Game/Fantasy World Questions/Comments/General Musings

Me and a couple of guys in the chat have discussed certain elements of game/fantasy world staples and applied a bit of our real world logic to them. Things such as "what the status of townspeople would be if base adventures start at level 1?", "how do you prove you killed a monster if the body disappears?", "why the organization is often called 'adventurers guild' when there are other applicable names?"

The reason I create is this thread is so an accessible record of these and other questions exists.

Now for the latest discussion: What separates monsters from ferocious beasts? Is it a biology? Is it ability or intelligence? Is it a distinction without difference?

For me, I suppose I lean closer to the biology of these two categories. A lot of times, monsters are not simply animals born in a normal fashion, they are, at least in the beginning, products of evil gods, demons, or random occurrences born of a supernatural power that other creatures seem to be able to live without for some reason. And while I do indeed see them as having far greater abilities than most animals, sometimes intelligence, I strike that up to their unique existence, as opposed to skills an animal learns in a lifetime or over generations of evolution.

I was always under the impression that it's always been dependent on the world in question.

I've noticed some worlds treat all beasts as monsters, while others distinguish them by domestication.
In other worlds it's a question of biology, as you said above, where there is an additional distinction within them such as a 'monster core' a 'crystal' or 'mana' some sort of catalyst that pushes them out of the beast category. I've even seen a few others use them interchangeably although those are rare.

If I were to give it a defining umbrella I would consider it to be a creature influenced by outside factors to develop in a way that diverges from its natural evolution. Things like increased intelligence, growth of a core, heightened aggression would all be side effects.

My weigh in.

> Now for the latest discussion: What separates monsters from ferocious beasts? Is it a biology? Is it ability or intelligence? Is it a distinction without difference?

Simply put, it's their Status.

A animal is simply point, and animal.

A monster is of a higher level. Not only does it have possible beast like qualities(maybe even looking and acting like one) it's that they hold knowledge and power not held by lower creatures. This is normally seen in being able to manifest mana(even if in the most basic form of just allowing them to be able to be stronger and more sturdy then your average animal.)

A good example being once introduced to mana their body becomes rougher and using .45 ACP rounds doesn't do shit anymore. Of course this also leads to mana pooling and possibly creating crystallized forms(aka mana shards).

Another thing is that unlike animals they can hold abilities such as moves, etc...

This is a quote from a book I'm reading, thought I'd post it here seeing as it's relevant to the topic.

So a common shared theme amongst all our theories and collective data is: "Monsters may exist in the world they occupy but they are not part of the[that] world's natural[uninfluenced] order. Not necessarily man made but of alien origin and design."

Would that be a fair summation of the thoughts thus far? Feel free to correct any points that run contrary to any points you have made. I like this thread a breakdown of the world's we love.

For me, I wouldn't say the existence of a monster would necessarily be an imbalance. Actually, in some cases it might create more balance. The chaos that can offset an imbalance of too much order, like a wildfire that partially clears a forest or field in order to let things grow in their place. After all, rather than saying balance being a set of scales that are always equally leveled, I'd say it's more like scales that no one side of a duality perpetually hold the other side at the higher level.

I do believe that that is a fair assessment of things we've brought up so far. Of course, I think you yourself brought up that in some worlds a beast and a monster may not actually be separate. Beasts could be monsters or monsters could be beasts. In a world where this proves to be the case, I think we could say that is indeed being part of that world's natural order. I suppose this all depends on whether you think of a monster as a living thing or state of mind though.

Gotta say, I'm loving what I'm seeing in this thread.

Yup though in those instances they stood apart as more of an exception than a standard. And sadly like many stories those universes never got a conclusion so who's to say how it would have developed.

And Yes I hope to see some more insight as well. I figure once we get some more data in we can push to the next stage on what makes a 'monster a monster'.

If a dungeon were to "give birth" to monsters, what would that count as?

Good Question. I guess it would depend on the nature of the dungeon and whether you would even consider the dungeon a form of monster itself.

Well... Dungeon being a monster... it really depends, for example. Is the dungeon core(assuming it has a core) a cognitive being? Does it have emotions, wants, feelings, fears, etc... Is it a living being of it's own self? Does it have a dungeon master? Are they being "born" naturally or is the dungeon just using mana to selectively bring them into existence? What is being "born" through manga considered. There are a lot of questions and follow ups

Though if you were to keep it simple... if a monster has a core(which assumingly has mana) can it not be considered a monster? A cave is just a cave, but if it has a mana core of any kind, can it not be called a monster? Is the whole dungeon a breathing living thing? Or is it just being manipulated by the core? Can the core only be called a monster? What is the cave? Is it still a cave? Would it instead be called a dungeon? What declares a dungeon?

A couple of plausible scenarios I could think of: [Mind you, some of these could be grouped together just laying out my thoughts]

- Dungeon is a weird term like how 'home' can be used as a noun for any occupied enclosure. Living in a tent can be a home/ so a location housing monster(s) could be a dungeon.

- A Dungeon is a form of macrosystem

- A Dungeon could be an unnatural eco shift to a location making it a viable breeding/living environment for monsters

- It could just be a broad term given by local inhabitants to describe uninhabitable but resource heavy locations on the map. This could just happen to have monsters present.

- It could be a result of the same alien force creating monsters.
-----Meaning the dungeon could have specifically crafted, which would imply either an automated system or a consciousness actively enforcing a will.
-----The Dungeon itself is living. I wouldn't necessarily use emotion as a way of determining intent as it could easily have them and due to physiological or unknown differences simply be undetectable to us. It also could be instinctual a life form existing purely for this like a parasite or single celled organism.
-----The Dungeon is merely a manifestation formed by a(n) excess/lack of a variable. But it begs to question why it manifest itself in such a way.

-The Dungeon could even run counter to the existence of monsters. Like the world trying to enact its will to correct itself. A Dungeon could be a form of prison used to contain large populations or powerful monsters, what we would consider bosses.
Which would explain the unexplained resources like weapons armors and rare materials, the world's attempt to help you help it.
*This is the theory that I'm most fond of.

-Lastly the dungeon is just a random coinciding series of events that happen to overlay with the existence of monsters, Whether they are formed through natural world laws or external sources there actual correlation to monsters is merely that of timing.

-90 points for bringing sci-fi into a fantasy thread. Bad enough that bookstores mix the two together, can't be having it here. Even though this is a game/fantasy world thread and technically sci-fi game topics could technically be brought up at some point.

Joking aside (for the most part), I can see what you're saying. I on the other hand prefer the ideal (adjective of idea meaning) versions of chaos and order. A plan for everything, controlled variables, rationality vs randomness, luck, irrationality.

Assuming the world's existence was random and not a clay sculpture, I think I can agree to this point. Course, and I might be wrong, weren't the weapons from FF7 supposed to be monsters that were born from the planet but the slept until crisis time and were supposed to function like white blood cells to save planet?

Apologies if I'm not making sense, my mind's been a bit jumbled past few days, hence why it took a while to respond.

Well, with what looks the monster conversation calming down a bit, but always subject to reopen at any point, let's bring up something else. What's your take on the scenarios where humans can be cut, shot, burned, blasted, and frozen without instant death?

Now, having read some Arthurian lore, I think one possible explanation might lie with Arthur's long lost sheath. While he held it, he could receive wounds, but they would not bleed and he could fight for hours while still being hurt. It might be possible a similar power of protection is wrapped around some worlds which could explain this phenomenon. Of course, obvious it would be tweaked a bit, because battle immortals are rare, and, especially in some games, not everyone bleeds when they take damage.

Well using weapon as an example I don't believe they were ever called monsters even in the official guides. Only ever referred to as Guardians/Defense Mechanisms or other variations of that. So that was a player assumption. Similar to Summoning in game.


I've been curious about that for years. I know some worlds attribute that to blessings, with stronger blessings providing more powerful defenses against such things. It could even be the way magic is handled, For instance Mana could be naturally released from a body like heat, but this could be specific to you kind of like a temporary tag or how stronger characters can make auras. This light magic particle sheet probably provides a sort of Life Support silhouette. Which is why characters don't freeze solid instantly or burn when someone hits them with an inferno. It probably affects physical damage in a similar way by keeping parts designated as you within well you. Though a sufficiently powerful force could tear through it. I imagine this passive ability is tempered through extreme conditions which is why characters from inhospitable locations always show unnatural resilience to damage when placed amongst a normal group of characters.

Series without magic. I look at them as a peak human form. They train in conditions that would put the best of us in hospitals, bc their way of life demands it. Losing an arm and continuing to fight is quite doable. Being stabbed in the head or gut and fighting, also still possible. Being burned or suffering from having part of you flash frozen and still fighting, possible as well. All of that can be done even not a peak performance. As long as the heart can beat and a signal can be sent through your nerves to move it's possible. Terrifying but possible [Watch 127 Hours or check out some extreme survivor documentaries] and considering the physical ability of most game and show characters is closer to that of a gorilla than man it's even more plausible.

Well part of the reason probably is more to do with ratings than lore, ie goriness would take something to the equivalent of an M rating. But I do think the plot armor reason you thought of works in those world's logic.

Well in English version, Hojo says it's a monster when Shinra is in the crater.

I feel that is an entirely plausible idea for a more fantasy world setting. Of course, I wonder if it is appropriate to equate it to heat. Would the protection focus on core areas when the body is in danger like with hypothermia, or would it continually protect the entire body as a whole, regardless of wounds? Would a sort of "starvation" inhibit this force?

And I can agree that some shooters have gorilla-esque people running around, even Kevlar that doesn't even make a person stop to deal with their broken ribs. Of course, my fault for not clarifying, I meant those case of being frozen solid or immolated. I know people have been brought back from being wholly frozen, and badly burned as well, but I figure even after the initial survival, there's gonna be a high chance of death(unlike GTA where getting lit on fire is nothing if you can find a med kit before being gunned downed).

BTW guys, if you have anything you want to muse about or discuss, feel free to bring it up. No need to wait on me for a subject.

Yeah heat was the closest thing I could think of to compare it to. A source of energy constantly being produced by the body, that is diffused from the body. I would imagine the concentration would probably be highest around the core of the body or the head where magic/mana seems to concentrate the most by default. Though it moving is highly possible as it probably moves and changes intensity according to active/passive stimuli akin to other biological functions. I'd imagine starvation and other vital needs such as sleep and thirst would have a noticeable impact on its efficacy.

For the second part. I imagine there may be a scientific explanation to at least some of it. Though curr. that knowledge is out of my scope. To the research mobile.

Subject. Planet size,and it's overall influence on the world and world building. How well do you feel that the size of a planet plays into the world itself or is it even accounted for?

For many worlds in the Fantasy field, they focus on one kingdom or 3 at most for a story but the size of the world's typically are never truly explored. Though within the story they tend to traverse a massive series of vastly different climates and biomes implying a large span of distance or an extremely small planet.

Think I read somewhere that humans also release light from the body. Might also consider electricity, since the human body can both store and release the energy (sometimes as pesky static.)

Sometimes the size of a world doesn't really play into the story. There are times when a world reflects the sort medieval-esque setting that many go for. What I mean is that for a large part, your enemy/ally is going to be the closest ruled land to you. And stories that reflect that usually remain contained to those lands that are the focus of conflicts. Think of FF12, where despite airships traveling around the world, most of the story remains contained between two warring empires. You essentially explore only as much of the world as lies between the two(don't even visit one side).

Then there are worlds where the size is to show how problematic the issue at the moment is. Evil empire trying to rule the world, widespread natural disasters, sickness to people or the land, etc. All of these things really show when it's not just an isolated corner, but the whole world itself is suffering from effects. But even if the world is completely embroiled in the problem, there is still going to be focus. Typically it's going to be where the main characters are from, and/or possibly the place that's doing all the bad things. There's also stories like Grandia, where the focus is on a destination for most of the story rather than where it is at the moment. But typically, focus is going to lie on the places that are necessary to the story rather than ones that really have nothing to do with it.

As to whether the worlds themselves are large or small, I would say that game players are given a convenient compression of the actual journey. I think the world's not going to be outrageously small, just that in a game, if you are actually traveling in real time what it would take to get somewhere, very few people would pick up the game.

1. 9:28 PM - Lunex:
   flame, chaos, possibly cerb, I've got a dungeon question (and it's not really a spoiler since it's established early in book 1)
2. 9:29 PM - Lunex:
   does it make sense that there's only one natural surface entrance to the dungeon? seems a bit odd that only one in the world would exist

So Lunex as stated a question. I thought I'd put it here instead of answering in shoutbox so that it can stick around for longer

Now where you get me is "natural" entrance... you are them assuming people have made new entrances? Now I can possibly agree with you... But first natural tunnels or somethings leading to the surface in different areas. It'd also be assumed that people would know about these as most of the higher floors are fully mapped(roughly, not fully due to dungeon shifts). That is assuming it's on one of the higher floors. Then again seeing the dungeon as a living thing, why would it make a straight shot entrance to a lower floor? That'd defeat the purpose of the dungeon's levels !

Now to what you may be hinting at as man-made entrances. A slight spoiler for later in the danmachi novels, It's nothing major but maybe you don't want to know... so I'll spoil tag the rest. Though I believe it's brought up earlier, it's not actually talked about in more detail till I believe volume 4. (Short answer for those who still don't want to read the spoiler, I believe it's not possible for man-made entrances either)

Does it make sense? I believe so, if I were a dungeon core, I'd only want one entrance into my dungeon and only from the highest floor.