Dinosaurs as Animal Companions - Gamebreaker?

[Piratecat]

Rackhir, Raven, both of you leave this thread please. We're getting dizzy trying to count the number of ways you're breaking the rules. You both know not to be rude, you both know not to brag about your ignore lists, and you both know not to talk about reporting posts.

Frankly, guys, it shouldn't have gotten to this point.

It's okay if you don't agree with one another, but rude bickering is never the way to handle it. In the future, if you see a thread becoming more of a personal argument for yourself, please stop yourself from posting before you make it worse. That might make things a little easier.

For other folks reading this, please feel free to use the "report a post" function (tiny "!" in the bottom left of every post) if you see a slow trainwreck in the process of occurring. It's a big help for the mods, and for the thread itself.

As always, email me with questions or comments.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

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.

Agreed. At most, I'd call them a powergaming munchkin. And then they'd say "So are you!", and they'd be right.

I can't see quitting a game over that, though. Seriously, I can't.

Brad

 

[qstor]

Thing is dinosaurs are listed in the phb/srd as animal companions.

I think its more a "taste" issue for a DM. Sure they're listed but it depends on the type of game you're running. The player that left didn't think it was appropriate.

Mike

 

[Olaf the Stout]

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 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).

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.

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?

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

RC,

In response to your post, yes there is a chance that this situation could have been resolved by talking to all the players. However I really think that the quitting player just couldn't deal with playing in a world where it was possible PC could have a dinosaur as an animal companion. To him that type of world was just too far "out there" for him to continue playing. I think he was after a more "traditional" medieval stye game.

In hindsight I should have discussed the new PC with the other players first before introducing him into the game. I'll make sure that I do that in the future. While the player of the Druid might have been a bit annoyed about it, I imagine that he would have agreed to modify his character a bit or play a completely different PC if it made the rest of the group happy. I'm pretty busy and the group only gets together once a fortnight to play. I really didn't expect to have to make sure that everyone was happy with a player playing pretty much a core PC. (Yes the dinosaur animal companion was from the MM3. However, the Druid player could have just as easily picked a dinosaur from the MM if he wanted to make it totally core.) Obviously, based on the reaction of one of the players I was wrong about that. I'll try to be more careful about it in the future.

Oh, I imagine that the power-gaming aspect of it may have had a bit to do with it. The character was very effective. As I said, I spoke to the Druid's player immediately after the session about it (the other players had already left). The other player quit via an e-mail the next day so I didn't really have an opportunity to speak to him about the fact that the Druid's player being willing to tone down his character.

Yes, the Druid character was the strongest PC in the party. However, the PC the player had previously, a Fighter specialising in Archery, was also probably the strongest PC in the party before that so it wasn't that the player suddenly went from playing an weak character to a strong one. He has always had a (mechanically) stong character. The Druid's player has fun by picking a theme he wants to make and making effective charcter from that.

What gets me is that at the beginning of the game I allowed the quitting player play a "very" non-standard character. He had a character been cursed by a Wizard that resulted in him having 2 personalities stuck in the one body. One personality was the real personality, a rude, crude, intimidating magic-hating Barbarian/Rogue (being rude to a powerful mage is what got him cursed in the first place). The other personality (created by the mage as punishment) was a weak and cowardly Sorcerer.

Basically he had 2 separate characters living in the one body. The only thing that they really shared was that when one character lost HP's, so did the other. Initially the Sorcerer had almost total control. The Barbarian/Rogue only took over when the Sorcerer got into a stressful situation. However as the character(s) went up in levels I allowed the Barbarian/Rogue to exert more influence, making Will saves to see if he could take over the body. Eventually, as the game progressed and the PC's tried a couple of things to "solve" the problem I allowed the character to switch between the 2 personalities as a standard action. This meant that he could sometimes benefit from having the ability of a Sorcerer at the beginning of combat and the Barbarian/Rogue abilities later in the combat.

So for me to allow the quitting player to play a very non-standard character, then quit because of a PC riding a dinosaur smacks a bit of double standards to me. The other players were happy for him to play a non-standard character at the beginning of the campaign, yet he isn't happy for someone to play a character that is pretty much core later in the campaign. Yes, it may not have been something that he necessarily would have wanted in a game he ran, but was it really that much of an impost on him that he couldn't go along with it, just like the other players had done for him at the start of the campaign. To quit a game mid-adventure, ending a campaign in the process, seems a bit selfish to me.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Brother MacLaren]

(Yes the dinosaur animal companion was from the MM3. However, the Druid player could have just as easily picked a dinosaur from the MM if he wanted to make it totally core.)

If it's primarily a flavor issue, then whether something is in the core rules or not is rather beside the point. Nothing in the core rules prevents you from putting your elf in a tight blue shirt and calling him "Spock" and calling his Magic Missile spell "Phasers on kill," but such a PC would really alter the "feel" of the game for many players.

"Game rules" are not "world rules."

What gets me is that at the beginning of the game I allowed the quitting player play a "very" non-standard character. He had a character been cursed by a Wizard that resulted in him having 2 personalities stuck in the one body. One personality was the real personality, a rude, crude, intimidating magic-hating Barbarian/Rogue (being rude to a powerful mage is what got him cursed in the first place). The other personality (created by the mage as punishment) was a weak and cowardly Sorcerer.

This might be non-standard from a "game rules" perspective, but a curse like this seems entirely appropriate in terms of feel and flavor for many types of myth, legend, and fantasy stories.

I do see many of your points, and it does seem like your game wasn't the right fit for the player who left, but here I think you're comparing apples and oranges. The leaving player didn't have a problem with the "game rules", he had a problem with the "world rules" -- the setting definition. They're very different things. A character can be non-standard in terms of "game rules" and yet fit in perfectly with the setting as you and the other players conceive of it.

For example, a PC whose Strength goes from 8 at midnight to 14 at dawn to 20 at high noon certainly isn't "standard" by the rules, but is entirely fitting in a medieval-ish fantasy setting.

 

[boerngrim]

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.

Hi
Jhulae, thank you for your response. I see your point. In my situation I was thinking more along the lines of it being unlikely the pc druid in question would be aware of dinos or would have actually known enough about a clawfoot to pray for one. It wasn't a question of whether or not dinos existed. It was more a question of the druid's lack of knowledge of such creatures in my view. The pcs were around 6th level at the time, but so far they hadn't gotten very far from their hometown in the course of the adventure.
Also, admittedly I've always kind of thought of animal companions as being creatures native to the druid's home turf. It may not be expressed in the rules, but it just makes sense to me.
Thanks.

 

[Piratecat]

Admin note! I jumped the gun when asking Raven Crowking to leave the thread as well. He's welcome back in; I'll send him a note to that regard.

Thanks to everyone who's worked to keep their temper, even when things got heated.

 

[jdrakeh]

It is not nor was it ever, supposed to be a technically accurate simulation of a specific era and/or location.

No, though that's not the issue here. The issue is a lack of internal consistency in a defined campaign world, not the simulation of any real historical period or ecosystem. When, as RC says, dinosaurs haven't existed in a given setting or area of a setting for ten levels of play and then, suddenly, out of the blue they're common beasts of burden, the established continuity of the game setting in question has been broken.

Again, this isn't a simulation issue, it's a 'Some people don't like totally random weirdness introduced without precendent during the middle of gameplay' issue. Or, even 'Some people like campaign settings to be consistent, not all over the map' issue. You can have both of these thigns without simulating Earth history or ecosystems.

I'm guessing that the guy who walked out of the game didn't like totally random weirdness without precedent or otherwise likes his settings to be internally consistent. I see nothing to suggest that he walked out because the game wasn't realistic.

 

[Mallus]

When, as RC says, dinosaurs haven't existed in a given setting or area of a setting for ten levels of play and then, suddenly, out of the blue they're common beasts of burden, the established continuity of the game setting in question has been broken.

But we aren't talking about dinosaurs suddenly becoming 'common beasts of burden'. We're talking about a dinosaur becoming the mount/companion for a 10th level character (which counts as high level in some people's settings). Those are two entirely different things.

 

[Delta]

But we aren't talking about dinosaurs suddenly becoming 'common beasts of burden'. We're talking about a dinosaur becoming the mount/companion for a 10th level character (which counts as high level in some people's settings). Those are two entirely different things.

Let's go back to Post #1:

Upon being introduced to the party one of the players said, "WTF, he's riding a dinosaur! What sort of game are we playing?" To him dinosaurs were creatures that might have lived on some far off continent, they did not get ridden around like a horse.

Based on the way Olaf wrote this, I came away with the impression that his point of contention with the player is that dinosaurs do not live on some far off continent, and that they do get ridden around like a horse. At least they do now, inasmuch as Olaf never said they didn't and the player was never told that they did.

Perhaps Olaf can clarify -- Do dinosaurs live on your players continent? Do they get ridden commonly like horses do? Personally, I think it's precisely that lack of clarity that made this player decide it wasn't the game for him.