Dinosaurs as Animal Companions - Gamebreaker?

[Raven Crowking]

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.

So, let me see if I understand this right:

The players are engaged in a campaign, making characters that fit the campaign world as they understand it, when Bob joins the group. Bob makes a "one-in-a-million type person" that upstages the established player characters in terms of "cool look at meness". When one of the established players thinks it is inappropriate to the game they are playing, the DM dismisses his concerns.

If this is the case, frankly, the DM is lucky he isn't left playing with just Bob.

RC

 

[Rackhir]

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.

Except that they're not in the "Latest MM". They're in the basic MM. They're in the SRD. They're on the Summon monster lists. They aren't something that suddenly sprang out of nothingness. They only are regarded as "odd" or "unusual" because that's how they are in our experience in our world, which tells us nothing what so ever as to how things can be in a D&D world. What is it about dinos that demands that they have to have any more explanation than crocs, sharks or bears?

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.

Directly no. But CR does indicate how powerful they are relative to other creatures in the setting and thus how much of an impact they are likely to have. A Dire Tiger is also a cr 8. Presumably therefore a T-Rex is unlikely to have more of an impact on the enviroment than the tiger which you presumably have no problem with.

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.

Except that there's nothing what so ever aside from one overblown reaction, to indicate that there's some reason dinos should be regarded as something exotic. The exotic IS ordinary for adventurers. You need to get something pretty strange before my alienist wizard who's been to Xoriat the plane of madness is going to bat an eye at it. If your character is one who feels that a tame dino with riding gear on it, is something to threaten violence over. More power too you. It isn't the case for most of the characters I've ever run and in most of the campaigns I've ever been in.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

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".

I don't view the MM as a "default setting." Too many large predators, too many intelligent species, too many extraplanar beings, and too many things that would just destroy all life on the planet in a matter of weeks (wraiths, shadows).

I don't regard it as necessary for the DM to tell the players about every animal and monster in the world, but he can give them a good impression.
"The flora and fauna are generally similar to those of Dark Ages Germany. The goblinoid races have their camps underground, typically somewhat removed from the human villages. Rumors perist of much stranger and more monstrous beings in the deep forest and deeper underground." There. Now your players have an idea of how exotic they should consider a deer, a pack of wolves, a bugbear, an auroch, or an owlbear.

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."

I have no idea what the player did in the OP's game. I said that FOR ME, it would matter a great deal if the dinosaur was introduced with some modicum of effort to explain in-game how it came to be there or if it was just presented as "it's in the rules that I can have one."

 

[Raven Crowking]

They only are regarded as "odd" or "unusual" because that's how they are in our experience in our world, which tells us nothing what so ever as to how things can be in a D&D world. What is it about dinos that demands that they have to have any more explanation than crocs, sharks or bears?

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]

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?

Context, RC, context... We are specifically talking about player's respecting each others choices and allowing each other to make characters the want to play.

A new player demanding that an established group switch system is being a prick.

An existing player demanding that a new player change his character's style/personal appearance --which, in the end, is all the dino-mount amounts to-- is also being a prick.

Really, this is pretty simple stuff.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

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?

The problem you described is one of mismatched expectations. It is easy to imagine fantasy worlds that contain domesticated dinosaurs, but I would describe them as non-traditional. A player who thinks he's playing in a traditional campaign setting could easily find the addition of mounted dinosaurs quite jarring. Dinosaurs in particular tend to evoke a pulp feel, which for some would be cool flavor and for others disruptive baggage. A player expecting Middle-earth or the Forgotten Realms may be simply upset to find himself suddenly in Eberron. He might even wonder what other "outlandish" elements might lurk in the campaign world, from warforged to laser blasters (sorry, just watched Krull) to ninja pirates (of course we can justify maritime brigands trained in the arts of stealth and assassination).

In short, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with your game world, but it's not the one the player in question had in mind. From your later posts, it sounds like it's not the only issue on which you and he did not see eye to eye. Otherwise, I would say that this issue doesn't seem worth leaving a 1.5-year campaign to me, but I say that out of a sense of pragmatism. On the one hand, life is too short to play campaigns with which you're not happy; on the other hand, sometimes you just have to compromise so that everyone can have fun.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Directly no. But CR does indicate how powerful they are relative to other creatures in the setting and thus how much of an impact they are likely to have.

A vargouille is very low CR. Let's say I have a party that has defeated hobgoblins, worgs, ogres, and even a hill giant or two. I would EXPECT them to react like "What in the Nine Hells is THAT??" upon seeing a vargouille. It's just so strange and out of the norm.

If your character is one who feels that a tame dino with riding gear on it, is something to threaten violence over. More power too you. It isn't the case for most of the characters I've ever run and in most of the campaigns I've ever been in.

Excuse me? Reacting in that particular way has nothing to do with my preferences as a player except for one thing -- respecting the campaign setting. I specifically noted it as a hypothetical Conan-type game, okay? Do you remember that part? A great part of the appeal of that setting is its "grim-and-gritty" feel, which has the effect of making the exotic really special. Characters expect to see less of the exotic and the bizarre in their daily life. So I had a character in that setting react in a way that respects that setting. In a Star Wars or Eberron campaign, I wouldn't have any character react that way. In a "kitchen sink" campaign, I wouldn't have any character react that way. But in a campaign setting that has enough definition to establish "X is odd and unusual," it is disrespectful to the game to treat X as boring and mundane.

I was not saying that this was the situation in the OP's case. I created a hypothetical situation to illustrate the point that HOW the introduction of something unusual is handled makes a major difference to me as a player. If it has been established as unusual by the "world rules," as RC phrases it, then you have to respond with an in-game explanation -- not just appealing to the fact that it's in the "game rules."

 

[Raven Crowking]

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?

If a PC had turned up with either as an animal companion, it would be a discontinuity with the rules.

I think you will find, though, that players have a different standard in terms of suspension of disbelief when confronted by natural or supernatural phenomenon (I have certainly found so in over 28 years of gaming). Because dinosaurs are natural, and because they have specific associations in popular culture, players don't generally view them as one might (say) an owlbear.

Back when I was running off the Holmes Blue Box, I statted out dozens of dinosaurs. X1 is a favourite module. I include dinosaurs (including intelligent and riding dinosaurs) in my home game.

However, I always follow the golden rule: 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.

RC

 

[Rackhir]

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

So your argument is then that dinos are so utterly bizarre. So beyond the pale and incomprehensible, that unless there is extraordinary attention drawn to their existence and extraordinary justification provided, that they can't be used without destroying any and all plausibility for the setting?

I just don't see how they are that strange and that bizarre that they need an explicit call out to justify their inclusion.


Are they out of the ordinary for our experience, do they deviate from what we find "normal"?

Yes.

However compared to most of what's in a D&D setting they are no more extraordinary or unusual than green cats.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A new player demanding that an established group switch system is being a prick.

As is a new player demanding that an established group change its playstyle. If the dino-mount is nothing more than his character's style/personal appearance then that player can choose a style/appearance that fits in with the established group's playstyle.

Really, this is pretty simple stuff.


RC