Why Do You Think Beast is Good/Bad?

[RickmanUK]

As for your first point, though, Dave's History Lesson Time! Atlantis was added very late to Awakening's setting, when the book was already late and had to have a bit of a rethink. CCP didn't crowfund games back then, but if the Begotten's Lessons Culture reminds you of it in the 1st ed corebook implementation, there'd be a reason for that. Only difference is the early draft of Beast without it was publicly available.

If i recall the Lessons part was added because alot of people were asking "Well this is all well and good, I got these neat powers and all.. but what do i DO with them?" The lessons part was added to say "Here do something constructive with them." (Atleast that's what it felt like) I don't have a problem with that part at all. I just like i said previously dislike the rework of Homecoming into Devouring. I can get why, just don't like it asmuch as Homecoming.

[Dusksage]

I've said in many other posts that I love Beast the Primordial because it asks the question "What does it mean to be a Monster?" but I don't think I've ever elaborated on just what that means and how important it is.

All other CofD gamelines incorporate some variant of the warning "Beware of becoming a Monster yourself." Kindred cling to Touchstones to remember what it's like to be human and slip the grasp of the Blood's hunger, Uratha balance their human and spiritual halves so they don't loose control of themselves, and Mages check their own ambitions so that their world shattering powers don't destroy their own reality. All of the CofD games are from the perspective of the person woken up in the middle of the night to see a shadow on the other side of their patio door. They don't understand what it is and nothing good will come from their interaction with it, and the choice they make in that instant is the story.

Beast is from the perspective of the shadow on the other side of the glass, looking in at the human and wondering why they don't see another person looking through the glass at them, and their choice from there is the story.

Beast isn't betraying the themes of the CofD, it's subverting the themes of the CofD. And like all good subversions it forces the audience to ask questions about the setting and other gamelines that they might not have thought to ask before. And that is a beautiful thing. That is an amazing thing. That's why I love this game.

[Dave Brookshaw]

...which in 2E the devs went out of their way to de-emphasize the Atlantis connection. So that assertion doesn't really hold much water now.



Which has less to do with expanding PC splats' perspective and more to do with developer preference.

The lead dev for Beast, Matt McFarland, has historically been against having playable antagonists in the games he develops. His other games, Demon and Promethean, he goes out of his way to point out how antagonist entities like angels and Pandorans are NOT meant to be touched by the players. And that they are meant to be ST characters only. Conversely the line dev for Mage, Dave Brookshaw, is perfectly fine with having playable antagonists for the gamelines he develops.

It's a stylistic choice. There's nothing objectively good or bad with choosing/not choosing to do something that other devs do.

(Me personally, I could never see the appeal of playing the Seers aside from "Do you want to play Evil Mages?" The way how the 2E corebook presents them make them out to be utter assholes that enjoy being the stifling oppressors of the world and reveling in it. Nice that the option is there, but for me it doesn't seem to have the same nuance as the Pentacle does, where there does exist enough there to make any of the Orders as Good or as Evil as you want...buuuuutt that's neither here nor there, and this is the Beast sub-forum, and not the Mage sub-forum)

That's the other stylistic difference between me and Matt - he likes to make player characters relatable, which means emphasising with them, which means their problematic qualities don't get as much attention than in other games. They're still there, just not as emphasised.

By contrast, the thing that jumped out at me about your post was "Do you want to play Evil Mages?"

They.. Uh... They kinda all are. The Awakened are, barring a few saintly and Wise exceptions, Right Shits. I'm firmly in the camp of "anyone who has a gameline about them in the Chronicles of Darkness is morally dubious at best," which bleeds into writing for other people's lines. Like Beast - I've done a few things for the gameline now, and I always approach it from the standpoint of Begotten being, well... Not particularly nice.

As for your first point, though, Dave's History Lesson Time! Atlantis was added very late to Awakening's setting, when the book was already late and had to have a bit of a rethink. CCP didn't crowfund games back then, but if the Begotten's Lessons Culture reminds you of it in the 1st ed corebook implementation, there'd be a reason for that. Only difference is the early draft of Beast without it was publicly available.

[Maitrecorbo]

Thank you all for your answers. I will definitely keep in mind what i read here when i have the time to reread the book. Hopefully ill end up with a more positive impression. I also agree that the players guide will help alot.

[Cinder]

Thinking about it, I can't say I ever had a problem to find all I needed from the corebook, but I truly hope the Player's and Storyteller's Guide will do for Beast what books like Tome of Mysteries and Guildhalls of the Deathless did for Mage and Mummy.

You know, the kind of books that explained what was only mentioned or implied by the corebook (or, why not, adjusted the aim where needed) and where many people went from not interested or disliking a gameline to "now this I can like" and "oh, this makes it interesting". I know it will require a good execution but I think Matt and the others are aware that's what is at stake and will do their best to deliver.

[Daigotsu Max]

I like Beast because you can play a dragon.

Oh you need more? Fine...

But seriously, I like the flexibility Beast offers in what you can play, and the way it allows you to be one of the classical monsters without being ludicrous or balance breaking. And I find the way powers function very interesting - from always on Atavisms to the environment-affecting Lair Trairs, and the always sliding balance between Nightmares and Atavisms as Satiety evolves.

In my experience, the lack of Morality has been interesting in terms of allowing players complete freedom. I found it resulted in characters who chose how to go about feeding their own way, and then debated the rights and wrongs of it within the game, rather than following a preset code.

[RickmanUK]

The bits i like about Beast and the Bits i Dislike about Beast are as follows....

Likes:
Being a Supernatural version of Amazo, learning and absorbing the powers of the various other Supernaturals (Close enough to what they can do anyway)
Accepting what you are and moving on from there (The Default assumption, it can also be fun to explore those that deny being what they are)
Crafting an interesting legend for what you want to become, becoming the next Urban legend or Creepy pasta that consumes the world.
The Hungers: They are basic needs and drives everyone has in different degrees and modern society wants to make us feel bad for having them. Don't. Do seek them, don't force them onto others. (That's where the sticky point comes in somewhat)
The general sense of Delight in the Macabre and Twisted that you can have. Celebrate the differences and UNDERSTAND them.

Dislikes
The Loss of Homecoming as the core method of becoming a Begotten (This is about the only one I am disappointed with. I Understand the reasoning for the change but feel that it wasn't necessary. In Life you can't help being what you are, all you can do is control the impulses. That is Truth... People Hate it But it is true.)
Lots of ideas feel unexplored currently aswell. (Supplements will fix this so it is a very minor point for me)
No method to completely Break from the monomyth and not need to feed. (Even Apexes need to feed if I read it right Stories and legends tell monsters sealed away for Years without anyway to feed, yet they are just a strong and not focused on there needs when found immediately, usually they are interested in dealing with the threat that is breaking into there home and trying to steal their stuff granted.)

That's what I think anyway.

[Ameraaaaaa]

i dont see it as a problem for beasts i think of it as a good thing really
a collecter takes some books
a nemises kills a rapist
a ruiner brakes some glass
sure beasts has pros and cons pro is power con you have to feed the beast but the main point is what you do to feed the beast and how humen can you stay and what to do with this power
so i think its a mix of mage and vampire but mostly what aranan arts even if we disagree a bit

[Caitiff Primogen]

This is what I like about Beast, and how I generally pitch the game.

You're someone with a problem. It started with these terrible nightmares that you couldn't escape from, then the nightmares ate part of you and now the nightmares live inside you. Because of that you have a Hunger. It isn't a good thing, but its real and its a part of you that you can't get rid of. You have three choices.

If you want to you can live a mostly normal life. Have friends, a family, a 9-to-5 and white picket fence. All you have to do is keep the monster full and asleep, which means you have to do shitty awful things. You can divy up that up however you want to. One big horrorshow to take care of it all at once and keep the suffering as confined as possible, or spread it out over an area with a bunch of petty terrors. You can justify it however you want to. Maybe you buy into the Lessons and really try to give your monstrosity meaning. Maybe the Lessons are just a weird kink for you. Maybe you just want to get it done and forget about it, or maybe you don't even care. Whatever helps you sleep at night, you just have to fucking do it. That's the cost of a normal life.

Alternatively, you can refuse. You can choose to deny the monster. You always have a choice. It's impossible to starve it out completely, because then it will just get loose and hurt even more people, but you can keep it as close to famine as possible. Really make sure you inflict as little damage as you are able. That has a price too though. The hungrier the monster is the closer it is to the surface and the more the world around you is effected by it. Relationships are going to be hard for you, maybe even necessities, and a normal life is out of the question. If that's the cross you have to bear to keep the monster in check then so be it. It's a raw, shitty deal but its the one you got.

Finally you can feed the monster vicariously by seeking out and associating with other denizens of supernatural. This seems like it should be the best of both worlds. You get the benefits of the monster being full without having to hurt or destroy things. How normal is your life going to be though if you keep scratching away at the surface of the world? This is the choice that requires finding the bottom of the rabbit hole, and that means finding things that spend a lot of time trying to not be found. It means danger, it means knowing things you'll probably wish you didn't know, and once you're in you're never going to get back out again.

You're someone with a problem. Deal with it.

[ArcaneArts]

The biggest difference from Requiem(and as we'll get into, Mummy the Curse and Demon the Descent, and Werewolf the Forsaken for good measure) is the direction and freedom of that discussion-but I need to mention the meta before going into that more directly.

The notion that one game does something very well somehow invalidating other games doing the same thing is odd and not really functional in the vein of the Chronicles world in general. Certain games make more or a point of it, sure, but the simple fact of the matter is that every game in this franchise deals with the question "How do I justify the harm of my being?". Many games have their own personal themes perhaps mute this common struggle, but it is of note in all games.

Now let's talk about the differences.

The simplest way to put it is that Requiem challenges this question from a human first, monster second kind of perspective. Every Vampire steps across a threshold that was not natural for them, and they must now reconcile a newfound monstrous existence with their predominantly human mindset (at least, at first), In fact, I say steps, but that's often a misnomer-while Second Edition made the case that vampires tend to do a better job preparing future neonates for undeath, the simple fact is that a majority of them have monstrosity forced upon them, literally embraced against their will or lied to about the long sequel they were taking up. Vampire starts the loss of humanity and slides around and down from there, with justification being a way to keep that slide from being too fast.

Beast, by contrast, takes a different approach, starting with a sort-of monster first, human second kind of perspective(albeit, not a perfect description). Beasts are always...potential monsters, and the acceptance of the Devouring is a point of actualization for a lifetime of suspicion about their ill-fit flesh and off-kilter worlds, crossing a threshold that was always meant for them and figuring out what that means for them as members in the societies of the world. Furthermore, this isn't some poorly-informed choice of fulfillment-every Beast will suffer what they inflict on others before the moment of Devouring, and thus their joy in realization is tempered with an awareness of what their existence is. Beast changes the question to "What's actually wrong with this, and can I be master over those things that are wrong?", with that second part being very important.

Now the monster first perspective isn't exactly missing from the other games, namely Werewolf, Demon, and Mummy, but they have certain problems with it in relation to how Beast does. As a universal across it, all of them very quickly have "other jobs" that take up their time and attention. For some, this matters more than others, but we'll go through them.

Werewolves are much like Beasts, in that they are (predominantly) born to that life of monstrosity-but unlike Beasts, they don't also get to choose whether that threshold is truly for them or not. The First Change will always strike them, So, while they do get to ask questions from the point of fulfillment, they don't get to challenge their existence and begin their new lives with an outsider perspective and wisdom. Their relationship to the rest of the world is much more hardbaked as a result of that, and their antagonistic relationship to former humanity is easier to justify in their violent pruning efforts. It doesn't have to be, but "The Wolf Must Hunt" is so integral to the Uratha that questioning the hows and ways of it is a hard thing to even properly see-they just don't have the freedom of Beasts have in asking how their predacity belongs and functions in a social setting.

Demons almost flat out don't have a humanity angle to question-they never were human, they never will be, and only the most extremist of them would consider that a loss. They do have a relationship to humanity, of course, and with that comes a question about where they fit into that, but they are functionally hamstringed from answering this question with the same freedom of Beasts because of the God-Machine. Fight it, run from it, pray to it-it doesn't much matter what the response of the Unchained is, but their eyes are always forward and on the God-Machine as a factor of their question and compromises. Because of this most of their answers usually involve being reality terrorists to humanity most of the time, and that slants the entire question further. Demons can explore this theme deeply, but until the God-Machine isn't a factor, the conclusions they arrive at in relation to it are always going to be muddled. You never get the same sort of celebration-but-what-now sort of thing from them.

Mummies did not inherently start out as monsters, but if four thousand years, a brutal pre-agricultural attitude as a baseline mentality, memory loss, and subjugation from Suffering-promoting near-deities don't make up for the difference, then I'm personally at a loss. But their monstrosity is bound to their servitude, and that servitude defines their relationship to humanity. Largely, they don't have to justify the harm of their being, because they're right and any concessions they make is a result of their choices rather than the obligations one has an inherency to being part of society. Seeking Apotheosis opens the question up more, but at this point it becomes evident that the Arisen condition is a more significant barrier to organically being a part of society than even Disquiet does. Even attaining Apotheosis doesn't really break that barrier down-the Arisen are always going to be apart from humanity.

Beasts just aren't that tangled up. They don't have distractions or psychospiritual-physical barriers, they can look at their relationship to humanity and decide where to go from there without much actually stopping them. They don't have an ignorance barrier of some kind-they know their costs personally. And they aren't hamstringed by a human or pained bias, because their monstrosity has always wholly been their own, an important core facet to who they are. As such, how they approach satisfying their Hungers is purely their responsibility, not a burden thrust upon them or a circumstance they have to work around, and thus makes the question of "How do I justify the harm of my being?" into "I am who I am-now where do I belong in this world?" and allows them to own their answers, and suffer consequences both good and bad accordingly.

[Maitrecorbo]

After reading many of the posts here i've come to review a few of the impressions i had after reading the book. But i still have a question to further understand the game and its appeal.

It seems to me that there is often the mention of the interest in the themes of ''a monster i am lest a monster i become'' and '' how do i justify my existence if i am a danger to those around me'' (well, at least, i think this is what people are saying).
Now, these themes are already involved (quite well i think) in Vampire the Requiem (especially in regards to the covenants).
So my question is how do you (general you) think that Beast can explore these themes differently or maybe even better than VtR?

I dont want to appear to say that any game is better than the other, my only desire is that although i don't like Beast, i truly want to understand it better.

Also, i've been told that i write in a very confusing manner so if anything is unclear please tell me (i swear it all make sense in my head).

thank you

[tasti man LH]

Call it the benefit of hindsight. Again, not that I necessarily think anything is wrong with the game conceptually, but I definitely made an effort to offer a broader view than the one in the core, without betraying the essential "this is the monster's perspective" that we tend to write with. I'll be interested in what folks think of the new Hungers, especially the one that hasn't been spoiled yet.

Ooooh, now I'm even more psyched for the Player's Guide!

Yeah, I'll be the first to admit that, while I never bought the idea of "Teaching Lessons" was the ONLY philosophy that Beasts subscribe to, the core rulebook has presentation issues where it seems like it is. Upcoming should help with that.

Worth noting is that this isn't completely true. Promethean currently does allow for playing the Centimani, and Matt has mentioned that alchemists might be made playable in a future supplement. Matt's objection stems from certain kinds of antagonists, and I could certainly see the nest of problems unleashed by making Heroes playable given the rest of the context.

Yeah I know: I specifically did not mention the Centimani or the alchemists for that reason.

Granted, with the Centimani, it's more of a legacy thing from the previous edition and it would have been extremely weird if the Flux Refinement was just suddenly not there in the 2E book. And alchemists you could argue that a lot of existing organizations in CofD across the different splats resemble alchemists or could easily be converted to being alchemists.

[ArcaneArts]

...which in 2E the devs went out of their way to de-emphasize the Atlantis connection. So that assertion doesn't really hold much water now.



Which has less to do with expanding PC splats' perspective and more to do with developer preference.

The lead dev for Beast, Matt McFarland, has historically been against having playable antagonists in the games he develops. His other games, Demon and Promethean, he goes out of his way to point out how antagonist entities like angels and Pandorans are NOT meant to be touched by the players. And that they are meant to be ST characters only. Conversely the line dev for Mage, Dave Brookshaw, is perfectly fine with having playable antagonists for the gamelines he develops.

It's a stylistic choice. There's nothing objectively good or bad with choosing/not choosing to do something that other devs do.

(Me personally, I could never see the appeal of playing the Seers aside from "Do you want to play Evil Mages?" The way how the 2E corebook presents them make them out to be utter assholes that enjoy being the stifling oppressors of the world and reveling in it. Nice that the option is there, but for me it doesn't seem to have the same nuance as the Pentacle does, where there does exist enough there to make any of the Orders as Good or as Evil as you want...buuuuutt that's neither here nor there, and this is the Beast sub-forum, and not the Mage sub-forum)

Worth noting is that this isn't completely true. Promethean currently does allow for playing the Centimani, and Matt has mentioned that alchemists might be made playable in a future supplement. Matt's objection stems from certain kinds of antagonists, and I could certainly see the nest of problems unleashed by making Heroes playable given the rest of the context.

EDIT: Also, there are literally thousands of games for playing the Hero. Hell, Chronicles of Darkness already covers it with their Dark Heroes in Mirrors. Beast doesn't really need to be another one of those games.

[Yossarian]

I'm hoping so!

Call it the benefit of hindsight. Again, not that I necessarily think anything is wrong with the game conceptually, but I definitely made an effort to offer a broader view than the one in the core, without betraying the essential "this is the monster's perspective" that we tend to write with. I'll be interested in what folks think of the new Hungers, especially the one that hasn't been spoiled yet.

[Paradim]

I think you'll probably dig what's coming in the Player's Guide.

I'm hoping so!

Some of the changes, I don't mind at all. I just don't think there was any time available to actually make the changes fully fleshed out and an integrated part of the game. So they feel tacked on. At least for Heroes and "Teaching Lessons".

I'm not going to hold out much hope for the Devouring, though, because I absolutely loathe it as a concept and can't see how you guys can improve that in my eyes beyond stripping it out of the game. Which I know you guys can't really go back on and anyways, I'm doing that for any Beast games I run regardless.