Dinosaurs as Animal Companions - Gamebreaker?

[Mallus]

Bob makes a "one-in-a-million type person" that upstages the established player characters in terms of "cool look at meness".

How bloody ungenerous is this group Bob's joining? I'm starting to think he'd be better off playing WoW.

And since when is the point of D&D to create drab, matte-finished peasant characters? I thought D&D was all about bringing the wahoo? Especially at 10th level and above...

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

He might be better off running a solo campaign for Bob, if the other players haven't mastered the simple art of helping their fellow players create/run the PC's they enjoy playing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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?

No, but I imagine that is an easier argument to answer.

Philomath put it well:

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).​

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. Otherwise, the Dm risks the players suddenly feeling as though they cannot make ration decisions about the world; they cannot trust the DM not to suddenly include other (to them) bizarre elements.

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

 

[Raven Crowking]

How bloody ungenerous is this group Bob's joining? I'm starting to think he'd be better off playing WoW.

How bloody ungenerous is Bob? The group is starting to wish he'd played WoW.

And since when is the point of D&D to create drab, matte-finished peasant characters? I thought D&D was all about bringing the wahoo? Especially at 10th level and above...

Sorry, but not all of us suckled at the teat of 3e.

Brining the wahoo is a playstyle preference. If the game one is playing isn't about dinos suddenly showing up and characters outdoing each other with their Kewl New Powerz, then Bob's character might not be a good fit.

He might be better off running a solo campaign for Bob, if the other players haven't mastered the simple art of helping their fellow players create/run the PC's they enjoy playing.

He might be better off running a solo campaign for Bob, if Bob hasn't mastered the simple art of helping his fellow players create/run a game they enjoy playing.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

If you think it is as easy to justify the presence of a sustainable population of 2-ton herbivores that no one has noticed, as it is to justify a population of green cats, then your views of what "verisimilitude" means are not particularly compatable with my own.

RC

 

[Mallus]

As is a new player demanding that an established group change its playstyle.

I don't believe the choice of an animal companion constitutes a demand to change 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.

I don't believe a player has the right to tell another how to dress their character.

Really, this is pretty simple stuff.

Yes, yes it is.

"Bob" isn't telling anyone else how to define or play their PC's, while the two other players are telling Bob what --innocuous-- choices he can make. Those positions are worlds apart.

 

[Rackhir]

AExcuse 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.

Thing is, this is not nor was it every portrayed as a "Conan"-ish setting, except in your example. The OP at no point described the campaign as one in which "Dinosaurs Don't Exist", it was simply one in which the DM had not explicitly defined it as one in which they do exist. You are setting up a strawman argument that has nothing to do with the OP. If the setting were Dark Sun, then yeah, you could at least argue that Dinos don't belong there. Conan by way of contrast had in fact a lot of left over prehistoric creatures. Personally, I'd be surprised if there weren't Dinos in a Conan setting.

At no point did I ever claim there was something wrong with taking a setting that explicitly excludes the existence of dinos and then forbidding them. You want to run your campaign that way, terrific.

You might not like the implicit setting of the MM and the basic D&D books, but that hardly means that there's something wrong with using them. They are the default and barring the DM explicitly excluding stuff, there is no reason to assume that stuff in there isn't part of the setting.

Does the DM still have the right and obligation to exercise a measure of veto control. Yes, absolutely. But I am yet to be presented with a better reason for excluding the dinos from a default D&D, setting any stronger than "It isn't what I'd expect."

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't believe the choice of an animal companion constitutes a demand to change playstyle.

You don't even concede that a choice of animal companion might change playstyle by necessity? Again, if I am playing an Eskimos game and you demand to have a cheetah companion, I would say that forces a fundamental change in the game -- and throws out any form of serious playstyle.

I don't believe a player has the right to tell another how to dress their character.

So, I can dress my character in +10 plate at 1st level in your world? Or do you have the right to tell me how to dress my character? It has no effect on your serious campaign if I consistently call my elf a Vulcan, dress him in a Starfleet uniform, and play him like Spock?

And pardon me if I am wrong, but I thought that the character in question was riding the dino, not wearing it.

"Bob" isn't telling anyone else how to define or play their PC's, while the two other players are telling Bob what --innocuous-- choices he can make. Those positions are worlds apart.

Oh, I disagree. First off, there is no evidence whatsoever that this was an innocuous choice in terms of the campaign world. It certainly wasn't for the player who quit. Moreover, if you are playing in a campaign based around Pirates of the Carribean, and I decide to play a Warforged Ninja, you can be certain that my character choice (unless curtailed by a DM who is doing his job) is going to have a huge impact on how you can define and play your PCs.

I can guarantee it. And if you run a play-by-post, I can prove it.


RC

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Thing is, this is not nor was it every portrayed as a "Conan"-ish setting, except in your example. The OP at no point described the campaign as one in which "Dinosaurs Don't Exist", it was simply one in which the DM had not explicitly defined it as one in which they do exist. You are setting up a strawman argument that has nothing to do with the OP.

Please re-read my post:

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."

Call it a "strawman" if you like -- I was trying to make a legitimate example to illustrate one particular point. I don't know how clearly-defined the OP's world is, so I created an example using a world that most readers would be able to grasp an image of.

Personally, I'd be surprised if there weren't Dinos in a Conan setting.

Oh, sure, which is why I picked it. A place where there could be dinosaurs, but they would be so incredibly exotic and rare that they would likely suspected of being demons when first encountered (especially considering the setting's level of superstition).

You might not like the implicit setting of the MM and the basic D&D books, but that hardly means that there's something wrong with using them. They are the default and barring the DM explicitly excluding stuff, there is no reason to assume that stuff in there isn't part of the setting.

I prefer designing campaign worlds by addition rather than subtraction. How many humanoid species do I need? Who can fill each niche? Do I need reptilian humanoids? How many species of aquatic humanoids do I want to have?

Does the DM still have the right and obligation to exercise a measure of veto control. Yes, absolutely. But I am yet to be presented with a better reason for excluding the dinos from a default D&D, setting any stronger than "It isn't what I'd expect."

I don't believe in a default D&D. If you are running a game, you have created some kind of campaign setting. If your setting is "everything in the MM is in my world, and most people in the world know that there are an uncounted variety of monsters out there," then that's your setting.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Does the DM still have the right and obligation to exercise a measure of veto control. Yes, absolutely. But I am yet to be presented with a better reason for excluding the dinos from a default D&D, setting any stronger than "It isn't what I'd expect."

Sure you have been; you've just ignored them.

(1) No setting is "default D&D" past the first few sessions. All settings move from the general to the specific. Thus, at 1st level, the setting rules might not be established; by 10th level the players have a right to feel they know at least a strong overview of how the natural world around them works.

(2) 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. Otherwise, the DM risks the players suddenly feeling as though they cannot make ration decisions about the world; they cannot trust the DM not to suddenly include other (to them) bizarre elements that make their plans/choices moot (as well as potentially destroying player immersion).

(3) The more a creature would affect the local area, the more its inclusion should be telegraphed.

(4) At least one player suddenly discovered that he didn't understand the natural world in that campaign, and misunderstood it enough to be a game-breaker for him.

(5) Therefore, it is my conclusion that the DM failed to properly communicate what was possible in the campaign world. Certainly, at least one player didn't know that "dinosaur-riding druid" was a PC option that he could use.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Oh, sure, which is why I picked it. A place where there could be dinosaurs, but they would be so incredibly exotic and rare that they would likely suspected of being demons when first encountered (especially considering the setting's level of superstition).

Dragons, actually.

I am aware of a Conan story where he did encounter a dinosaur-like creature.

I don't believe in a default D&D. If you are running a game, you have created some kind of campaign setting. If your setting is "everything in the MM is in my world, and most people in the world know that there are an uncounted variety of monsters out there," then that's your setting.

Absolutely.


RC