Dinosaurs as Animal Companions - Gamebreaker?

[Olaf the Stout]

Let's go back to Post #1:



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.

The existance or non-existance of dinosaurs on the continent had not been discussed previously. Not that that is anything out of the ordinary. We had not discussed the existance or non-existance of any particular creature on the continent.

As I said in an earlier post, most of the early campaign had taken place in the city of Freeport (which is located on an island). Since then a lot of the adventuring had taken place in urban environments with most of the encounters involving classed humanoids.

When the situation came up, I told the players that their character would have heard of dinosaurs exisiting on the continent, but not necessarily in the area that they were currently in (which was close to several towns and had a lot of farmland). I also said that they hadn't not really heard of people commonly riding them (so to see someone riding one was a little odd) but they did know that some people that could develop close friendships with animals (i.e. Druids and Rangers). 2 members of the party had levels in Ranger so they would have had some familiarity with that.

I never stated that the dinosaur was necessarily found in the area where the party was (in fact the Druid had returned from one of his many travels for his Grandaughter's birthday). The Druid was wide travelled. While I never specified where exactly he came across the dinosaur, it could have been from any number of places. Even if the dinosaur had come from some far off land, what's to say that the Druid hadn't gone and lived amongst the beasts, which is where he got his animal companion? How is that not plausible?

Olaf the Stout

Edit: So in answer to your question Delta, yes they did exist on the continent that the PC's were on. No, the do not commonly get ridden around like horses.

 

[Mallus]

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.

I came away with a different impression. I read it as that Olaf okay'd a dino-mount for a single, new 10th level character, which in no way implied that dinosaurs were common mounts. In fact, I imagine said exotic mount was chosen to accentuate the singular and powerful nature of the character it belonged to.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I came away with a different impression. I read it as that Olaf okay'd a dino-mount for a single, new 10th level character, which in no way implied that dinosaurs were common mounts. In fact, I imagine said exotic mount was chosen to accentuate the singular and powerful nature of the character it belonged to.

Correct. I ok'd this for a 10th level Druid. I never said that dinosaurs were common mounts. If the player wanted to play a Fighter or Cleric character instead of a Druid and wanted it to have a dinosaur mount I would have said no.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Pseudopsyche]

While I never specified where exactly he came across the dinosaur, it could have been from any number of places. Even if the dinosaur had come from some far off land, what's to say that the Druid hadn't gone and lived amongst the beasts, which is where he got his animal companion? How is that not plausible?

From your original post, I gathered that the issue for your problem player wasn't one of plausibility, it was one of a perceived shift in genre or flavor. Particularly if the campaign began in a seedy pirate city, the addition of a dinosaur-riding druid could certainly seem jarring. Clearly, dinosaurs could be plausible inhabitants of any D&D fantasy world, but particularly tame dinosaurs connote a very different flavor than urban adventure. In the same way, for example, if the new PC had been a private investigator, the other players might reasonably wonder why you've suddenly added noir elements to your campaign.

 

[Delta]

When the situation came up, I told the players that their character would have heard of dinosaurs exisiting on the continent...

Well, there you go. I would see that as a retcon that's changing the campaign setting retroactively. If a player didn't want to play in a campaign with dinosaurs present, that's simply not the game for him anymore. Folks have different tastes, ya know?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Piratecat: Thank you! (I'm sending you a personal email right after this.)

Olaf & Mallus: Thank you for clarifying your positions.

Olaf: I don't think, with the added information, that you could have handled the situation otherwise, and I'm glad you didn't take my comments as a personal attack. I am of the school that, so long as the DM clearly communicates what he is doing, he is allowed to do anything he likes. Players, of course, have the option of leaving the game (as this player did) with (one hopes) no hard feelings on either side.

Mallus: Sorry that I misunderstood your position. As you clarified it, I mostly agree with you.

RC

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I think the introduction of the dinosaur was poorly handled if a goal was to keep the group intact. After 1.5 years people get to know each other, so I'm guessing that how this dinosaur introduction turned out is not quite so surprising to the people involved.

Bluntly, all people share fault because the end result goes something like:

1) The player of the dinosaur riding druid does not get to play a dinosaur riding druid,
2) Players 2 & 3 are looking for a game elsewhere,
3) The dm has work to do to restart the campaign or start afresh.

I personally feel it is much better to have players and dm really commit to keeping the game alive and enjoyable for all. The principles of 'give and take' were abandoned for 'take and leave', and thus this thread. Regardless of the divide (and I think both main arguments have merit) the best thing I'm taking from this discussion is the need to listen to, discuss and address player/dm concerns.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Well, there you go. I would see that as a retcon that's changing the campaign setting retroactively. If a player didn't want to play in a campaign with dinosaurs present, that's simply not the game for him anymore. Folks have different tastes, ya know?

Fair enough. I personally don't see it as a retcon since I never actually said there wasn't dinosaurs and then changed my mind. It was a Schrödinger's cat situation. It wasn't discussed prior to this situation whether or not Dinosaurs existed in the game world.

I do know that folks have different tastes. He didn't like the style of game so he left.

Of course I have learned that the whole dino thing is a much bigger point of contention for RPG players than I thought it was. I really didn't think dinosaurs in a game was such a huge deal to so many people. I find this especially strange since they are included as viable Animal Companions, as well as options for both Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally. Judging by this thread it seems that quite a few people don't want to see them in their game unless it is a lost world situation though. I don't quite understand it but each to their own I guess.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I find this especially strange since they are included as viable Animal Companions, as well as options for both Summon Monster and Summon Nature's Ally.

It may be that coming from earlier editions, I anticipate an "ask your DM" before each of those lists. Something like "Sample animal companions are described below, but may vary by setting. Ask your DM what animals are available for your druid."

That was the general mentality in earlier editions.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I think the introduction of the dinosaur was poorly handled if a goal was to keep the group intact. After 1.5 years people get to know each other, so I'm guessing that how this dinosaur introduction turned out is not quite so surprising to the people involved.

Bluntly, all people share fault because the end result goes something like:

1) The player of the dinosaur riding druid does not get to play a dinosaur riding druid,
2) Players 2 & 3 are looking for a game elsewhere,
3) The dm has work to do to restart the campaign or start afresh.

I personally feel it is much better to have players and dm really commit to keeping the game alive and enjoyable for all. The principles of 'give and take' were abandoned for 'take and leave', and thus this thread. Regardless of the divide (and I think both main arguments have merit) the best thing I'm taking from this discussion is the need to listen to, discuss and address player/dm concerns.

Actually I (as the DM) was surprised that the player decided to leave the game on the basis of a dinosaur animal companion. I really didn't think that it was something that would cause a player to quit the game over. I really didn't even expect the player in question to have a problem with it. So I was quite surprised by the player's reaction.

On the other hand, I wasn't shocked. Both myself and the quitting player were aware that we had many differences in taste when it came to RPG's. We had had many disagreements in the past that we had discussed and come up with compromises that we both could live with. This was not the first disagreement we had in the game. At the same time, we worked through those disagreements without it degenerating into an argument or getting personal.

In the end our preferred play styles were just too different. For example, he like to think of the rules as general guidelines. I liked to think of the rules as there to be followed to make the game balanced and fair for all people involved. He described it as me being Law and him Chaos on the alignment axis! Realistically I don't think the player even likes the D&D ruleset based on how much he complained about the rules. I think that he played it though because it was a choice between playing D&D or not play RPG's at all due to the difficulty in finding non-D&D roleplayers in our area.

I think we both knew that it was only a matter of time before we went out separate ways. I was just surprised that it was over this. Had I desparately wanted to save the game I believe I could have talked to him about it and worked something out. However, I had gotten to the stage where I had made that many changes to the game to placate his preferred style that I felt like I was making a game that I didn't want to run anymore. With that in mind I decided to just let him go and start a new campaign with my remaining 2 players and a couple of new recruits.

Olaf the Stout