Why aren't there more dinosaurs in traditional games?
Because Jurassic Park was released over 20 years ago
Because you don't put them in your traditional games.
>>94790130This, be the change you want to see.
>>94790121Does he know?
>>94790354>"Because Jurassic Park was released over 20 years ago">Jurassic Park: 1993>2025 - 1993 = 32> 32 > 20Yeah, I think he does know.
Dinosaurs aren't cool anymore
>>94790107Because for some reason you haven't included this thing you want to see in your games. I suspect I know why.
>>94790463dinosaurs were only really cool for 1-2 generations. my childhood somehow gave me the impression that paleontology was a really big deal
>>94790107>>94790463I personally never GOT dinosausrs. they are big reptiles, woopie. THey are like eliphants or hypos but scally instead of leathery.At least with cars you can nerd out about engine types and upgrades and paintjobs and shit.>>94790107Maybe if there was a game/setting that primarly focused on them. I forgot there was that childs series a while ago about how a world with people would develop with dinosaurs and they use dinosaurs for daily things. kind of as more wimsy and setting focused instead of cartoony flintstones.
Why aren't there more giant sloths in traditional games?
>>94790700I know I remember seeing it on one traditional game book... was it ACKS?
>>94790463oh my god look at what they did to the hecking dinosaurs
>>94790107Fauna as enemy always feels corny.
>>94790700Pretty sure one of the Pathfinder Monster supplements has them
>>94790941I don't get the issue. It's still the same animal.
>>94790463speak for yourself
>>94790958WHy? that should be pretty natural for an non-developed area.Doesnt work for a human like opposition ofc, but having a white whale or clever girl or old one eye is always fun.
Dinosaurs often get relegated to Lost World scenarios which are usually High Level Adventures (which no one plays). If Wizards shat out a Level 1-3 fantasy version of Jurassic Park complete with a CR 4 T-Rex boss fight the D&D crowd would be all over it. But nope>>94790941Its a little derpy but the black feather / fur contrast against the paler face makes it scary. Still prefer scaled dinos in most cases though
>>94790107Because dinosaurs tend to get overshadowed by more fantastical creatures. A T-Rex is impressive but give it fire breath, wings, useful front limbs with nasty claws and now you have an even more impressive Red Dragon. What do Pterosaurs really bring to a game when you have Wyverns, Rocs and Harpies?
>>94791226Strange that you can't make the dinosaurs themselves more fantastical, and have to use the same dragons and harpies that everyone else uses.
>>94791089It is natural, but that doesn't make it less corny.Since animals mostly attack when they're hungry, afraid or so on, it's not really possible to make them convincingly "evil" unless they're being influenced by something (such as getting bullshit magic involved).
>>94791226>What do Pterosaurs really bring to a game when you have Wyverns, Rocs and Harpies?I mean if you're doing bullshit kitchen sink as you clearly are, might as well go all the way.
>>94791226So buff them up? If they have no magic, make them raw physical powerhouses.
Have there been any good dinosaur horror video games or videos in the past 5 years?Im starving for content also fuck you for reminding me we will never get a R2make for Dino Crisis
>>94791713No, Jurassic Park ip holds dinosaur monopoly. Nobody else seems to want to do anything wit them.
>>94791492The issue is that the more fantastical you make a dinosaur the less it becomes a dinosaur and more it becomes a type of dragon.>>94791567Even if you go bullshit kitchen sink like various editions of D&D did there are only so many environmental niches that can be filled in general. This is why dinosaurs tend to end up exclusively in "lost world" adventures and locales.>>94791606While I've seen that work on occasion, I've also seen it fall flat due to oversights. The 3.X Mountain Giant is a pretty big example of something like this. They were incredible physical power houses a theoretical CR 26 but were incredibly vulnerable to spells and effects that targeted their Reflex and Will saves. In the end if you want such creatures to be actual threats you need to account for magic as well.
>>94790107I dunno anon, I generally put birds in my games, at least if they're set in non urban locales.But anyway, non avian dinos are possibly less used because they're kind out of the "monster" image and more on the "actual animals" one. Think of shit like Prehistoric Planet, that per se is pretty wild and imaginative, but you don't see t-rexes as godzilla little brothers but like tiger equivalents. Rightfully so.Which is great and all, buuuuut maybe paleontologists and docu-makers are a tiny bit too scared of making them seem bloodthirsty and all. Myself, loving dinos since I was a little wee nerd, would feel prety akward doing a scenario about "prehistoric monsters to kill" if it wasn't a total King Kong ripoff. >>94790941I generally think the problem with feathery dinos is more that artists often can't design them for shit, than the actual idea.To be fair Dromaeosauridae are pretty hard by themselves, the closest thing we have that looks badass are... I dunno, eagles? Falcons? And they're not that "scary".
>>94791836>The issue is that the more fantastical you make a dinosaur the less it becomes a dinosaur and more it becomes a type of dragon.How many dragons have you seen that look like ankylosaurus, stegosaurus, bronto/brachiosaurus, T-Rexes, triceratops, etc.?
>>94792410I play monster hunter, next question
>>94790354>5 "seasons" released in 6 monthsWhat the hell am I looking at?
>>94790107>Why aren't there more dinosaurs in traditional games?I'm trying, anon, I swear. I'm not Jesus Christ, I've come to accept that.
>>94791140>Dinosaurs often get relegated to Lost World scenarios which are usually High Level Adventures (which no one plays).If Wizards shat out a Level 1-3 fantasy version of Jurassic Park complete with a CR 4 T-Rex boss fight the D&D crowd would be all over it. ...I dont play DND so I dont know enough to dispute this. But I think you are wrong...
>>94792873The gods shall bless you if pic related is the style you are going for.Love me some prehistoric gonzo.
>>94790107I have Dinosaur Swamps in my D&D campaign and the players went hunting there for a bit. The Imperial city nearby uses them as beasts of burden and mounts sometimes but they're harder to take care of than horses or griffons so it's usually relegated to higher tier knights and other dudes of stature. The snake men within the jungles and swamps use them as hunting dogs, but the players (wisely) stuck to the outer swamps because they wanted to find a big carnivore and feed it a potion of growth before letting it loose to attack the city
>>94790969In 1e: Bestiary 2, Megatherium, both monster and animal companion stats.In 2e: Bestiary 3, Megatherium, only monster.>>94790107Both D&D and Pathfinder, the two biggest RPGs have dinosaurs. Call of Cthulhu as far as I know doesn't, but thats because it focuses on the real world in 1900, and specifically surviving the Lovecraft Mythos.Those are the big ones, so two out of the three biggest ttrpgs have dinosaurs. Im not sure what youre complaining about.>>94791140>Dinosaurs often get relegated to Lost World scenariosUntrue.In PF, in the northern section of Avistan (notEurope) Dinosaurs and Ice age animals live in the wilderness of the untamed lands of Sarkoris and the Mammoth Lords. Dinosaurs are all over Garunds (notAfrica) wilderness. Dinosaurs can also be found in Tian Xia (notAsia). In D&D they are common to many areas of various settings, without being Lost World scenarios.
>>94790107OP, are you gay?
>>94790107>Why aren't there more dinosaurs in traditional games?WAT
>>94793657>In PF, in the northern section of Avistan (notEurope) Dinosaurs and Ice age animals live in the wilderness of the untamed lands of Sarkoris and the Mammoth Lords. Dinosaurs are all over Garunds (notAfrica) wilderness. Dinosaurs can also be found in Tian Xia (notAsia).That's... a dumber lost world scenario, actually.
They were cool in the 90s during the temporal age where we were mixing sci-fi with fantasy. They're too basic now where fantasy has grown into an abomination of overkill.Being an overgrown lizard isn't enough, you have to be an overgrown lizard with wings, have scales made from inane concepts like gems or shadow, that can breathe fire/ice/necrotic miasma and transform into humans when he wants to fuck and impregnate them.
>>94794320>lost world scenarioNo, its literally just the wild areas of the world still contain megafauna. Do you even know what a Lost World Scenario even fucking is? Its a hidden isolated realm that contains extinct animals from ages past, still living on. There may or may not be hidden tribes of people, who may or may not have magical or ancient superscience.PFs dinosaurs are literally just wildlife living in large nonsettled areas. Go exploring Sarkoris and you may run into a Tyranno hunting bison. Or a pack of velociraptors taking down an elk, or a smilodon hunting you through the grasslands. None of this is out of the ordinary and many of the animals used to range in far wider areas before settlement by humans, elves, dwarves, and other weirder races.In Garund, the lizardfolk of Droon use dinosaurs as tamed beasts of burden. They are not cutoff from everyone else, just another of the continents civilized peoples. There is no Lost Worlds scenario happening here, only a fantastical world that still has dinosaurs running around as wildlife.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNeAINi9omo
>>94792681You can't say "next question" after giving an invalid answer.
>>94793353Thank you. I do these from edits, so the style varies quite a bit.
>>94790107I think the Jurassic park movie started a dinosaur craze, and then it has died down despite the fact that Jurassic park movies are still being made.That said there's no reason you can't put them into your TTRPGs. Dinosaurs are cool.
>>94795108You can keep your Cenozoic,But I'll take the Mesozoic,Give me a Mesozoic Mind.
>>94797744>Jurassic park movies are still being made.There hasn't been a Jurassic Park movie since 2001.
>>94790107Because you don't actually play other traditional games, DnDaggot.
>>94798657Bitch D&D has been full of dinosaurs since its inception.Every monster manual has dinosaurs.Mystara's hollow center is filled with dinosaurs.In Forgotten Realms, Chult has dinosaurs.Eberron has dinosaurs.You're almost as big a retard as OP.
>>94790107Just wanted to leave this here:https://goblinpunch.blogspot.com/2013/10/after-his-burial-and-before-his-death.html
>>94790974"but dinos had feathers" exists to piss off people who like dinosaurs. There is SOME evidence that SUGGESTS that SOME dinosaurs MIGHT have had feathers, but not nearly as many as some assholes want the internet to think, and not the species they most often portray as having feathers. T Rex for example, IS NOT one of the possibly partially feathered dinosaurs. Also, anyone who thinks feathered dinos have a place in Jurassic Park, is a retard. They're not actual dinosaurs, they're cones spliced with the DNA of other animals, so there's not even a "scientific accuracy" argument to be had. In the novel, these little shits from the second movie were spliced with cobra DNA.
>>94790354Umm... Exquize me? This timeline is missing Trespasser. One star, literally unreadable.
>>94790130I put them in my games. It's great fun
>>94809283>"but dinos had feathers" exists to piss off me!Ftfy.
>>94809472Yutyrannus was a very close cousin of the T Rex and was fully feathered though, despite being roughly the same size. There's another therazinosaur that was fully feathered, which, while not as big as T Rex, was in a roughly equivalent weight class. That said, they lived in ancient China and Mongolia, which got fucking freezing in the winter, while T Rex lived near the balmy continental sea and never needed to worry about freezing.
>>94790130I had my players fight a magical Liopleurodon in my seafaring campaign a few sessions ago. Good times.
>>94790107They used throw in dinosaurs as enemies in a lot of old d&d adventure modules. You would be exploring some wilderness area and for some reason would run into a pteranodon or a t-rex. Why? how? Who cares. just fight them for the exp points.
>>94792764Ten episodes seasons?
>>94809283I recently read the novel a month or so ago. In a way, I very much enjoyed the idea that the main scientist who created the dinosaurs just straight admits that they're not dinosaurs but his guess at what dinosaurs were. Also, the ending was a major disappointment to me.
>>94809472>Like, they've invented this whole technology of behavior modifying neural implants just to get it to work, when you could use Chickens for a tenth the price AND be WAY less conspicuous!
>>94790107Dragon Ball had fun dinosaurs.I guess they just don't fit the modern d&d flavor as they're not as cool as dragons, nor a d&d specific invention like owlbears or beholders.And other ttrpgs tend to either just be bootleg d&d, or some more bland variation of either horror and/or historical.idk about sci fi ttrpgs but I'd say dinos have the opposite flavor in general
>>94809283There's evidence that feathers are a fairly basal trait of dinosaurs that may have shown up early in archosauria, because in the end feathers are just derived scales, and that explains why pterosaurs had fuzzy filaments. But just like how hair is a fairly basal trait of mammalian that doesn't mean every mammal has a thick wooly coat either. We take it on a case by case basis and unless we have strong evidence from related clades we still lean towards "no" on being feathered as adults as a whole.
>>94792681Those are wyverns, not dragons
>>94790941The biggest inaccuracy is how big the raptors are.They weren't even 3 feet tall.
>>94809283I thought they found evidence young t Rex had proto feathers
>>94790107My material planes always are a hollow world with dinosaurs on the inside. Not every party delves deep enough to come out the other side.
>>94814266Nope. Some animals much smaller than and distantly related to Tyrannosaurus had feathers (they might not be on the Tyrannosaur family tree any closer than sparrows are, however, there is controversy and debate still), but there is no evidence of anything but scales in large tyrannosaurs that are closely related to Tyrannosaurus. There are very few baby tyrannosaur fossils, however, and none preserve skin impressions, so it’s not impossible, just unlikely.
>>94814253A wyvern is a type of dragon
Couple days ago we had an anon post some WIP rules for a dinosaur wargame, then he didn't respond to anyone and disappeared. Shame, it was interesting OC
>>94814346No. They are related to dragons. But they are not dragons.
>>94814553Define dragon in a way that excludes wyverns but not eastern dragons.
>>94814553>Idiot believes that WotC/TSR are the ones who get to define how fantasy works
>>94814686It doesn't work like that.
>>94814707Wyverns being distinct from dragons predates WotC/TSR by hundreds of years.
>>94814755>>94814553According to whom? Cite your sources.
>>94809520Yutyrannus is the largest dinosaur that has definitive evidence of being feathered you are correct there.It is a reasonably close relative of Tyrannosaurs, also correct.It is NOWHERE NEAR comparable in size to Tyrannosaurus rex, the largest examples of Yutyrannus were less than 1/6th the mass of a fully grown T-Rex.
>>94814807The distinction in the English language began to be made in the 17th century. Primarily in heraldry, by people who's job it was to depict mythic creatures on banners and other such thingsComplete guide to heraldry page 225 & 226.https://archive.org/details/completeguidetoh00foxduoft/completeguidetoh00foxduoft/page/438/mode/2up?view=theater
>>94814782Perhaps, but the anon said >They are related to dragons.That requires choosing a specific "canon".Heraldryfags don't get to be authorities in fantasy creatures either, when it's stuff that shows up in countries all over the globe.
>>94815749It isn't just heraldryfags that make the distinction these days. It has been widely accepted now that there is a difference between the two. It just makes sense. If you have two different creatures that have different features, then why wouldn't you refer to them by two different names? And saying wyverns are a type of dragon makes no sense because the term dragon is already being used to describe the 4 legged type of creature.
>>94790107have you tried putting them in yours-- oh wait, you dont have any games
>>94814898>It is NOWHERE NEAR comparable in size to Tyrannosaurus rex, the largest examples of Yutyrannus were less than 1/6th the mass of a fully grown T-Rex.Well hush my mouth then, I was under the impression they were around half the size. That said, we have a great deal of evidence of Therazinasaurs being feathered and from a little googling I've seen them described as roughly Tyrannosaur sized. Perhaps it used less energy as a herbivorous critter but I think dismissing T Rex ornamental feathers or just a scraggly coat of protoquills as completely impossible would be disingenuous. Our skin impressions so far haven't proven it, but I wouldn't be shocked if it had a shock of them running down it's back/tails or had some on its body like modern elephants do. I'll agree that full coverings of plumage are dumb on dinosaurs that weren't running around the poles or in areas with cold winters. From what I understand, America in the Cretaceous was almost Mediterranean in its balmy weather.
>>94815973>wyverns are a type of dragon makes no sense because the term dragon is already being used to describe the 4 legged type of creature.Some dragons had no limbs. Some had two. Some have six or eight. Shit, the Knuckleknavee has none and flies around on fins. Dragons aren't real and if you want to apply scientific naming conventions they're much more of a family/genus than a species. You wouldn't shriek about a puma not being a lion because it lacks a mane. It's still a big cat.
>>94814755have a less skub version of that image
>>94815973>And saying wyverns are a type of dragon makes no sense because the term dragon is already being used to describe the 4 legged type of creature.And the term dragon is already used to describe creatures with 2 or no limbs too.
>>94809520>YutyrannusIs not actually very closely related to Tyrannosaurus, and is actually more distantly related to the giant tyrannosaurs of the late Cretaceous North American and Asia than the Megaraptorans of South America and Africa. It’s about as closely related as you are to a lemur.
>>94816728Tyrannosaurus ranged from tropical lattitudes to Arctic latitudes, Yutyrranus’s environment was less influenced by the oceans and so probably got colder, but the northern end of the range of the giant North American tyrannosaurs was probably about as cold as Iceland, and as dark.
>>94816728>I think dismissing T Rex ornamental feathers or just a scraggly coat of protoquills as completely impossible would be disingenuous. Our skin impressions so far haven't proven it, We currently have skin impressions from Tyrannosaurs or closely related taxa (Daspletosaurus, etc) across most of the body. All of them show scales integument, and many of them are from before the theropod feather revolution of the late 90s. Fluffy-rex was always misinformed or disingenuous.>but I wouldn't be shocked if it had a shock of them running down it's back/tails or had some on its body like modern elephants doThey call this theory “feathers of the gaps” but the gaps are getting smaller all the time, and we’re to the point where the feathering pattern would have to be like nothing else we’ve ever seen in the fossil record. Ontogenic downy feather loss from a fluffy hatchling is still possible (possible, not necessarily likely), but it is highly unlikely that any noticeable amount of feathering persisted in subadult or adult tyrannosaurs.We do have skin impressions from the back of the neck, they can’t have a feather crest.
>>94818454>And the term dragon is already used to describe creatures with 2 or no limbs tooBut it shouldn't be. We need a different umbrella term. Or a new name for 4 legged dragons.
>>94790107You can use dinosaur toys as models. And that's terrible for business.
>>94820311>But it shouldn't be.why?>We need a different umbrella term. Or a new name for 4 legged dragons.nah that's gaywhy do autists love taking the fantasy out of fantasy by trying to create some rigid "canon"?seen that type of shit not only for dragons but for pretty much every other fantasy creature and even spells/magic systems.Mythology and folk beliefs always had lots of contradictions or variations from one group of people to another, that really made them cooler and more versatile than this whole "ACKSHUALLY!!" shit
>>94820420So you think language shouldn't be made more convenient with separate names for separate types of things? Even though people have already adopted the new terms and everyone clearly understands the difference.>Mythology and folk beliefs always had lots of contradictionsYou're not going to sell me on the wonder of contradictions. If your way of naming things involves contradictions then its not worth holding onto.
>>94809472I don't know, but your picrel doesn't look any less terrifying to me than a scaly t-rex. At some point any animal that gets large enough to look down on you gets unnerving. Anything that is twice your height and shows any sign of being aggressive will be the most horrifying thing you've seen in your life.
>>94820942Its always bugged me, in part because there's really no overall body schema that screams more "I EXIST TO KILL YOU" than the avian one. The feathery fuckers have a goddamn claw in place of a mouth and nose. Put yourself in the shoes of something that has a claw in the middle of its face. Visualize it as well as you can and tell me you don't get the urge to stab absolutely everything just because.
>>94820879>Even though people have already adopted the new terms and everyone clearly understands the difference.not really>If your way of naming things involves contradictions then its not worth holding onto.a setting should remain consistent with itselfbut it's retarded to go "nooo if your sorcerer learned their magic through study they're a wizard, that's how it is in d&d so that's canon". Same for shit like dog kobolds vs dragon kobolds or so on.
>>94819013>across most of the body.Bruh we have skin impressions of less than 20% of the body overall, get real.
>>94820879>If your way of naming things involves contradictions then its not worth holding onto.BRB gonna play with my red panda and my panther
>>94820905Anon, why do you think the feathered dino crowd focuses so much on T Rex, makes them the ancestors of chickens, makes them literally look like giant chickens? The whole thing, ALL of it, is one big "u mad" just to get a rise out of people. Take the most popular, iconic dinosaur, and make it a big cuddly joke. If I could, I would put a power drill through the kneecaps of people like this: >>94809374And not in from the front, from the back of the knee, outward.
>>94822815We have patches from more than 40 different places fairly evenly spread across the anatomy, coming from several animals, but actually less than 20% of any composite animal. Most of these samples are under 8 inches long and we are talking about skin impressions from animals that are 25-40 feet long . However a functional understanding of statistics and anatomy tells us that the odds of the impressions preserving isolated scaly patches on a broadly feathered animal would be a vanishingly rare. With reasonably even sample distribution across the anatomy of the animals not providing any evidence of integument other than scales (and at least three kinds of scales), the reasonableness for markedly non-scaly integument is very low and it's not good parsimony to continue to reconstruct Tyrannosaurs with any integument other than scaly skin.Humans are modestly remarkable for their nakedness (more naked than forest elephant but less naked than savanna elephants, for example), but even a integument sample half as good as what we have for Tyrannosaurids would show us to be fur bearing. Perhaps a sampling of similar quality to what we have for these dinosaurs would miss the hair on whales, but if we had the exact sample regions we have for Tyrannosaurids for whales, we would catch the tubercles on a hump back whale, for instance.
> preserving only isolated scaly patchesmea culpa
>>94791560Corny to me implies being fake our out of date and no longer relevant or impacting.IDK man animals can have their own personalities. there can be a member of a species thats relitively calm and just eats thier prey, another thats relatively an asshole and likes to pick the eyes out of its pray and watch it run about and squirm before eating it. Thats not something that can really be "dated" in a way that makes it corny.Animals can be characters just like people can. ofc, not necissarily in the same way.
>>94825408>ake the most popular, iconic dinosaur, and make it a big cuddly joke.A ~12 meter-long 4 meter-high chicken would be absolutely fucking terrifying and not cute and cuddly, at all. This is a failure in imagination on your part. Any half-descent artist can draw any animal as cuddly or cute, or convey just about any impression. Its a drawing, your brain processes the difference and knows its a representation so it doesn't trigger the same effect as seeing the real thing in its full height.A kitten hissing at you is at best cute and spicy, its face has essentially the same shape as that of a tiger, which will freeze the hardest motherfucking in place.
>>94831096>A ~12 meter-long 4 meter-high chicken would be absolutely fucking terrifying and not cute and cuddly, at all.
>>94825408Because EVERYONE focuses on T Rex. EVERYONE. All other Tyrannosaurs and most other Theropods are obscured by the presence of T. Rex in popular culture, so as soon as anyone discovers the hint of ANYTHING to do with Theropods - be it evidence of family behaviour, ecosystem, diet or the aforementioned feathers; someone's automatically going to try and extrapolate the new material onto 'the Famous One'.
>>94832033Isn't that the big chicken that killed Kramer's gamecock in that Seinfeld episode?
>>94814256They used utahraptors instead because nobody would be scared of velociraptors, then scaled up the compies for the same reason.
>>94792873godspeed, fair anon.
>>94820879What difference? A wyvern is a type of a body configuration for a dragon. So is a lindwurm. Or a coatl. Or a zmey. Those all have different number of limbs or heads, but fall under the greater umbrella of "dragons".
>>94832124They sized up the raptors for the story before the Utahraptor was published and known. They are called Velociraptors because at the time there was a few people who though that Deinonychus was invalid genus and the animal we call Deinonychus antirrhopus should have been called Velociraptor antirrhopus. Utahraptor became known before the movie hit theaters, but it's just a coincidence that there actually was a dromeosaur as big as the scaled up Deinonychus that is the Jurassic Park Velociraptor.
>>94792764Netflix show
>>94833153Thank you for this knowledge, /sci/fag.
>>94794755>pathfinderIsn't Orv literally lost world with dinosaurs?
>>94790107wym?
>>94832033>>A ~12 meter-long 4 meter-high chicken would be absolutely fucking terrifying and not cute and cuddly, at all.Change your picrel so the chicken is towering over the kid and looking down on it, from the kid's perspective. Also, these things have a higher kill count than killer whales.
>>94790463How very dare you.
>>94790463They're way cooler than shit like mimics or beholders.Fuck I hate those, especially the beholders and all their variations, they always look fucking stupid.
>playing wh40k?>yeah, don't worry, I have my own minis
>>94832066To be expected, really. Tyrannosaurus rex is the only nonavian dinosaur (and perhaps the only dinosaur at all) to be known by its full binomial name. Such is the level of its fame. Even its pop-cultural archnemesis is often referred to merely as "Triceratops" rather than "Triceratops horridus."
>>94832276So what are the regular 4 legged dragons called?
>>94833940I never got any of those toys and I was forever salty about it. Laser raptors were so fucking good.
