Dinosaurs as Animal Companions - Gamebreaker?

[Brother MacLaren]

Does the DM need to explicitly mention all of the animals in an area?

No. Very small animals can exist in great diversity; random anomalies and aberrations can exist here and there. But Medium or larger animals present in great enough numbers to have a sustainable population should be noted. The DM should have an idea of what the world looks like, and be able to communicate this to his players. This helps them get immersed in the setting. And that is one GREAT advantage of creating random encounter tables. The DM actually has to sit down and think about what monsters and animals exist in the Dragonspine Mountains west of the capital city or the Blackwind Forest to the south. Good setting resources, such as the D&D Gazetteers, included such lists. It was not assumed "everything published can be found in every region."

Buffalo or even cattle in massive herds roaming Australia pre-european settlement, would be every bit as out of place as dinosaurs in Europe during the middle ages. Yet most americans/europeans wouldn't bat an eye at it because those creatures are "normal" to their backgrounds.

It depends on the setting. Cattle don't exist in Star Wars; "Improved Bull Rush" was renamed "Improved Bantha Rush" to emphasize this point. Okay? So if I'm playing in that setting, and there are herds of cattle on Tatooine, that would jar my immersion in the setting. Suddenly, the world doesn't look like how I imagined it. Same if I was in a game set in early Australian history.
Middle-Earth doesn't have half-orcs AFAIK. If I'm playing a game set in the Third Age of Middle-Earth, and suddenly there's a half-orc in the party, it's going to jar my immersion in the setting. Or hobbits riding dinosaurs, or drow.
If I'm playing in a grim-and-gritty Conan game, the appearance of a NG academically inclined wizard with a 21st-century view on human rights and democracy is going to jar my immersion in the setting.

I view it as an obligation of the player to create a PC that works with the DM's vision of the game world. It is not the obligation of the DM to create a kitchen-sink world in which anything published by WotC is admissable. It is, however, the DM's obligation to communicate to his players what the game world is like.

 

[shilsen]

Nothing in what I said requires the DM to be omniscient. If the region hasn't had dinosaurs for 10 levels worth of play, the DM has "established in his campaign that Dinosaurs were rare or confined to small areas".

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.

 

[Mallus]

Sorry, but I view this as a DMing problem.

It's a player/group communication problem.

If the players are playing in an Arctic setting, and a new player shows up with a camel as an animal companion (or reverse that to an Arabic setting, and the new player comes in with a walrus) the other players may well wonder why that PC was allowed in.

Or they might rationalize said camel's (or dinosaur's) presence via some magical item or permanent spell effect that protects it from antithetical environmental conditions. It's absurdly easy to justify the camel (or dinosaur) in the context of your average D&D setting. The real question is, "Are you willing to do so?" Are you capable of playing well with others?

When it comes right down to it, you can expend your energy trying to make the game work, or you can do the opposite. Other players are going to have their fun in their own way. Either you can accept that, and actively work with your fellow players in order to make the game as enjoyable as possible for everyone (seeing as everyone bears the responsibility for making a campaign run smoothly). Or you can rather selfishly focus on your own enjoyment (which, in this case, means dictating what kind of animal companion your fellow players can have), and put your efforts into derailing the game --or leaving, as these people did.

This doesn't sound so much like a discontinuity in the game but a discontinuity in the game world to me. Make sure that the players know what is possible in your world, and I doubt you'll experience this sort of thing again.

This kind of thing will happen as long as players want different things out of the game. No amount of skillful setting design/implementation can solve what are essentially interpersonal problem. Again, seeing as it's so simple to justify the dinosaur (or camel, or Snuffleupagus, for that matter) with magic, I can't help but see this as a power issue; one (or more) players telling another what they can play, an attempt to dictate what the play experience will be, instead trying to compromise/make the best of it.

The only real solution is communication and the fostering a healthy level of mutual respect among the group. What I like to call an HTE (High-Trust Environment).

 

[Rackhir]

No. Very small animals can exist in great diversity; random anomalies and aberrations can exist here and there. But Medium or larger animals present in great enough numbers to have a sustainable population should be noted. The DM should have an idea of what the world looks like, and be able to communicate this to his players. This helps them get immersed in the setting. And that is one GREAT advantage of creating random encounter tables. The DM actually has to sit down and think about what monsters and animals exist in the Dragonspine Mountains west of the capital city or the Blackwind Forest to the south. Good setting resources, such as the D&D Gazetteers, included such lists. It was not assumed "everything published can be found in every region."

All this is true, but at the same time "not everything published can be found in every region." does not have to equal "Anything published cannot be found in any particular region." Dinosaurs covered a wide range of environments and thus can plausibly be found in an equally wide range of environments. Especially when you consider that most settings are in temperate regions without an extreme environment of one sort or another (IE. most campaigns aren't set in deserts/arctic wastelands/isolated islands).

Let's not forget we're talking about a druid who does not have to have been native to the area for the campaign. Nor does he have to have obtained the animal companion in the area the campaign was located in. We are talking about a 10th lv druid. Tree stride might not quite offer the mobility of "Transport via Plants", but it isn't too far off with a several thousand foot range and a 10 hr duration. Not to mention teleportation probably being available.

It depends on the setting. Cattle don't exist in Star Wars; "Improved Bull Rush" was renamed "Improved Bantha Rush" to emphasize this point. Okay? So if I'm playing in that setting, and there are herds of cattle on Tatooine, that would jar my immersion in the setting. Suddenly, the world doesn't look like how I imagined it. Same if I was in a game set in early Australian history.
Middle-Earth doesn't have half-orcs AFAIK. If I'm playing a game set in the Third Age of Middle-Earth, and suddenly there's a half-orc in the party, it's going to jar my immersion in the setting. Or hobbits riding dinosaurs, or drow.
If I'm playing in a grim-and-gritty Conan game, the appearance of a NG academically inclined wizard with a 21st-century view on human rights and democracy is going to jar my immersion in the setting.

Yes again this is all true, but also again we aren't talking about "Three Musketeers : The RPG for Late 17th century France". D&D is at it's default designed to be flexible and comprehensive and largely setting neutral. While it's possible that the DM had created a highly specific and detailed campaign of the sort you describe. I'm guessing that this probably isn't the case since a large percentage of DMs never bother to. Especially considering that the OP didn't give any indications that it was such a highly specific and detailed setting. In fact the only indication we have that there is even any reason to believe that such dinos are out of place is the fact that ONE player had a hissy fit over it and that player is at least according to further posts by the OP, one who is difficult and fussy in his own description of himself.

I view it as an obligation of the player to create a PC that works with the DM's vision of the game world. It is not the obligation of the DM to create a kitchen-sink world in which anything published by WotC is admissable. It is, however, the DM's obligation to communicate to his players what the game world is like.

Yes, this is true. Except that there is no indication on the DM's part that there is some reason why a moderately high level druid cannot have a dino as an animal companion. They are in the basic MM. They are in the SRD. They show up on the Summon Nature's Ally spell list at 5th level (which the druid is perfectly capable of casting). So aside from the preconceptions of most westerners that they are "strange" creatures there's no inherent reason they can't show up.

I'd also like an explanation of why they are so much more beyond the pale than any number of clearly unnatural and supernatural creatures that are far stranger and encountered far earlier than dinos are. Is a Thoqqua really that much "more" believable than a velociraptor?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Does the DM need to explicitly mention all of the animals in an area? Buffalo or even cattle in massive herds roaming Australia pre-european settlement, would be every bit as out of place as dinosaurs in Europe during the middle ages.

And, if one were using an Australian-type backdrop, players would rightly raise an eyebrow at massive herds of buffalo....or even one buffalo. Likewise, in a European-themed area, the appearance of kangaroos would require explaining.

As your post suggests, players come to the table with some preconceived notions (predominantely cultural or historical) about what is possible and/or likely in the game world. Even at 1st level, the characters have lived in that world for over a dozen years (in some cases, over a century) and should have some idea what is normal.

But, in the OP, we are not even talking about a 1st level game. We are talking about a 10th level game, by which point both players and their characters should have some idea what the texture of the world is like.

In short, Dinosaurs might be something "strange" that "has to be accounted for" in your view of the world. But there's no inherent reason that has to be the case.

I disagree. Not because dinosaurs are any stranger than, say, medusas, but because their existance is going to leave a large footprint on the world. IMHO, it is part of good DMing to consider the footprints that creatures leave on your world, so that the players have clues as to what they are likely to meet in a given area. A ruin inhabited by thousands of dire rats, for instance, is going to show signs of things having been gnawed, and is going to exhibit rat droppings. Finding signs of the creature's existence is as important as meeting the creature itself -- it is a requisite for anticipation.

Anyone who'd quit a campaign over something like a dinosaur being introduced, has to have had other issues and other complaints.

Hence "Unless of course, he prefers this new player to the one who quit."

(Although, of course, I am the first person to say you shouldn't be playing in -- or running -- a game you aren't enjoying.)

But, frankly, that doesn't seem to be the case from the OP. Which may suggest that the dinosaur was the straw that broke the camel's back, and that the DM might want to communicate what is possible in his campaign world a bit more clearly. And might want to say "No" to something that doesn't fit.

Normally I come down in defense of the DM. I am the first person to say that the DM has every right to say "My way or the highway." But, if the DM doesn't want the players to select the highway, he must provide a game that they enjoy playing in.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Middle-Earth doesn't have half-orcs AFAIK.

Re-read the chapters that take place in Bree, and, later "The Scouring of the Shire".

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

As Brother MacLaren put it, "I view it as an obligation of the player to create a PC that works with the DM's vision of the game world. It is not the obligation of the DM to create a kitchen-sink world in which anything published by WotC is admissable. It is, however, the DM's obligation to communicate to his players what the game world is like."

(This is also the answer to Mallus' post -- communication is an obligation of the group; what must be communicated is a function of your role in the group.)

RC

 

[Rackhir]

And, if one were using an Australian-type backdrop, players would rightly raise an eyebrow at massive herds of buffalo....or even one buffalo. Likewise, in a European-themed area, the appearance of kangaroos would require explaining.

A large part of my point with regards to this is that, we are not talking about our earth and things don't have to exactly match the patterns and relationships that we have experienced here. Just because on our earth, dinos got wiped out at one point, doesn't mean that has to be the case in every D&D world. Given magic, gods, and multiple planes of existance, unless there has been something established that specifically rules X out of possibility, there's no real reason why the situations we are familiar with have to be replicated exactly in a D&D world.

We already have "Dinosaurs" showing up as default creatures in every D&D settings that nobody bats an eyelash at. Crocs and Sharks. Having the odd T-Rex or Triceratops wandering by is no more implausible than a Dire tiger (a tropical creature) showing up in a temperate european climate.

As your post suggests, players come to the table with some preconceived notions (predominantely cultural or historical) about what is possible and/or likely in the game world. Even at 1st level, the characters have lived in that world for over a dozen years (in some cases, over a century) and should have some idea what is normal.

But, in the OP, we are not even talking about a 1st level game. We are talking about a 10th level game, by which point both players and their characters should have some idea what the texture of the world is like.

Yes this is all true. At the same time the DM isn't going to be able to think of everything. Just because the idea of dinos wandering about didn't occur to him when he created the campaign does not have to preclude their existing. Especially when they are well supported by the basic material for D&D and are really no odder or unusual than many things that show up.

I disagree. Not because dinosaurs are any stranger than, say, medusas, but because their existance is going to leave a large footprint on the world. IMHO, it is part of good DMing to consider the footprints that creatures leave on your world, so that the players have clues as to what they are likely to meet in a given area. A ruin inhabited by thousands of dire rats, for instance, is going to show signs of things having been gnawed, and is going to exhibit rat droppings. Finding signs of the creature's existence is as important as meeting the creature itself -- it is a requisite for anticipation.

I'm not clear on why vegie eating brontosaurus is going to leave that much more of an impact on the enviroment than a creature that turns anything that meets it's eye to stone. While yes, it is good if a DM puts the time and thought into things to estabilsh background details like the horde of dire rats leaving gnaw marks on everything in the area. Not everyone wants to work that hard or put that much thought into a recreational activity. Nor should they not having done so, forbid everything they didn't lay out in detail from showing up.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Re-read the chapters that take place in Bree, and, later "The Scouring of the Shire".

D'oh! I have the movies on the mind too much and the books not enough.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I'm not clear on why vegie eating brontosaurus is going to leave that much more of an impact on the enviroment than a creature that turns anything that meets it's eye to stone.

Because you can have one or a few medusae exist as cursed individuals. If you have the dinosaurs existing as a sustainable population, as animals filling an ecological niche, they're going to have much more of an impact. On ecology: many D&D worlds are heavily over-populated with predators, so I find worlds with at least a nominal amount of attention to ecology more compelling.

I'd also like an explanation of why they are so much more beyond the pale than any number of clearly unnatural and supernatural creatures that are far stranger and encountered far earlier than dinos are. Is a Thoqqua really that much "more" believable than a velociraptor?

A thoqqua is an extra-planar creature and, yeah, you're right, it should be treated as something incredibly strange and bizarre the first time it is encountered.

For me, it would really come down to how the introduction was handled in the game.
For example, suppose that I'm playing a PC in a Conan-type game. A new PC shows up riding a dinosaur.
My PC draws his sword and shouts "Gods below! A demon! And a conjurer who controls him!"

Option 1: the other player responds in character. "Peace, I beg you. I am a traveler from the distant lands across the sea. My friend here is no demon but a poor dumb beast. He protects me, but he means you no harm."
The DM chimes in: "You've heard legends of strange lands across the sea where lizards walk on two legs and pull carts. Up until now, you thought they were myths. The creature looks at you curiously. Its feet are like those of a bird, and its tongue like that of a snake."

Option 2: Player responds out of character. "Huh? This is my new druid. He's got a Fleshraker dinosaur."
The DM shrugs and says "It's allowed."
I respond "Yeah, but, riding dinosaurs?"
The DM responds, "It's in the MM3. There's all kinds of weird stuff in the world, you know."

No attempt to explain where it came from, no playing up its alien-ness, no response to the player. The player in my example (and I don't know what the OP's player did, but this is what I would do) tried to engage with the setting as he understood it to be, and tried to react to the strangeness of this creature. And was met with indifference. When the exotic becomes taken for granted, the sense of wonder is lost and a great deal of the fun is lost along with it.