Dinosaurs as Animal Companions - Gamebreaker?

[Raven Crowking]

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."

So, you'd have no trouble whatsoever with believing a news report that said a herd of triceratops had been discovered in Montana? Would you have trouble with the DM announcing that apatosauruses were located within the City of Greyhawk? After all, dinosaurs covered a wide range of environments and thus can plausibly be found in an equally wide range of environments. Would you have a problem with an ancient red dragon squatting atop the castle over Waterdeep for centuries....but no one has noticed?

Clearly, just because a creature can potentially exist in an environment doesn't mean that it does. Large creatures living unbeknownst to you in an area you don't know well? Sure. Small creatures living unbeknownst to you in an area you know well? Sure. Large creatures living unbeknownst to you in an area you know well.....maybe, if they are solitary or have some ability to remain hidden. Herds of animals weighing over a ton each living unbeknownst to you in an area you know well? That seems to be a whole lot less likely to me. YMMV.

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.

Yet again, clearly, at least one of those involved in the game didn't seem to think that this was within the realm of possibility for that game, so something is wrong here. I am not saying that the inclusion of dinosaurs is what's wrong (indeed, as said, I include dinosaurs in my own game), but that the player(s) don't know what they can reasonably expect from the campaign world is a serious problem.

Again, Brother MacLaren put this well: "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."

D&D is at it's default designed to be flexible and comprehensive and largely setting neutral.

The game is setting-neutral. Once you begin play, perforce, you are creating a setting. D&D is setting-neutral. No D&D campaign can be so.

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?

No.

However, the same criteria apply.

All creatures leave ecological footprints of their existence. The larger the animal (and the larger the group it lives in) the larger its footprint. Intelligence can mitigate this to some degree. Certainly, dwelling far from civilization can do the same (which is why Lost World novels take place in Lost Worlds). It should also be noted that the ecological footprints of prey animals (herbivoures) are often larger than those of predators (because any given region will support a vast number of prey animals compared to the number of creatures that prey on them).


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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.

Of course not.

But the players must understand enough of the world in order to envision it and to be able to make rational choices about what they can expect. If the DM isn't giving them enough information to do that, then he isn't doing his job. The more the world diverges from the one we know, the more information the DM must make available.

That seems pretty obvious to me.

RC

 

[Greg K]

So, if this had happened in a game you were playing in what would have been your reaction? Personally I was a little surprised that the player reacted the way that he did. In a game where you fight dragons and cast fireballs from your hands, is it really that out-there to see someone riding a large lizard-like beast? I'm interested in seeing what people's thoughts are.

First, there are non-standard DND settings that I like . I love Darksun, Al Quadim, and Ravenloft. However, the dinosaur riding druid would be out there to me unless

a) you had established the existance of dinosaurs in the setting in other than a lost world area that the characters had not yet encountered. However, depending upon the other elements of the setting, I may or may not want to continue playing. Just, because it is fantasy doesn't mean just anything should be allowed or doing so is fun, imo.

b) we were playing in a prehistoric setting. I might give this one a try as I could find it interesting.

c) we were adventuring in a lost world type of area of the setting. I would not be happy, but I would play it if was only one or two sessions.

 

[Mallus]

(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.)

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'communication'... it only leads to misunderstanding.

My point was that it's wrong for one player to tell another what character they can play, especially when it's a petty issue like disliking their preferred mount. The complain-y players' time and effort would have been better spent finding ways to work with dino-phile player. Work with, not against. That should be the RPG Golden Rule.

I think it's important to frame problems like this correctly. The root cause has nothing to do with setting verisimilitude. Before criticizing the DM for not exhaustively cataloging the setting's flora and fauna, you should question why the other players thought it was a good idea to tell the dino-phile he shouldn't play the character he wants to play. Why is this acceptable gamer etiquette?

 

[Raven Crowking]

My point was that it's wrong for one player to tell another what character they can play

If you are claiming that it is wrong for the DM to set limits as to what fits within a given campaign setting, then I not only disagree, but I think you are advocating an abdication of responsibility on the part of the DM that leads to a much weaker game.

especially when it's a petty issue like disliking their preferred mount.

Cool.

Let me know when I get to play Superman in your 1st level game (and I don't mean a faux Superman; I want all the powers -- it's wrong to tell me what I can play, remember!). My preferred mount? An invulnerable flying dragon that cancels out all effects of Kryptonite within 1,000 astronomical units.

(That's an extreme, jokey, example, but if you can put into words all the problems you might have with allowing such a character into your game, I'm sure you'll have included the same problems one might have with the dino-riding druid in a setting where that character doesn't fit.)

RC

 

[Mallus]

But the players must understand enough of the world in order to envision it and to be able to make rational choices about what they can expect. If the DM isn't giving them enough information to do that, then he isn't doing his job.

Except that in this case, the only decision the players have to make is "Do I shut up and let Bob have his fun and play a dinosaur-riding druid, or do I be a prick about it and threaten to leave the group because I don't like it?" As with everything, context is key.

The more the world diverges from the one we know, the more information the DM must make available.

That seems pretty obvious to me.

It also obvious that the amount of information required to satisfy a player varies, a lot.

RC, it's clear like a certain kind of setting, with a certain kind of logic governing it. Other people have different preferences. Frankly, every game world I've ever encountered, when you come right down to it, has been a mass of irreconcilable pieces culled from too many different literary/cinematic/game sources; where 'verisimilitude' is like a patina of oil floating lightly a pool of waste water (but I don't mean that in the pejorative sense).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Except that in this case, the only decision the players have to make is "Do I shut up and let Bob have his fun and play a dinosaur-riding druid, or do I be a prick about it and threaten to leave the group because I don't like it?" As with everything, context is key.

Nah. The only decision the players have to make is "Is this game fun?" Given that there is no compromise where both Sarah and Bob have fun, the only decision the DM has to make is "Would I rather have Sarah or Bob in my game?"

Unless there is a strong reason to do otherwise, it is almost always better to choose the long-term player over the new player, because the new player might not last.

In any event, it is incumbent upon a DM to take his long-term players into consideration before deciding whether or not to let "Bob have his fun".

RC, it's clear like a certain kind of setting, with a certain kind of logic governing it. Other people have different preferences. Frankly, every game world I've ever encountered, when you come right down to it, has been a mass of irreconcilable pieces culled from too many different literary/cinematic/game sources; where 'verisimilitude' is like a patina of oil floating lightly a pool of waste water (but I don't mean that in the pejorative sense).

And yet it is always true that the players must understand enough of the world in order to envision it and to be able to make rational choices about what they can expect. The more the world diverges from the one we know, the more information the DM must make available. If the DM isn't giving them enough information to do that, then he isn't doing his job (or, at least, he is not doing it well).

RC

 

[Mallus]

If you are claiming that it is wrong for the DM to set limits as to what fits within a given campaign setting, then I not only disagree, but I think you are advocating an abdication of responsibility on the part of the DM that leads to a much weaker game.

The OP was the DM. He was okay the dinosaur. Next question...

(And as a recovering setting-Nazi, I can tell you from personal experience that saying 'yes' to player's character concepts that --initially-- don't seem to jive your setting has vastly improved my homebrew and the long running, Story Hour-ed campaign set in it. Check out it sometime if you think that player-malleable, kitchen-sink-ish settings are inherently weak).

Let me know when I get to play Superman in your 1st level game (and I don't mean a faux Superman; I want all the powers -- it's wrong to tell me what I can play, remember!). My preferred mount? An invulnerable flying dragon that cancels out all effects of Kryptonite within 1,000 astronomical units.

Apples to Kalashnikov's, and you know it. A dinosaur is neither an unfair mechanical advantage to a 10th level character, nor is it even rightly considered exotic, compared to other things in the RAW.

 

[IceFractal]

If you are claiming that it is wrong for the DM to set limits as to what fits within a given campaign setting, then I not only disagree, but I think you are advocating an abdication of responsibility on the part of the DM that leads to a much weaker game.

Here's the thing though - a dinosaur wasn't unsuitable for the DM's setting, it was unsuitable for the way one player incorrectly imagined the DM's setting to be.

I find it likely that the DM had never mentioned previously the presence or absence of dinosaurs in his campaign. Now you might assume that not mentioning dinosaurs means they don't exist, but actually, all it means is that they're somewhat rare and/or live in places the PCs haven't been to.

In a city-based campaign, bears might incidentally never be mentioned. Does that mean the world is suddenly "anything goes" if a travelling circus shows up in town with a bear? And no, bears are not "more normal" than dinosaurs in D&D. The MM has both - therefore, the standard setting has both. The DM can remove either or both from their setting, but the default is that they exist.



And another point - PC's are not the general populace. If only 1 in 1000 dwarves has green eyes, there is no problem with a PC dwarf having green eyes, because PCs are significantly rarer than 1 in 1000. And especially by 10th level, PCs travel a lot, and can certainly bring stuff from far-away lands.

So yes, a 10th level Druid coming into an arctic campaign with a camel makes perfect sense, assuming that somewhere on the planet there are deserts. He got the camel in the desert and then travelled with it to the arctic area, using Endure Elements to keep it warm. How is that so inconcievable?

This isn't an existing PC we're talking about, who suddenly switched to a dinosaur companion in the middle of an adventure. This an all new PC - if dinosaurs only live on a far-away island, no problem! They've been to the island and back, and that's why they have a dinosaur. PCs do have a life before they join the party, you know.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Here's the thing though - a dinosaur wasn't unsuitable for the DM's setting, it was unsuitable for the way one player incorrectly imagined the DM's setting to be.

Yup.

Which goes back to my point:

The players must understand enough of the world in order to envision it and to be able to make rational choices about what they can expect. The more the world diverges from the one we know, the more information the DM must make available. If the DM isn't giving them enough information to do that, then he isn't doing his job (or, at least, he is not doing it well).

Don't confuse the lengthly side-discussion of why dinosaurs-out-of-nowhere might not be expected from the point that led to it.


RC