# What Is A Monster?



## Nagol (Jun 6, 2013)

> Between the two mechanics, only one offers a potential for failure, or for an interesting, unexpected result: the die roll. Choices may be made more frequently, but they lack the tension and surprise of a roll. If you choose to take a particular path in a dungeon, for instance, you are signing up to experience the consequences of that action. There’s no questioning the outcome: because you went Right, you find the treasure. Because you went Left, you find the Dragon.




I disagree with this assertion.  Choices can and do fail whenever there is information hidden from the player.

As an example, I ran an adventure in D&D years ago where the PC was trying to ingratitate hinself with the royal family.  He was approached to investigate a noble's murder -- seemingly a crime of passion committed by the royal heir!  The player investigated, detrmined the son's guilt and reported the result to the king.  _The player was wrong_. It was a modest frame I expected exposed because the inconsistencies were there for the player to discover.  _The player chose to end the investigation and trust his initial assesment._  The heir's exile and expulsion was unexpected and interesting development that came form pure player choice as was the continued freedom and presence of the real murderer.  

The eventual discovery of the truth gave a new prism to view trouble dogging the PCs over hte course of the campaign.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 6, 2013)

Nagol said:
			
		

> The player investigated, detrmined the son's guilt and reported the result to the king. The player was wrong.




I perhaps should have worded that 'graph a little better, but the thrust of the point there is that the result of your choice is simply a consequence of your action. The character chose to believe in the son's guilt, and so the consequences played out, even if the consequences themselves weren't exactly what either party expected. When the character made that decision, he wasn't overcoming a challenge, he was simply declaring a statement that then happened. 

If the character had to overcome a challenge to determine the true guilt in the crime, then that reads differently. In my view, monsters serve the game mechanical role of being that challenge. It's not a matter of making a choice, but of overcoming a difficulty.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 6, 2013)

"That is what a “monster” is in D&D: a creature that the PC’s must  overcome, or suffer some risk. They can overcome this creature with  knowledge, with influence, with avoidance, or with combat. The monster  itself threatens them with death in combat, hazardous movement,  inflexible minds, and dark mystery."

Not exactly. A monster is simply ANY entity in the campaign world that isn't a player character. The cheerful village priest, the scheming goblin rogue, the 5 headed hydra, and the potato merchant met upon the road are all monsters. 

Not every monster is there to present a challenge because not everyone the PCs will meet in the campaign exists specifically to test them in some way. Doing so would produce the most rightfully paranoid group of PCs to walk the earth. Some monsters are simply NPCs that share the world with the players, have thier own goals and desires, and do not spend every waking moment thinking about how to foil the PCs in some way. 

Every moment of play in an rpg does not have to be some kind of test, challenge, or adversity for the players. It is harder for players to accept the game world as a real place if it is endlessly out to get them at all times. Conflict is the still the driving force behind campaign events but there must be more than that to experience so that the conflicts have some context to fit within.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 6, 2013)

I think a definition of "monster" broad enough to include things that you don't need to roll for is perhaps too broad to be useful as a metric for game design. It's not very useful functionally if it includes anything that's not a PC, since that would lump together a trap, a tree, an aboleth, the sky, every blade of grass, the barkeep....and these clearly fill different needs in play.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 6, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I think a definition of "monster" broad enough to include things that you don't need to roll for is perhaps too broad to be useful as a metric for game design. It's not very useful functionally if it includes anything that's not a PC, since that would lump together a trap, a tree, an aboleth, the sky, every blade of grass, the barkeep....and these clearly fill different needs in play.




I wouldn't call a blade of grass or a poison dart trap on a door "an entity". Also the concept of something being of any worth to the game being measured by the presence of a die roll is concept made of so much fail it cannot be measured. This would equate to the game being no more than the rules.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 6, 2013)

So why is a poison dart trap not a "monster," but an ear seeker (for instance) is? The definition I'm getting at in the article is a functional one -- defined by a mechanical challenge to the PC. What is useful about "every 'entity' that is not a PC"?

The article definitely is more of a starting point than an end point, so I'm not interested in the last word here, just in thinking about this in terms of how the thing is used at the table.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 6, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> So why is a poison dart trap not a "monster," but an ear seeker (for instance) is? The definition I'm getting at in the article is a functional one -- defined by a mechanical challenge to the PC. What is useful about "every 'entity' that is not a PC"?
> 
> The article definitely is more of a starting point than an end point, so I'm not interested in the last word here, just in thinking about this in terms of how the thing is used at the table.




An ear seeker is an organism (an entity). A dart trap is not. 

Not everything in the game world should be or needs to be defined strictly by it applicability to mechanical challenges because the game itself is more than a series of mechanical challenges. 

A game world is made so much richer by the inclusion of elements that just feel like they _belong_ to that world instead of existing solely to fill a mechanical niche. The life of a character is all one piece, not a series of encounters or obstacles. 

So not all monsters are opponents or even antagonists and thus it doesn't make sense to defne them solely by the mechanical challenges they provide.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 6, 2013)

> An ear seeker is an organism (an entity). A dart trap is not.




Okay, how is that distinction useful in play?



> Not everything in the game world should be or needs to be defined strictly by it applicability to mechanical challenges because the game itself is more than a series of mechanical challenges.




There's two basic ways any player causes their character to do something in the world: they state that it happens (and hope for DM approval), or they roll to see if it happens (and rely on the rules to state the results). The DM then reacts the same way, changing the circumstances and putting it back on the player. 

How do monsters function in gameplay, given that?

My thought is that they function as the thing that the PC's need to roll to overcome, in terms of the design of the game. They're not choices the PC's make, as far as I can tell (with the possible wrinkle of PC races, maybe...). 



> A game world is made so much richer by the inclusion of elements that just feel like they belong to that world instead of existing solely to fill a mechanical niche. The life of a character is all one piece, not a series of encounters or obstacles.




Sure, but the the playing of the game involves a series of encounters or obstacles. That's what your character does when they go on adventures and live their life. 



> So not all monsters are opponents or even antagonists and thus it doesn't make sense to defne them solely by the mechanical challenges they provide.




When a given bag of stats doesn't function as a challenge, I'd probably list it into a different category. A deva that allies with your team isn't a 'monster,' it's more like a treasure, in terms of functional gameplay.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jun 7, 2013)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Okay, how is that distinction useful in play?




The distinction is limited only by your imagination. Once you begin to think of game world elements as what they are instead of how they are mechanically represented, all kinds of possibilities emerge. 

Ear seekers are living creatures. That which can detect life can sense them. Once alerted to thier presence, a player may decide to harvest some to use for a clever assassination.  Thus the ear seekers exist in the game world beyond a door trap "encounter". 





Kamikaze Midget said:


> There's two basic ways any player causes their character to do something in the world: they state that it happens (and hope for DM approval), or they roll to see if it happens (and rely on the rules to state the results). The DM then reacts the same way, changing the circumstances and putting it back on the player.
> 
> How do monsters function in gameplay, given that?




Don't take that as a given and see what happens. Many activities can take place in a game via mutual player and DM interaction and the application of simple logic and common sense. If a player states that his/her character is going to the inn, then it is simply accepted as taking place. There is no DM approval required nor do any rules need to come into play to handle this. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> My thought is that they function as the thing that the PC's need to roll to overcome, in terms of the design of the game. They're not choices the PC's make, as far as I can tell (with the possible wrinkle of PC races, maybe...).




Some monsters will end up falling into this category. Others may not. The status of a given monster relative to the PCs may change over time or be contingent on certain events that take place. When the PCs enter a new city for the first time every inhabitant of that city is a monster that may be potentially encountered. Only a rare few of these encounters might involve a challenge of some sort. Others may simply be sources of information, or desired services. Perhaps the PCs meet a blacksmith and begin a relationship of buying his goods. Later, the PCs end up killing a pickpocket who tried to steal from them. The pickpocket happened to be the blacksmith's younger brother so now the PCs may come into conflict with the blacksmith. 

The blacksmith was always a monster with the potential of a variety of interaction  with the PCs. 




Kamikaze Midget said:


> Sure, but the the playing of the game involves a series of encounters or obstacles. That's what your character does when they go on adventures and live their life.




The characters explore thier world and do indeed have encounters and face obstacles to thier goals. So do monsters. The monsters have a place in the world and goals and motivations of thier own. Sometimes this brings them into conflict with the players. A monster as no more than a cardboard standup manufactured for no other purpose than to hurl themselves against players as a mechanical construct feel shallow and fake. 





Kamikaze Midget said:


> When a given bag of stats doesn't function as a challenge, I'd probably list it into a different category. A deva that allies with your team isn't a 'monster,' it's more like a treasure, in terms of functional gameplay.




Was the deva _always_ the PC's ally? Is there nothing the PCs can do that would turn the deva against them? Relationships are living things. They can change depending on circumstances. The deva is simply a monster with goals that are in alignment with the PCs. In the future it may be just a neutral entity towards the party or even a rival or antagonist depending on how things play out. 

Always give a monster an even break. Play them appropriately for thier nature. Not every monster will have hopes, dreams ,and personal goals. A mindless skeleton soldier will simply do as commanded and most living sentient creatures will care about thier lives and do whatever is in thier power to survive and further thier own objectives. Monsters that only exist to be a challenge feel like the flimsy two dimentional figments that they are and the difference can be felt in play.


----------

