Suggestions

To be honest, I wouldn't mind this. SDs, while having a beaklike muzzle, don't scream 'griffons' to me, and, if you look at various sources, griffons have a wide variety of body shapes.

They could bring out a fluffy feather version (not snake like like coatls, but more beefy). It doesn't have to actually LOOK like a griffon, but be inspired by one.

Alternatively, they could skip feathers completely and make a griffon looking dragon without them. A scaley griffon.

There are tons of possibilities, and honestly, having one like it already doesn't and shouldn't rule out having another. I mean, I would like another wyvern (I would love swiftwings, with minor alterations), but we already have banescales. By that logic, it would mean that we couldn't get another wyvern because we already have banes.

I kind of agree with other folks of having [insert animal here] dragons maybe getting generic or formulaic, but I like the idea of a new breed with like.. a hooked beak nose. And I don't mean the Skydancer nose, I mean BIG OL' beak nose with some sharp teethies. Or feathered ears like gryphons have rather than just feather crests that all the feathered dergs ever all have.

Though please not another lion-y tail.. I feel like a few dragons have that sort of look/shape in their design already, and while it looks nice, it'll get so boring if it keeps being done.

I also kind of like the idea with some features that seem to "clash," the way the lion vs. eagle of a gryphon does. Many of the dragons now have this, but it's in a subtle way where the features mix together rather than look striking against one another, I think that might be a fun change.

[quote]I kind of agree with other folks of having [insert animal here] dragons maybe getting generic or formulaic[/quote] This idea makes... zero sense to me. There is nothing more generic or formulaic than Guardians or Imperials? I mean. They're literally copy-and-paste Western and Eastern style dragons (with wings tacked on in the case of Imperials). But they're either generally well-liked or the most populous dragon there is. This is also exactly what I hate about dragon suggestions in this forum. "I'd like a dragon with feathers and a beak." "Oh, you mean a Skydancer?" No. If I wanted a Skydancer I'd go get a Skydancer. I don't know about you guys, but I think I trust the staff to come up with something cool and creative with any template. All creativity is on a template, anyway; I don't see a problem with suggesting a template we'd like. I like gryphons and I'd most like something with a beak. Skydancers don't have beaks.

[quote name="Almedha" date="2020-11-29 22:57:26" ] [quote]I kind of agree with other folks of having [insert animal here] dragons maybe getting generic or formulaic[/quote] This idea makes... zero sense to me. There is nothing more generic or formulaic than Guardians or Imperials? I mean. They're literally copy-and-paste Western and Eastern style dragons (with wings tacked on in the case of Imperials). But they're either generally well-liked or the most populous dragon there is. This is also exactly what I hate about dragon suggestions in this forum. "I'd like a dragon with feathers and a beak." "Oh, you mean a Skydancer?" No. If I wanted a Skydancer I'd go get a Skydancer. I don't know about you guys, but I think I trust the staff to come up with something cool and creative with any template. All creativity is on a template, anyway; I don't see a problem with suggesting a template we'd like. I like gryphons and I'd most like something with a beak. Skydancers don't have beaks. [/quote] so much this. I constantly see people say 'oh, this suggestion is a XXX' and when trying to compare the two, while I can often see some similiarities, most of the time, they are different enough that they would not be easily mistaken for the other. For example, I play a game called Gryffs. It is, surprisingly, all about griffons. They currently have about 8 different breeds, and they all look very different from each other. You have more eagle like ones, ones that look more swanlike, even a hummingbird type, and a corgi type. Yet, they are all obviously based upon gryffons. I don't see why FR couldn't do something like that as well. They could go more lionlike with the dragon, or they could go more birdlike with the dragon, or even just go in a completely different direction, and I trust them enough to realize that making a breed that is 'Breed 2.0' in looks wouldn't be a good idea. I would love a more catlike breed, as I love cats, and few sites actually handle cats well enough for me (usually going for more prehistoric cats, or big cats rather than domestic type :P) but I usually see Tundras get brought up on threads like that, and let me tell you, except for the fur, I see nothing catlike about a tundra. So, I would expect a griffon like breed to look nothing like skydancers, except in the general sense. But there is plenty of room on site for multiple breeds that were inspired by whatever concept people want..

[quote name="Almedha" date="2020-11-29 22:57:26" ] [quote]I kind of agree with other folks of having [insert animal here] dragons maybe getting generic or formulaic[/quote] This idea makes... zero sense to me. There is nothing more generic or formulaic than Guardians or Imperials? I mean. They're literally copy-and-paste Western and Eastern style dragons (with wings tacked on in the case of Imperials). But they're either generally well-liked or the most populous dragon there is. This is also exactly what I hate about dragon suggestions in this forum. "I'd like a dragon with feathers and a beak." "Oh, you mean a Skydancer?" No. If I wanted a Skydancer I'd go get a Skydancer. I don't know about you guys, but I think I trust the staff to come up with something cool and creative with any template. All creativity is on a template, anyway; I don't see a problem with suggesting a template we'd like. I like gryphons and I'd most like something with a beak. Skydancers don't have beaks. [/quote] Those kind of suggestions usually get a lot of traction. Ones like this, where the request is literally 'gryphon with dragon wings', don't. Taking an animal or mythical creature and adding just enough bits to make it dragonlike is an incredibly common design pattern and one a lot of people find really boring. It's the difference between this, a wolf with dragon bits glued on: [img]https://64.media.tumblr.com/54a84ca0ef9b809b55719a09e3de7736/tumblr_p4ska8YQZt1rxvxzbo1_400.jpg[/img] And this, a wolf-inspired dragon: [img]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/df/5f/4b/df5f4b33ca203d7a0fbedb7f2bdb0183.jpg[/img] I agree with you that using inspiration from other creatures and asking for certain bases to be used is fine, but that's not what OP suggested.

[quote name="Vendrus" date="2020-11-30 06:17:45" ] I agree with you that using inspiration from other creatures and asking for certain bases to be used is fine, but that's not what OP suggested. [/quote] I don't see anything in the OP about it being "literally a gryphon with dragon wings." It says "[i]like[/i] a gryphon, but with dragon wings and claws" and that they think it's a cool "concept." So really it literally says [i]not[/i]-literally-a-gryphon. The problem with going with a text-only description of a new dragon suggestion is that there's really only the words to go off of, so if all you expect is [i]literally[/i] a gryphon, then I guess that's what you get. Likewise you'll get something different if you're expecting something [i]like[/i] a gryphon. There's no way to describe something like this in words and people get a picture close to what you're talking about without using a common frame of reference. Even one as abstract as "gryphon." As Jemadar pointed out, you could even use "literally a gryphon" and all of us could come up with wildly different pictures. There are two gryphons I've seen before that I'm particularly fond of that come to mind when I think about gryphons. One has the front half of a heron-like bird and the back half of a greyhound or something lean like that (it may have had a lion tail, I don't know). 100% exactly a gryphon. The other one has the front half of a chicken and the back half of something more bulldog-like. Again, 100% a gryphon. But there's nothing similar about them except that they have bird front-claws, mammalian back-paws, feathery wings, and beaks of a sort. All that to say... no. I think we aren't having a similar enough conversation to agree.

Something like this? [img]https://i.imgur.com/rUH722Y.png[/img] Thread found here https://www1.flightrising.com/forums/sug/1418807

[quote name="Almedha" date="2020-11-30 06:33:26" ] [quote name="Vendrus" date="2020-11-30 06:17:45" ] I agree with you that using inspiration from other creatures and asking for certain bases to be used is fine, but that's not what OP suggested. [/quote] I don't see anything in the OP about it being "literally a gryphon with dragon wings." It says "[i]like[/i] a gryphon, but with dragon wings and claws" and that they think it's a cool "concept." So really it literally says [i]not[/i]-literally-a-gryphon. All that to say... no. I think we aren't having a similar enough conversation to agree. [/quote] Fair enough. I read 'like a gryphon but with dragons wings and claws' one way and you do another - and lots of people in the thread are reading both ways. At this point I'm hoping I just misinterpreted your original post as more aggressive towards people who interpreted it the same way as I did than you meant it to be.

So, I wasn’t really sure what I had in mind when I was saying “Griffin like”, I was mostly throwing it out there up for other more creative people’s ideas.

I think in the case of the dragon-inspired wolf or such, it’s best to keep the head relatively dragon-looking because of apparel, if it would be modern.

[quote name="Vendrus" date="2020-11-30 08:07:18" ] Fair enough. I read 'like a gryphon but with dragons wings and claws' one way and you do another - and lots of people in the thread are reading both ways. At this point I'm hoping I just misinterpreted your original post as more aggressive towards people who interpreted it the same way as I did than you meant it to be. [/quote] I think we must read it differently. I re-read my first post and I guess there's no accounting for tone in text. It doesn't read as aggressive to me at all. I wasn't intending to be aggressive, at least no more than suggesting things like this are asking for a carbon copy of an already-existing breed. [quote=@DragonLover999]I think in the case of the dragon-inspired wolf or such, it’s best to keep the head relatively dragon-looking because of apparel, if it would be modern.[/quote] I think you may be misunderstanding what a "modern" breed is? (And someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but...) A modern breed is something with four appendages that are like arms or legs, one head, one tail, and two wings. There's nothing about a standard factory-produced gryphon that would keep it from being modern. All of the pictures posted here would be modern breeds. There's nothing keeping this from being a modern breed: four legs, two wings, a head, and a tail. [img]https://i.pinimg.com/originals/73/ee/c5/73eec5a11a5394519702ad7a94f3c6e9.jpg[/img] Granted, it's confusing because 2/3 of our Ancient breeds pretty much could have been Modern because of this...