How do you feel about introducing prehistoric animals like the Andrewsarchus in fantasy games...

Personally I like to include mega fauna that only died out when humanity reached Australia and America.
Giant kangaroos, saber tooth cats, mammoths, etc.
It is fun

...

you sound just lovely

That's fucking hilarious though XD

They're pretty fun. I like to use them for "savage fantasy" settings, worlds where humanity is still fairly young and you've got Bronze Age civilizations at best. It feels a bit more appropriate than having dinosaurs around, somehow. I guess because we actually did coexist with some of these things, so having them side by side with early human civilization just takes humans not having driven them extinct yet. At least for some of them, a lot of the cool ones went extinct way before the Holocene.

Bingo. Dinosaurs get all the fame and media attention; nobody remembers the megafauna that came after them.

As for using them in fantasy games, I have no problems with it. They're exotic and alien, and it's not like living relic species aren't part of D&D's DNA.

>Why are they less used than dinosaurs?
Prehistoric mammals never had any Jurassic Park equivalent famous enough to start a prehistoric mammal craze across media, so all you get is mammoths and sabertooth tigers despite the countless more creatures that lived with humans. They also tend to look far more similar to extant animals, thus less exotic or otherwise impressive when compared to what basically amount to large, poor man's dragons. The first Jurassic Park reconstructed dinosaurs according to the then state of the art paleontology, but current year science now understands them to be less dragony and more birdy, and as you noticed current year media targeting manchildren systematically refuse to incorporate the latest knowledge on dinosaurs, choosing instead to pander to the nostalgics with the poor man's dragons that never existed straight out of Spielberg's film.

What an ugly beast!

Everything taxidermied or represented looking "fierce" looks horrible.
A lot of taxidermied Raccoons look like devil-beasts.

>the pre-historic nu-male

He meant the one to the left.

it's sad, firstly because some are actually pretty impressive and exotic (giant carnivorous boar, girafe-rhinoceros, giant elephants, giant sloth, etc), and secondly because we exterminate all those beauties

>dinosaurs are popular because in people's minds they're weird lizard monsters with no modern equivalent
>only famous prehistoric mammals are basically those who can be summed up as "modern animal but hairier"

It's really all just Jurassic Park's fault

>Andrewsarchus
That may be part of the problem.

>It's really all just Jurassic Park's fault

It happened long before that, user. There were dinosaur crazes before movies had even been invented. Look up the "Bones Wars" for example. Competition between two museums saw rival expeditions and scientists during to out do each during digs in the US west in 1880s. Between them they fond many of the "classics" little kids still squee about today.

Most of them are lesser known, obscure, and don't easily fit together. You see plenty of Mammoths, Sabertooths, Glyptodons, and Giant Sloths because they're cool and all fit a general Ice Age setting, but as for Andrewsarchus and such, few people know what they are, less what setting they're in.

>why are they less used than dinosaur
I use them more, and I've seen them used in a lot of bestiaries, it's just that few people advertise they are prehistoric animals openly because it breaks immersion (which is the same reason you don't encounter T-rex and Triceratops too often either)
Well, some settings don't give a shit of course, and those want the most recognizable pop culture dinos for the kitsch aspect.

Giant sloths are totally growing in popularity.

people would probably think it's silly because my name is andrew
other than that they're cool, I usually have mammoths in there

I've been trying to use mammals for all my monster needs in the setting as lizards/dragons have a specific place in the lore. I'm just lacking the dedication to get good at drawing to make them real.

For example, the knights of one empire ride on Hemicyoninae and the house responsible to raising those critters used it's power to build a great city.
Right now I'm trying to do something interesting with ram horns because I'm working with greek titans.

Ram horns, huh?

I'm in an ongoing campaign currently which features a decent amount of megafauna. Our DM is big into prehistory, so we're running a setting that has a fair few terror birds, glyptodonts and the occasional gigantic mastodon.

Just because he played golum doesn't make him a prehistoric monster

>A lot of taxidermied Raccoons look like devil-beasts.
>Raccoons, not devil beasts
someone hasn't been woken up by one stroking his hair

>tfw no racoons gf to brush my hair while I sleep

>Why are they less used than dinosaurs?
Because as far as I know there hasn't been a Pliocene Park movie yet.

Just call it something else.
Don't tell me a 17th-century explorer wouldn't call a dinosaur a dragon, or a plesiosaur a sea-serpent.

My civquest GM did this. It seemed appropriate since we're stone age anyway. Although he also put the occasional dinos in warm areas via random table, but Pleistocene megafauna are standard.

Its a lot of fun figuring out stuff like if Giant Condors are ridable, if Mammoth bones can be fashioned into full plate and what kind of things can be made with Giant Armadillo hides.

...

SPBP

Because most people never watched Walking with Prehistoric Beasts as a kid

>Most people never watched the entire "Walking with" series.

Walking with Monsters was the best anyways.

>tfw a local tv-channel aired dinosaurs and beasts when i was a kid but not monsters and cavemen

>tfw the dragon version of these was filemd as a mock documentary and my dumb ten year old ass believed it
>i told family members

Actualluy distant cousins to whales.

When you think about it, aren't we all maaannn

So, a dire wolf.

>current year media targeting manchildren systematically refuse to incorporate the latest knowledge on dinosaurs
Then explain Angie over here

Monster Hunter has always placed a lot of effort into making it's creatures like real animals.
MtG had feathered dinosaurs not because that's realistic, but because it fit the design they had in mind.

But that's pretty much it. Kids still get to see the JP dinosaurs because at this point dinosaurs are effectively fantasy creatures. And there's still a shit ton of people getting pissy that the world isn't like their childhood fantasies that spread the wrong information.

Nani the fuck

>t-rex
>with feathers
Deviljho unironically looks more similiar to the real thing

>Monster Hunter has always placed a lot of effort into making it's creatures like real animals.
Yeah sure thing man

Sorry to break it to you user, but you are kinda late to the party.
Birds are scientifically considered a form of dinosaurs for a few years now.
Just like pluto isn't a planet anymore (or did they change that again while i was shopping ?)

You know we found multiple t-rex scales all over it's body right?

>picks unironically something that's stated ingame that they are unable to classify it's ecological niche/position and therefore slap "elder dragon" on it.

Ok then

Lets just say that modern elephants are among the least retarded looking creatures of their lineage.

googled it, and i'm dissapointed.
How exactly does bumpy skin disprove pseudo-feathers ?

Okay i'll give you that one, tho nobody likes zinogres design.

The fact that it was found in places where we know Yutirannus had feathers and the fact that we have NO proof of t-rex being feathered outside of a chinese cousin on the other side of the planet
Until we actually find feathers there is no reason to believe it had them

>nobody likes Zinogre's design
It's literally in the top 3 most loved monsters in the series
MH monsters are like real animals in the sense that they sleep, eat and fuck, outside of that they have NOTHING realistic

>It's literally in the top 3 most loved monsters in the series
What ?
Maybe i just suffer from bad taste.

Yes actually, the Fatalis is relatively realistic compared to your usual fantasy critters. Not that MH doesn't do stupid shit and has done so especially during the third gen. But you still see that the monsters are living creatures made of muscle and bones.

Compare to pic related which looks like it has it's spine broken several times and can't eat anything wihtout getting stuck with those stupid horns.

But you picked a picture of the extra-spikes frontier version of a monster, so I just assume you are shitposting.

>extra spikes version
That's literally the same model you ultra retard

Coming out of wormholes is realistic?

>looks like it has it's spine broken several times
There's no way a neck could bend in the Fatalis' neck does, those depictions of snake plesiosauruses are outdated

My bad, mistook the lightning for bigger spikes like thunderking. Probably should've clicked on the picture.

What, you're telling me you haven't taught your cat how to build ftl engines?

>Haha science says T-Rex had feathers take that that nostalgia fags!
>W-w-what do you mean there's no evidence

Anyway, anyone who believes big dinos were covered with feathers is a retard, that would just lead to over heating.

>tho nobody likes zinogres design.

Dire Pig?

Khezu is on the list so i will use my rigth to doubt said list.

The japs love Khezu for some strange reason, even though the US fanbase is way less favorable to him. But Zinogre is still massively popular, there's a reason its come back every game since its inception, and its popular in the US. Plenty of people talking about wanting it in World just on this board.

Well fuck me, guess i just don't like "clifford the giant blue spikey dog".
Fuck that mutt.

>mutt
Zinogre is purebreed you fucking plebian, the only mutt is Odogaron, fucker probably carries some sort of disease

Zinogre literally attacks you with his parasites.

Those are clean bugs that have a symbiotic relationship with the dog, hardly parasites

Sometimes it feels like we're living through the End of Culture (akin the End of History theory). There's no new franchises anymore. Everything is calcifying. Everything is empty nostalgia bait. "Remember this thing? Remember that thing?" Even RPGs are starting to suffer from this. What's the hot new thing in tabletop right now? It's not some new mechanic or new way of approaching game design, it's fucking D&D Basic homebrews

Dire Sheep/Whale wathever.

Honestly it looks pretty much how I figure some tyransaurids looked. Nosehorn aside.

T-rexes had wings and firebreath?

The worst is people thinking Spinosaurids had feathers.

I forgot those actually, the neck ruff in particular strikes me as very much in line with probably how some species looked.

...

I like using dire animals as animals with a disease like rabies, but scarier.

I mean they're a weird as fuck bunch in general. Though that whole region was also very unique in terms of ecology.

I'm too tired and lazy for this
youtube.com/watch?v=CxE68c9rYa0

No they likely didn't because it wouldn't make sense for their quadrupedal aquatic lifestyle

You're like a little baby, I've seen people seriously thinking about sauropods having feathers.

>they're a weird as fuck bunch in general
What makes you think that?
>because it wouldn't make sense for their quadrupedal aquatic lifestyle
Yeah that's the point i'm making

Meant to quote

Mostly the entire dorsal fin. Also, why don't we see more gorgonopsids in fiction.

>unironically posting trey "spinosaurus evolved into penguins" the explainer
Also we have no proof of feathers on t-rex while we have physical proof of scales

>Yeah that's the point i'm making
Is it? You seem to be piss and moaning about even the science of it I'm suprised you aren't bitching about Spino not being a crocodile faced T-Rex that stood up bipedially and hunted like every other therapod

*Dire baaaaaa*

What the fuck are you even talking about you idiot

>b-b-but e-celebs
like fucking clockwork.
And it was already explained the existence of scales does not disprove feathers, we already knew T-Rex had scales, but that does not prove the entire body was scaly especially when some of it's relatives did unambiguously had feathers

>some of it's relatives did unambiguously had feathers
Yes, and the fact that we found t-rex scales in places where it's relatives had feathers disproves them
>like fucking clockwork
If you post retards that's all you're gonna get

That's the happiest looking Dire Warthog-Cat I've ever seen.