The Trope Namer is not an example: Monster Compendium

The article is named after Dungeons And Dragons' old Monstrous Compendium (Nowadays called Monster Manual in the latest editions), the guide containing all the monster and their stats for the Game Master to unleash upon the players.

But the trope is about a specific video game only feature where it's a specific list of the game's monsters, that starts out empty but gets populated as the players kill them or use Enemy Scan on them.

The fact that the article is named after something that has no relation to what it actually is about could explain it has only 58 wicks despite dating back to early 2009.

edited 23rd Jan '12 7:43:22 PM by Ghilz

And there are so many actual examples that have good names for this.

Monster Encyclopedia, if we have to change the name. It'll definitely work as a redirect, if anything. If I'm not mistaken, this trope is far more common than 58 wicks would lead one to believe. I'll search through the examples listed.

Or Bestiary or Video Game Bestiary to avoid confusion

Bestiary is already a redirect, and Video Game Bestiary will reduce examples that aren't from video games (provided we want to get rid of those, of course).

Non-Videogame examples don't match the current definition (Not sure how they could, considering how the trope works with the populating of the list via Enemy Scan and kills). Limiting them to video game may be a good thing.

(Emphasis mine.)

It's just a rule of thumb, not a defining characteristic of this trope. Furthermore, there are already non-video game examples on the page. Therefore, The Monster Compendium is too an example, and should probably be on the page (under literature, I guess, since the book itself is not part of the D&D universe). The name is fine.

While I'm here, though, our page for Bestiary is just a redirect to a page about a video game feature, rather than being an article on the entire genre said video game feature is named after? I think that needs to be fixed, if nothing else. o_O;

In video games it's usually blank by default and gets filled as you explore the game (to avoid obvious spoilers). But in tabletop RPG's it would have to have information about every monster available in the system, encountered or otherwise, because it's mostly for the GM's reference — though there's nothing necessarily stopping the players from referencing it too (OOC, of course).

edited 23rd Jan '12 11:10:29 PM by Stratadrake

Except they both serve completely different purpose. In a tabletop RPG, it's used for world building, for the DM/GM to design the adventure, to create encounters.

In a videogame, it's a nifty addition that is entirely for the player's sake that may or may not be involved with getting 100% Completion.

Also Bobby, you ignored the first paragraph (emphasis mine):

That's not what the actual Monster Compendium (and its equivalents) is for. Not even close to its primary purpose. Said purpose is not mentioned at all on the page.

edited 23rd Jan '12 11:33:25 PM by Ghilz

I think the purpose is similar enough that a case could be made for lumping them together, but if not, that needs to be a trope of its own, then.

Incidentally, Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them is on the page, in spite of serving neither of those purposes (nor, for that matter, is it a bestiary in the sense of the actual genre, any moreso than Animal: The Definitive Visual Guide to The World's Wildlife is one).

edited 23rd Jan '12 11:38:55 PM by BobbyG

That should definitively not be there.

I do think the Tabletop RPG and the Video Game should be different. Because they are written primarily for different audience (The GM and the Players respectively) and for a different purpose. The videogame version, for one, sometimes has no more than the model and names of the monsters. Stats, and background blurbs are purely optional. While on a Tabletop manual, the picture is optional. The stat and the blurb is more important. As well as other game mastering info such as tactics, typical encounter groups, etc...

Plus there's the simple fact that the article is failing to thrive. In JRP Gs, this a very common feature. Also common in some other games (Heck, Batman Arkham City has a version this in the form of enemy trophies). Yet the article has a mere 58 wick despite being almost 3 years old. And 2 inbounds.

edited 24th Jan '12 12:04:03 AM by Ghilz

The redirect "Bestiary" is far, far too broad for the scope of the trope in question.

I've started building a PA crowner here, but I'm running short on alternatives beyond "hard split" so it's not ready to vote on yet.

Lets see other names for this.... Monster Compendium is the most common, Dragon Quest uses The Big Book Of Beasts, Defeated Monster List in Dragon Quest IX.

I'm inclined to think that we should make a Fantastic Bestiary Super-Trope for this, assuming we don't have one already. It would cover all types of bestiaries for fictional settings, whether they come from games, literature, movies or whatever.

The specific idea of a bestiary that is only populated by beasts you have encountered in games can be a subtrope.

Hear, hear.

I support this idea.

I do agree there DQIX's Defeated Monster List might be a good name for the video game one.

If the distinction is filling itself up as you find stuff, video games don't limit that to monsters. They do that for a lot of things.

I'd prefer Video Game Bestiary. Defeated Monster List is simultaneously too broad (doesn't specify video games) and too narrow (doesn't cover instances where you have to use Enemy Scan).

Generally if you need to use scan, you only need to use it to add stats and info in their entry, the actual name and such will appear in it as soon as you fight them.

True, but you often don't have to actually defeat the monster in that case. You can run away and still have them show up in your bestiary.

edited 24th Jan '12 11:29:38 AM by ccoa

Not really. Running away will usually reset everything advantageous to you, it makes you drop the stuff you steal, not give you a bestiary entry, no exp even if you defeated one of them but still ran yada.

edited 24th Jan '12 11:33:18 AM by Raso

Depends on the individual game.

I believe it would be more advantageous to expand this to mean any monster book, videogame or not. Functionally, the game version doesn't differ in any way from other uses. Its a source to look up info about your enemies in.

It's sufficient to note that in video games, the monster entries often have to be unlocked by scanning or defeating the enemy first, and that a Collection Sidequest may be involved where you fill the book. There is no need for a separate page specifically for Monster Compendium + Collection Sidequest.

They do differ. See my post #9 and #11. They differ in purposes, in person they are written for, and even in the kind of information they contain.

I like Catbert's suggestion.

edited 24th Jan '12 4:21:25 PM by Ghilz