realism and/or verisimilitude, but personally I don't buy it for a game. A game world where everything makes perfect sense is seriously lacking in verisimilitude for me. Since I tend to pay attention to what goes on behind the curtain, that would strike me as a case of a DM trying too hard and hewing too close to the likely and the probable. As far as I'm concerned, there should be at least a few things that make no sense, which are highly improbable or completely coincidental, simply because that does happen in the real world. I've walked down a street in New York and seen a camel going the other way. It didn't make sense, but I didn't think reality had ceased to exist.

The neat thing about reality is that, even if you think it has ceased to exist, there it is.

OTOH, I don't think that I'm describing a process where "everything" has to make "perfect sense", either. What I'm arguing for is a world where the players can accept that, if they had more information, things would make sense. There can be no "exception to the rule" if there is no rule to be an exception of.

Thus what I wrote:

When a campaign begins, in general, the DM might supply the players with a bit of background information or she may not. If she does not, literally anything goes. The players are free, to some degree, to design the world around them. However, as the players play within the setting, they learn more about it. Hopefully, as they get a sense of how the world works, they invest in it. Their knowledge and sense of the world becomes an important part of the fun of adventuring in that world.

Because of this, it is important that the DM gives the players the ability to know as much about their world as their characters should reasonably know. This doesn't mean that the DM must rigorously detail every aspect of the world, but that she should be able to supply the broad parameters. If manticores only lived in the mountains for the last 200 years of game time, and suddenly they are appearing elsewhere, there should be some reason for it. Likewise, if there are large herds of cattle, buffalo, or whatever, the players should have some idea that they are there.

A good DM, IMHO, doesn't balk at player input that adds to a setting, unless it is inconsistent with what has come before. If a PC (who should have that knowledge) gives a speech about constellations, then the DM should take notes and those constellations can appear again later. This doesn't mean that the PC is automatically 100% correct, but it does mean that the player is part of the additive process of world creation. Likewise, a PC in a bar fight should be able to say "I grab a bottle and swing it" without having to ask if there are any bottles around first. This also has limits -- "I grab a 10,000 gp ruby I spot lying on a table and run" isn't going to fly.

Good players work with the group to establish a world that they can enjoy playing in, and make characters that make sense within that world. Bad players do not. Good DMs present a world for their players' enjoyment. Good DMs allow the players to be part of the additive process of world creation. Good DMs know that player knowledge and sense of the world becomes an important part of the fun of adventuring in that world, and take steps to nurture and protect that sense of the world. Bad DMs do not.​

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm still waiting for you to post where someone has said that you HAVE to permit ANYTHING.

Mallus in Post 44: "My point was that it's wrong for one player to tell another what character they can play, especially when it's a petty issue like disliking their preferred mount."

I respond in Post 45: "If you are claiming that it is wrong for the DM to set limits as to what fits within a given campaign setting, then I not only disagree, but I think you are advocating an abdication of responsibility on the part of the DM that leads to a much weaker game."

Following which, no matter how absurd the example I give, I cannot get Mallus to agree that it is okay for the DM to say No to it. There is no case where it is not wrong for one player (DM included) to tell another character what they can, or cannot, play within a given setting. Indeed, if I posit absurd choices that specifically break the setting, Mallus seems to advise that the right thing to do is break the setting. You seem to be supplying the same advice. To me, that's a person saying you HAVE to permit ANYTHING.

Mallus also said: "Because Sarah's rights end were Bob's begin. You have the right to enjoy the game in the manner of your choosing, up until the point your start telling other players what they can and cannot do. Sarah has no right to demand that Bob's character conform to her wishes. If she needs to control other people's choices in order to enjoy the game herself... well, then it's sayonara, Sarah. "

I responded: "What if I don't like dragonborn or tieflings in my game? Does the advent of 4e mean that either I can't switch, or I just have to suck it up? What if I want to devise a world in which there are no elves? Am I not allowed to do that in D&D?

"Again, what if I want to devise a world in which there are no elves? Am I not allowed to do that in D&D?"

Still no response on that. But, if Mallus did not mean you HAVE to permit ANYTHING, he's certainly had lots of chances to clarify his position. Perhaps he will do so now. As I said, I'd be happy to learn that I misunderstood what he was trying to say.


RC

 

[Rackhir]

Mallus in Post 44: "My point was that it's wrong for one player to tell another what character they can play, especially when it's a petty issue like disliking their preferred mount."

I respond in Post 45: "If you are claiming that it is wrong for the DM to set limits as to what fits within a given campaign setting, then I not only disagree, but I think you are advocating an abdication of responsibility on the part of the DM that leads to a much weaker game."

How does PLAYERS not being able to tell other PLAYERS what to run, equal "DM does not have the right to not permit things in the campaign"?

Really try READING things instead of constructing strawman arguments in your head that only exist to prove to yourself that you're right.

Following which, no matter how absurd the example I give, I cannot get Mallus to agree that it is okay for the DM to say No to it. There is no case where it is not wrong for one player (DM included) to tell another character what they can, or cannot, play within a given setting. Indeed, if I posit absurd choices that specifically break the setting, Mallus seems to advise that the right thing to do is break the setting. You seem to be supplying the same advice. To me, that's a person saying you HAVE to permit ANYTHING.

No. Try reading what he wrote. He's showing you HOW it is POSSIBLE to accommodate your absurd examples in a campaign. Since you are creating strawman arguments you seem to think are impossible to disagree with.

Mallus also said: "Because Sarah's rights end were Bob's begin. You have the right to enjoy the game in the manner of your choosing, up until the point your start telling other players what they can and cannot do. Sarah has no right to demand that Bob's character conform to her wishes. If she needs to control other people's choices in order to enjoy the game herself... well, then it's sayonara, Sarah. "

I responded: "What if I don't like dragonborn or tieflings in my game? Does the advent of 4e mean that either I can't switch, or I just have to suck it up? What if I want to devise a world in which there are no elves? Am I not allowed to do that in D&D?

"Again, what if I want to devise a world in which there are no elves? Am I not allowed to do that in D&D?"

PLAYERS, PLAYERS, PLAYERS! Not DMs! PLAYERS do not have the right to impose the PLAYERS's preferences on other PLAYERS. READ WHAT HE WROTE!

Again in response to his points about PLAYERS you are constructing an irrelevant argument about DMs!

He's saying that PLAYERS need to be willing to make REASONABLE accomodations with what other PLAYERS wish to run.

Still no response on that. But, if Mallus did not mean you HAVE to permit ANYTHING, he's certainly had lots of chances to clarify his position. Perhaps he will do so now. As I said, I'd be happy to learn that I misunderstood what he was trying to say.

RC

I think he's waiting for you to respond to his points rather than the imaginary strawman arguments you are creating in your head.

 

[PolletteIrieska]

But that really isn't what the intention of this thread was. I just wanted to see how many people would be put off by a Druid character having a dinosaur as an animal companion in their campaign. I didn't think it was a huge deal but I wanted to see if I was perhaps the nutter.

Olaf the Stout

Honestly, as a player, I might have been slightly put off, but I wouldn't just up and quit. That's bad game etiquette.
You were willing to give an unusual concept a shot. That's a good thing in a DM. I'm sure you were also willing to pull back on the reins if it proved to disrupt game balance.
I wouldn't think you were nuts. I'd be racking my brain trying to figure out what I was going to try to slip past ya next game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Really try READING things instead of constructing strawman arguments in your head that only exist to prove to yourself that you're right.

Reported.

 

[Rackhir]

Reported.

That's nice. There's also the ignore list. You might want to use it for me. I'll be using it for you.