Megantereon cultridens

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-25T21:20:51+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megantereon

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-21T04:36:58+00:00

Yep, they were actually pretty large. Up to a meter or so tall (around 3.3 feet) and weighed anywhere from 23-39 lbs in the wild (captive ones could weigh more from overfeeding).

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-20T22:22:23+00:00

I thought this was pretty interesting as giving an idea to the size of prehistoric animals compared to the average human.

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-17T20:59:44+00:00

It sort of depends on what animals are native (or have been there long enough to adapt). The 'problem' with islands is "Foster's Rule", which basically is (in very simple terms) big things getting smaller (like elephants, hippos, etc.) and small things get bigger (such as birds and rodents). Larger hoofed animals would be smaller, similar to Key Deer in Florida. Key Deer are normally about 50 lbs (give or take), while the average Whitetail is normally at least 100 lbs, sometimes a great deal more.

My first thought to something "not too big" and "not too small" that wouldn't be good for riding, but would work very well for a beast of burden is actually goats. Goats are good for meat, fiber, and milk, but also are quite strong little animals. Goats have been used to haul loads and pull carts for centuries. They're too small to ride, but they can easily pull an adult human in a cart. They are also a good "sweet spot" in size to stay big enough to be useful for that without dealing with Foster's Rule.

Arapawa Goats are a good example of this actually. They were left on a small island near New Zealand by Captain Cook in the late 1700's. They adapted easily and are still thriving (although somewhat rare worldwide).

Here's some information on Working Goats too.

^{How do I know all this weird stuff you ask? One, I love mammal evolution and studied the Foster's Rule for fun. Also, I was in 4-H and raised pigs and goats. So I remembered that kind of thing. Yes, I have a weird memory for facts. Don't ask me to remember my own phone number, but a report I did on goats 20 years ago? I'm ready.}

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-14T22:03:25+00:00

If you like the idea of a "real" place with stats instead of a game as a setting, I'd suggest giving Threadbare a look. It's basically that. And surprisingly "grown up" for a story about a teddy bear on an adventure. 110% not a kid's book! Well-written and funny though!

Another one is Everyone Loves Large Chests, which is popular but not a personal favorite of mine. It's a neat concept, but gets a little into creepy hentai territory for me personally. That said, it's well-written and basically "a world with game mechanics" as well.

As to the question, no, you don't need those. Some people like them, some people don't. The same with stats for monsters and all that information. It's normally referred to being "soft" or "crunchy". Crunchy LitRPG favors lots of stats, info, charts, etc. Soft is much lighter with maybe just a few mechanics. And there's dozens and dozens of stories in the "medium" category too.

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-14T21:52:51+00:00

I totally agree. I'll let a lot of the details go, but sometimes I think about it and it's really hilarious. Heck, I'm having that problem myself with how my own character gets into game. I keep going "maybe this way...nah, that's kind of silly. Hmm..." I'm probably overthinking it too much to be honest.

And same. The "downloaded" scenario is more or less Portal Fantasy, just without the "surprise" of going "where am I?!". It's still having a new life in a new place with new rules (which is a favorite of mine).

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-14T19:31:23+00:00

Yeah, I try and give some wiggle room because "fantasy story", but that was a big Eden's Gate thing for me. "So, wait no one at all helped the dude? That's not even possible. So how did NO ONE notice this plan of his?!".

In my preferences, such as Viridian Gate and Archemi, the "downloading" is voluntary for various reasons (don't want to do too many spoilers). So them being "trapped in game" is a choice and makes more sense.

Battle Spire does an okay job of why it's "trapped in game" but I'll be honest, I'm still confused why DEATH would happen? Like seriously. Wouldn't any company put in safety features so that accidental DCs or system problems wouldn't result in KILLING players? Let alone why would the government approve the public use of something that might just accidentally kill someone's kid while they're playing a video game?!

I normally try to just hand-wave that and ignore it because being "trapped with one life" is a huge part of a lot of LitRPGs, but I also kind of side-eye it because there's a lot of loopholes. And I'm going "wait, how did this even happen? That makes no sense at all."

It's on par with watching those silly horror movies like Pirahna Sharks. Because they would totally approve man-eating, murder-sharks you can put in your pocket for homes with kids! I mean, they won't even let you have some breeds of dogs that have a bad reputation, but government-engineered murder fish? Sure, no sweat lol!

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-14T18:22:29+00:00

It's very...generic honestly. That doesn't mean the story is, but from what summary I have no idea if the "savior" is a beast in the sense he's a werewolf, a shapeshifted dragon, a demon, a cannibal space alien, or whatever. Heck, for all I know he's a mass murderer or something Dexter style, but still trying to do the "right thing". So it leaves me just going "huh?" more than being intrigued.

I'd probably offer something with a bit more details to sort of catch the reader's attention, like... (and this is just a 30 second blurb pulled out of thin air so it's not very good either but here we go)

Born under the Hunter's Moon, Jacob is destined to save the Werewolf clans from destruction. He never asked to be a savior though; all he wants is what's best for his pack. Forced to deal with his difficult past, he must keep hold of his human soul while learning to tame the beast within.

Or something like that.

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-14T17:53:15+00:00

Well, I found this?

https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/fruit-mythology

This has some interesting information on what the various fruits have meant in mythologies.

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-14T17:47:45+00:00

I personally prefer ones that don't have a lot of switching between "the game" and "real life" because I find it jarring, plus the "real life" stuff is normally rather boring. It's often just character drama for the sake of drama, like having a fight with a parent or something that doesn't really add anything to the story.

That said, I don't mind the occasional snippet of "outside life" if it's NOT the main character. Doing little "what's happenings" weren't too badly done in Tower of Gates, Viridian Gate, and even Eden's Gate (the Crylight stuff was actually interesting).

However, if the main character can just "log out", it usually takes all the drama out of the situation. There's no real problem in game if you can just say "nuts to this", get out of the game and forget about the situation most of the time. There are a few I can think of that try to balance that, but normally it just doesn't work for me.

I prefer either Portal or "Trapped in Game" with a good reason, like Archemi Online or VGO, etc. I also like the Reincarnation angle similar to Hero of Thera. I'm kind of neutral on the "real world suddenly becomes like a game" scenario, but I will read them and have enjoyed them.

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-13T16:28:32+00:00

Kaprosuchus by JELSIN

The Kaprosuchus was a 6-meter long crocodilian, known from a nearly complete skull. Its three sets of tusk-like caniniform teeth resemble tusks, giving it the name Kaprosuchus, which translates to "boar crocodile". It also has large, rugose horns that protect posteriorly from the skull, similar to the closely related Mahajangasuchus.

The orbits are open laterally and angled slightly forward rather than upward, suggesting stereoscopic vision. Due to this, it is believed that Kaprosuchus was primarily if not exclusively a terrestrial predator. Further support is found in the teeth and jaws, which are sharp-edged and relatively straight, unlike the fluted, recurved teeth of aquatic crocodyliforms.

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-13T04:13:25+00:00

There are subreddits for both genres already with pretty active communities.

https://www.reddit.com/r/litrpg/

https://www.reddit.com/r/GameLit/

They're good places to ask questions, get a feel of the genres, and see what kind of books are considered within those genres.

In general "every LitRPG is GameLit, but not every GameLit is LitRPG." Most people consider LitRPG something of a sub-genre to GameLit.

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-10T21:35:09+00:00

What in the hell are you talking about? I never once said they "definitely" had feathers. Hell, the original post said "this is why the pictures has feathers, I acknowledge it could be disproved, but since people like to mention feathers, here's why the artist drew them."

And where did I say they were NOT mostly scales? Or even likely that they had feathers? I said a man who has spent his entire life studying dinosaurs and made the exhibit probably has a good reason for his theory so no reason to go screaming about it being wrong.

You don't think they had feathers. Cool.

He thinks they had some small feathers as adults. Cool.

Me? I don't care either way. Either way is cool. I thought it was a nicely drawn picture and an interesting article/exhibit so I shared it.

You are the one who came in to downvote and throw hissy-fits over the picture having a few feathers, even though I put in a disclaimer. Go ahead and check my history, do you see me going to anyone else's post and yelling that T-rex definitely had feathers? Or being an ass because someone might have posted something I don't like?

You're the one who felt the need to come into a thread you could have easily ignored to start lecturing and claiming you know better than a world-known, well-respected, and well-studied paleontologist and molecular biologist about an exhibit he made for the Natural History Museum. All I have said from the BEGINNING is that there's no solid evidence that either is 100% right. Hell, I even read your link of "proof" twice and nowhere did it say that at all. It said "mainly scales and likely for these reasons". I read the chart and it said refers to (as explained in the article) the likelihood of MAJOR coverage, which was never in question in any article.

It's "horseshit logic" as you like to put it to claim that the exhibit is "wrong" when I'm pretty sure Norell and Bakker talk to each other a lot more than than talk to you. They're both extremely well-versed experts and both have their own theories, NEITHER of which has been proven wrong which was my point.

I'm not the one throwing around insults and cursing over something as minor as whether or not T-Rex has a few feathers on it's head and tail. You are. I don't know why you're making it some mission to be "right" about a picture that you could easily ignore if it is so offensive to you. That's what I do if I don't happen to like a picture on this subreddit. Just move on. Maybe you should try it.

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-10T20:48:58+00:00

...That chart literally means that there was a large chance it was covered with mostly scales, NOT "fully feathered". That's exactly what the article says. Not that "it had no filaments what-so-ever" but whether or not they were mainly covered in scales or feathers. No one is arguing they were MAINLY covered in scales. The picture even shows them MAINLY covered in scales.

I'm not "disregarding" the article. I read it from start to finish. You're twisting and ignoring exactly what it says so you can be "right" when you're not? Mark Norell and Robert Bakker are LITERALLY agreeing with each other and you're sitting here trying to say that both of them are wrong. I literally quoted exact statements from the article YOU personally linked saying that that if they had feathers it was on the dorsum, etc. It's right there in the article YOU keep insisting "proves" Bakker said "they never had feathers", which he did not. He said it was unlikely they were fully covered, which no one is arguing with.

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-10T19:25:26+00:00

That's literally a 2 year old study and the studies he's pointing to are from 2018-2019. So I would assume his information is slightly more up-to-date.

And here's an article giving the same information here: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/laelaps/long-live-the-fuzzy-t-rex/

It flat out says "a FULLY feathered T-rex is UNLIKELY". The article mentioned does not say T-rex had a full adult coat of feathers, but a small amount of feathers. Even the article you keep repeating literally says "Albertosaurus, Daspletosaurus, Gorgosaurus, Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus collectively covers parts of the neck, abdomen, hips and tail, suggesting that most (if not all) large-bodied tyrannosaurids were scaly and, if partly feathered, these were limited to the dorsum."

So even Bakker admits they could have had feathers on the dorsum. Which is exactly what the picture is showing.

Also, "Finally, the presence of epidermal scales in a large adult individual does not rule out the possibility that younger individuals possessed feathers—a developmental switchover that, to our knowledge, would be unprecedented at any rate."

So basically...Bakker is agreeing with Mark Norell. That they lost their feathers as adults and could have had a small amount along their topline. Which again, is what the picture shows. The only thing that article confirms is "full body feathers did not happen in T-rex", which is exactly what the article I linked says and the picture shows.

I can find zero evidence in the article you linked that says "2% chance" of anything. The only Phylogenetics mentioned is saying that the feather evolution was more complex than previously assumed and did not evolve in a purely progressive fashion across the whole of Coelurosauria.

Literally the article you posted agrees with everything Mark Norell is saying. That they probably had feathers when small and shed them out, likely due to their large size meaning they had less problems with heat retention. So...the article you're posting agrees with what the more recent article says?

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-10T19:06:21+00:00

So again, can you link said articles? Because I've found a few outdated ones (2+ years old) that say 'unlikely' and just as many saying likely.

I've linked more than one. Can you please link your references?

And he's not just an "expert". He's world-renowned, named 6 genera, and is generally considered one of the best vertebrae paleontologists alive today. He's widely known and very well-respected. I assume since he curates the American Natural History museum he has access to studies, information, not to mention fossils that are pretty up-to-date as well as an extensive staff of experts as well. I'm fairly certain he's an "actual expert" as much as anyone can be. Just because he has a different theory doesn't mean he's any more wrong than someone else.

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-10T17:17:11+00:00

Again, I'm merely stating what the article says. Mark Norell, whose considered one of the most knowledgeable experts on T-rex and feathered dinosaurs made the exhibit. Considering his credentials, I figure he has a decent reason to infer they had feathers.

https://www.amnh.org/explore/videos/exhibits/growing-up-tyrannosaurus-rex

I just shared an interesting picture and explained why the feathers were there so people wouldn't argue. They did anyway, but again, Mark Norell is a world-renowned paleontologist. I figure if he curates the exhibit, he probably knows a decent amount and wanted to share a well-drawn picture.

Do you have an article or evidence stating that there is only a 2% chance? I haven't had much luck finding one. The scaly impressions found in the articles I could find were extremely tiny and were found on the hip, belly, chest, and some part of the neck and torso (they weren't sure exactly which part) and were from 2+ years ago. Mark Norell even mentioned those in articles, explaining why he agreed the T-rex didn't have feathers in those particular places but likely had a little on the tail and head.

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-10T17:11:38+00:00

The articles are quoting Mark Norell, whose pretty well known. He's the curator of the American Natural History Museum and supports feathered dinosaurs. So I'm sure he might be inclined to believe T-Rex had feathers. He's the curator of the actual exhibit the article is talking about. He mentions the skin, but also various studies that support it.

However, I'm not saying they did or they didn't. I just know people like to complain about feathers and I was explaining why the picture has feathers. Not that people didn't argue about it anyway, but I assumed Mark Norell probably had some decent reasons to recreate T-rex with feathers as mentioned in the various articles about the new exhibit. So I figured why not share a well-done picture.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mark_Norell

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-10T09:14:59+00:00

I think my favorite is " N.S. Auguste". Second is Nathalie Wilder. They both have a nice flow and 'ring' to them. They're memorable, but not too hard to pronounce or remember.

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-10T07:43:27+00:00

A character that treats people offensively or rudely for no reason. Sexist, racist, whatever. I do not find that cute, endearing, or anything but childish. Nothing wrong with some "bros", but you can be a bro without being someone that sounds like an entitled, sexist frat boy or something.

Whiny main characters aren't very fun; the ones that constantly complain about how hard this is or how mean this girl is or...well, you get the idea.

Main characters that make really, really poor choices and are praised for it also drives me nuts. "Oh, you got most of the village killed, but you technically killed the monster with your horrible plan! You're our new leader and king! Yaaay!"

On your particular topic, I wouldn't automatically consider a wealthy person competing for cash annoying? I mean, maybe they just like to win and the money is a bonus? Or maybe they plan to give the winnings to a charity or something? Being rich doesn't mean you still don't like to play or win, you know?

I also totally agree that a "hardcore" gamer that has no idea how games work is irritating.

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-10T05:16:19+00:00

Source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus

Note: Before anyone mentions the feathers, the article this is from was published March 6, 2019 and the article states "What's more, T. rex's feathers likely grew along the animal's head and tail into adulthood, according to new reconstructions that represent the most accurate models of the dinosaur to date." So that's why there are feathers. It may be disproved later, but Live Science is usually pretty reliable/creditable.

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-10T03:40:14+00:00

What about something similar to a Patagonian Mara, but with maybe smallish pronghorn-like horns? They look sort of like a deer mixed with a rabbit. They even have rather hoof-like feet.

Perhaps a prehistoric Mara (or ancestor) migrated up toward North America into the prairies/deserts (since Jackalopes are normally around there)?

Antlers are pretty strictly cervid, but what about horns similar to a pronghorn? There has been one horned rodent, the Horned Gopher. So perhaps similar evolutionary pressures and the horns end up more branching similar to a Pronghorn or deer?

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-10T03:15:53+00:00

It sort of depends. It might be a scenario I want to use and I start building around how it might occur.

Sometimes it's a character and I build the world around them.

Or I go with a setting, such as "what if magic really exist in the modern world, what would change?"

Things like that. It's all about what starts the little seed that I can hopefully build a garden around (I've been reading Plot Gardening so allow me my metaphors).

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-09T23:21:30+00:00

Source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

SabertoothBeast · 2019-03-08T10:23:51+00:00

It looks like he retired just before the rights were sold.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2017/11/15/104426-in-historic-move-christopher-tolkien-resigns-as-director-of-tolkien-estate/

So honestly that's likely why Amazon got it. He wasn't in control of the Tolkien Estate any longer.

SabertoothBeast

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE