Greetings!
Dinosaurs often feature prominently in GONZO campaigns, with little attention paid to verisimilitude and all that. However, assuming you are running a standard campaign, with only flavorings of GONZO added into such in a limited degree, what are some of the implications that you might consider with Dinosaurs being not necessarily globally dominant, but still regionally prominent? Mixing with more animals and mammals, and also the effects on human societies, as well as communities of humanoids?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Sword & Sorcery style setting, with a remnant of Dinosaurs still present. Not so many, that they would dominate the setting. Random encounters from time to time.
Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2021, 07:11:33 PM
Dinosaurs often feature prominently in GONZO campaigns, with little attention paid to verisimilitude and all that. However, assuming you are running a standard campaign, with only flavorings of GONZO added into such in a limited degree, what are some of the implications that you might consider with Dinosaurs being not necessarily globally dominant, but still regionally prominent? Mixing with more animals and mammals, and also the effects on human societies, as well as communities of humanoids?
From the title about embracing, I was picturing something more like this:
(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/img/misc/dinosaur-hug.png)
:)
In terms of realism, I think dinosaurs are unlikely to compete well with mammals. 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.
If they could survive, I think they'd have a similar effect on societies as elephants and bears - respected and painted about - but still hunted and killed.
Quote from: jhkim on April 28, 2021, 07:47:18 PM
In terms of realism, I think dinosaurs are unlikely to compete well with mammals. 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.
If they could survive, I think they'd have a similar effect on societies as elephants and bears - respected and painted about - but still hunted and killed.
I think your "realism" is just class bias. Dinosaurs competed with mammals for about 150 million years, and mammals never even got a foothold in any of the niches held by dinosaurs.
Also, it's not true that animal have been getting smaller. There were huge dinosaurs in the late Jurassic as well as in the Late Cretaceous, separated by almost 100 million years. Probiscideans are the largest terrestrial mammals throughout the following Cenozoic, and were truly huge by 20 million years ago (deinotheres), but most of the largest species were from the last few million years, including perhaps the largest land mammal of all time (
Palaeoloxodon namadicus). Not to mention that the largest animal of all time exists today (the blue whale, and a dozen other extant species are spectacularly huge as well, even by the standards of their cetacean ancestors).
You're probably thinking of the size shift between the Age of Dinosaurs and the Age of Mammals. Which is real, but seems to be related to reproductive strategies and biological limits, not a trend toward smallness. There are limits on how big you can get, when you give birth to live young and provide extensive parental care. That's why newborn elephants, giraffes, and whales are big. Contrast that with 100 ton sauropod dinosaurs, who hatched from eggs smaller than an ostrich's.
Quote from: jhkim on April 28, 2021, 07:47:18 PM
Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2021, 07:11:33 PM
Dinosaurs often feature prominently in GONZO campaigns, with little attention paid to verisimilitude and all that. However, assuming you are running a standard campaign, with only flavorings of GONZO added into such in a limited degree, what are some of the implications that you might consider with Dinosaurs being not necessarily globally dominant, but still regionally prominent? Mixing with more animals and mammals, and also the effects on human societies, as well as communities of humanoids?
From the title about embracing, I was picturing something more like this:
(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/img/misc/dinosaur-hug.png)
:)
In terms of realism, I think dinosaurs are unlikely to compete well with mammals. 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.
If they could survive, I think they'd have a similar effect on societies as elephants and bears - respected and painted about - but still hunted and killed.
Greetings!
Very nice drawing there, Jhkim! ;D It made me laugh. I like it. I also love T-Rexes, so there's that.
*laughing* "Respected and Painted about"--nice, too. I agree. I think lots of people would eagerly eat dinosaurs!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2021, 08:15:39 PM
Quote from: jhkim on April 28, 2021, 07:47:18 PM
Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2021, 07:11:33 PM
Dinosaurs often feature prominently in GONZO campaigns, with little attention paid to verisimilitude and all that. However, assuming you are running a standard campaign, with only flavorings of GONZO added into such in a limited degree, what are some of the implications that you might consider with Dinosaurs being not necessarily globally dominant, but still regionally prominent? Mixing with more animals and mammals, and also the effects on human societies, as well as communities of humanoids?
From the title about embracing, I was picturing something more like this:
(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/img/misc/dinosaur-hug.png)
:)
In terms of realism, I think dinosaurs are unlikely to compete well with mammals. 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.
If they could survive, I think they'd have a similar effect on societies as elephants and bears - respected and painted about - but still hunted and killed.
Greetings!
Very nice drawing there, Jhkim! ;D It made me laugh. I like it. I also love T-Rexes, so there's that.
*laughing* "Respected and Painted about"--nice, too. I agree. I think lots of people would eagerly eat dinosaurs!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Only the breast, I don't really like the wings, drumsticks or anything else from the chicken thank you. Well except the eggs, I love eggs.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 28, 2021, 08:26:15 PM
Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2021, 08:15:39 PM
Quote from: jhkim on April 28, 2021, 07:47:18 PM
Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2021, 07:11:33 PM
Dinosaurs often feature prominently in GONZO campaigns, with little attention paid to verisimilitude and all that. However, assuming you are running a standard campaign, with only flavorings of GONZO added into such in a limited degree, what are some of the implications that you might consider with Dinosaurs being not necessarily globally dominant, but still regionally prominent? Mixing with more animals and mammals, and also the effects on human societies, as well as communities of humanoids?
From the title about embracing, I was picturing something more like this:
(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/img/misc/dinosaur-hug.png)
:)
In terms of realism, I think dinosaurs are unlikely to compete well with mammals. 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.
If they could survive, I think they'd have a similar effect on societies as elephants and bears - respected and painted about - but still hunted and killed.
Greetings!
Very nice drawing there, Jhkim! ;D It made me laugh. I like it. I also love T-Rexes, so there's that.
*laughing* "Respected and Painted about"--nice, too. I agree. I think lots of people would eagerly eat dinosaurs!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Only the breast, I don't really like the wings, drumsticks or anything else from the chicken thank you. Well except the eggs, I love eggs.
Greetings!
DINOSAUR OMELETTE!!!! ;D
That would be pretty cool, thinking about it. Imagine roadside taverns serving up Velociraptor egg omelette. Also made with cheese from the local dairy!
BRINGING BACK BITE TO BREAKFAST! ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkim on April 28, 2021, 07:47:18 PM
but evolutionarily, land animals have mostly been getting smaller.
Only since humans appeared and started killing all the big ones.
Usually, being the biggest is a good strategy. Just not when there are humans.
There was the time in a Chivalry and Sorcery third edition game when the GM said, "you come around the corner and there's a fucking tyranosaurus rex." We said, "We back away quietly, he probably wants his privacy." The GM just stared blankly, as we snickered, he had no idea what he'd just said.
Quote from: David Johansen on April 29, 2021, 09:22:36 AM
There was the time in a Chivalry and Sorcery third edition game when the GM said, "you come around the corner and there's a fucking tyranosaurus rex." We said, "We back away quietly, he probably wants his privacy." The GM just stared blankly, as we snickered, he had no idea what he'd just said.
A smart decision mixed with a double entendre and a pun... I salute you. 8)
Pat and S'mon had some criticism of a short comment I made - but I think it's being misinterpreted.
I should explain what I'm arguing against. Many people truly subscribe to a premise of the Jurassic Park and Jurassic World stories -- that if only dinosaurs were re-introduced into the world, that they would take over and become dominant again, possibly even pushing out humans. It's not my field and I can't definitively disprove it. However, I think that most people believe that for unscientific reasons - that dinosaurs are cool and big and rawr!
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.
Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2021, 08:14:57 PM
Quote from: jhkim on April 28, 2021, 07:47:18 PM
In terms of realism, I think dinosaurs are unlikely to compete well with mammals. 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.
If they could survive, I think they'd have a similar effect on societies as elephants and bears - respected and painted about - but still hunted and killed.
I think your "realism" is just class bias. Dinosaurs competed with mammals for about 150 million years, and mammals never even got a foothold in any of the niches held by dinosaurs.
Also, it's not true that animal have been getting smaller. (...) You're probably thinking of the size shift between the Age of Dinosaurs and the Age of Mammals. Which is real, but seems to be related to reproductive strategies and biological limits, not a trend toward smallness. There are limits on how big you can get, when you give birth to live young and provide extensive parental care.
Quote from: S'mon on April 29, 2021, 02:34:52 AM
Quote from: jhkim on April 28, 2021, 07:47:18 PM
but evolutionarily, land animals have mostly been getting smaller.
Only since humans appeared and started killing all the big ones.
Usually, being the biggest is a good strategy. Just not when there are humans.
Pat and S'mon -- you each claim I'm wrong because there was only one shift downwards is size -- but you cite different shifts. So there are at least two trends downwards in size since the Age of Dinosaurs -- with the rise of mammals and the rise of humans. And there is no shift upwards in size that I know of. I'm not saying that every era always has smaller animals than the last, but two shifts down and none up is notable.
The point on topic is -- what would happen if dinosaurs were around? Do you have thoughts on that?
Quote from: jhkim on April 28, 2021, 07:47:18 PM
From the title about embracing, I was picturing something more like this:
(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/img/misc/dinosaur-hug.png)
:)
In terms of realism, I think dinosaurs are unlikely to compete well with mammals. 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.
If they could survive, I think they'd have a similar effect on societies as elephants and bears - respected and painted about - but still hunted and killed.
Same here.
As for bigger vs smaller. Keep in mind that for millions of years everything seemed to be going bigger and bigger. If recall right the reason for smaller and smaller in mammals is one of environment. And keep in mind even mammals spent time getting bigger and bigger before that started changing.
If recall right, areas where food is scarcer tend to cause the wildlife to get smaller over time as a larger body just cant be sustained. And as one gets smaller usually others follow along the food chain.
Quote from: jhkim on April 28, 2021, 07:47:18 PM
Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2021, 07:11:33 PM
Dinosaurs often feature prominently in GONZO campaigns, with little attention paid to verisimilitude and all that. However, assuming you are running a standard campaign, with only flavorings of GONZO added into such in a limited degree, what are some of the implications that you might consider with Dinosaurs being not necessarily globally dominant, but still regionally prominent? Mixing with more animals and mammals, and also the effects on human societies, as well as communities of humanoids?
From the title about embracing, I was picturing something more like this:
(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/img/misc/dinosaur-hug.png)
:)
In terms of realism, I think dinosaurs are unlikely to compete well with mammals. 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.
If they could survive, I think they'd have a similar effect on societies as elephants and bears - respected and painted about - but still hunted and killed.
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.
Quote from: jhkim on April 29, 2021, 02:29:52 PM
The point on topic is -- what would happen if dinosaurs were around? Do you have thoughts on that?
1. The big ones would have trouble breathing - there's less oxygen in the air than during the Cretaceous. A lot of big land animals went extinct as modern humans expanded worldwide, but yes I think upper size limits are currently lower.
2. They certainly wouldn't take over the world. I guess humans would try to preserve them from going extinct again.
Quote from: oggsmash on April 29, 2021, 03:16:58 PM
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:
QuoteThe 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
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
Quote from: SHARK 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
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.
Quote from: SHARK on April 29, 2021, 04:00:29 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.
(https://cdn.britannica.com/s:800x1000/83/211283-050-656809FD/Tyrannosaurus-Rex-Struthiomimus-dinosaurs.jpg)
Source: https://www.britannica.com/story/did-dinosaurs-really-have-feathers
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
Quote from: jhkim on April 29, 2021, 04:21:51 PM
Quote from: SHARK on April 29, 2021, 04:00:29 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.
(https://cdn.britannica.com/s:800x1000/83/211283-050-656809FD/Tyrannosaurus-Rex-Struthiomimus-dinosaurs.jpg)
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
Quote from: jhkim on April 29, 2021, 02:29:52 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.
Quote from: jhkim on April 29, 2021, 02:29:52 PM
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.
Quote from: SHARK on April 29, 2021, 06:10:14 PM
Armoured Knights riding around, mounted on trained Allosaurs.
Okay, that's pretty bitchin' right there.
Dinosaur joust.
Fuck. Yes.
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.
Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 06:47:52 PM
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:
Quote from: jhkim on April 28, 2021, 07:47:18 PM
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.
I did run a session where the road was blocked by a some barbarians and their stuck mammoth and 3 tyranosaurs came after it.
Quote from: jhkim on April 29, 2021, 08:21:51 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.
Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 09:18:16 PM
Quote from: jhkim on April 29, 2021, 08:21:51 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")
Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 29, 2021, 10:12:38 PM
Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 09:18:16 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.
Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 10:23:06 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 29, 2021, 10:12:38 PM
Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 09:18:16 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?)
Quote from: jhkim on April 29, 2021, 03:55:35 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on April 29, 2021, 03:16:58 PM
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:
QuoteThe 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.
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.
Quote from: oggsmash on April 30, 2021, 08:30:32 AM
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.
That's true to some degree, and it's important to remember what we don't know. That's one reason why all the highly speculative paleoart in recent years is valuable, because is shows a broader ranger of what's possible. For many decades, dinosaurs were depicted in very similar ways, which was misleading because the uniformity across all those different artists implied that we were sure that's what they looked like, which was simply false.
But you can also take it too far, because we've learned a lot about what dinosaurs look like. And it's not just skeletal anatomy based on fossilized bones, but things like skin impressions, preserved filaments or feathers, and even the color(!) of a few species. There are many areas of uncertainty, but others that are settled with a high degree of certainty, and the later category has increased dramatically in the last half a century.
Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2021, 07:11:33 PM
Greetings!
Dinosaurs often feature prominently in GONZO campaigns, with little attention paid to verisimilitude and all that. However, assuming you are running a standard campaign, with only flavorings of GONZO added into such in a limited degree, what are some of the implications that you might consider with Dinosaurs being not necessarily globally dominant, but still regionally prominent? Mixing with more animals and mammals, and also the effects on human societies, as well as communities of humanoids?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Hi, Shark.
Most probably I'd restrict dinosaurs to some geographically isolated region, like and island or peninsula.
In my homebrew AD&D 2E campaign I had a small archipelago with a portal to a "land that time forgot" parallel dimension, where I put all my dinosaurs, saurians and neanderthals. The portal was permanent, so occasionally some huge "thunderous beast" came through to the campaign world.
Quote from: Pat on April 30, 2021, 08:40:01 AM
Quote from: oggsmash on April 30, 2021, 08:30:32 AM
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.
That's true to some degree, and it's important to remember what we don't know. That's one reason why all the highly speculative paleoart in recent years is valuable, because is shows a broader ranger of what's possible. For many decades, dinosaurs were depicted in very similar ways, which was misleading because the uniformity across all those different artists implied that we were sure that's what they looked like, which was simply false.
But you can also take it too far, because we've learned a lot about what dinosaurs look like. And it's not just skeletal anatomy based on fossilized bones, but things like skin impressions, preserved filaments or feathers, and even the color(!) of a few species. There are many areas of uncertainty, but others that are settled with a high degree of certainty, and the later category has increased dramatically in the last half a century.
Still a great deal of uncertainty, and most ideas are from partial skeletons. I hope cloning tech will progress to just re creating a dino. Or the chinese can reveal the dino they already cloned, and we can just settle the uncertainty.
Quote from: oggsmash on April 30, 2021, 09:15:18 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 30, 2021, 08:40:01 AM
Quote from: oggsmash on April 30, 2021, 08:30:32 AM
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.
That's true to some degree, and it's important to remember what we don't know. That's one reason why all the highly speculative paleoart in recent years is valuable, because is shows a broader ranger of what's possible. For many decades, dinosaurs were depicted in very similar ways, which was misleading because the uniformity across all those different artists implied that we were sure that's what they looked like, which was simply false.
But you can also take it too far, because we've learned a lot about what dinosaurs look like. And it's not just skeletal anatomy based on fossilized bones, but things like skin impressions, preserved filaments or feathers, and even the color(!) of a few species. There are many areas of uncertainty, but others that are settled with a high degree of certainty, and the later category has increased dramatically in the last half a century.
Still a great deal of uncertainty, and most ideas are from partial skeletons. I hope cloning tech will progress to just re creating a dino. Or the chinese can reveal the dino they already cloned, and we can just settle the uncertainty.
I don't relish raining in your parade, but cloning tech is already where we could IF we had any ADN from Dinos, we don't and we never will because it's destroyed after some time and can't be recreated.
Closest you could get is the guy that wants to make a dinochicken (because birds ARE one type of dinosaurs), and that still wouldn't be a dino because you can't devolve to a previous state.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 12:13:01 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on April 30, 2021, 09:15:18 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 30, 2021, 08:40:01 AM
Quote from: oggsmash on April 30, 2021, 08:30:32 AM
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.
That's true to some degree, and it's important to remember what we don't know. That's one reason why all the highly speculative paleoart in recent years is valuable, because is shows a broader ranger of what's possible. For many decades, dinosaurs were depicted in very similar ways, which was misleading because the uniformity across all those different artists implied that we were sure that's what they looked like, which was simply false.
But you can also take it too far, because we've learned a lot about what dinosaurs look like. And it's not just skeletal anatomy based on fossilized bones, but things like skin impressions, preserved filaments or feathers, and even the color(!) of a few species. There are many areas of uncertainty, but others that are settled with a high degree of certainty, and the later category has increased dramatically in the last half a century.
Still a great deal of uncertainty, and most ideas are from partial skeletons. I hope cloning tech will progress to just re creating a dino. Or the chinese can reveal the dino they already cloned, and we can just settle the uncertainty.
I don't relish raining in your parade, but cloning tech is already where we could IF we had any ADN from Dinos, we don't and we never will because it's destroyed after some time and can't be recreated.
Closest you could get is the guy that wants to make a dinochicken (because birds ARE one type of dinosaurs), and that still wouldn't be a dino because you can't devolve to a previous state.
Cloning tech will progress to a point you will not need DNA to clone an animal.
Quote from: oggsmash on April 30, 2021, 04:05:36 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 12:13:01 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on April 30, 2021, 09:15:18 AM
Quote from: Pat on April 30, 2021, 08:40:01 AM
Quote from: oggsmash on April 30, 2021, 08:30:32 AM
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.
That's true to some degree, and it's important to remember what we don't know. That's one reason why all the highly speculative paleoart in recent years is valuable, because is shows a broader ranger of what's possible. For many decades, dinosaurs were depicted in very similar ways, which was misleading because the uniformity across all those different artists implied that we were sure that's what they looked like, which was simply false.
But you can also take it too far, because we've learned a lot about what dinosaurs look like. And it's not just skeletal anatomy based on fossilized bones, but things like skin impressions, preserved filaments or feathers, and even the color(!) of a few species. There are many areas of uncertainty, but others that are settled with a high degree of certainty, and the later category has increased dramatically in the last half a century.
Still a great deal of uncertainty, and most ideas are from partial skeletons. I hope cloning tech will progress to just re creating a dino. Or the chinese can reveal the dino they already cloned, and we can just settle the uncertainty.
I don't relish raining in your parade, but cloning tech is already where we could IF we had any ADN from Dinos, we don't and we never will because it's destroyed after some time and can't be recreated.
Closest you could get is the guy that wants to make a dinochicken (because birds ARE one type of dinosaurs), and that still wouldn't be a dino because you can't devolve to a previous state.
Cloning tech will progress to a point you will not need DNA to clone an animal.
LOL, no it won't. But I will indulge you. How exactly will that magical tech clone a chicken without the chicken's ADN?
Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 04:26:12 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on April 30, 2021, 04:05:36 PM
Cloning tech will progress to a point you will not need DNA to clone an animal.
LOL, no it won't. But I will indulge you. How exactly will that magical tech clone a chicken without the chicken's ADN?
I'm not supporting oggsmash's phrasing, but there will come a point when we can exactly simulate what a skeletal structure given DNA will grow into. At that point, we can reconstruct by using fragmentary DNA from dinosaur descendants and the fossil record. i.e. "Based on the fossils, we know the DNA would have to be approximately blah."
But the information would still be incomplete, so it wouldn't be exact. And I would call this "genetic reconstruction" rather than "cloning".
Quote from: jhkim on April 30, 2021, 04:39:04 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 04:26:12 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on April 30, 2021, 04:05:36 PM
Cloning tech will progress to a point you will not need DNA to clone an animal.
LOL, no it won't. But I will indulge you. How exactly will that magical tech clone a chicken without the chicken's ADN?
I'm not supporting oggsmash's phrasing, but there will come a point when we can exactly simulate what a skeletal structure given DNA will grow into. At that point, we can reconstruct by using fragmentary DNA from dinosaur descendants and the fossil record. i.e. "Based on the fossils, we know the DNA would have to be approximately blah."
But the information would still be incomplete, so it wouldn't be exact. And I would call this "genetic reconstruction" rather than "cloning".
So what I mentioned before, what the dinochicken guy wants to do with a chicken?
That's not cloning, and the result, even if it looked kinda like an avian dinosaur it wouldn't be one.
And I bet we will not be able to just say this kind of part of the DNA modified so would produce those legs. It would involve lots of trial and error.
Good luck getting the ecofascists letting you do it.
Quote from: Greywolf76 on April 30, 2021, 09:11:24 AM
Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2021, 07:11:33 PM
Greetings!
Dinosaurs often feature prominently in GONZO campaigns, with little attention paid to verisimilitude and all that. However, assuming you are running a standard campaign, with only flavorings of GONZO added into such in a limited degree, what are some of the implications that you might consider with Dinosaurs being not necessarily globally dominant, but still regionally prominent? Mixing with more animals and mammals, and also the effects on human societies, as well as communities of humanoids?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Hi, Shark.
Most probably I'd restrict dinosaurs to some geographically isolated region, like and island or peninsula.
In my homebrew AD&D 2E campaign I had a small archipelago with a portal to a "land that time forgot" parallel dimension, where I put all my dinosaurs, saurians and neanderthals. The portal was permanent, so occasionally some huge "thunderous beast" came through to the campaign world.
Greetings!
Hey there, Greywolf! Cool! Do you use many different varieties of dinosaurs, or just a few?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Greetings!
I have some regions within my world, as well as several continents, where all kinds of strange plants and geography hold sway. Enormous marshes, great inland seas, and vast rivers. The rivers and marshes are full of different kinds of fish and amphibians, varying in size and temperament. Giant dragonflies hovering about, colonies of giant ants; aggressive, carnivorous beetles that are as large as a mastiff or Irish Wolf Hound. Lakes full of amphibious reptiles, savage monstrosities that lurk along the dense reeds and grasses of the riverbanks, waiting for prey to cross their path. Huge ferns growing here and there. Large, leafy palmed plants and trees growing in vibrant splendor.
Some human communities have domesticated various dinosaurs for use in agriculture and also as work beasts. Some of the swift, aggressive breeds of dinosaurs have been trained as mounts, and are often used in warfare. Dinosaurs and similar animals have also contributed to diet and cuisine, providing various kinds of meat and eggs. It's pretty interesting to have different kinds of brightly coloured dinosaur hide armour, as well as shields, crafted from inlays of Stegasaur plates or what have you.
I think that exploring different kinds of magical spells, as well as magic items, and unusual mystical items and artifacts inspired by dinosaurs and the like can be very inspiring, and distinctive.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 09:18:16 PMAnd 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.
Larry Niven wrote a pretty good book based on this premise: The Legacy of Heorot.
Quote from: oggsmash 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.
Dinos were warm blooded? Since when has that been a thing? With the constant churn of "the latest theory" I tend to give the latest no more credence than the many others of the recent past. The current best theory will probably be superseded in a month, after all. It seems like we just don't know and aren't ever really going to know. So for fiction, I say take your pick of whatever theory you want.
Quote from: Mishihari on April 30, 2021, 11:12:33 PM
Quote from: oggsmash 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.
Dinos were warm blooded? Since when has that been a thing? With the constant churn of "the latest theory" I tend to give the latest no more credence than the many others of the recent past. The current best theory will probably be superseded in a month, after all. It seems like we just don't know and aren't ever really going to know. So for fiction, I say take your pick of whatever theory you want.
Some most certainly were, especially the ones that would evolve into birds. Which is why they needed feathers, to help regulate their body temp.
Crocodiles and Alligators are Dinosaurs, for all the world to ponder. Just imagine them growing bigger, with longer legs; and some walking upright. Whallah!!! Dinosaurs.
Velociraptors could devastate a food chain. They'd put the big cats to shame, I imagine.
Quote from: Jam The MF on May 01, 2021, 02:08:29 AM
Crocodiles and Alligators are Dinosaurs, for all the world to ponder. Just imagine them growing bigger, with longer legs; and some walking upright. Whallah!!! Dinosaurs.
Except not. Alligators and Crocs share a common ancestor with some Dinos, but they are not Dinos, as a matter of fact the ancestor of modern gators was already eating Dinos.
Quote from: SHARK on April 30, 2021, 05:21:11 PM
Quote from: Greywolf76 on April 30, 2021, 09:11:24 AM
Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2021, 07:11:33 PM
Greetings!
Dinosaurs often feature prominently in GONZO campaigns, with little attention paid to verisimilitude and all that. However, assuming you are running a standard campaign, with only flavorings of GONZO added into such in a limited degree, what are some of the implications that you might consider with Dinosaurs being not necessarily globally dominant, but still regionally prominent? Mixing with more animals and mammals, and also the effects on human societies, as well as communities of humanoids?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Hi, Shark.
Most probably I'd restrict dinosaurs to some geographically isolated region, like and island or peninsula.
In my homebrew AD&D 2E campaign I had a small archipelago with a portal to a "land that time forgot" parallel dimension, where I put all my dinosaurs, saurians and neanderthals. The portal was permanent, so occasionally some huge "thunderous beast" came through to the campaign world.
Greetings!
Hey there, Greywolf! Cool! Do you use many different varieties of dinosaurs, or just a few?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I mixed them all. Completely unscientific, but whatever was guaranteed to put my players back on their heels. ;D
I used T-rex, velociraptors, dimorphodons in the "Jurassic World" style and some aquatic dinomonsters, too.
In my campaign world, I have a race of Lizardmen that worships a dragon goddess. The area they rule is about is big as the good ol US of A. The Lizardmen have domesticated dinosaurs to a certain extent but also lets them roam in the unprotected area's of their kingdom and since they are xenophobic for the most part they don't care if those dinosaurs eat non lizardmen. They have several cities but only one they allow outsiders and if an outsider is caught outside the city, they are fair game with out an escort.
The near by kingdoms knows not to F with the Lizardman Kingdom. They discovered magic before man or elf came along, they have the largest army in the world, they fight on and along side dinosaurs and their ruler is god.
What can I say. Godzilla is king! KING!
So...on a forum full of people wearing face diapers like muzzled sheep, we're arguing about dinosaurs needing oxygen...in game worlds where elves run around casting magic spells.
Quote from: Spinachcat on May 03, 2021, 04:43:58 PM
So...on a forum full of people wearing face diapers like muzzled sheep, we're arguing about dinosaurs needing oxygen...in game worlds where elves run around casting magic spells.
Jeeze no need to bring politics into this (and im not a pro-masker this is just a politeness thing).
As for realism, the human mind is kinda arbitrary about this stuff. And discussing this arbitrary stuff can make for an interesting discussion.
I once used Dinosaur Island, as a way to introduce Dinosaurs into a campaign without impacting the whole setting at large.....in the short term.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on May 01, 2021, 02:42:06 AM
Quote from: Jam The MF on May 01, 2021, 02:08:29 AM
Crocodiles and Alligators are Dinosaurs, for all the world to ponder. Just imagine them growing bigger, with longer legs; and some walking upright. Whallah!!! Dinosaurs.
Except not. Alligators and Crocs share a common ancestor with some Dinos, but they are not Dinos, as a matter of fact the ancestor of modern gators was already eating Dinos.
Yes, but I still say crocodiles and alligators are the dinosaurs of our era. Very close to home, too.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 03, 2021, 04:49:03 PM
As for realism, the human mind is kinda arbitrary about this stuff. And discussing this arbitrary stuff can make for an interesting discussion.
It can also make for an interesting game. The real world is infinitely more complex than any fantasy world, so it makes a great source for new and weird twists.
Well, if you don't mind stealing shamelessly, you can always do the magic version of Jurassic Park: Crazy arch mage tries to open a portal to a vast, unexplored dimension. Dino come through and eat him. The portal is self-sustaining. Dino migration ensues as they discover this new food source. Probably pick up some crazy mutations drinking the run-off from the wizard's tower, too. The wizard's apprentices who are still alive are hiding out waiting to encounter the PCs. Some of them weren't entirely stable before all this started.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 05:07:08 PM
Quote from: jhkim on April 30, 2021, 04:39:04 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on April 30, 2021, 04:26:12 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on April 30, 2021, 04:05:36 PM
Cloning tech will progress to a point you will not need DNA to clone an animal.
LOL, no it won't. But I will indulge you. How exactly will that magical tech clone a chicken without the chicken's ADN?
I'm not supporting oggsmash's phrasing, but there will come a point when we can exactly simulate what a skeletal structure given DNA will grow into. At that point, we can reconstruct by using fragmentary DNA from dinosaur descendants and the fossil record. i.e. "Based on the fossils, we know the DNA would have to be approximately blah."
But the information would still be incomplete, so it wouldn't be exact. And I would call this "genetic reconstruction" rather than "cloning".
So what I mentioned before, what the dinochicken guy wants to do with a chicken?
That's not cloning, and the result, even if it looked kinda like an avian dinosaur it wouldn't be one.
And I bet we will not be able to just say this kind of part of the DNA modified so would produce those legs. It would involve lots of trial and error.
Good luck getting the ecofascists letting you do it.
China dont need luck, they will do it just because they can, like the incredible hulk soldiers they will grow in their vats.