This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
NOTICE: Some online security services are reporting that information for a limited number of users from this site is for sale on the "dark web." As of right now, there is no direct evidence of this, but change your password just to be safe.

Author Topic: The Implications of Embracing Dinosaurs in the Campaign  (Read 1053 times)

SHARK

  • Great White Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2798
    • View Profile
Re: The Implications of Embracing Dinosaurs in the Campaign
« Reply #15 on: April 29, 2021, 04:00:29 PM »
Greetings!

Well, as for *oxygen content* of the world, I'm assuming that isn't a problem. After all, we have a typically fantastic world full of GIANTS, DRAGONS, HYDRAS, and numerous monstrosities on land, in the air, in the oceans, as well as underground. Sea monsters, Krakens, giant fucking eagles, ROCS, Purple Worms, and god knows what else. So, there's plenty of oxygen, and food isn't a problem either. Besides hordes of humanoids, cities and towns packed full of snacks, there's plenty of herd animals, and as noted, a world full of a great variety of creatures of diverse sizes, whether such creatures are reptiles, mammals, insects, rodents, birds, giant fish, giant frogs, whatever. There's plenty to eat.

Imagine what having tens of thousands or more--of giant rats that are the size of pigs!!!??? Yeah, there's plenty of food!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security bred from familiar things and familiar ways. It narrows the mind. Weakens the body. And robs the soul of spirit and determination. Comfort is neither welcome nor tolerated here."

"Courage is not the absence of fear, but is doing what you have to, in spite of the fear."
"Let Death and Fire Be Their Portion!"
"Delenda Est Parthia!"

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 3299
    • View Profile
Re: The Implications of Embracing Dinosaurs in the Campaign
« Reply #16 on: April 29, 2021, 04:08:19 PM »
Greetings!

Well, as for *oxygen content* of the world, I'm assuming that isn't a problem. After all, we have a typically fantastic world full of GIANTS, DRAGONS, HYDRAS, and numerous monstrosities on land, in the air, in the oceans, as well as underground. Sea monsters, Krakens, giant fucking eagles, ROCS, Purple Worms, and god knows what else. So, there's plenty of oxygen, and food isn't a problem either. Besides hordes of humanoids, cities and towns packed full of snacks, there's plenty of herd animals, and as noted, a world full of a great variety of creatures of diverse sizes, whether such creatures are reptiles, mammals, insects, rodents, birds, giant fish, giant frogs, whatever. There's plenty to eat.

Imagine what having tens of thousands or more--of giant rats that are the size of pigs!!!??? Yeah, there's plenty of food!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
In a fantasy world, things breathe air (or water) without any concerns for oxygen. Fresh air is fresh because of elemental air (or whatever), not because it has more oxygen. Likewise, many underground communities don't really worry about adequate ventilation at all. And nobody tends to give two shits about it.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8871
    • View Profile
Re: The Implications of Embracing Dinosaurs in the Campaign
« Reply #17 on: April 29, 2021, 04:21:51 PM »
Well, as for *oxygen content* of the world, I'm assuming that isn't a problem. After all, we have a typically fantastic world full of GIANTS, DRAGONS, HYDRAS, and numerous monstrosities on land, in the air, in the oceans, as well as underground. Sea monsters, Krakens, giant fucking eagles, ROCS, Purple Worms, and god knows what else. So, there's plenty of oxygen, and food isn't a problem either. Besides hordes of humanoids, cities and towns packed full of snacks, there's plenty of herd animals, and as noted, a world full of a great variety of creatures of diverse sizes, whether such creatures are reptiles, mammals, insects, rodents, birds, giant fish, giant frogs, whatever. There's plenty to eat.

Imagine what having tens of thousands or more--of giant rats that are the size of pigs!!!??? Yeah, there's plenty of food!

Sorry if I've been derailing, SHARK.

Dinosaurs are indeed cool, and for a fantasy world, it's fine and fun to have them around. I have a pet peeve with the Jurassic Park/Jurassic World movies in that some people think it would really be true instead of just being fun silliness -- but that's not important for your topic. In any case, the current research suggests they would have plenty of oxygen, not suffer from lack.

As for what to do with a regional dominance of dinosaurs:

(1) A possibly more realistic option, where dinosaur adults aren't defeated by size - but their eggs and young are preyed on by local mammals. Then there are lonely proud few dinosaurs that roar in the wilderness.

(2) Dinos rule!! There are smaller enclaves of humans and non-dino animals protected by natural barriers or walls.

But an important point -- I think to be really cool, the dinosaurs should have feathers, as current research suggests many of them did.


Source: https://www.britannica.com/story/did-dinosaurs-really-have-feathers

SHARK

  • Great White Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2798
    • View Profile
Re: The Implications of Embracing Dinosaurs in the Campaign
« Reply #18 on: April 29, 2021, 06:10:14 PM »
Greetings!

Imagine having rivers full of those Ammobite things. They have this shovel-like head, semi-armoured bodies, a dozen legs, and are amphibious. About the size of a large dog or a pig. Segmented bodies, carnivorous and predatory. Think of a whole local cuisine based around eating these creatures. Gumbo, stews, and soups!

Backpacks made from Velociraptor Hide.

Farms worked by large teams of domesticated Hadrosaurs.

Warehouses guarded by night watchmen, patrolling with a team of trained Velociraptors.

Armoured Knights riding around, mounted on trained Allosaurs.

Stegasaur herds being bred as a great source of meat for people.

Fun Stuff! ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security bred from familiar things and familiar ways. It narrows the mind. Weakens the body. And robs the soul of spirit and determination. Comfort is neither welcome nor tolerated here."

"Courage is not the absence of fear, but is doing what you have to, in spite of the fear."
"Let Death and Fire Be Their Portion!"
"Delenda Est Parthia!"

SHARK

  • Great White Hope
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2798
    • View Profile
Re: The Implications of Embracing Dinosaurs in the Campaign
« Reply #19 on: April 29, 2021, 06:16:12 PM »
Well, as for *oxygen content* of the world, I'm assuming that isn't a problem. After all, we have a typically fantastic world full of GIANTS, DRAGONS, HYDRAS, and numerous monstrosities on land, in the air, in the oceans, as well as underground. Sea monsters, Krakens, giant fucking eagles, ROCS, Purple Worms, and god knows what else. So, there's plenty of oxygen, and food isn't a problem either. Besides hordes of humanoids, cities and towns packed full of snacks, there's plenty of herd animals, and as noted, a world full of a great variety of creatures of diverse sizes, whether such creatures are reptiles, mammals, insects, rodents, birds, giant fish, giant frogs, whatever. There's plenty to eat.

Imagine what having tens of thousands or more--of giant rats that are the size of pigs!!!??? Yeah, there's plenty of food!

Sorry if I've been derailing, SHARK.

Dinosaurs are indeed cool, and for a fantasy world, it's fine and fun to have them around. I have a pet peeve with the Jurassic Park/Jurassic World movies in that some people think it would really be true instead of just being fun silliness -- but that's not important for your topic. In any case, the current research suggests they would have plenty of oxygen, not suffer from lack.

As for what to do with a regional dominance of dinosaurs:

(1) A possibly more realistic option, where dinosaur adults aren't defeated by size - but their eggs and young are preyed on by local mammals. Then there are lonely proud few dinosaurs that roar in the wilderness.

(2) Dinos rule!! There are smaller enclaves of humans and non-dino animals protected by natural barriers or walls.

But an important point -- I think to be really cool, the dinosaurs should have feathers, as current research suggests many of them did.


Source: https://www.britannica.com/story/did-dinosaurs-really-have-feathers

Greetings!

Thanks, Jhkim!

Yes, that is an excellent point about the dinosaur young and eggs being eaten by mammals and such. That keeps the Dinosaur populations from going too crazy.

I like to think there can be this semi-plausible environment where mammals and dinosaurs live together. In the end though, most players don't care about any *scientific* considerations. Who doesn't want to ride around on a striped, brightly-coloured Tyrannosaurus Rex, sweeping into an Orc village? ;D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK
"It is the Marine Corps that will strip away the façade so easily confused with self. It is the Corps that will offer the pain needed to buy the truth. And at last, each will own the privilege of looking inside himself  to discover what truly resides there. Comfort is an illusion. A false security bred from familiar things and familiar ways. It narrows the mind. Weakens the body. And robs the soul of spirit and determination. Comfort is neither welcome nor tolerated here."

"Courage is not the absence of fear, but is doing what you have to, in spite of the fear."
"Let Death and Fire Be Their Portion!"
"Delenda Est Parthia!"

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 2766
    • View Profile
Re: The Implications of Embracing Dinosaurs in the Campaign
« Reply #20 on: April 29, 2021, 06:47:52 PM »
Personally, I think it's highly likely that if dinosaurs were re-introduced into the world, that they would be ill adapted to current conditions and would mostly go extinct again. I would note that there has been plenty of time for lizards and/or birds to evolve to larger size since the time of the dinosaurs, but they haven't. Large land-based birds have mostly survived only in small niches like on Australia.
Animals rarely go extinct because they were outcompeted by a new animal out of nowhere. Once an animal finds an ecological niche, it tends to stay there. What bumps animals out is almost never some upstart with better adaptations, but an environmental change. Evolution, after all, is not the abstract process of generalized improvement that it's often made out to be. It's about adapting to a specific set of environmental conditions. When there's a significant change, like rising temperatures, or the emergence of grass or angiosperms, there can be an almost complete overturn of the faunal assemblage. The most extreme examples, of course, are extinction events, which essentially clear the board and allow new forms to colonize most of the now-vacant niches. That's what happened when the dinosaurs died. Most of the time it's a smaller, more gradual process. A river drying up, a toxic new species of algae moving in, or jellyfish eating all the baby fish; that kind of thing.

This ties in with punctuated equilibrium, the idea that, for most of the fossil record, species don't change much. But then there are sudden bursts, where rapid change occurs. That happens when the environment changes, creating new niches or destroying old ones.

So the first question to ask isn't whether raptors can beat lions in the hunt for gazelle, but whether dinosaurs have the adaptations necessary to survive in today's environments. That's a complicated question. But it's not about whether mammals are more advanced in some generalized way. First of all, that's an inaccurate way of looking at the evolutionary process. Barnacles and sharks still thrive, even though they're considered "primitive". They succeed because they have a complex suite of adaptations that are well suited to the environment in which they live. And the environment has changed a lot in the last 66 million years. Newly reborn dinosaurs might die out because little mammals eat all their eggs, or because they can't handle C4 grasses, or because PH levels are wrong, or a million other subtle things.

But let's assume at least some species can overcome that hurdle. Will raptors beat lions? Still hard to say. One of the situations where animals do directly compete with each other for the same niche is during a faunal exchange. There have been many in the past, as previously isolated land masses came into contact with each other, or other natural barriers eroded. For instance, the period during the Miocene when Afroarabia started to connect with the European archipelago and Asia. Or for a recent and more famous example, the Great American Interchange, when the Ithmus of Panama rose and connected North and South America. What happened? The fauna of the two continents merged, but... it wasn't a balanced mix. Basically, South America, with the giant birds and marsupials, lost, and lost hard. Exactly one marsupial descended from that exchange still exists in North America, the 'possum.

Why? Well, that's also hard to say. It's a huge array or species with a huge array of adaptations adapting to a huge array of environments, and the smallest thing might be what makes it thrive or die. But one thing is consistent: The winner in exchanges is usually the fauna from the largest landmass. In this case, North American fauna had crossed the Bering Straight from Afroeurasia. Their ancestors were the winners on that highly competitive supercontinent. In contrast, the South American animals were mostly emigrees from Australia, which had much less room for fierce competition.

Which brings us to birds. You're talking about birds as if they've been tiny since the age of dinosaurs, but that's wrong. One of the most recurrent patterns throughout the Cenozoic is avaian gigantism. It happened again and again, and seems to be a consequence of bird physiology. Birds are highly energetic, and flight is a harsh mistress. So they're ruthlessly adapted for low weight, and when they no longer have an evolutionary need to fly, the first thing that happens is they shed all those adaptations, at an extremely rapid rate. This means all those constraints that keep them small are thrown away, and they often become quite large. Combined with their ability to fly around the world, across environmental boundaries like the Wallace line, what happens is they're able to colonize the most remote habits, and then quickly adapt and become large predators.

But they're just adapting to an island, with an island's tiny land area, so when the island is colonized by competitors from a nearby continent, they tend to quickly be outcompeted and go extinct. This isn't anything essential to the nature of birds vis-a-vis mammals. It's more that birds are opportunistic colonizers, able to reach and quickly adapt to new environments, but they lack the time and evolutionary pressures of a large land mass, so when competitors from those larger realms reach their shores, they tend to get wiped out.

Pat and S'mon -- you each claim I'm wrong because there was only one shift downwards is size ...
Nobody said that. We both provided a counterexample, neither of us claimed it was the only instance. You were arguing that there is a consistent trend for animals to get smaller over time. That's false. There is no such trend.

Thornhammer

  • Seen Your Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • T
  • Posts: 547
    • View Profile
Re: The Implications of Embracing Dinosaurs in the Campaign
« Reply #21 on: April 29, 2021, 06:51:47 PM »
Armoured Knights riding around, mounted on trained Allosaurs.

Okay, that's pretty bitchin' right there.

Dinosaur joust.

Fuck. Yes.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8871
    • View Profile
Re: The Implications of Embracing Dinosaurs in the Campaign
« Reply #22 on: April 29, 2021, 08:21:51 PM »
Pat - sincerely thanks for the in-depth answer about how dinosaurs might realistically interact. It brings up a lot of good points, and some stuff I didn't know. I don't disagree with what you said.

We both provided a counterexample, neither of us claimed it was the only instance. You were arguing that there is a consistent trend for animals to get smaller over time. That's false. There is no such trend.

What I said was:

In our imaginations, bigger is better and so of course huge dinosaurs would win out over smaller creatures -- but evolutionarily, land animals have mostly been getting smaller.

I can see how this could be read as a consistent trend, so I apologize for that. There's lots of variation back and forth, over time, and evolution is complicated.

But again, my point is on a much simpler level. If you ask an average person about what would happen if T Rexes were set loose in the wild, most non-scientific people would say they would dominate. T Rexes are huge and powerful and rawr chomp - so how could a wolf compete? But as you say, the real answer is complicated. As far as I can tell, you agree it is quite possible that T Rexes would go extinct again - though it is not guaranteed.

David Johansen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • D
  • Posts: 5470
    • View Profile
Re: The Implications of Embracing Dinosaurs in the Campaign
« Reply #23 on: April 29, 2021, 09:12:34 PM »
I did run a session where the road was blocked by a some barbarians and their stuck mammoth and 3 tyranosaurs came after it.
Fantasy Adventure Comic, games, and more http://www.uncouthsavage.com

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 2766
    • View Profile
Re: The Implications of Embracing Dinosaurs in the Campaign
« Reply #24 on: April 29, 2021, 09:18:16 PM »
As far as I can tell, you agree it is quite possible that T Rexes would go extinct again - though it is not guaranteed.
Absolutely, though what drives them extinct is probably going to be something small or subtle, like a chemical change causing a reproductive problem. Not because they were fighting elephants, or tigers are better hunters. We have tons of faunal exchanges that can serve as a model, where animals from different environments are suddenly able to colonize each other's territories. But there's never been a faunal exchange over time, much less 66 million years of time. There's a good chance some obscure change that occurred in the aeons since will cause their extinction.

But if any do survive, I think there's a very good chance they'd massively disrupt the ecosystem. Size to some degree, but I think a bigger factor is mammals are K-strategists, while dinosaurs are R-strategists. K-strategists like elephants or humans tend to be relatively few in number, have relatively few young, and their young are widely spaced in time because of intensive child-rearing and care. As a result of that care, a high proportion of the young make it to adulthood. It's a slow but steady strategy.

R-strategists by contrast, have many young, every year, and provide little parental care. The babies are left mostly on their own, and most will die. They usually become reproductively mature at a young age, meaning those half-grown juveniles are laying eggs, too. So there are a fuckload of eggs. And a fuckload of small dinosaurs, running around, killing and being killed. They could easily overwhelm the K-strategists.

And trying to control the dinosaurs by killing off the big ones could make it worse, by inducing a mesopredator release, which is essentially a feeding frenzy among the smaller predators trying to become the next top dog. Think of a big daddy Tyrannosaurus killed off by PCs. But he was suppressing all his competitors, across a vast hunting ground. In his absence, a horde of mid-sized tyrannosaurs pop up and start to grow rapidly, and the need for food drives them all a bit crazy, stripping the lands around them of anything resembling prey, until one of them finally kills off all its competitors and takes the old giant's place. But until that happens, things will be dangerous and messy.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2869
  • Now even more Toxic
    • View Profile
Re: The Implications of Embracing Dinosaurs in the Campaign
« Reply #25 on: April 29, 2021, 10:12:38 PM »
As far as I can tell, you agree it is quite possible that T Rexes would go extinct again - though it is not guaranteed.
Absolutely, though what drives them extinct is probably going to be something small or subtle, like a chemical change causing a reproductive problem. Not because they were fighting elephants, or tigers are better hunters. We have tons of faunal exchanges that can serve as a model, where animals from different environments are suddenly able to colonize each other's territories. But there's never been a faunal exchange over time, much less 66 million years of time. There's a good chance some obscure change that occurred in the aeons since will cause their extinction.

But if any do survive, I think there's a very good chance they'd massively disrupt the ecosystem. Size to some degree, but I think a bigger factor is mammals are K-strategists, while dinosaurs are R-strategists. K-strategists like elephants or humans tend to be relatively few in number, have relatively few young, and their young are widely spaced in time because of intensive child-rearing and care. As a result of that care, a high proportion of the young make it to adulthood. It's a slow but steady strategy.

R-strategists by contrast, have many young, every year, and provide little parental care. The babies are left mostly on their own, and most will die. They usually become reproductively mature at a young age, meaning those half-grown juveniles are laying eggs, too. So there are a fuckload of eggs. And a fuckload of small dinosaurs, running around, killing and being killed. They could easily overwhelm the K-strategists.

And trying to control the dinosaurs by killing off the big ones could make it worse, by inducing a mesopredator release, which is essentially a feeding frenzy among the smaller predators trying to become the next top dog. Think of a big daddy Tyrannosaurus killed off by PCs. But he was suppressing all his competitors, across a vast hunting ground. In his absence, a horde of mid-sized tyrannosaurs pop up and start to grow rapidly, and the need for food drives them all a bit crazy, stripping the lands around them of anything resembling prey, until one of them finally kills off all its competitors and takes the old giant's place. But until that happens, things will be dangerous and messy.

Stop raining on my parade, I want cowboys ridding velociraptors, Barbarians ridding T-Rexes, and wizards Ridding Triceratops (so they can cast from the comfort of their "saddle")
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjC7-w5KDKNiD-k0tVo1DPw?view_as=subscriber

Pat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • P
  • Posts: 2766
    • View Profile
Re: The Implications of Embracing Dinosaurs in the Campaign
« Reply #26 on: April 29, 2021, 10:23:06 PM »
And trying to control the dinosaurs by killing off the big ones could make it worse, by inducing a mesopredator release, which is essentially a feeding frenzy among the smaller predators trying to become the next top dog. Think of a big daddy Tyrannosaurus killed off by PCs. But he was suppressing all his competitors, across a vast hunting ground. In his absence, a horde of mid-sized tyrannosaurs pop up and start to grow rapidly, and the need for food drives them all a bit crazy, stripping the lands around them of anything resembling prey, until one of them finally kills off all its competitors and takes the old giant's place. But until that happens, things will be dangerous and messy.

Stop raining on my parade, I want cowboys ridding velociraptors, Barbarians ridding T-Rexes, and wizards Ridding Triceratops (so they can cast from the comfort of their "saddle")
Tough.

Instead, your cowboys are going to have to deal with a mesopredator release after an enterprising railroad baron hires great white and red hunters (the PCs) to kill all the giant tyrannosaurs along the path of his train. Soon after, the entire stretch will be flooded with swarms of nanotyrannosaurs, in a killing frenzy. The injuns will flee for the hills, entire farmsteads and even towns will be turned into bloodfests, and the PCs will be deputized to deal with the problem they just caused, while the sheriff flees into the root cellar.

GeekyBugle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2869
  • Now even more Toxic
    • View Profile
Re: The Implications of Embracing Dinosaurs in the Campaign
« Reply #27 on: April 29, 2021, 10:29:10 PM »
And trying to control the dinosaurs by killing off the big ones could make it worse, by inducing a mesopredator release, which is essentially a feeding frenzy among the smaller predators trying to become the next top dog. Think of a big daddy Tyrannosaurus killed off by PCs. But he was suppressing all his competitors, across a vast hunting ground. In his absence, a horde of mid-sized tyrannosaurs pop up and start to grow rapidly, and the need for food drives them all a bit crazy, stripping the lands around them of anything resembling prey, until one of them finally kills off all its competitors and takes the old giant's place. But until that happens, things will be dangerous and messy.

Stop raining on my parade, I want cowboys ridding velociraptors, Barbarians ridding T-Rexes, and wizards Ridding Triceratops (so they can cast from the comfort of their "saddle")
Tough.

Instead, your cowboys are going to have to deal with a mesopredator release after an enterprising railroad baron hires great white and red hunters (the PCs) to kill all the giant tyrannosaurs along the path of his train. Soon after, the entire stretch will be flooded with swarms of nanotyrannosaurs, in a killing frenzy. The injuns will flee for the hills, entire farmsteads and even towns will be turned into bloodfests, and the PCs will be deputized to deal with the problem they just caused, while the sheriff flees into the root cellar.

We raid the railroad shed for all the dinamite they have to bore the tunnel and blow the things away.

(Do we also get Graboids?)
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

― George Orwell

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjC7-w5KDKNiD-k0tVo1DPw?view_as=subscriber

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1327
    • View Profile
Re: The Implications of Embracing Dinosaurs in the Campaign
« Reply #28 on: April 30, 2021, 08:30:32 AM »
Well the main reason they got smaller was oxygen content in the air right?  bigger animals need "richer" air.  Not because they could not compete, that and world ending disasters have been triggers to the downsizing of animals whether dinosaurs or mammals  (less sunlight - less plants - less oxygen in the air and less food for herbivores- etc).  But if the competitors are in the dino environment (plenty of sun and Oxygen in the air) I am not so sure mammals get the foothold they were able to get by being more adaptable to a changed environment.   No mammal foothold, no people.

I hadn't known about this previously, but from search, it seems the high oxygen content is a partly outdated theory. Higher oxygen does support larger animals, and increasing oxygen may help explain the rise of dinosaurs compared to earlier ages. However, it is just one among many factors and it doesn't explain the fall of dinosaurs since oxygen levels are apparently higher today. This was from 2013:

Quote
The results of this comprehensive study suggest that atmospheric oxygen during most of the past 220 million years was considerably lower than today's 21 per cent.

"We suggest numbers between 10 and 15 per cent," said Tappert.

These oxygen concentrations are not only lower than today but also considerably lower than the majority of previous investigations propose for the same time period. For the Cretaceous period (65 to 145 million years ago), for example, up to 30 per cent atmospheric oxygen has been suggested previously.
Source: https://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/atmospheric-oxygen-during-dinosaurs-time-much-lower-than-assumed-says-study-2-3641691.html

And an update from 2019:

Quote
“We tested rocks from the Colorado Plateau and the Newark Basin that formed at the same time about 621 miles (1,000 km) apart on the supercontinent of Pangea,” said Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s Professor Morgan Schaller, lead author of the study.

“Our results show that over a period of around 3 million years, the oxygen levels in the atmosphere jumped from around 15% to around 19%. For comparison, there is 21% oxygen in today’s atmosphere.”
Source: http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/elevated-levels-oxygen-rise-north-american-dinosaurs-07521.html

  I also mentioned the multiple world ending disasters, that likely cut the food supplies.  As for out dated, guess what?  someone somewhere is going to find another rock somewhere else and make the current theory outdated.   We still do not know what dinosaurs actually looked like, only guesses and theories.   Point is Mammals never had to compete directly with dinosaurs in their "time period".   We also do not know exactly how many "world enders" there have been the past 220 million years.  What we do know is it has been a loooong time since the last one.  So good luck.

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1327
    • View Profile
Re: The Implications of Embracing Dinosaurs in the Campaign
« Reply #29 on: April 30, 2021, 08:38:38 AM »
Having had a good deal of interest in Dinosaurs as a kid, the amount of change that has gone on regarding Dino biology (were reptiles, now likely their own thing -  warm blooded and closer to bird related) and ecological theories (the egg eating mammal is an old one) and disaster theories (the meteor taking them out is "new" in that is did not exist 40 years ago), climate changes (cold killed them, then they were warm blooded) etc.  What I have seen in the 42 years of taking an interest, is the scientist who has the most friends seems to get his theories to be "accepted" the most commonly, and given how scant actual evidence is for what went on hundreds of millions of years ago, the ever changing nature is acceptable.  Another big trend is there are many dinosaurs that seem to be almost identical have different names based on who found this skeleton or that one. Which also makes sense, because we forget dinosaurs that look almost alike separated by 500, 000 years may well be a different species.  A tiger and a Lion skeleton look almost identical, but the animals do not look all that much alike, and without better data we have a hard time figuring out all that much about the biology of dinosaurs.  I also think pondering dinosaurs in a fantasy world versus right now is sort of a moot point. As mentioned in a world dragons fly and giants are in caves, dinosaurs are no sort of reach to imagine stomping about in.   Modern day without a place to reach a critical mass they get shot with .50 cals or starve chasing mountain goats.  Even if they were everywhere and reproduced at a geometric rate, people with guns would eliminate any real threat to humanity quickly.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2021, 08:42:02 AM by oggsmash »