Good Monster Ranking?

[Forgotten_One]

In Isekai or most fantasy works monsters are described with Threat levels ranging from E to S or SS-rank I think that its pretty simple to understand but a bit boring. So here is my question does someone know a good ranking system or a way to create my own ranking system? I have been raking my brain thinking.

 

[Chaos_Sinner777]

Could try to indicate the monster's "Rank" by how they interact with each other. Like a strong monster wanders near a crowd of weaker monsters actively fighting some adventurers, and the weaker monsters all back off even though they were fine fighting adventurers that were clearly already stronger than them. Or you could establish some sort of scale of evolution. Like lower monsters have normal flesh, higher ones have stone bodies, and top tier ones have metal. Then you could tell their rank by appearance alone. Or judge their threat level purely on size categories. Perhaps rank them based on the purity of their blood? Like, each type of monster has a supreme existence at the top, and the strength of their descendants is determined by how closely they are related. Just a few off the top of my head. Though I don't dislike the classic ranking system myself.

 

[Forgotten_One]

Could try to indicate the monster's "Rank" by how they interact with each other. Like a strong monster wanders near a crowd of weaker monsters actively fighting some adventurers, and the weaker monsters all back off even though they were fine fighting adventurers that were clearly already stronger than them. Or you could establish some sort of scale of evolution. Like lower monsters have normal flesh, higher ones have stone bodies, and top tier ones have metal. Then you could tell their rank by appearance alone. Or judge their threat level purely on size categories. Perhaps rank them based on the purity of their blood? Like, each type of monster has a supreme existence at the top, and the strength of their descendants is determined by how closely they are related. Just a few off the top of my head. Though I don't dislike the classic ranking system myself

The Ideas are all really good. I don´t know if I´m capable of realizing them. I also don´t dislike the Classic ranking system but it gets a bit boring if every story is the same even if that makes the order of strength easy to comprehend.

 

[ArcanePunkster]

A good comparison to look at are certain MMORPG, JRPG and Looter Shooters.
It doesn't have to necessarily be copied or adapted from a monster hierarchy. You could always use their classification of rarity of the weapons in those games.
For instance, the game Anthem uses the word 'Masterclass' and I also believe it uses 'Grandmaster' to distinguish between rarities.
Another good example is Borderlands weapon rarity system as they use more unique words for higher rarities.
You can carry these systems over and then apply them to your monster ranking.

You could also look at Monster Hunter games and see how they rank their monsters but, I've only played one of those games so I'm not all that familiar with it's in game systems.

 

[Kldran]

I'm not sure how well it works for monsters, but I've seen stories use metals for adventurer ranks, with the bottom being something like copper, and the top being something like Adamantium.

 

[NotaNuffian]

I recalled a CN who called out the alphabet system and calls it stupid and just refers the monsters by their threat level.

City-Destroying
Region-Destroying
Country-Destroying
World-Destroying

Fun note is that they don't have Continent-Destroying because they only have ONE fucking continent, so World-Destroying actually refers to a monster capable of wiping out that one single continent.

They also don't have ranks lower than City-Destroying because of the guildmaster saying "do you really need to differentiate the strengths between ants?"

And then there is another CN that differentiates the monsters like
General
Marshal
King
Emperor

 

[Nahrenne]

In Isekai or most fantasy works monsters are described with Threat levels ranging from E to S or SS-rank I think that its pretty simple to understand but a bit boring. So here is my question does someone know a good ranking system or a way to create my own ranking system? I have been raking my brain thinking.

How about a system like in CN: The Charm of Soul Pets?
They're put into categories like beast, fairy, flying, devil but then they're also ranked by the rate at which they get stronger and how strong they are.
Like a Commander class is stronger than a Soldier class, etc...
There's also their version of levels: Stage 1, Rank 3 - basically meaning level 13; Stage 5, Rank 8 - basically meaning level 58, etc...

X

 

[K5Rakitan]

I'm not sure how well it works for monsters, but I've seen stories use metals for adventurer ranks, with the bottom being something like copper, and the top being something like Adamantium.

Sounds like the player ranking system in Heroes of the Storm, except it goes bronze, silver, gold, platinum, diamond, master, and grand master. People make jokes about "wood" players who are really, really bad.

 

[TachimeSan]

Lesser, Common, Greater, Grand, Ancient, Divine, etc. are what I commonly use.

 

[AdLeto]

I like how they name the containment level in the SCP universe
Safe - don't need to explain
Euclid - anomalous or unpredictable
Keter - difficult to contain or dangerous
Thaumiel - usable for further containment
Neutralized - no more anomalous or destroyed
Here's the link for more details:
http://www.scpwiki.com/object-classes

 

[Forgotten_One]

I like how they name the containment level in the SCP universe
Safe - don't need to explain
Euclid - anomalous or unpredictable
Keter - difficult to contain or dangerous
Thaumiel - usable for further containment
Neutralized - no more anomalous or destroyed
Here's the link for more details:
http://www.scpwiki.com/object-classes

I really didn´t expect to see the SCP Danger levels here. here take a little SCP-999

 

[Forgotten_One]

Naturally

 

[BenJepheneT]

I get the letter grading is boring, but I think it's so common because it works, and it works flexibly.

1. F
2. E
3. D
4. C
5. B
6. A
7. S
8. SS
9. SSS

That's 9 different "strength" rankings you can work with, which gives you a wide spectrum of what your monsters are gonna be. Even if you use a different naming system - like the metal rankings or numerical rankings, it's more or less just a change in packaging. As long as there's no meaningful difference between "D grade" and "silver grade", you might as well use the one people are more familiar with (unless metallurgy is specifically part of the culture of your world).

If it were me and I specifically wanted to make a different kind of ranking system, I wouldn't start with the monsters. Monsters do not rank themselves. Monsters just exist. Rankings are arbitrary, artificial classifications created by humans (et al) for their own convenience. So you should probably start by asking: who within the story is the one that created this ranking system and for what purpose.

Traditionally, the ranking grades tend to apply to adventurer guilds, so they're specifically meant to be quantifying the threat level of the monsters in order for, often illiterate, mercenary characters to be able to quickly and easily understand whether or not this is a fight they can fuck with. A D-level adventurer understands they can fight D, E, F monsters, and maybe C in a party, but above that they're better off leaving it to others. The rating system works in tandem with the adventurer rankings. Another facet is that numerical rankings are also, you know, used in grading in education, so it evokes presumed audience knowledge and familiarity with someone's capability. A straight A's student is a very capable student, so it's easier to immediately feel, as a reader, that an A rank adventurer is very capable, or an A rank monster is very powerful.

So who is the ranking for? Who made it? For what purpose?

Maybe the system was originally actually just a classification system made by a researcher, and it was adapted and simplified over time for mainstream usage in monster hunting for strength ranking (or whatever you're gonna apply it to)? So you can have categories of monster types (land monster, flying monster, aquatic monster etc.) and then subgroups within those classifications, like Nahrenne suggested. For myself, I'd do something like "Goblin: L4S -- Land, 4th rank, Social", which informs "they're a land-based monster, they're inherently weak, but they tend to congregate into social groups, aka can overwhelm with numbers even if their individual strength is weak". This is the sort of ranking I can both imagine having been an anthropological classification made by a researcher for shorthand notes that ended up filtering down into hunting classifications. This is just an example of thinking about the source and working out from there, rather than trying to come up with a ranking and then working backwards on how to apply it to the story/world.

Whatever you do, if you're posting on SH, I would suggest making use of the glossary feature the further you move away from known systems so readers have something to refer back to, and put some footnotes in. They'll learn it over time if you bake it into the world properly but they'll need constant reminders to start.

To add to this, the "Land, Air, Water" "Social, Tamable, Loner, Intelligent" aspect can be played and integrated into societal workings of your world itself. The alphabetical rankings can serve as a gauge for the Monster's average power level but however, if it can be tamed or negotiated with, it can bring an entirely new aspect to the dynamics of your monster system.

Say there's a wyvern, an S² tier son of a bitch. It reigns the air and is very fucking dangerous. HOWEVER, they're also intelligent, and can be taught to understand basic human communication, like the local language and stuff; if they're willing to anyway. They can be negotiated to protect the land and return, be given a staple source of food from the kingdom. It can even aid some "heroes" through some contract that you can add to the "magic" aspect of the world, if you're planning to have that.

For another example, here's a land-based Slime. An easy ass E to D tier. A slime is easy to dispatch and can generally be taken out as easy as a out of control pooch. However, they're very Social. Like, really fucken Social. They come and go in swarms like locust and use numbers to their absolute advantage. They're easy to slay, but their comrades and easily slurp up their remains to add to their power, making them weak but very, very dangerous.

Or ANOTHER example, a werewolf. Those fucks aren't so dangerous, probably around C or B and, rarely, A. But, they're Solo and Intelligent. Though they're easy to confront by veteran or skilled warriors, they're a fucken pro in hiding amongst the population. Their kills often erupt under chances where capture is at a nil, and requires expert identification to even see signs of werewolf-ery in their day to day life (intense craving for meat, heavy bloodlust, heavy flow of "mana" if you're planning to have "magic").

Point is, monsters needn't be a one-dimensional scale of "this is weaker, this is stronger". Like nature itself the food chain works in different ways. Animal behaviour goes beyond how easy they could be killed in a 1v1 situation. The wild doesn't work like that; there are so many aspects and niches that goes into play that even the tiniest of carnivorous bunnies can fuck you over if you're not careful. And, if you can acknowledge that, you could even use them to your advantage.

 

[Ankur_93]

I don't have a cookie-cutter ranking system. Instead, I use a combination of the number of Evolutions monster has gone through [called Tiers] and the power of their respective [Race]. So this means that while a thrice evolved caterpillar [Tier 3 with weak race] will be physically weaker than say a newborn Lion cub [Tier 0 strong race] the caterpillar would be able to resist because of the Skills it possesses. However, it won't be able to kill the cub because of inherently strong the other's race is.

 

[Forgotten_One]

I don't have a cookie-cutter ranking system. Instead, I use a combination of the number of Evolutions monster has gone through [called Tiers] and the power of their respective [Race]. So this means that while a thrice evolved caterpillar [Tier 3 with weak race] will be physically weaker than say a newborn Lion cub [Tier 0 strong race] the caterpillar would be able to resist because of the Skills it possesses. However, it won't be able to kill the cub because of inherently strong the other's race is.

Sounds interesting but I don´t know if I could do it like that in my case. And I´m reading at least 5 chapters of I reincarnated as in Immortal Caterpillar? it sounds like something I could like.

 

[Freesia.Cutepearl]

I haven't really figured out what I'm going to do in my story yet, but for the most part, there are two distinct versions of "monsters", and one of them, the sources, were 'wiped out' nearly two centuries before the events of the story.

"Sources" and "Infected"
Sources were Humanoid monsters (vampires, werewolf, harpies, etc.) that had Human intelligence and Personalities, etc.
They could create and control the "Infected", all the Sources were working together and could share control if needed.

The "Infected" are the same humanoid monsters, but act more like Zombies with the Intelligence of a smart predator when not controlled, they only live to feed, and infect others to procreate.

I really don't think it makes realistic sense, looking at what happens here on earth, to create a hard ranking system, like A class, C class, etc.. At least, not for me.

It seems real-world Military stuff seems to base threats of numerical things, such as the number of troops an army has, with consideration for their equipment, so like, 100 soldiers from Army1 with X equipment, is able to take on 1000 of Army2 with Y equipment.

Or for bombs, we measure them in megatons of TNT of destructive power.

So to me, it seems more realistic to rather than say, oh it's an A-rank mission, to instead be like, "We believe there are X monsters of this type, with Y abilities, that can do Z damage, we recommend a minimum of A troops with B training, and C equipment."

I hope I made.. some sense?

 

[Forgotten_One]

I haven't really figured out what I'm going to do in my story yet, but for the most part, there are two distinct versions of "monsters", and one of them, the sources, were 'wiped out' nearly two centuries before the events of the story.

"Sources" and "Infected"
Sources were Humanoid monsters (vampires, werewolf, harpies, etc.) that had Human intelligence and Personalities, etc.
They could create and control the "Infected", all the Sources were working together and could share control if needed.

The "Infected" are the same humanoid monsters, but act more like Zombies with the Intelligence of a smart predator when not controlled, they only live to feed, and infect others to procreate.

I really don't think it makes realistic sense, looking at what happens here on earth, to create a hard ranking system, like A class, C class, etc.. At least, not for me.

It seems real-world Military stuff seems to base threats of numerical things, such as the number of troops an army has, with consideration for their equipment, so like, 100 soldiers from Army1 with X equipment, is able to take on 1000 of Army2 with Y equipment.

Or for bombs, we measure them in megatons of TNT of destructive power.

So to me, it seems more realistic to rather than say, oh it's an A-rank mission, to instead be like, "We believe there are X monsters of this type, with Y abilities, that can do Z damage, we recommend a minimum of A troops with B training, and C equipment."

I hope I made.. some sense?

It makes sense but I think it depends on the story if it works as intended. As an example if the creature that is intended to be kill in the mission is unknown or there exist a concept of magic or skills which would boost its attack or defensive power than its hard to give a specific description as long as the monster isn´t completely known. This would give the world of the story a kind of lack of information in missions indicates higher danger vibe. I don´t know if I describe I correct or if I didn´t understand it completely.

 

[Typing...]

Rankings are wholly dependant on who is using them. When trying to denote what is dangerous and what isn't, it is important that the information is conveyed in an easy to digest manner as possible.
So when trying to figure out the rankings think about who would care about them the most. The Muggles normal person. These people need to know if they have to make a detour to get to work, hole up in their cellar, evacuate, or pray to the gods that the nightmare that walks among us will eat the neighbors instead.

Think about the culture of the world your ranking is used in. How would they describe a problem? If the average mob can't read it's safe to say that using letters or numbers isn't going to be helpful to get the point across.

Here are a few ranking examples.

Describing monsters based on what type of settlement it can terrorize.
House, Hamlet, Village, Town, City, Province, Country.

Describing monsters based on the homeland security advisory system.
Green(Low), Blue(Guarded), White(Elevated), Orange(High), Red(Severe).

Describing monsters based on cockney money slang.
Rare, Nicker, Hen, Fiver, Tenner, Score, Pony, Ton, Monkey, Grand.

Describing monsters based on shapes.
Dot, Line, Tri, Quad, Penta, Hex, Octa, Hepta, Circle.

 

[Freesia.Cutepearl]

I just realized. We rank Storms with numbers too.
Tornadoes:

The Enhanced Fujita Scale (EF Scale)

Hurricanes:

Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale

Tsunami:

http://neamtic.ioc-unesco.org/images/Neamtic/PDF/intensity-scale.pdf

 

[Ral]

Rankings are wholly dependant on who is using them. When trying to denote what is dangerous and what isn't, it is important that the information is conveyed in an easy to digest manner as possible.
So when trying to figure out the rankings think about who would care about them the most. The Muggles normal person. These people need to know if they have to make a detour to get to work, hole up in their cellar, evacuate, or pray to the gods that the nightmare that walks among us will eat the neighbors instead.

Think about the culture of the world your ranking is used in. How would they describe a problem? If the average mob can't read it's safe to say that using letters or numbers isn't going to be helpful to get the point across.

Here are a few ranking examples.

Describing monsters based on what type of settlement it can terrorize.
House, Hamlet, Village, Town, City, Province, Country.

Describing monsters based on the homeland security advisory system.
Green(Low), Blue(Guarded), White(Elevated), Orange(High), Red(Severe).

Describing monsters based on cockney money slang.
Rare, Nicker, Hen, Fiver, Tenner, Score, Pony, Ton, Monkey, Grand.

Describing monsters based on shapes.
Dot, Line, Tri, Quad, Penta, Hex, Octa, Hepta, Circle.

Most are classification, not ranking. Related terms but not the same. Though, classifications are actually more useful than rankings.

Imo, rankings are very arbitrary and useless. I don't really understand why these writers rank monsters and force their story/setting to fit this artificial system. Well, we rank competitors in a tournament or students in a class but those are artificial situations and the rankings have purpose for which these situations are created. Applying ranking on the real world as a means to explain it just don't make sense. And building a (fantasy) world on such rankings makes no sense either.

Maybe these are taken from games? It is not like video games doesn't make for awful stories and movies.