Worldbuilding help

>>51999147

I suppose you could have a giant chasm where the air pressure is higher.

>>51999147

>Bigger monster in sea
Doesn't need much justification. There's very little functional limit to the size of marine animals.

>could anything that lived on place like that survive on normal places again.
Definitely. It would take geological timescales for life to adapt exclusively to higher oxygen levels. Your giant insects that evolved there couldn't leave, but even after ten thousand years, humans could probably leave the area with little trouble.

>would it be reasonable to justify existence of bigger beasts on land by making plant life more rich?
We don't know. Probably not. The large size of, for example, sauropods, probably had most to do with the fact that being huge actually means you can get away with a slower metabolism, and therefore proportionately less food per tonne of bodyweight. Along with this, eggs need as much food to make as live young, and need more complex genetics to develop, but aren't stored in the body while they gestate, so make reproduction far less risky for a large sauropod than a large mammal.

> ... If not are there any other reasons?
Reproductive efficiency, indeterminate growth and biological immortality are probably a winning combo. Look at nile crocodiles, which have high reproductive efficiency and indeterminate growth; those bastards get huge. They don't appear to be biologically immortal, so you won't find colossal, ancient crocodiles, but that's because it wouldn't be evolutionarily advantageous; they'd compete with their offspring for large prey animals, which they would require due to their decreased agility This would put a chokepoint in the size their offspring could reach without starving. Now, if prey animals are also indeterminate growers this problem is solved.

>Is it possible for there to exist a place on planet which would have higher oxygen percentage then the rest of it
I don't know enough about this one to decide either way, so can't run with the idea, sorry.

>>51999147
Are you applying this level of realism and detail to everything OP? Because you could easily go "there are giant insects" and, I reckon, most players would accept that as a thing providing that it fits thematically with the sort of game you're running so it doesn't seem incongruous.

1)Yes,but insects growth is more complicated than that. You can always just say that your world has different laws of physics/that it's !notinsects.
3)By real life examples. Or saying that their eco chains are so complicated that humans can't understand them. Considering that it's 16th century setting,they mustn't understand it.
4)
>Also would it be reasonable to justify existence of bigger beasts on land by making plant life more rich?
No
>If not are there any other reasons?
High trees.
Random mutation.

>>51999652
>>51999837
I forgot to mention that I just won't info dump the reader about everything. I would just like to create a consistent setting.
I think that good example would be Tolkien when he wrote LOTR. He already had created his pantheon and he did not infodump us about anybody, yet he sometimes compared some characters with heroes from past and Valars.

>>51999531
>Doesn't need much justification. There's very little functional limit to the size of marine animals.
So for exapmple pic related would not be too far sketched?

>Definitely. It would take geological timescales for life to adapt exclusively to higher oxygen levels. Your giant insects that evolved there couldn't leave, but even after ten thousand years, humans could probably leave the area with little trouble.
This one is really helpful. It is one of the main plot points.

>part about land animals
Well I guess I have new things to research. But thanks for guidelines.
>>51999219
While that is not the original vision that I had it is still worth considering. thanks.
Also I should say that animals don't need to be the real counterpart from earth. I think that Avatar the last airbender does good job in this.

File: dragon_turrtle.png (915KB, 636x822px) Image search: [Google]

915KB, 636x822px

>>52000622
Forgot the pic.

>>51999147
Dammit /tg/ I wanted to sleep tonight

>>52000646
totally feasible. That's not even significantly bigger than a whale

>>51999147
>1) Is it possible for there to exist a place on planet which would have higher oxygen percentage then the rest of it and thus make things like pic related possible. I was thinking about making a continent that got discovered to have this properties via trees or plants but problem is I don't know if there is some really big biological reason why this could not work and if it could work what would be the properties of these plants/trees

Best way is a continent that has a very low elevation and is humid. Oxygen levels go down as you go up, so conversely you cant just make most other areas higher above sea level to explain the difference. Then put a broad, shallow shelf around the low, humid continent. Voila: more oxygen. Also planets aren't spheres. Sea level can be lower, on this low continent, and therefore have higher oxygen levels.

Or just say "ok, so insects on this island developed a better breathing organ." Problem solved, and insects are now bigger.

>2) So if humans lived for some generation would they be able to breath on normal land again. Or for that matter could anything that lived on place like that survive on normal places again.
Not a problem at all. All life on Earth has evolved through cycles of different oxygen levels. Raise animals in different oxygen levels and their bodies will grow to appropriate sizes. And they wouldn't have much more difficulty moving around on the other continents than you would, if you went hiking above ten thousand feet.

>3) How to justify the existence of bigger monsters in sea?
As already said: absolutely no justification is needed. Evolution isn't designed--it's just what happened. It could have happened other ways through nothing more than a stroke of luck.

>4) Also would it be reasonable to justify existence of bigger beasts on land by making plant life more rich? If not are there any other reasons?
Same answer: non-issue.