Do you guys consider Adventure Threat Ranking to be Realistic or Can it be done Internally Consistent?

[FlutterOfCrows]

I've recently run into a rabbit hole on the topic. Its a common staple in fantasy that stuff like monsters have Ranks F to SSS for their danger.

How realistic is it though? The Military in many countries do Threat assessment so it has a basis in reality.
But what do you guys feel Is a realistic depiction of it in Fantasy (Or at least a internally consistent depiction).
or does the standard Numeral one provide enough framework in spite of its simplistic framework?

 

[Piisfun]

Frankly, the classic system is a massive over-simplification.
Short a few specific weapons (mostly nukes), you can't really sum up how dangerous something is with just a single value.

How hard can it hit, and what does it hit with? Does it have ranged attacks? Can it travel by air, water, or tunneling? Does it tend to travel in packs?
Does it attack humans on sight, or try to avoid them?

For physical attacks, what are its weak points? Which works best: slashing, piercing, or blunt force?
For magical attacks, what elements is it resistant to, and conversely, weak against? This may differ on different places on the body.

A massively simplified single value might be used to communicate with people lacking any combat knowledge, but for any true adventurer, this kind of information would be a critical lifeline, especially at higher levels. You may have some dumb thugs in the lower levels, but unless they can learn to take every advantage they can get, they will never get the harder, more lucrative jobs.

 

[BigBadBoi]

I like systems where they rank based on how much damage they can cause rather than just letters and numbers. An example would be one punch man's classification for monsters.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

I always found Experience Point Value more useful than Challenge Rating myself... But both were just rough guidelines and I have no idea what those Adventure Threat Ratings mean...

 

[Pulpitt]

Simplistic classification is okay as long as they are not confusing like SSR, SRR+? What the...?

 

[ChronicSleeper]

I agree with ranking things based on the potential damage a monster could cause. Even then, tying the rankings to established catastrophes would do a better job of portraying the danger of any monster far better than a rank could.

 

[xedale]

You rank missions by how dangerous they are.
None can survive. Only the best can survive. Only veterans can survive. Trained warriors are likely to survive. Untrained men can survive. Not dangerous.
Monsters can be ranked for fun, based on which type of human can beat them 1 vs 1. Not for money.

 

[King_Awonz]

I've recently run into a rabbit hole on the topic. Its a common staple in fantasy that stuff like monsters have Ranks F to SSS for their danger.

How realistic is it though? The Military in many countries do Threat assessment so it has a basis in reality.
But what do you guys feel Is a realistic depiction of it in Fantasy (Or at least a internally consistent depiction).
or does the standard Numeral one provide enough framework in spite of its simplistic framework?

I agree with other user's take. Rank them on how much damage they can cause instead of an arbitrary strength guage. Or how many teams of a certain level(depending on the power system) it would take to hunt it down.

 

[NineHeadHeavenDevouringSerpent]

You want an example of how real life threat assessment works? Just look up fire retardants classifications, how different fires are classified and named.

There's not just big, bigger, biggest. Most of the times it is usually A bigger, AB big, ABA biggest, AA big.

Now those A could mean some other things entirely. Like Kinetics, B could mean Biohazard, BA could mean Aerial, So ABA is a creature that is Kinetic and aerial.

This is just a crude example of what it could be, you need to search up more for authentic ones.

Simple power classifications are for the general public. For those in the know, a classification should detail everything they need to know for preliminary engagements within moments.

This streamlines databases and quickens how newer threats/creatures are classified. Nobody is out there memorizing every Inch of the bestiary or even checking every minute for new bestiary versions.

 

[RainyLiquid]

I like systems where they rank based on how much damage they can cause rather than just letters and numbers. An example would be one punch man's classification for monsters.

I like this also.

 

[ThrillingHuman]

I like worm threat ranking, it's based on several categories and doesn't show the threat as the force required to meet it.

 

[Kamael89]

I like it being internally consistent.