Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So I've Read Some Reviews...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand. It's it that it's off-topic or controversial or something?

    At any rate, I started this thread to get a better picture of the game from the people who play it, and I feel like I've gained that in spades. If it would be better for the thread to be closed, it is certainly fine by me.

    Comment


    • #32
      It's controversial, I'm sorry I bought it up, I just mentioned it as an example of how such things tend to be controversial but I don't want to delve into the controversy itself, let's just leave it at that.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by nalak42 View Post
        Its sort of an alteration that was done as a response to complications with the original draft version, on Heroes, which were far more problematic than, "If you never run into them than what's the point of them existing" for a number of reasons that don't need expounding on.
        Those are coward’s words.

        @Quixote: Under the roll results for Inflicting Nightmares, Under the Bed, and a few other places where it says “Local Heroes are immediately alerted to your location,” those started out all saying “The nearest sleeping mortal with Integrity 1-4 becomes a Hero with you as their first target” and that was exclusively where Heroes came from. Which, imagine if Promethean portrayed Disquiet victims as mostly-unsympathetic antagonists rather than as a tragedy for everyone involved and you can figure out what the most common problems people had with that were.

        When Heroes got changed to being born instead of (accidentally) made, instead of Integrity being dropped as relevant it was made the main determining factor of whether a Hero can keep their shit together.

        Also recruiting minions was the starting Gift of Heroes caused by Tyrants instead of a baseline ability every Hero has and the Gift that turns off your Lair Traits didn’t exist so big improvements there.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Sith_Happens View Post

          Those are coward’s words.
          I wouldn't be so....I can't pull up another word than "unkind"-I wouldn't be so unkind about it.

          The mechanic you listed is easy enough to explain, and the inherent reason that's a really bad idea is pretty easy to pick up (and again, you neatly explain that)-but what's easy to miss if you haven't read it and is also very hard to escape if you have is just how entangled that gets with the rest of the writing of Beast, which even short-hand describing as pulling in about five different directions at best doesn't communicate how disorienting it is to have a book completely antagonistic towards Heroes, completely sympathetic to Heroes, one that leans into the victimization of Heroes, one that takes a balanced and nuanced approach to Heroes but can't accomodate the other take, and one that just assumes you've accepted Heroes as antagonists regardless of the take.

          Like, on it's face, it's easy to lay out- Beast made Heroes it's main characters victims and then victim-blamed them for unrealted-but-legitimate-with-the-entire-heroic-concept shit-but the experience of it is it's own whole shit storm that made the Beast Kickstarter thread one of the longest and most contentious threads on this site, and the reasons for it's development like that are both also really simple (Development was asleep at the wheel for it) and complicated (I would realistically describe it as eight threads of conception both intertwinning AND STILL talking past each other and I STILL wouldn't claim that as wholly accurate).

          I wouldn't make such a fuss about this if I weren't currently rereading not only the core as it exists, but the first drafts of Beasts as well, but Christ Alive, with that context-

          It's messy. it's really fucking messy.
          Last edited by ArcaneArts; 06-19-2021, 02:21 AM.


          Sean K.I.W./Kelly R.A. Steele, Freelance Writer(Feel free to call me Sean, Kelly, Arcane, or Arc)
          The world is not beautiful, therefore it is.-Keiichi Sigsawa, Kino's Journey
          Feminine pronouns, please.

          Comment


          • #35
            I've recently been asked to play in a Beast game, and I kinda ran into those questions about abuse and presenting abusers as an oppressed minority.
            I hadn't read the main book in a while and I'd forgotten how blatantly those things were stated.
            The whole theme is basically about the legitimacy of Beast being allowed to exist and act as monsters and how a family will accept your monstrous actions, while Heroes are wrong because they go about fighting Beasts with no regards for the damage they cause or they enjoy killing Beasts too much.

            The book barely mentions the fact that Beasts can actually stop, unlike say, vampires, just by reaching full Satiety and keeping their Horror slumbering, making it clear that what they do is a choice.

            It's like the game is saying Beasts have a right to be a**holes especially since the guys trying to stop them aren't any better than them anyways. The game resonates painfully with a lot of recent and current debates, like those of wether corporal punishment is to ban because it's abuse or a valid way to educate, or if "cancel culture" is accountability or harassment.

            Thankfully the game doesn't quite force us to accept this premise, there are ways to play a Beast who doesn't abuse people, or who only hurt bad people in socially acceptable ways. An Eshmaki Ravager who feeds by exposing adulterers as a PI is not an abuser, even though they hurt the cheater by exposing them and ending their relationship, for example. But that's not what the game presents as average Beast behavior. Which is too bad, the theme of what kind of monster a Beast want to be is secondary at best and the themes of "what" a monster is, "why" someone would choose to be a monster, and "how" they could justify it to themselves and others are barely touched at all. Still they're present, and very interesting to explore.

            And the biggest problem with the predominant themes is that they give an excuse to some players or even ST to act in really toxic ways. Unlike other CoD games, not only are there no built-in consequences for violent or abusive behaviors from Beasts, no loss of Humanity, Clarity or such, they're actively rewarded for those behaviors by gaining Satiety. It can potentially make things difficult around a table. The game itself encourages you to do bad things, why would the ST spoil your fun trying to introduce limits that were not intended? And that's not a hypothetical, I've been at a (virtual) table with people using that argument.

            t's a game to handle with care, more than with most others, you really need to talk about limits before starting to play, and to be sure of the people you're playing with.



            When will you rage?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Anteros View Post
              The book barely mentions the fact that Beasts can actually stop, unlike say, vampires, just by reaching full Satiety and keeping their Horror slumbering, making it clear that what they do is a choice.
              The Slumbering Condition functionally makes you a Soul-Shocked mortal set up to be rejected by the monsters you've gotten close to and still vulnerable to the consequences of a High Satiety meal. The route to it runs through the "you don't really wanna do much" Satiety Condition and it's not hard to draw a comparison to depression in that way.

              Hunters can also "actually stop" by the metric you're presenting, and with even less internal consequences at that — but the characters still live in a world where monsters walk among humanity, humanity has its share of monstrous actors, pain and misery are facts of existence, and abdicating responsibility doesn't make bad things stop happening to people, least of all oneself.

              A Beast has become a creature whose selfhood is linked to a metaphor for the dangers of the world, and putting that creature to sleep reduces their ability to participate in a world that they are nevertheless keenly aware of and bear some influence over normally. The setting is still the setting and actions still have consequences for the actor and the subject.


              Resident Lore-Hound
              Currently Consuming: Hunter: the Vigil 1e

              Comment


              • #37
                So you see how merely thinking about the possibility of stopping to be a monster, costly or not lead to the question of "why" be a monster. As I said, I think it's an interesting subject to explore. It's not so much about giving a singular, definitive answer to this question so much as seeing where it takes the players.
                The mere fact that this option exists, inconvenient as it is, put a new world of character exploration on the table, and truly makes a difference with the other "monster" lines of the CoD.


                When will you rage?

                Comment


                • #38
                  *sigh*

                  Okay, if we must do this, then let us do this.

                  Originally posted by Anteros View Post
                  I've recently been asked to play in a Beast game, and I kinda ran into those questions about abuse and presenting abusers as an oppressed minority.
                  I hadn't read the main book in a while and I'd forgotten how blatantly those things were stated.
                  Yes indeed, it's well documented that the lead developer was kind of asleep at the wheel and ignored all manner of warning signs from his peers while at the same time a bunch of new writers got over-exuberant in expressing themes that were very hot topics at the time into the product (even if admittedly when you dig down into the core of the game, it's very easy to see how they got there). Cinder and I are rereading the book, and even with what little we've done so far, there has been a lot of groaning.

                  The thing of the matter-and I heartily don't blame anyone who doesn't stick with Beast long enough to pick up on this, it's understandable, but seeing as I have-is that underneath the very flawed execution, there still remains a fun game with challenging themes and a mature, wider lens for the issues that Chronicles takes a look, and very neatly compliments the other gamelines for it's sideways approach. Beast has a fanbase for reason, and it's worth looking at why that is with a fair and measured approach before any answers as to what to do with baby and bathwater.


                  The whole theme is basically about the legitimacy of Beast being allowed to exist and act as monsters and how a family will accept your monstrous actions, while Heroes are wrong because they go about fighting Beasts with no regards for the damage they cause or they enjoy killing Beasts too much.
                  So amongst the many, many things going on in my home country of the United States of America, there's an argument about reintroducing certain types of predators into the country's ecosystem. THe particular subject I, and most people are aware of on this subject, is the reintroduction of wolves to the wilderness, with a lot of conservationists pointing out how it can effect everything from populations to climate change and it's effects, ala the wolves changing the rivers which results in a more hydrated area that might, say, not catch fire every year. They are opposed, of course, by ranchers, farmers, and game hunters who fight against the life of livestock for the human populace, property damage in pursuit of that livestock, and the general "unsafening" of the wilderness, and subsequently cities where the animals are going for easy food.

                  Beast's corebook admittedly does a poor job being what I'm about to describe, but at it's core, Beasts puts players into the role of the wolves having to make the case for their place with both the ranchers and the conservationists. It's about being a valid person in a community, even as a monster, by determining how you are going to take what is yours and use it to make better worlds, of figuring out just what, exactly, your role in the psychospiritual ecosystem is, how you become a place for people to grow and breathe in as your world integrates with the community-or if you wanna be a real asshole, dominate the fuck out of anyone trying to stop you from making your own little world. It's not easy, of course, because it speaks to our basest instincts, the embrace of our darkest fears and the chaining(not taming) of your most encouraging hungers-but that struggle is a very real thing that people can relate to, mythologize, and want to see wrestled with.

                  The angle of family muddies and diversifies the issue, as some of the worst conflicts in the world are matters of Family Drama, but at the same time makes a call for empathy as it does deep and abiding enmity, and flips the traditional push and pull of the ideas of humanity and monstrosity to gain a fuller and deeper perspective on the entire subject.

                  Now, does the corebook communicate this well? No, it sucks. THe supplements start to get better, but it honestly needs new writing to really come out-but there's more to Beast than just abuse.

                  The book barely mentions the fact that Beasts can actually stop, unlike say, vampires, just by reaching full Satiety and keeping their Horror slumbering, making it clear that what they do is a choice
                  Being perfectly blunt, this line bugs the fuck out of me for, like....three big reasons.

                  1) Perhaps over simplifying the statment, but being in the Slumbering state does not make a Beast a human. They are creatures of metaphysical mass that displace 'place' in the psychospiritual landscape that will attract enemies. Heroes Gifts will still work on them, any Anathema stuck to them will be at it's worst form, the Insatiable will still be along to devour a Beast's Lair. They are still people who are, intrinsically, the fear and hunger of those who posses such around them. A Slumbering Beast is still a Beast-declawed and defanged, but Beasts all the same.

                  Now a Beast who has issues with who and what they are has options in the forms of the Divergence, Erasure, and Inversion Inheritances, and Erasure even does allow for a Beast to become human again, but....well, we'll talk about that on point three.

                  2) I hold it as a truism for Beast going forward, that while Beast will undoubtedly be a game written by diverse peoples who support causes of diverse minorities, Beast is not (directly) a game about social justice issues, and needs writers willing and able to pull back hard from the lean-in that happened in the first core onto that fine line of...well, being a game not about social justice issues but written by social justice advocates and such.

                  But part of the reason this bothers me is that I would personally no more tell a Beast to Not Be a Beast anymore than I would an LBGT individual to get back into the closet or tell someone who's a wired sadist that they're just inherently wrong, or anymore than I would insist any one person have to live their life perpetually under a wet blanket. A big part of Beast's narrative is that people are valid to be themselves, and it's actually one of the best parts of Beast-that the other gamelines, who wrestle with their monstrosity and the afflictions upon them, have a friend, a family member, who is there to love and respect them for who they are now, who affirms that they can own and find peace with themselves. That's only really possible if Beasts are allowed a capacity to be monsters, and to understand what that both does and does not mean in terms of being a part of their communities and the world on whole.

                  Which brings us to...

                  3) Um. They already did make a choice. It's called the Devouring. Through a long and hard psychic wrestling and coming to terms with their id-shadow, nascent Beasts come and confront and realize themselves as themselves-and their selves are monsters. Beasts were given a choice to reject themselves and try and work themselves over into some form of personage that they can accept....or they could accept themselves and then find out how they can fit into the world (or make it over in their own image-assholes exist in every gameline). Beasts who go through the Final Devouring chose the latter, and now having accepted that they are monsters, now work to really answer what that means, and how it connects to the rest of the world.They owned who and what they were, realizing full well what they will do to others, and are wiser for it-able to act as id-shadows for other people and allow them to come to terms with own fears and desires and walk away, having struggled, but coming away more aware and at home with one's self than before.

                  And again, did the core book explain this well? No. But this content is there, and it demonstrates how, with a developer who was actually paying attention and actually directing their team, could make Beast into a proper mythopoeic psychological horror epic, externalizing internal conflicts into external ones and allowing individuals to play the parts of a spiritual journey drama to conflict with the philosophies we use to make sense of the world.....or utterly render it all horrifyingly meaningless.

                  It's like the game is saying Beasts have a right to be a**holes especially since the guys trying to stop them aren't any better than them anyways. The game resonates painfully with a lot of recent and current debates, like those of wether corporal punishment is to ban because it's abuse or a valid way to educate, or if "cancel culture" is accountability or harassment.
                  Beast is admittedly a game of assholes hurting assholes in the perpetuation of a ongoing cycle of violence-but I would argue it's not immaturely so. By having a cast of protagonists and antagonists who all exist on roughly the same moral level, it opens up a new angle of discussion and learning to consider points about humanity, their philosophies, their failures, and who they are underneath all that and why. Because of this circle of assholes that Beast rests on, Beast can ask some really tough questions over gamelines not be able, and it doesn't need to provide clean and easy answers for them. There's room to have a game that's pretty much all dark grey rather than a conflict between grey and black, and with a good team writing it, it can be that with maturity and intrigue rather than stumbling over itself in over-excitement to be join the adult's table.

                  Of course, it can also just be a fun game of assholes being assholes going round and round the wheel-cathartic transgression is very much a reason people play games, and people can enjoy Beast in that capacity as much as they Scarface, Borderlands 2, and Tom and Jerry(okay, that one's kinda tongue in cheek). But it defintiely has a lot of room to be deeper than that.

                  Thankfully the game doesn't quite force us to accept this premise, there are ways to play a Beast who doesn't abuse people, or who only hurt bad people in socially acceptable ways. An Eshmaki Ravager who feeds by exposing adulterers as a PI is not an abuser, even though they hurt the cheater by exposing them and ending their relationship, for example. But that's not what the game presents as average Beast behavior. Which is too bad, the theme of what kind of monster a Beast want to be is secondary at best and the themes of "what" a monster is, "why" someone would choose to be a monster, and "how" they could justify it to themselves and others are barely touched at all. Still they're present, and very interesting to explore.
                  My only real problem here is that-yes, that actually is what Beast is about those things, right to it's core. Does it explain it well? No, but anyone paying attention caught it, and considering that Beast actually does have a fanbase, I'd argue it wasn't buried that deep.

                  But yes, a better written corebook would go a long way.

                  And the biggest problem with the predominant themes is that they give an excuse to some players or even ST to act in really toxic ways. Unlike other CoD games, not only are there no built-in consequences for violent or abusive behaviors from Beasts, no loss of Humanity, Clarity or such, they're actively rewarded for those behaviors by gaining Satiety. It can potentially make things difficult around a table. The game itself encourages you to do bad things, why would the ST spoil your fun trying to introduce limits that were not intended? And that's not a hypothetical, I've been at a (virtual) table with people using that argument.
                  I've never particularly gotten these two particular arguments given what the rest of the gamelines get up to I mean, Vampire alone makes Beast look rather tame, with an active faction having a much more openly gorier and fucked up "Be the monster you are" mentality, an actual "I'm going to hurt to teach a lesson", sin-and-judgment faction, a "You can be an even BETTER monster" faction, a fedualistic blood-addicted-serf-making faction, and The Carthians as your nominal "I mean, at least their not the bad guys" protagonists. Mage, Mummy, Demon, and Hunter* also wear their "You know, we're kind of fucked up" badges on nice and proud, and Werewolf, Changeling, Promethean, Geist, and Deviant often only get away with it because of the other half.

                  As for "no internal consequence"....Again, Beast is a game that makes external conflicts out of things that would be internal conflicts in other games. Satiety does fill the role of an Integrity-alike, which I've talked about before, but honestly, the nature of their Lair and the sort of people they're Kin with is a clear and obvious gauge. You can only be so much a certain kind of person before like calls to like and dislike rbels against dislike, and a Beast who doesn't play their balance nicely is gonna find that the vampires, changelings and ghosts they used to be with all the time got replaced by Strix, hobgoblins, and Reapers-and when the Hero comes a-calling, they'll find out just how fickle the friends they found in the dark really are.

                  t's a game to handle with care, more than with most others, you really need to talk about limits before starting to play, and to be sure of the people you're playing with.
                  I mean, yes. Beast is a game that is both mature and could do with maturity from it's readers and players. And there's a lot that could be done with the game going forward to better facilitate and encourage that maturity. I'm just not sure how much of that has to do with the game itself versus how the game was presented.

                  Future books should definitely have mental and emotional health tools baked into it. It should talk about how to be transgressive character without being a dickhead player. It should lean as much into the game's compassion and empathy as it does it's frightening and transgressive elements. It should do a lot more than that.

                  The problem goes back to that differentiation between baby and bathwater-and it's your bad luck you wrote in a thread that was spawned by a lot of bad faith readings and criticisms of Beast that would chuck out both. I get that, even with your frustrations with the games, you have picked up on a lot of what I've pointed out-but undeniably, there's also a culture around Beast where, to try and address what's good and present in the game as well as fairly addressing the problems around the game, will inevitably spike into overt vitriol.

                  I don't say that to say "You can't talk bad about the game, or the trolls will come out", just that this kind of got the knee jerk out of me.

                  Beast is a very poorly presented game, and it's not an easy game underneath that. But I will always argue that underneath that, Beast is a good game, and that Beast, at it's core, is even a mature game, and a fun game asides. It just needs, going forward, writers and developers ready and willing to allow Beast to properly be the game it should have always been. And for what it's worth, Cinder and I are definitely trying for that going forward.

                  I started off this essay a lot more annoyed and grew a lot more empathetic and understanding as it's gone down, in case the tone change is a question.

                  *I remember Hunters are also monsters so you don't have to.


                  Sean K.I.W./Kelly R.A. Steele, Freelance Writer(Feel free to call me Sean, Kelly, Arcane, or Arc)
                  The world is not beautiful, therefore it is.-Keiichi Sigsawa, Kino's Journey
                  Feminine pronouns, please.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    So, here's the thing I keep having an issue with when people say that Beast encourages and apologizes for abuse and that's that it doesn't. Like you've got the stuff Arcana said of course, but a thing I feel the need to mention is that the arguments always comes down to the idea that Lessons justify any horrific thing a Beghotten does and that's not right. A number of people have made or suggested homebrews and I've pointed out that is a terrible idea because it is a validation and justification in those homebrews as a result of it. Whereas even in the corebook the Lesson is almost explicitly described as something some Beghotten due to direct and attempt to justify the actions they do to feed. (Player's Guide does, but fair cop this particular train of discussion is based off issues in the Core's writing.) The Horror explicitly gives nary a frack about any Lesson you teach with the possible exception of those directly tied to a Hunger. IE the book does say that a Nemesis requires their prey be aware of the transgression in order to feed. A Predator by contrast requires no lessons be imparted merely that the victim have been at the Pred's mercy; even stating the victim doesn't even need to be aware of that state. After that though, there's nothing tying Lessons to feeding in any capacity more significant than one's choice of carrying for food.

                    The fact Lessons aren't essentially for feeding is kind of important as a counterpoint to the argument that the game justifies or encourages abuse. Because without the Lesson's being in anyway essential or part of feeding they add no additional protection or quandary than the Lesson, and its execution, would have under normal circumstances. To clarify a Ravager in theory has a justification for destroying a person's property that a normal person would, owing to the Ravager potentially needing it to prevent the advent of the worst of their Hunger issues. But that's as far as the book implied in any sort of moral protection, much like how the Kindred can be granted some justification in harming others for blood in order to preserve their own existence. A Giovani feeding to preserve its existence has some justification,; using domination to have someone at a deli feed their arm through a grinder so the Giovani can drink the blood that comes out is not being treated as morally in the right. In that same way a Ravager is somewhat justified in destroying things to feed, but is not morally justified for say using a the viscera from the spouse and offspring of a victim to decorate the victim's home. So the argument that a Beghotten needs to feed in some capacity to survive does offer some moral justification to the act, well everything else is just considered a framework or dressing an individual does without in some way justifying the action in any way more than what an individual might accept from those actions or lessons. So I'm against the continual assertion that the game insists that things which are done in the name of feeding or lessons are inherently justified, right, and proper because it doesn't.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by nalak42 View Post
                      So, here's the thing I keep having an issue with when people say that Beast encourages and apologizes for abuse and that's that it doesn't. Like you've got the stuff Arcana said of course, but a thing I feel the need to mention is that the arguments always comes down to the idea that Lessons justify any horrific thing a Beghotten does and that's not right. A number of people have made or suggested homebrews and I've pointed out that is a terrible idea because it is a validation and justification in those homebrews as a result of it. Whereas even in the corebook the Lesson is almost explicitly described as something some Beghotten due to direct and attempt to justify the actions they do to feed. (Player's Guide does, but fair cop this particular train of discussion is based off issues in the Core's writing.) The Horror explicitly gives nary a frack about any Lesson you teach with the possible exception of those directly tied to a Hunger. IE the book does say that a Nemesis requires their prey be aware of the transgression in order to feed. A Predator by contrast requires no lessons be imparted merely that the victim have been at the Pred's mercy; even stating the victim doesn't even need to be aware of that state. After that though, there's nothing tying Lessons to feeding in any capacity more significant than one's choice of carrying for food.

                      The fact Lessons aren't essentially for feeding is kind of important as a counterpoint to the argument that the game justifies or encourages abuse. Because without the Lesson's being in anyway essential or part of feeding they add no additional protection or quandary than the Lesson, and its execution, would have under normal circumstances. To clarify a Ravager in theory has a justification for destroying a person's property that a normal person would, owing to the Ravager potentially needing it to prevent the advent of the worst of their Hunger issues. But that's as far as the book implied in any sort of moral protection, much like how the Kindred can be granted some justification in harming others for blood in order to preserve their own existence. A Giovani feeding to preserve its existence has some justification,; using domination to have someone at a deli feed their arm through a grinder so the Giovani can drink the blood that comes out is not being treated as morally in the right. In that same way a Ravager is somewhat justified in destroying things to feed, but is not morally justified for say using a the viscera from the spouse and offspring of a victim to decorate the victim's home. So the argument that a Beghotten needs to feed in some capacity to survive does offer some moral justification to the act, well everything else is just considered a framework or dressing an individual does without in some way justifying the action in any way more than what an individual might accept from those actions or lessons. So I'm against the continual assertion that the game insists that things which are done in the name of feeding or lessons are inherently justified, right, and proper because it doesn't.
                      1) Insert the usual (and valid) point that the problem of reads on this is that it's putting the cart before the horse, that the lesson culture is a response to the fact that Satiating Hunger is kind of inherently harmful by trying to spin as much of a positive out of it as possible, and that it also speaks to the broader role of monsters in fiction and that Beasts own it, blah blah blah, I have literally done this particular song and dance too many times to care, which is why.

                      2) I don't want the word "lesson" to appear at all in a Beast Second Edition. I want to scrap that, bury it, and ignore it.

                      I lean heavily into the idea of myth-and-reputation making for a reason. I lean into the idea of being actors for psychological reconciliation, making external and allowing for direct confrontation issues that would otherwise be left internal and hard to parse for a reason. I lean into the question of what it means for a person to be a world unto themselves for a reason.

                      I'll defend Lesson Culture as the current standard because I actually do think it did the job as a patch to problems in the text quite well and points towards a better, fuller, more whole angle to take, but let's also keep it clear and plain-Lesson Culture was a patch, a bandaid slapped over a leaking wound to deal with the immediate impediments while deeper work needs to be done. A Beast that continues to rely on Lesson Culture at face value moving forward is a Beast bound to fail.

                      Beast as a game about people who have a hard -to-handle-and-place self that should still be held true to is a good and compelling game, I don't want to deviate from that. I referenced Satchel's post with the quotes from rabbis that argue that anything we have comes from God (which I will bend into being natural and belonging in the world because Abrahamic Faiths in general aren't my favorite thing) because I think that really embodies a great heart of what Beast is. I think placing the burden on the player to justify their monstrosity, to make it fit into a community and make it work is a really deeply interesting and compelling game take that fronts a lot of really interesting and valuable questions about who we are as people and as a community while still permitting fun and shenanigans and being cathartic in that you can just kick people in the groin*. But the lesson culture is a sloppy and ill-angled way to express that, and I think everyone who's still on board with Beast gets that and wants the game to grow from it.

                      Beast is a game about how you are a monster, how you cannot deny you are monster-but this is a world that has monsters in it, and as such theoretically has the space for monsters to be a part of the world, part of the community, part of the family. If every neighborhood has a haunted house, Beast is the game about why those house are allowed to remain instead of just being demolished. And the only way Beast can really be that is it takes that foundation of lesson culture, and grows into something not that.

                      *No one gameline should be the spiritual successor of Dudes of Legend on whole, but if there is one game I contend should carry the spirit of Chuck Wendig's admonition, "Don’t you condescend to me, man. You’re trapped in your little uppity world where vampires are merely conveyances for personal horror, where Frankensteins are just lumbering vehicles for existential dread. You’re locked in a little box of morality and meaning, and somewhere along the way you forgot how to have fun. ... We’re going to teach you how to have fun again.", it probably should be Beast. The gameline is and should be a whole lot deeper than just that, but I think Beast is also a good space to just admit it-sometimes, it's fun to be a monster, and it's definitely better to be one in play than to be one in life. Trangression is a theme and a mood, and I think we need to give the cathartic trangression of violent games a little more credit, even if we do want to frame it mindfully.


                      Sean K.I.W./Kelly R.A. Steele, Freelance Writer(Feel free to call me Sean, Kelly, Arcane, or Arc)
                      The world is not beautiful, therefore it is.-Keiichi Sigsawa, Kino's Journey
                      Feminine pronouns, please.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        I still think the question "how do you justify your monstrous behavior" should have multiple answers in-game. After all, that's what the Y-splats in the other games are for. The Lesson thing is bad not only because it's poorly done (look at Vampire's Lancea et Sanctum for how it can be done better) but also because it's the only answer on offer.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Michael Brazier View Post
                          I still think the question "how do you justify your monstrous behavior" should have multiple answers in-game. After all, that's what the Y-splats in the other games are for. The Lesson thing is bad not only because it's poorly done (look at Vampire's Lancea et Sanctum for how it can be done better) but also because it's the only answer on offer.
                          Not every Y splat is a society for how things are done. Hell, MOST aren't. Werewolf, Deviant, mummy, demon, promethean, and arguably, geist, doesn't try to justify being a monster.

                          Hunger is presented as the Y splat because not only does that present the way a Beast feeds his metaphysical hunger, but provides a framework into how he can go about his Primordial embodiment, including if he wants to make lessons. This isn't to say there should be more ways a beast can "justify" his monstrosity (though personally, I think lessons are a VERY broad concept and can cover many justifications), but Beasts would be worse for having a focus on societies. They are not insular creatures, but very intimate ones that feel a connection to all other monsters.

                          Also, the lancea et Sanctum, as much as I love them, do even less than beasts to justify what they do. Hell, unless it hasn't carried on to second edition, they will embrace mortals simply for not fulfilling their standards.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Michael Brazier View Post
                            I still think the question "how do you justify your monstrous behavior" should have multiple answers in-game. After all, that's what the Y-splats in the other games are for. The Lesson thing is bad not only because it's poorly done (look at Vampire's Lancea et Sanctum for how it can be done better) but also because it's the only answer on offer.
                            Page 18 of BtP is important and so often overlooked by people. “No neat little boxes”, “You don’t choose your family”, and “To thine own self be true”.

                            Not having the luxury of someone else telling you how you justify your monstrous behaviour is part of being a Beast. The irony of your statement is that the question does have multiple answers in game - every Beast has to work it out for themselves. Imparting Lessons is the closest thing Beasts have to a widespread society answer, and any Beast who’s survived for long figures out that’s just bullshit trappings and they need to come to terms with their existence their own way.


                            Writer. Developer. World of Darkness | Chronicles of Darkness | The Trinity Continuum

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Bunyip View Post

                              Page 18 of BtP is important and so often overlooked by people. “No neat little boxes”, “You don’t choose your family”, and “To thine own self be true”.

                              Not having the luxury of someone else telling you how you justify your monstrous behaviour is part of being a Beast. The irony of your statement is that the question does have multiple answers in game - every Beast has to work it out for themselves. Imparting Lessons is the closest thing Beasts have to a widespread society answer, and any Beast who’s survived for long figures out that’s just bullshit trappings and they need to come to terms with their existence their own way.
                              Thank you!


                              Sean K.I.W./Kelly R.A. Steele, Freelance Writer(Feel free to call me Sean, Kelly, Arcane, or Arc)
                              The world is not beautiful, therefore it is.-Keiichi Sigsawa, Kino's Journey
                              Feminine pronouns, please.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Bunyip View Post

                                Page 18 of BtP is important and so often overlooked by people. “No neat little boxes”, “You don’t choose your family”, and “To thine own self be true”.

                                Not having the luxury of someone else telling you how you justify your monstrous behaviour is part of being a Beast. The irony of your statement is that the question does have multiple answers in game - every Beast has to work it out for themselves. Imparting Lessons is the closest thing Beasts have to a widespread society answer, and any Beast who’s survived for long figures out that’s just bullshit trappings and they need to come to terms with their existence their own way.
                                Much more eloquently put than I.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X