Dinosaurs as Animal Companions - Gamebreaker?

[IceFractal]

One last thing (bolding mine):

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.

The Druid in question is not one of the existing characters. The fact that they existing characters haven't been to place has no bearing on whether a new character could have been to that place before joining the party. Again, PCs have lives before they meet the party, especially 10th level ones.


Edit: Fast reply.

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.

Fair enough. However, I don't think that "things from the Monster Manual exist, at least in small numbers" is a unreasonable assumption to make. It might arise that in a particular campaign the PCs had never happened to run into Lizardmen. But most players would not have their setting immersion broken if they eventually did run into Lizardmen. Dinosaurs are not some wierd alternate setting thing, they are in the core rules!

 

[Rackhir]

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.

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?

We're talking about a world where it is quite conceivable that every so often a gate to the plane of "Creatures The DM Didn't Think Of Right Off The Bat" opens up and kicks out a couple of creatures that either weren't found in that area or would die off shortly.

Our world is also not one where either magic or gods (in the D&D sense of the word) exist. Lots of things we regard as reasonable and rational simply go right out the window in such a world. Remember people can create matter by just waving their hands and uttering a couple of magical words. This is the sort of thing I meant by "Physics is a house rule in D&D". While yes it does aid in the suspension of disbelief if things "make sense" according to what we are used to. In a world where the sort of things that happens on a daily basis in any sort of D&D world, Inconceivable does not mean what you think it does.

While it's nice if the DM has devoted the time and the intellect to creating a completely plausible and detailed ecology and history from the beginning of time. It is not Bad/Wrong Fun not to do so, though it might well not be a campaign either you or RC would enjoy running in.

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.

Except that a Thoqqua is a creature the characters may well have run into at first level and by the time they are hitting 10th, they probably regard something like that as boring and mundane. As far as a top level predator goes, dinos pale in comparision to a lot of stuff in D&D. A T-Rex is only a cr 8 creature, that means it takes at least 2 of them to be an even threat to a 10th lvl party.

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.

Look from this description, you quite clearly prefer a lot of Sturm und Drang and in character RP reactions to everything that comes along. This isn't the case for everyone. If someone brought a dino into a campaign that I was running in or running my reaction would be "So what?" They're pretty pedestrian compared to a lot of the stuff one encounters on a regular basis as an adventurer. Compared to some of the things that our DM tossed at us in a city of aberrations, they aren't something I'd even bat an eye at. (Among other things we found a "reference Goblin". One that had been thinly sliced and glued back together along one side so you could "flip" through it.)

If you prefer going into long histrionics every time your character encounters anything even slightly out of the mundane, terrific for you. People used to freak out at encountering such bizarre creatures as Elephants and manatees. Me, compared to griffons, Dragonnettes, Hippogrifs, Giant Bats, Giant Owls, or whatever, a riding Dino just isn't something to get worked up about. Sure maybe my character hasn't encountered one before, but he's an adventurer. Running into odd things is part of the job descriptions.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

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.

Is this a new design philosophy for 3E?

It was my understanding in earlier editions that the DM was encouraged to design a world by addition, not by subtraction. That is, you were expected to figure out which animals, humanoid races, and so on were in your world. That was the active step. Not looking at the MM and ruling what was not in your world.

I may be thinking back to the 2E Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide (yeah, they put world-building and dungeon-building in one book).

 

[Mallus]

The only decision the players have to make is "Is this game fun?"

On this, we agree.

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?"

Okay, you're more interested in giving DM advice, which is cool. I'm giving advice for players, namely, "Don't be a prick. Let other people play the characters they want, unless that directly infringes on you playing you own".

I favor the J.S. Mill approach to D&D.

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.

I'd suggest it's almost always better to choose the person who isn't demonstrating that they're a prick.

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".

See above.

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.
RC

Explain to me what rational choice is being made here? Roughly speaking, two players left a group because they didn't like the color of the third player's tie.

 

[Tonguez]

I wonder though that if a PC had turned up with an Owlbear* companion or perhaps a Griffon where none had been seen before would it be considered a discontinuity in the game? Is this different to a velociraptor or even a Bronto** showing up?

and of course IRL there is Mokele-mbembe which might not be 'normal' but might also be real

*IMC owlbears (Ursaninox robustus) are a form of robust dromaesaur (species related to velociraptors) which alternates between a quadrapedal and bipedal stance.
** As a preference I'd probably use a much smaller sauropod than a Bronto like an Europasaurus

 

[IceFractal]

It was my understanding in earlier editions that the DM was encouraged to design a world by addition, not by subtraction.

So if the DM doesn't mention during the first couple sessions that Apes, Baboons, Badgers, Bats, Bears, Bison, Boars, Camels, Cats, Cheetahs, Crocodiles, Dogs, Donkeys, Eagles, Elephants, Hawks, Horses, Hyenas, Leopards, Lions, Lizards, Manta Rays, Monkeys, Mules, Octopi, Owls, Ponys, Porpoises, Rats, Ravens, Rhinoceri, Sharks, Snakes, Squid, Tigers, Toads, Weasels, Whales, and Wolves exist ... then they don't? And they would break the setting if mentioned after that time? Ditto for things like Orcs, Lizardfolk, Goblins, Kobolds, etc.

A common assumption is that "normal" creatures exist, unless stated otherwise. The only problem is that "normal" is a subjective term. Personally, I think "in the core rules" is a more universal value of normal than "in the real world and/or fantasy I consider mainstream".

No attempt to explain where it came from, no playing up its alien-ness, no response to the player.

This cuts both ways though. Did the quitting player respond in-character and give the Druid a chance to explain in-character? Or did they just say "A dinsaur companion? That's stupid, I'm leaving."

 

[Kaisoku]

Yeah, the difference here is that it's a PC with the dinosaur. The one-in-a-million type person that could be from anywhere on the planet coming in with this non-local beast.

As long as there was a modicum of backstory indicating that the Druid was from, or visited, some far off place that the locals (including PCs) never heard of or experienced yet, then it can fit in the game.

The DM doesn't have to detail the entire planet's ecology. In fact, doing so would ruin the players, as they could not help but meta-game that knowledge. I don't know about you, but as a player, when I have to specifically ignore info because my character shouldn't know it... it's far less gratifying than to be surprised truly, as the player.


From the sounds of it, the interaction between characters didn't happen in-character. It seems more like the offended player basically got upset that Dinosaurs could be in the game and made a stink about it. Basically.. I'm saying it was like "Option 3", where there wasn't even a little bit of roleplaying done before the objections out of character were started.

Obviously, someone jumping ship from a long term invested game over small issues has a personal problem. I've met a few people like this, that absolutely need to play in a game the way they want, and if they don't get it, even to the smallest degree, they leave.

Unless something else was going on... RL issues, bored of the setting/game/people involved, manic-depressive missing his medication, etc.


Ultimately though, the DM has every right to add to the campaign world. What if the DM decided to bring in a "Lost Continent" that had Dinosaurs on it and it was the main plot point of his next adventure series?

Of course, if all the players outright say they don't want it, there should be compromise and discussion. However, one player telling the group that everything has to be his way is extremely petty and the very definition of immature.

Yes, the campaign world suddenly changing completely (spell plague anyone?) could be a good reason to say Hey, this isn't the game I intended to be a part of.
But one person's animal companion? Really? Is it really that big of a deal? Would it have been better had he been a Paladin riding in on a silver wyrmling instead? Seriously... this is an overblown reaction.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

While it's nice if the DM has devoted the time and the intellect to creating a completely plausible and detailed ecology and history from the beginning of time. It is not Bad/Wrong Fun not to do so (though it might well not be a campaign either you or RC would enjoy running in.

Please note that I said "at least a nominal amount of attention to ecology." Nowhere did I say that a completely plausible and detailed ecology was necessary. But if you want dinosaurs to appear where they were previously unknown, you at least need SOME SORT of an in-game explanation. Either they're on a faraway island, or they were magically preserved by some god, or recently created by a wizard. Fine. At least that's something. "They're in the latest MM" is not an explanation for why they've suddenly appeared in the game world.

A T-Rex is only a cr 8 creature, that means it takes at least 2 of them to be an even threat to a 10th lvl party.

CR has nothing to do with its exotic-ness. If they PCs have seen dragons, they would likely regard the dinosaur as some sort of relative and not be weirded out. But some campaigns feature relatively few monsters and more classed PC races or humanoids as enemies -- and in those campaigns, I would feel it appropriate as a player to treat monsters as unusual.

If you prefer going into long histrionics every time your character encounters anything even slightly out of the mundane, terrific for you.

Whoa, hold on there. "long histrionics"? I offered perhaps a 20-second scene to convey "This is a strange animal for this Conan-type setting, let's have the PCs react in-character accordingly and move on." If the dinosaur was exotic, it should be respected as such and have a little bit of RP talking about the in-game explanation for why it is there (and NOT "it's in the rules"). As a player, I would feel I was disrespecting the setting by treating the exotic as mundane. Now, if the dinosaur was not exotic (as in Eberron), there's no need for the scene.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'd suggest it's almost always better to choose the person who isn't demonstrating that they're a prick.

So what if Bob joins your group, but Bob only plays 2e? Does that mean that the group switches to 2e, or else whoever refuses is a prick?

Clearly, if a person enters an established group, and then expects that group to change to accomodate him, without first "trying on" the methodology of that group, it is the new person who is a prick. Is that what you meant?

RC

 

[boerngrim]

Hi
I recently had the dino companion come up in a campaign. One of my players who was running a druid with a very effective large dog animal companion, read about the clawfoot dino and wanted to dismiss his dog and call a clawfoot. I put the nix on it because I"ve always felt that dinos in a 3e greyhawk/default setting are only found in the tropics. We were playing in a temperate area and the group hadn't run across any dinos, so I said no. I told him that if I had brought dinos into the campaign, or if I thought there was a good chance dinos lived anywhere near the campaign area I would have allowed it.
Thanks.