Dinosaurs as Animal Companions - Gamebreaker?

[Rackhir]

See what I mean about a choice of animal companion changing the playstyle of the game? Gone is the "grim arctic survival" game that everyone else was enjoying; we now have "fish out of water" as our Innuit warriors visit Africa!

"Cleave close to the feel of a setting" is a playstyle choice, and not doing so does change playstyle.

Yes, of course that has to be the case because arctic survival skills translate so well into those required to survive in malarial ridden sections of africa. So there won't be any difficulties for them surviving in africa.

The point Mallus was trying to make is that you don't have to be absolutely inflexible. You should try being creative rather than just going "NO!" once in a while.

Having a little trouble distinguishing between mechanical advantages and aesthetics, I see. Just because elves aren't called Vulcans in the MM doesn't mean that they shouldn't be. And we can call the orcs Tellurians.

Gee, I hope you made a spot in your homebrew for the Teenage Ninja Turtle character I am thinking of creating, and have an adventure set up that works for Spock, Michelangelo, Bob the Dinosaur-Riding Druid, and Sarah's new character -- a giant transforming robot.

You haven't read his story hour have you? Sure Spock, the Ninja Turtle and especially the transforming robot will fit in just fine. My character has a wind-up marvelous figurine griffon, that makes tea and gin + tonics, which also has VTOL thrusters (that might make it blow up). We're currently going to hell in a (large iron) handbasket.

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?

More closely to the point, say we are playing a game modelled after the real Middle Ages, in which magic is rare, using classes and notes from the Medieval Player's Handbook (say), and your players have invested in that game over the past years. Then Bob shows up, maybe for one game, maybe for a few, maybe as a permanent member, with his dinosaur-riding druid.

Yes You Are Committing BAD/WRONG/FUN! No, but seriously. Can point out where someone has said that you HAVE to permit things that you as the DM do not wish to have in the campaign? Nobody has said that.

You're whole argument has been based on the hissy fit of one player, who clearly had other issues. The DM has posted that he DID NOT CREATE A WORLD WHERE THE EXISTANCE OF DINOSAURS WAS PRECLUDED. You really don't have a leg to stand on here.

Mallus and Shilsen have simply been suggesting that you might want to try working with your players and trying to accomodate them, rather than just denying any requests that might taint the purity of your vision. Nobody is saying you have to permit Superman or transforming mecha in a low magic/low tech game. However, if your vision is restricted that it can't accommodate ANYTHING that might deviate from it in the slightest, then you might want to consider writing fiction rather than playing D&D.

Are you actually telling me that you consider it wrong for the DM to take his players' investment in the game into account when deciding whether or not to allow Bob to play that character?

Go back about six posts. Read that.

 

[Rackhir]

Rackhir, the idea is that it is a cheetah, and allowing a cheetah into an otherwise realistic arctic environment changes the way that the players view that environment. My point is not that you cannot include cheetahs, dinosaurs, 1st level characters in +10 plate mail, or Vulcans in a campaign setting -- my point is that the inclusion of anything nonstandard (and, in this context, "standard" is defined by the environment) changes the way the players perceive the game.

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.

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.

IMHO, of course.

It is primarily the DM's job to communicate knowledge about the world. The players share in that responsibility, but the buck stops with the DM. When a major failure to communicate has occurred -- and if a player quits, that's a major failure -- the DM should take stock of how well he is communicating that world.


RC

Try reading my other posts I already addressed these points.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

Probably neither, unless you fail to communicate your world of CITY effectively.

I am not objecting to the inclusion of any element in a D&D game.

You are reacting to my example of why a player might find something out of place in a setting he thinks he knows as though I were saying that said thing doesn't belong in D&D, or can only be used in D&D within certain parameters.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Thanks for ignoring my point.

Any time.

ALL PCs are "one-in-a-million" people.

Okay, imagine it this way: The setting is Arthurian Britian. You have three knights, a half-fey sorceress, and a dinosaur-riding druid. Cue Sesame Street music:

One of these things is not like the others
One of these things just doesn't belong
Can you tell me which thing is not like the others
By the end of this song?​

ALL PCs are "one-in-a-million" people, but, depending upon context, some PCs are more "one-in-a-million" than others.

I know that it "doesn't have to play that way", but I was responding to posts claiming that the other players should never have input into what should (or should not) be allowed into the game as a PC -- and those other players included the DM. Using extreme examples illustrates the point, especially when one accepts that what is (or is not) extreme is a matter of taste. Mallus, for instance, apparently has Vulcans in his campaign world.

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.

It is primarily the DM's job to communicate knowledge about the world. The players share in that responsibility, but the buck stops with the DM. When a major failure to communicate has occurred -- and if a player quits, that's a major failure -- the DM should take stock of how well he is communicating that world.

I don't think that is an extremely adversarial positon. In general, I support DMs making any call they like. I fully agree that the DM has the right to say "My way or the highway". But, along with that right comes the possibility that a player will choose the highway. If a player does so, and the DM didn't want that player to do so, then the DM needs to look at what was wrong with the "My way" part of the equation that made the player choose the "highway".

Simply saying that the player was a prick is easy to do, but it does the DM little good.

Everything else is just responding to those who claim either that the DM shouldn't tell the players that a particular character doesn't fit into the world, or that there is no such thing as a valid reason for a player to be upset by the appearance of a dino-riding druid.

Feel free to ignore those side arguments.

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?

Again, I didn't make those assumptions. They are hypothetical arguments to answer the claims that the DM shouldn't tell the players that a particular character doesn't fit into the world, or that there is no such thing as a valid reason for a player to be upset by the appearance of a dino-riding druid.

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.

Happy?

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.

Fair enough.

Fictional situations are responses to answer the claims that the DM shouldn't tell the players that a particular character doesn't fit into the world, or that there is no such thing as a valid reason for a player to be upset by the appearance of a dino-riding druid.

Again, feel free to ignore those side arguments.

The main point is: It is primarily the DM's job to communicate knowledge about the world. The players share in that responsibility, but the buck stops with the DM. When a major failure to communicate has occurred -- and if a player quits, that's a major failure -- the DM should take stock of how well he is communicating that world.


RC

 

[Brother MacLaren]

The DM has posted that he DID NOT CREATE A WORLD WHERE THE EXISTANCE OF DINOSAURS WAS PRECLUDED.

True, the DM has noted that he hadn't thought about dinosaurs one way or the other. Neither actively including them nor actively excluding them. This situation led to one player having a certain conception of the world (in which PCs riding dinosaurs did not fit the "feel") and another player having a different conception.

With the creatures that really change the feel of the game the most by their presence or absence, I do think that the DM should figure out ahead of time if they exist and what their role in the world is (e.g. dragons, humans, outsiders). Are riding dinosaurs of such large impact on the flavor that the DM should think about this ahead of time? I'd put them in a box with "Tinker Gnomes" and "Zombies" -- things that are not the movers and shakers of the world but nevertheless have a pretty big impact on the flavor and feel by their inclusion or omission. Dinosaurs carry more "flavor impact" than dire wolves, at least for me. Not really sure why that is.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just thought I might clarify a few things here.

Cool. First off, thanks for doing so. That both players had been playing in the campaign from the beginning makes a difference as to the expectations of each.

I think you are a little off base when you are suggesting that it is ok for the players to be demand that they have +10 Plate at 1st level or be Superman with all the powers.

I wasn't suggesting that the druid character was breaking the rules/system; I was using an absurd example to counter the argument that the DM doesn't have the right to tell a player what is (or is not) allowed in the world (side argument with Mallus).

Up until this point in the campaign dinosaurs had not been brought up and I hadn't really considered whether or not they existed to be honest. None of the players had asked if there were dinosaurs in the campaign world and the party had not encountered them. The campaign world is rather vague due to me not having the time to detail it. I didn't have anything against there being dinosaurs in the campaign world so I allowed them to exist.

This is a perceptual problem with the campaign world that probably could have been resolved merely by talking with the players. If you had discussed with them where dinosaurs came from, how far away the druid must have travelled to get one, etc. (as player knowledge, not necessarily character knowledge) you might not have had this problem. And the druid's player would know right off the bat that, should Mr. Cuddles suffer an unfortunate demise, he wouldn't be getting another dinosaur without a bit of a trek.

In the one combat we had with the Druid in the party I was surprised at how strong he was. It did happen in the middle of a forest so the Druid was in his most favourable environment. Even still I talked to him about it straight after the session and said how I was worried about how strong his PC was in relation to the other PC's.

So, then, there was an element of system breaking, and an element of other-PC upstaging. This might have contributed to the other player's leaving the group as much as the world-expectations reason that the quitting player gave you. Especially if this player had a history of making characters that upstaged the other PCs.

When you talked to "Bob", did you also talk to the other players? Did "Sarah" know that "Bob" was happy to tone down his character?

If I really wanted to rectify the situation and keep the quitting player (and his friend that also left) in the group I think that I could have. However I personally think that it is for the best that he has quit.

I'm the first proponent of "Don't play in a game you aren't enjoying", and sometimes it is better to do things other than gaming with friends if your playstyles are a real mismatch.

I would still consider sitting down with my players and discussing how they view the campaign world, though. First off, you are likely to glean a lot of adventure seeds from such a discussion. Second off, while communicating about the game is everyone's responsibility, the buck stops with the DM. It might help avoid additional conflicts of this type, as well a jazz up the players' interest in the world (based on a better understanding of each other's thoughts & ideas).

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

To be honest, it really doesn't matter where the characters are or the animal companions they want live. Re-read how druids call their animal companion. They pray for 24 hours and it just appears. Nothing is mentioned about climate, location, or anything else (except for the very spicific case of an aquatic environment). The praying bit implies that it's in part due to your diety's intervention that you get the animal companion. That means, if your druid had a gorilla that was killed while you were fighting frosts giants in the arctic, and you wanted another, just pray for 24 hours and a new gorilla shows up.

And, as regards to dinosaurs and campaign worlds, campagin worlds tend to include them, such as Eberron and FR. In FR, they're not even really split off from the main continent, save that Chult is a peninsula.

Thanks for the reminder. That's an example of something I houseruled away.

Even then, if dinos are so remote that you've never seen or heard of them, how exactly does the druid request one?


RC

 

[Derren]

I think most people here miss the point. The DM can always explain the existence of a creature in his game (as magic is the ultimate joker), but it looks to me that this would not have mattered to the player. Imo the image of someone riding on a dinosaur was simply to silly for him as he expected a normal mediveal/tolkien inspired game.

I also think that there was something else wrong and that the dinosaur was only the "last drop", but giving an in game explanation where the dinosaur came from would not have changed anything.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The point Mallus was trying to make is that you don't have to be absolutely inflexible. You should try being creative rather than just going "NO!" once in a while.

Can point out where someone has said that you HAVE to permit things that you as the DM do not wish to have in the campaign? Nobody has said that.

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

 

[Raven Crowking]

Try reading my other posts I already addressed these points.

I have.

Are you actually reading my posts?

RC