D&D 5e 2024 defines a monster as “a creature controlled by the DM, even if the creature is benevolent.” The definition for NPC also classifies them as a type of monster. That means every PC you turned into an NPC for a later campaign grew up to be a monster - ThreadSky

barilleon.com • 55 days ago

D&D 5e 2024 defines a monster as “a creature controlled by the DM, even if the creature is benevolent.” The definition for NPC also classifies them as a type of monster.

That means every PC you turned into an NPC for a later campaign grew up to be a monster

Comments

barilleon.com•55 days ago

I think this is an interesting contrast to Draw Steel’s recent definition of a monster, which is basically “the instance of a creature the heroes are fighting right now.” A villain is a type of always-monster. But a goblin you don’t engage isn’t a monster.

barilleon.com•55 days ago

It feels like maybe we’re trying too hard to make a back-definition for the term “monster” because fighting monsters is a fun and snappy way to describe play. But maybe enemy would be a more accurate term, because otherwise it feels too philosophical to me

barilleon.com•55 days ago

In D&D 24, the game unilaterally decides everyone else is a monster so we don’t have to. In DS, creatures become monsters by virtue of standing in the way of heroes (in the most uncharitable reading I can give).

barilleon.com•55 days ago

The problem is that the word monster has OTHER connotations besides “what has stat blocks in a role playing game.” Some of them are dehumanizing, empowering, scary, exciting. It’s a weird baggage-ridden term to try and add a clinical design definition to. (And DS acknowledges this!)

wildrosemage.bsky.social•54 days ago

Yeaaaaaaah I very much dislike that decision and will be ignoring it in all my games.

pero.gg•55 days ago

I like the Japanese term "aite," which means partner or companion, but is also used like "enemy"

It lends itself of a view of a fight being like a game or dance, where even if the combatants are on opposite "sides," them opting in inherently creates the conditions for the battle to exist

pero.gg•55 days ago

I think that's kind of what DS is trying to get at with its definition, unfortunately I think we are a little bereft of compact one-word terms in English to describe "you are the one I am fighting but I'm not making moral judgements about it"

joeauerbach.bsky.social•55 days ago

I know this won't shock you, but I prefer the draw steel definition.

Because the other one seems basically meaningless.

camdaxon.bsky.social•54 days ago

we should call 'em fighties

scooterbeast.bsky.social•54 days ago

This also means that any PC that has romanced an NPC is, according to the RAW, a monster-fucker.

dhodgs.bsky.social•54 days ago

I thought this was common knowledge....

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply