Dinosaurs as Animal Companions - Gamebreaker?

[Mallus]

Maybe it's because I've played a druid that I am failing to grasp this argument.

Nope, you're just making too much of it. My only point to RC was that dinosaurs belong in D&D more than Vulcans...

 

[Rackhir]

Maybe it's because I've played a druid that I am failing to grasp this argument. I recall emailing the DM to ask what animals I might be able to find as a companion, what forms I had knowledge of for Wildshape, and what creatures I could summon from the list (as well as what I knew about their abilities). It wouldn't seem right to me for my druid, if he had never seen nor heard of a rhino, to call upon the spirit of such a creature. Viewing my PC as part of a setting, and not just part of a game system, is very important to me.


Since you have repeatedly misinterpreted my argument, perhaps it is my fault for presenting it poorly. Here is the same sentiment in different words:

"I don't know how clearly-defined your world was, and how much the players' conception of it should have been shaken by the introduction of a tame dinosaur. But EVEN IF your setting was so clearly defined that a tame dinosaur would be seen as incredibly strange -- as in this example -- it need not be a deal-breaker for an immersed player who is finding his immersion ruined. The key is how you handle this introduction (assuming that it's really the breaking of immersion that is troubling your player).

What I would encourage you to do is to engage him with in-game acknowledgments of just how exotic and unusual this creature is. And have an in-game explanation for how it came to be. Have NPCs react to the strangeness. This approach will not keep all such players happy, but it might work, and is better than offering no in-game explanation or no reaction to the strangeness. I would advise you against the argument that so-and-so is allowed by the rules; 'game rules' and 'world rules' are different things."

Is that better?

Yes. I have no problems with any of this. Though I (obviously) disagree that the dino necessarily has to be something that exotic.

Basically I prefer a more relaxed and laid back kind of campaign where nobody is going to throw a hissy fit over something deviating from their conception of how the DM's campaign should be.

I have gotten annoyed with and walked out on a couple of D&D campaigns and NOBODY walks out on a campaign they've spent a year and a half on, JUST because of a single issue like the dino. It's always more complex than that.

 

[shilsen]

I somehow have the feeling that (once again) a discussion fundamentals of different play styles. maybe that was appopriate to the topic, but somehow it seems to lead astray.

In the context of the game described, it appears as if only one specific player couldn't come to terms with a Dinosaur. The DM (= OP) nor the other players seem to be surprised by it or considered it something worth worrying about.

So in my view, what ever we can say on general terms on play styles, in this case there is definitely a mismatch in play styles between the group and the player in question.

*jumps on Mustrum Ridcully, gags him and drags him off before he can make a reasonable point that everyone might agree with*

My World of CITY would make RC cry. To be fair, what he'd do to/in it would probably make me cry...

If the crap we do to it hasn't made you cry yet, I think you'd be okay. And I don't think it would make RC cry. I think it would make the poor guy's brain melt and run out his ears.

 

[IceFractal]

I honestly don't see how a dinosaur is "more exotic" than a dragon. But I don't think people would be so quick to decry the DM for not specifically mentioning dragons existed before using one.

It's been said that what the DM should specifically mention are things that don't exist in the real world. But guess what? Orcs, elves, dwarves, lizardmen, kobolds, goblins, and so forth don't exist in the real world either. But apparently they are "natural" to assume the existance of, whereas dinosaurs are some bizarre abberation.


Again, I don't think that "things that exist in my concept of standard fantasy" is a good basis for what exists in the campaign world by default. The concept of "standard fantasy" varies considerably between people, as this case proves. The DM's idea of a normal D&D world includes dinosaurs. The player's idea doesn't. Maybe the DM should have mentioned that dinosaurs exist, but conversely, the player should have mentioned that they have a problem with things like dinosaurs existing.


The DM has just as much right to say "yes, this thing is in my campaign", as they do to say "this thing isn't in my campaign". If a player hated Elves and thought they were stupid, but never mentioned it, would you think they were justified in storming off when the DM let someone play an Elf?

 

[Pseudopsyche]

I honestly don't see how a dinosaur is "more exotic" than a dragon. But I don't think people would be so quick to decry the DM for not specifically mentioning dragons existed before using one.

I agree wholeheartedly that DMs have the right to include whatever creatures they desire in their campaigns. That said, in the context of D&D, a dinosaur is definitely more exotic than a dragon, from the perspective of players. I would wager a large sum of money that if we were to poll a representative sample of D&D players, a far larger number of players will have played in games that included dragons than included dinosaurs.

 

[Woas]

Dinosaurs are dumb. I hate 'em. So to answer the OP, yeah having a new character just spring up with a dino riding druid would probably make me look real hard and long on if I wanted to keep playing.


But if the druid had say, a Felldrake or mini-wyvern. That'd be fine! Just don't call it a dinosaur. I'm weird like that.

 

[Kaisoku]

So, let me see if I understand this right:

The players are engaged in a campaign, making characters that fit the campaign world as they understand it, when Bob joins the group. Bob makes a "one-in-a-million type person" that upstages the established player characters in terms of "cool look at meness". When one of the established players thinks it is inappropriate to the game they are playing, the DM dismisses his concerns.

If this is the case, frankly, the DM is lucky he isn't left playing with just Bob.

RC

Thanks for ignoring my point.

ALL PCs are "one-in-a-million" people. Just because they bring an animal that isn't local, doesn't mean the entire ecology of the local campaign needs to change. Which is what people were arguing about and what I was answering.


Also, it doesn't have to play that way. Why does the Dinosaur necessarily "upstage"? I've repeatedly seen you in this thread compare this choice to some imbalanced choice. Superman at 1st level? Upstaging?


I'm all for differing opinions, but your posts right from the start have been extremely adversarial and against the DM, and none of your reasons have really explained why. You've been taking parts of the arguments and taking it to an extreme example that doesn't even apply to the situation.


Of COURSE no one lets Superman characters at first level. Did that happen in this particular situation? No. So why bring this up unless you are being facetious.

Why the assumption that the Druid player just wanted to create a Dinosaur mount to be the center of attention? Why assume that the campaign setting was just like yours, and would have been devastated by this kind of an addition?


It would be nice if you could respond to my whole post this time instead of ignoring 90% of it and responding to the 10% with just a random example that happens to fit your position.

If your only leg to stand on is to make examples of fictional situations that we aren't even talking about... or going on tangents about ecologies of campaign worlds that don't apply... then I can't be swayed to think that somehow your position in all this is somehow more apt.

 

[Klaus]

So why exactly is "PC shows up with a rare animal" not just a reason for a player to leave the campaign but a DMing problem?

A 10th lvl druid in most campaigns is a fairly uncommon character, and many of the animal companions they can have right out of the PHB (dire ape/boar/wolf/lion, giant constrictor snake, rhinoceros, giant crocodile, etc.) are creatures that are likely to be very rare in many places in the game world. Every time most druids with an animal companion walk through a city, chances are they're introducing something that seriously does not fit into the environment. But that doesn't mean it's a DMing error or problem. It's more likely a case of a player with other problems with the game having a knee-jerk reaction and failing to understand that rare or unusual is not a synonym for impossible.

I agree. Would it make more sense to have the druid riding a rhinoceros through a Middle Ages-like setting?

 

[Rackhir]

I agree. Would it make more sense to have the druid riding a rhinoceros through a Middle Ages-like setting?

Africa wasn't that far from Europe and animals were shipped from there to Europe as far back as at least the Roman empire. So, yes it makes an equal amount of sense as a dinosaur. Which isn't that much more fantastical than an Elephant, to someone who has never been more than a few miles from where they were born.

Any animal that would be even vaguely useful in combat at 10th lvl is going to be equally absurd if you insist on comparing it to what would be found in a "realistic" setting. So a rhino is no less absurd than a dire tiger, dire wolf or an elephant for that matter.

D&D is an inherently fantastical setting. How ever you wish to slice it or justify it, there is no way a human being can survive the amount of damage that even a moderately high level character can survive. If you want realism, you should be playing a different game.

 

[Klaus]

Africa wasn't that far from Europe and animals were shipped from there to Europe as far back as at least the Roman empire. So, yes it makes an equal amount of sense as a dinosaur. Which isn't that much more fantastical than an Elephant, to someone who has never been more than a few miles from where they were born.

Any animal that would be even vaguely useful in combat at 10th lvl is going to be equally absurd if you insist on comparing it to what would be found in a "realistic" setting. So a rhino is no less absurd than a dire tiger, dire wolf or an elephant for that matter.

D&D is an inherently fantastical setting. How ever you wish to slice it or justify it, there is no way a human being can survive the amount of damage that even a moderately high level character can survive. If you want realism, you should be playing a different game.

That's what I'm saying. If a player quits a game because of a dinosaur, why not a rhinoceros, or a dire bat? I think the problem doesn't lie with the dinosaurs, but with the player's perception of them. If the character rolled in riding a "dread lizard", no one would bat an eye.