Post #1137560

2026-04-13 17:28 UTC

I just bought #Shadowdark, and reading through the PDF now. And its monster listing makes the same mistake that all other #TTRPG monster manuals seem to make - they list the monsters alphabetically. This makes no sense. When I browse monsters, I want to browse them by level - so that I can find monsters around the same level as the PCs. If I want to look them up by name, I'll use the index. Therefore, monsters should be sorted by level, not alphabetically. #FightMe

Replies (5)

@cyberspark@mastodonapp.uk 2026-04-13 22:32

@enfors@ttrpg-hangout.social no, they should be sorted by native environment type, then level. I could probably endure by level, then environment though

Open ##1137559
@thorsten@social.rabenheist.de 2026-04-13 17:49

@enfors That is true.

Open ##1485183
@blind_mapmaker@eldritch.cafe 2026-04-13 18:21

@enfors Yeah, if you do levels that's a good bet. If you don't do levels or clearly graded threats sorting things alphabetical makes a little bit more sense, but even then biome, biological order or narrative role are way better. Just provide an index that's where the alphabetical listing should go.

Open ##1485186
@lextenebris@social.vivaldi.net 2026-04-13 18:59

@enfors I have a very easy and obvious counter-argument. The monster listing should be in alphabetical order. That's how we remember what the name of something is and then find it easily, which is going to be the primary mechanism by which you engage with the content. However, it also needs an index by level so that you can look at the level of things in a given range, find out the names, and then go look them up. Sorting by level is going to be way less useful the majority of the time.

Open ##1485187
@fluchtkapsel@nerdculture.de 2026-04-13 21:21

@enfors When reading the D&D Monster Manual, I often notice that I'd rather like them sorted by biome. Creatures the PCs can meet in a jungle, creatures they can encounter in arctic regions or in snowy mountains, etc.

Open ##1485192