The Inguma And The Similar

[ArcaneArts]

I should note that, when it comes to any actual promise, while stuff like this is useful to know for the writing, that's not to say that the final product with be so sharp with any or all of these points. It informs it, but it's not the final text.

[Teatime]

I'm writing from work... again, so I'll make my questions brief.

• How do you feel about the following bit of nuance: An Enlightened Forsworn has a rabid hatred for all who do their monstrous work in secrecy, for the affront it causes for people's right to know. Naturally, that covers the Eshmaki and miscellaneous monsters, but also mundane criminals who use information warfare to hide their tracks. However, that Hero can't find it in him to get angry at Beasts who are upfront about what they are. So, when facing with a Namtaru who manifests as a Horror to spread unpleasant revelations, the Hero finds himself approving.

• How would you depict a Horror as an integral part of a proto-Beast's psyche? If mutilating a Horror is meant to be treated as unhealthy, it's important that the text doesn't treat is as an external invader. This makes me think how Beasts are often described as an Astral analogue of Sin-Eaters, and how that analogy always sat wrong with me, since the Geist was always the other, and remains so even after the Bargain (until synergy hits 10). How are proto-Beats different from mundane people?

• A point related to the previous one. Do people who become Beasts know they will end up spreading fear as they accept the Devouring? Your essays seem to make no distinction between accepting that fear is a necessary thing to experience, and accepting it as a necessary thing to spread. Could such people decide that neither fusing with nor killing their Horror is the right thing to do?

• Finally, how much thought did you offer to the final text? Are you still within the brainstorming stage? It would be a pity to come up with good ideas and the right tone, only to fail to transfer them to the final product.

[ArcaneArts]

I'm writing from work... again, so I'll make my questions brief.

Oof. The only time I had late shifts comparable to this was as a security guard, and that was not a great time in my life. You have my sympathies

I'll answer when I can, but I have a bit of a weekend coming up, so I hope I can be pre-emptively forgiven for not getting to the questions immediately. They're all really good questions, I want to answer them.

[Teatime]

Oh, you don't have to worry. I'm actually in Europe, so I'm having eminently reasonable hours. Not all CofD fans are from the US or Brazil.

[ArcaneArts]

Oh, you don't have to worry. I'm actually in Europe, so I'm having eminently reasonable hours. Not all CofD fans are from the US or Brazil.

This I know, and yet I admit I'm surprised.

Well, all the same, I do apologize for keeping up the engagement at work. I know what a pain that is.

[GibberingEloquence]

Oh, you don't have to worry. I'm actually in Europe, so I'm having eminently reasonable hours. Not all CofD fans are from the US or Brazil.

or Brazil.

I feel so seen!

Which is actually a big problem, because I don't want people to turn into stone.

[ArcaneArts]

I'm writing from work... again, so I'll make my questions brief.

• How do you feel about the following bit of nuance: An Enlightened Forsworn has a rabid hatred for all who do their monstrous work in secrecy, for the affront it causes for people's right to know. Naturally, that covers the Eshmaki and miscellaneous monsters, but also mundane criminals who use information warfare to hide their tracks. However, that Hero can't find it in him to get angry at Beasts who are upfront about what they are. So, when facing with a Namtaru who manifests as a Horror to spread unpleasant revelations, the Hero finds himself approving.

• How would you depict a Horror as an integral part of a proto-Beast's psyche? If mutilating a Horror is meant to be treated as unhealthy, it's important that the text doesn't treat is as an external invader. This makes me think how Beasts are often described as an Astral analogue of Sin-Eaters, and how that analogy always sat wrong with me, since the Geist was always the other, and remains so even after the Bargain (until synergy hits 10). How are proto-Beats different from mundane people?

• A point related to the previous one. Do people who become Beasts know they will end up spreading fear as they accept the Devouring? Your essays seem to make no distinction between accepting that fear is a necessary thing to experience, and accepting it as a necessary thing to spread. Could such people decide that neither fusing with nor killing their Horror is the right thing to do?

• Finally, how much thought did you offer to the final text? Are you still within the brainstorming stage? It would be a pity to come up with good ideas and the right tone, only to fail to transfer them to the final product.

So.

1) Oh yeah, I definitely grok that, and it's part of the reason why a) the final text, while not going to ignore the thesis about psychological health, isn't going to lean hard into it, and more importantly b) we sort of ignore the versimilitude of connection between psychological health and moral action. There's a good space for character drama and narrative opportun ties by letting the two play against each other, and as a simpler version of the proposed, I think there's a lot of interest in situations where a Hero shows up because the player Beast group is of course the problem but finds they can't actually against them because just look at what they're doing (in a good sense). The tension between what a Hero thinks about what Beasts are versus what a Beast actually does is one with a lot of forms for fun conflict and thoughtful narrative.

2) While I enjoyed it the first time it got emphasized in the BPG, I've since cooled on the "Horror-as-Seperate-and-Equal-Partner-in-a-Beast". It does tread into Geist territory, it leans towards a lot of takes i've seen that go "Beast've been better if Beasts were prisons and binders of legendary monsters who have to tragically struggle against what that does to them" that I generally despise, and on the whole I don't think it actually serves Beast all that well, particularly when so much of the game makes more sense on the psychological level then not, and should lean more into it. Becoming a Beast is still a choice, but it should be clear-the things that make a prospective Deep Dreamer a viable half of a future beast includes that all the pieces were already there-the fear, the hunger, the feeling more people are connected to this than not, and even the self-transcendent nature of those feelings were all things the Deep Dreamer already had. The confrontation with the Horror makes it plain and graspable, and stepping into the Devouring is the fullest extent of that.

Deep Dreamers are a concept I want to flesh out more as a proper Dyad and proto state for all the Children-Beasts, Heroes, and Insatiable alike. I would need to really getting around to that to get what it means, but as a base idea, beyond what's been mentioned on the idea before, I do think that all of them have a pronounced relationship with what can be called the id or the shadow before hand, in an emotional or thoughtful or spiritual awareness of some sort that allows them, in a couple of ways, dig deep into themselves and connect to the Primordial Dream. It need not always be positive, need not always lead to a acceptance of what it represents, or be either innate or practiced. I look forward to working on them more in future.

3) While the family essays haven't gone into it much, I know I've made the point more than a couple times that one of the things that makes Beast a game about accountability is the fact that the Devouring very much makes it clear what they do to others, because the Horror puts them through the exact same wringer, and it doesn't so with the thoughtfulness and consideration a later Beast might do it with, because the Horror is an animal impulse actor. On the other hand, part of the reason why we try to frame exploring and getting comfortable with fear is to make the point that Satiation as a means of confronting the self, the true shape of one's fears and anxieities, and the uses and abuses of the security practices we use to handle that, is a very viable form of action to pursue-the Beast acting as both a guide and an adversarial force in an externalized psychodrama allows for Beasts to turn Satiation for themselves into a form of mini-Devouring for the victim, even if they don't walk away with cool Dreaming Powers and the like, and in kind can allow Beasts to understand the ways they could have been their victims, and to take their particular strengths and wisdom onto themselves in the process.

Or they could just be jerks, or not really have the time to get in deep with someone. As one of those "Extreme position used as a knife to cut shape to the final form", we generally take game as a game of assholes being assholes to each other first, and self-determining wherther that assholery will be directed towards making the world a bit less of asshole place or to being an even bigger asshole second. While nothing is ignored or excluded, and the two are ultimately intended to be paired as equal, Transgression still has a nominal top billing ahead of Kinship, and in the same way there should always be Sleeping Beauties but there will always be Thaddeus Pearsons (and fuck that guy), there should always be Beasts who build as they eat, but there always will be Beasts who just eat.

The game is a matter of balancing a lot of plates, but a lot of problems with the original core come from a failure to do that, and one of the reasons why that is, on top of all the mismanagement, is the failure to not anchor in a direction and then grow or deviate from it. Beast going forward should probably fix that by first anchoring in the bleak and then building up the positive as an equal from that afterwards. To mangle Wreck-It Ralph, you've got to be a bad guy before you can make the point that that doesn't mean you're a bad guy, as it were. Sometimes you really do mean to do right by the people you eat, but that doesn't mean that sometimes you just gotta punch a guy in the face for a bite so you can then burn down Musk's house.

4) Books are being written, vague plans are turning into proper outlines, notes and ideas and conversations are being consolidated, evaluated, and placed, with firm lines being drawn, somethings are actually going into the trash finally. While there's still some biding of time and holding out hope (because some things have muddied the mood that was leading to commitment), work that started in 2019 is now being crunched into products, commitments are starting to get made.

The Forsworn have the theme of Familial Strife and the mood of Unsatisfying Satiation.

[GibberingEloquence]

So.

1) Oh yeah, I definitely grok that, and it's part of the reason why a) the final text, while not going to ignore the thesis about psychological health, isn't going to lean hard into it, and more importantly b) we sort of ignore the versimilitude of connection between psychological health and moral action. There's a good space for character drama and narrative opportun ties by letting the two play against each other, and as a simpler version of the proposed, I think there's a lot of interest in situations where a Hero shows up because the player Beast group is of course the problem but finds they can't actually against them because just look at what they're doing (in a good sense). The tension between what a Hero thinks about what Beasts are versus what a Beast actually does is one with a lot of forms for fun conflict and thoughtful narrative.

2) While I enjoyed it the first time it got emphasized in the BPG, I've since cooled on the "Horror-as-Seperate-and-Equal-Partner-in-a-Beast". It does tread into Geist territory, it leans towards a lot of takes i've seen that go "Beast've been better if Beasts were prisons and binders of legendary monsters who have to tragically struggle against what that does to them" that I generally despise, and on the whole I don't think it actually serves Beast all that well, particularly when so much of the game makes more sense on the psychological level then not, and should lean more into it. Becoming a Beast is still a choice, but it should be clear-the things that make a prospective Deep Dreamer a viable half of a future beast includes that all the pieces were already there-the fear, the hunger, the feeling more people are connected to this than not, and even the self-transcendent nature of those feelings were all things the Deep Dreamer already had. The confrontation with the Horror makes it plain and graspable, and stepping into the Devouring is the fullest extent of that.

Deep Dreamers are a concept I want to flesh out more as a proper Dyad and proto state for all the Children-Beasts, Heroes, and Insatiable alike. I would need to really getting around to that to get what it means, but as a base idea, beyond what's been mentioned on the idea before, I do think that all of them have a pronounced relationship with what can be called the id or the shadow before hand, in an emotional or thoughtful or spiritual awareness of some sort that allows them, in a couple of ways, dig deep into themselves and connect to the Primordial Dream. It need not always be positive, need not always lead to a acceptance of what it represents, or be either innate or practiced. I look forward to working on them more in future.

3) While the family essays haven't gone into it much, I know I've made the point more than a couple times that one of the things that makes Beast a game about accountability is the fact that the Devouring very much makes it clear what they do to others, because the Horror puts them through the exact same wringer, and it doesn't so with the thoughtfulness and consideration a later Beast might do it with, because the Horror is an animal impulse actor. On the other hand, part of the reason why we try to frame exploring and getting comfortable with fear is to make the point that Satiation as a means of confronting the self, the true shape of one's fears and anxieities, and the uses and abuses of the security practices we use to handle that, is a very viable form of action to pursue-the Beast acting as both a guide and an adversarial force in an externalized psychodrama allows for Beasts to turn Satiation for themselves into a form of mini-Devouring for the victim, even if they don't walk away with cool Dreaming Powers and the like, and in kind can allow Beasts to understand the ways they could have been their victims, and to take their particular strengths and wisdom onto themselves in the process.

Or they could just be jerks, or not really have the time to get in deep with someone. As one of those "Extreme position used as a knife to cut shape to the final form", we generally take game as a game of assholes being assholes to each other first, and self-determining wherther that assholery will be directed towards making the world a bit less of asshole place or to being an even bigger asshole second. While nothing is ignored or excluded, and the two are ultimately intended to be paired as equal, Transgression still has a nominal top billing ahead of Kinship, and in the same way there should always be Sleeping Beauties but there will always be Thaddeus Pearsons (and fuck that guy), there should always be Beasts who build as they eat, but there always will be Beasts who just eat.

The game is a matter of balancing a lot of plates, but a lot of problems with the original core come from a failure to do that, and one of the reasons why that is, on top of all the mismanagement, is the failure to not anchor in a direction and then grow or deviate from it. Beast going forward should probably fix that by first anchoring in the bleak and then building up the positive as an equal from that afterwards. To mangle Wreck-It Ralph, you've got to be a bad guy before you can make the point that that doesn't mean you're a bad guy, as it were. Sometimes you really do mean to do right by the people you eat, but that doesn't mean that sometimes you just gotta punch a guy in the face for a bite so you can then burn down Musk's house.

4) Books are being written, vague plans are turning into proper outlines, notes and ideas and conversations are being consolidated, evaluated, and placed, with firm lines being drawn, somethings are actually going into the trash finally. While there's still some biding of time and holding out hope (because some things have muddied the mood that was leading to commitment), work that started in 2019 is now being crunched into products, commitments are starting to get made.

I am replying to this post mainly to wish you and the others involved with observation 4 the greatest of luck. Or rather, the greatest of clarity, focus, creativity and understanding. I readily admit that I started this thread without a clear motivation in my head, and been influenced by negative emotions, but I hope to have mustered enough self-control and openness to redirect the conversation and give you helpful ideas. I love this game, and I genuinely believe you have what it takes to actualize its true potential.

[Teatime]

1) Oh yeah, I definitely grok that, and it's part of the reason why a) the final text, while not going to ignore the thesis about psychological health, isn't going to lean hard into it, and more importantly b) we sort of ignore the versimilitude of connection between psychological health and moral action. There's a good space for character drama and narrative opportun ties by letting the two play against each other, and as a simpler version of the proposed, I think there's a lot of interest in situations where a Hero shows up because the player Beast group is of course the problem but finds they can't actually against them because just look at what they're doing (in a good sense). The tension between what a Hero thinks about what Beasts are versus what a Beast actually does is one with a lot of forms for fun conflict and thoughtful narrative.

I see your response as approval and I'm glad. A variety of expressions of a single idea is good game design. Still, I can't follow your reasoning. Do you see the "thesis about psychological health" as somehow interfering with nuanced Hero-Beast interactions? When you say you ignore "the versimilitude of connection between psychological health and moral action" do you mean in your essays or in the intended book? I ask, because I see my proposition as promoting that versimilitude.
Also, the example you gave depicts a sort of "first contact" between a Hero and a Beast. I want to point out that a multitude of scenarios can grow from that event. Volatile cooperation, one party turning back on their principles in order to fight, both parties doing that, competing over who gets to do the good thing, stealing the credit (which should be a big deal for Splats whose reputations are tangible forces)... You may consider this as a given, but your examples didn't cover it, so I can't assume.

2) While I enjoyed it the first time it got emphasized in the BPG, I've since cooled on the "Horror-as-Seperate-and-Equal-Partner-in-a-Beast". It does tread into Geist territory, it leans towards a lot of takes i've seen that go "Beast've been better if Beasts were prisons and binders of legendary monsters who have to tragically struggle against what that does to them" that I generally despise, and on the whole I don't think it actually serves Beast all that well, particularly when so much of the game makes more sense on the psychological level then not, and should lean more into it. Becoming a Beast is still a choice, but it should be clear-the things that make a prospective Deep Dreamer a viable half of a future beast includes that all the pieces were already there-the fear, the hunger, the feeling more people are connected to this than not, and even the self-transcendent nature of those feelings were all things the Deep Dreamer already had. The confrontation with the Horror makes it plain and graspable, and stepping into the Devouring is the fullest extent of that.

Deep Dreamers are a concept I want to flesh out more as a proper Dyad and proto state for all the Children-Beasts, Heroes, and Insatiable alike. I would need to really getting around to that to get what it means, but as a base idea, beyond what's been mentioned on the idea before, I do think that all of them have a pronounced relationship with what can be called the id or the shadow before hand, in an emotional or thoughtful or spiritual awareness of some sort that allows them, in a couple of ways, dig deep into themselves and connect to the Primordial Dream. It need not always be positive, need not always lead to a acceptance of what it represents, or be either innate or practiced. I look forward to working on them more in future.

I too prefer Beasts as Mortals becoming one with their Horror, if that's what you're saying. I do want Beasts struggling with their personal darkness, but that requires making that darkness personal, rather than an external entity. Also, I think establishing what Deep Dreamers are is essential for the game to know what it's about. It's tied to both personal experience of the characters and mechanics of Devouring, which in turn tell us what Beasts even are.

I find the description you just offered for Deep Dreamers insufficient. Based on it alone, I could say that their connection to the Astral merely makes them susceptible any Horror that comes knocking. Like an Open condition for Spirits - I wouldn't say Claimed Mortals were naturally meant to become fusions of flesh and spirit. Would a Deep Dreamer be susceptible to any random Horror, only Horrors they were somehow resonant with, or just one Horror that was somehow meant for them? Which of these categories could they merge with? Could they choose their second half randomly, or only choose Horrors they found kinship (hah!) with? In other words, what is the relationship between the Human and the Horror before they become one? Who does the Mother of Monsters love? Both halves? Only the Horror, seeing the human half as meat for her child's growth? Mind that I see a foreign entity fusing with a Mortal an acceptable approach, but the game needs to be clear that this is what happens.

Also, a semi-related matter: I think it would be cool to give equal wordcount to depicting Beasts as Mortals fused with Horrors and as Horrors fused with Mortals. It would help avoid replicating Geist, and let the player actually feel like a monster,

I have to interrupt my response due to scheduling, but I hope to get to it later.

[Satchel]

I find the description you just offered for Deep Dreamers insufficient. Based on it alone, I could say that their connection to the Astral merely makes them susceptible any Horror that comes knocking. Like an Open condition for Spirits - I wouldn't say Claimed Mortals were naturally meant to become fusions of flesh and spirit. Would a Deep Dreamer be susceptible to any random Horror, only Horrors they were somehow resonant with, or just one Horror that was somehow meant for them? Which of these categories could they merge with? Could they choose their second half randomly, or only choose Horrors they found kinship (hah!) with? In other words, what is the relationship between the Human and the Horror before they become one? Who does the Mother of Monsters love? Both halves? Only the Horror, seeing the human half as meat for her child's growth? Mind that I see a foreign entity fusing with a Mortal an acceptable approach, but the game needs to be clear that this is what happens.

Speaking from the sidelines as someone for whom the fatalist bent of Begotten culture is an interesting thing to think about:

Yes, metaphysically, any Horror can Devour any deep-dreamer.

No, realistically, not just any Horror will.

An unhosted Horror is instinctively drawn to people experiencing dream-narratives or waking situations that allow it to feed, and being fed on through the soul is a vividly memorable experience; this means Horrors tend to be recurring nightmares, and the Devouring is a choice by the dreamer based on recognizing themself in the fear and hunger that has visited them throughout their life — even if the dreams that draw the Horror pre-date its formation. A dreamer who never visits or dreams of large bodies of water nor worries about their possessions is not going to draw the eye of an aquatic Leviathan that Hungers for the Hoard, and someone whose personal life and interiority have no concerns about stalkers or pursuit is unlikely to get the opportunity to become an Eshmaki Predator.

As a conceptual being from the soul of the world shaped by the soul of all humanity, every Horror exists within every human with a soul, but not every human with a soul will connect equally to every Horror. Like the book says, you don't choose your Family — the Devouring is a choice, but it's an unconscious process just like the Bargain a Sin-Eater makes isn't a negotiated contract, more felt deep-down than decided from the forebrain.

[ArcaneArts]

I see your response as approval and I'm glad. A variety of expressions of a single idea is good game design. Still, I can't follow your reasoning. Do you see the "thesis about psychological health" as somehow interfering with nuanced Hero-Beast interactions? When you say you ignore "the versimilitude of connection between psychological health and moral action" do you mean in your essays or in the intended book? I ask, because I see my proposition as promoting that versimilitude.
Also, the example you gave depicts a sort of "first contact" between a Hero and a Beast. I want to point out that a multitude of scenarios can grow from that event. Volatile cooperation, one party turning back on their principles in order to fight, both parties doing that, competing over who gets to do the good thing, stealing the credit (which should be a big deal for Splats whose reputations are tangible forces)... You may consider this as a given, but your examples didn't cover it, so I can't assume.

The particulars here:

• On the thesis of psychological health, when I presented the Forsworn, I analogized them with that one friend I assume we've all had who will loudly and proudly declare there's not afraid of X and will constantly take to doing something with X to demonstrate that they're not afraid. I assume they all have a psychological tick where they kill Beast after Beast after Beast trying to prove something to everyone, and to themselves more importantly. It's never enough, because the Conquering a lie they told themselves with metaphysical weight, but it's how they assure themselves. However, it's the position that just because they have this sort of compulsive tick doesn't mean they have to act on it, anymore than we assume they have to actually always be hostile or controlling-in permitting an out to Heroism (which was always of interest), it also presupposes that a Hero can act against towards their own expectations and instincts as inspired by their psychospiritually imposed mindset to varying degrees. They've got a problem in the form of being a Hero, but they can be more powerful than it. The more common issue for them is "Why would you want to?"
• On the versimilitude of connection, it's a general idea that if you have a psychologically unhealthy way of looking and understanding something, your actions are more likely to be toxic and harmful in their own way. For example, if a person believes that everyone's fundamental self-interest is so domineering that they will always hew towards serving themselves over helping others and that, when it comes down to the wire, most people will screw over others to get what they want and those that don't are what we call "suckers", you can reasonably assume then that person would consider it advantageous to screw over everyone else pre-emptively (and yes, I am referencing who you think I'm referencing). Since we start from the position that Heroism is psychologically unhealthy, you expect all of their actions to have a layer of toxicity to it-and indeed, a lot of them do exactly that, but as a result of the above, we draw more of a divide between what a Hero can and will do against what they're very likely thinking as a result of the Conquering.
• On the example, I was actually thinking of that constantly being the way that hypothetical Hero goes, because it's kind of endearing and demonstrates the yo-yoing that can happen with a Hero, their instincts telling them to act against the Beasts but their reason basically going "I can't actually justify doing that." Your example is a lot more specific and nuanced, but the general idea is getting at that push-and-pull, and that that tension, along with Hunger, can go a long way to providing a wider form of ways for conflicts to happen, including the ones you listed, and especially even if the dynamic between a Beast and Hero is one therapist and patient.

I too prefer Beasts as Mortals becoming one with their Horror, if that's what you're saying. I do want Beasts struggling with their personal darkness, but that requires making that darkness personal, rather than an external entity. Also, I think establishing what Deep Dreamers are is essential for the game to know what it's about. It's tied to both personal experience of the characters and mechanics of Devouring, which in turn tell us what Beasts even are.

We know what Beasts are.

I find the description you just offered for Deep Dreamers insufficient.

I feel like I've laid out that when I started this venture, that the initial order of priorities was 1)Improve Heroes, 2) Flesh Out the Astral/Dreaming and Get It More Involved with the Core Gameplay Loop, 3) Work Out Some Tools That Throw More Light on Beast's potential for positive interactions, particularly with humans. From there, the things that need thinking about are smaller and more scattered. Some things have a lot more figured out because of forum conflict (No, I did not think we would want or need a thorough explanation for the driving forces of Beast culture to such an end as to thoroughly explore that the Three Children represent Three Philosophies that any of the three can follow, or the hows and whys of an Apex's means and ends would shape a Hive and the Beasts in it, but enough people went "I can fix Beast with a philsophical/organizational component that challenges teaching culture" loudly enough that eventually Kneel Before the Maw Final Mix became an inevitability), but otherwise I do have a rough order of operations, and my deviations are more the result of wandering to give my brain a break on those big things than a change of that order of operations. Deep Dreamers are a thing I want to make a proper and firm Dyad, but in the grand scheme of things that Beast Needs in order to be Mediocre in the Eyes of the Public*, that's not where my attention lies-if anything, it's lower priority than "See if we can improve the 'sex appeal' of Nightmares." So if it seems insufficient, that's because Deep Dreamers aren't so important as to do a lot of the lifting for improving Beast. I know I want to do it, but I don't need to do it more than I need to work on the Dreaming.

*and yes, I hew towards modest goals alongside the road of making Beast it's best version. I don't need it to be everyone's new favorite game, I just need most(not all) people to have their worst feeling towards Beast be one of indifference, and to otherwise decrease the number of cruddy conversations that happen around Beast. Beast needs to be it's best self, and if that final form remains a niche product, at least it can go out in public.

[Primordial newcomer]

The particulars here:

• On the thesis of psychological health, when I presented the Forsworn, I analogized them with that one friend I assume we've all had who will loudly and proudly declare there's not afraid of X and will constantly take to doing something with X to demonstrate that they're not afraid. I assume they all have a psychological tick where they kill Beast after Beast after Beast trying to prove something to everyone, and to themselves more importantly. It's never enough, because the Conquering a lie they told themselves with metaphysical weight, but it's how they assure themselves. However, it's the position that just because they have this sort of compulsive tick doesn't mean they have to act on it, anymore than we assume they have to actually always be hostile or controlling-in permitting an out to Heroism (which was always of interest), it also presupposes that a Hero can act against towards their own expectations and instincts as inspired by their psychospiritually imposed mindset to varying degrees. They've got a problem in the form of being a Hero, but they can be more powerful than it. The more common issue for them is "Why would you want to?"
• On the versimilitude of connection, it's a general idea that if you have a psychologically unhealthy way of looking and understanding something, your actions are more likely to be toxic and harmful in their own way. For example, if a person believes that everyone's fundamental self-interest is so domineering that they will always hew towards serving themselves over helping others and that, when it comes down to the wire, most people will screw over others to get what they want and those that don't are what we call "suckers", you can reasonably assume then that person would consider it advantageous to screw over everyone else pre-emptively (and yes, I am referencing who you think I'm referencing). Since we start from the position that Heroism is psychologically unhealthy, you expect all of their actions to have a layer of toxicity to it-and indeed, a lot of them do exactly that, but as a result of the above, we draw more of a divide between what a Hero can and will do against what they're very likely thinking as a result of the Conquering.
• On the example, I was actually thinking of that constantly being the way that hypothetical Hero goes, because it's kind of endearing and demonstrates the yo-yoing that can happen with a Hero, their instincts telling them to act against the Beasts but their reason basically going "I can't actually justify doing that." Your example is a lot more specific and nuanced, but the general idea is getting at that push-and-pull, and that that tension, along with Hunger, can go a long way to providing a wider form of ways for conflicts to happen, including the ones you listed, and especially even if the dynamic between a Beast and Hero is one therapist and patient.

We know what Beasts are.

I find the description you just offered for Deep Dreamers insufficient.[/QUOTE]
I feel like I've laid out that when I started this venture, that the initial order of priorities was 1)Improve Heroes, 2) Flesh Out the Astral/Dreaming and Get It More Involved with the Core Gameplay Loop, 3) Work Out Some Tools That Throw More Light on Beast's potential for positive interactions, particularly with humans. From there, the things that need thinking about are smaller and more scattered. Some things have a lot more figured out because of forum conflict (No, I did not think we would want or need a thorough explanation for the driving forces of Beast culture to such an end as to thoroughly explore that the Three Children represent Three Philosophies that any of the three can follow, or the hows and whys of an Apex's means and ends would shape a Hive and the Beasts in it, but enough people went "I can fix Beast with a philsophical/organizational component that challenges teaching culture" loudly enough that eventually Kneel Before the Maw Final Mix became an inevitability), but otherwise I do have a rough order of operations, and my deviations are more the result of wandering to give my brain a break on those big things than a change of that order of operations. Deep Dreamers are a thing I want to make a proper and firm Dyad, but in the grand scheme of things that Beast Needs in order to be Mediocre in the Eyes of the Public*, that's not where my attention lies-if anything, it's lower priority than "See if we can improve the 'sex appeal' of Nightmares." So if it seems insufficient, that's because Deep Dreamers aren't so important as to do a lot of the lifting for improving Beast. I know I want to do it, but I don't need to do it more than I need to work on the Dreaming.

*and yes, I hew towards modest goals alongside the road of making Beast it's best version. I don't need it to be everyone's new favorite game, I just need most(not all) people to have their worst feeling towards Beast be one of indifference, and to otherwise decrease the number of cruddy conversations that happen around Beast. Beast needs to be it's best self, and if that final form remains a niche product, at least it can go out in public.[/QUOTE]

It's been discussed in depth concerning the improvement of Heroes themselves, and I admit this kinda goes with "flesh out the astral" but may I ask how Heroes will be seen by the public (and possibly even Hunters). I figure since their actions resonate with the astral and in a way that somehow allows them to WIN, how does the public react to what's basically a serial killer due to Beasts themselves just appearing human? Would humanity have odd interactions between the reality as seen by them, and the effect the Heroic actions have across the astral?

[ArcaneArts]

It's been discussed in depth concerning the improvement of Heroes themselves, and I admit this kinda goes with "flesh out the astral" but may I ask how Heroes will be seen by the public (and possibly even Hunters). I figure since their actions resonate with the astral and in a way that somehow allows them to WIN, how does the public react to what's basically a serial killer due to Beasts themselves just appearing human? Would humanity have odd interactions between the reality as seen by them, and the effect the Heroic actions have across the astral?

On the subject of the public perception, particularly as murdering people goes, a lot of that is covered by a Hero's Lair, particularly as it grows and the world increasingly revolves around the Hero and their Protagonist Centered Morality. For anyone else not swept up by the psychospiritual storm who might otherwise object to little things like gross murder, "I...yes. I will obviously be keeping that a secret."

[ArcaneArts]

They all describe some terrible fate, some failure-state that is a mostly logical conclusion of the corresponding beliefs, a sort of Greek tragedy, a self-fulfilling prophecy... something that is embedded into the bedrock of reality, so to say.

So as a general rule, my plan was to leave this thread aside and go ahead with my own Inguma thread, but I was keeping this open because it would inevitably address some of the things here, but I came across this and actually ingested it, and decided it should be better answered here.

Because, uh.

Yeah. Yes, that is in fact what I was going for.

Beast keeps a broad template for addressing mythological structures and tendencies while centering them on their own themes, and in terms of keeping it to the language most often used in Beast, I would usually describe that "Kinship vs Hunger", but Beast has always had a soft predilection for the Greco-epic traditions, and I would very summarily describe Beast's corner of the Chronicle's world as one where character is fate in a fairy tale where in you are the monster. I've described before how the horror of Beast derives from the fatalism of where the thing standing in the way of yours dreams is that the one who is having them is you(the main characters, the Three Children, of Beast: the Primordial), how the conflict is trying to escape that fate while still being true to who you are, where in both are one and the same.

Beasts and Heroes are bastards stuck in cycle of violence with each other, each the active force personified that binds the other to a continually repeating and unsatisfying narrative, with Beasts embracing themselves but making the argument that the world must have a place for them if they exist in their acceptance of themselves at all, and so seek to find/make that place for their own happy ending, and Heroes contending that by rejecting their character, they can reject their fate and conquer/remake the world into one of their own happy ending. The text of Beast doesn't deny either the possibility of either being right, but makes the point that such is unlikely, the most absolute ardent choristers for this being the Insatiable, who embody the self-destructive embrace of fatalism and the absurdity of trying to escape it by demonstration of excessive ruin and absolute annihilation. For Beasts, they are trapped by the fact that, for whatever else they are or may be, they are monsters, that they are some form of strife, and that for all the world has lions and hurricanes, that things in the world will usually, inevitably, seek to end that strife. For Heroes, they are trapped by their own failure to engage with fundamental realities that could very well point the way to freedom of being.

Beast is pretty deliberately setup to be a game about tragedy, and it's Heroes are definitely understood in the Greco-Heroic tradition of tragedy. They, too, commit frequently to the fatal sin of hubris, in a game series built on humanism, against the gods named "I".

Sure, part of the appeal is that Beast lets you decide how to fight against that, and even permits you to win*, but it's built on the usual assumption being.....

[insert a gif of Bugs Bunny saying "Well what did you expect from an opera, a happy ending" that works here]

*Now that said, the game's still more interested in how Beasts can win than Heroes, because we literally have everything else for that-but Beasts are able to help Heroes win too.

[GibberingEloquence]

So as a general rule, my plan was to leave this thread aside and go ahead with my own Inguma thread, but I was keeping this open because it would inevitably address some of the things here, but I came across this and actually ingested it, and decided it should be better answered here.

Because, uh.

Yeah. Yes, that is in fact what I was going for.

Beast keeps a broad template for addressing mythological structures and tendencies while centering them on their own themes, and in terms of keeping it to the language most often used in Beast, I would usually describe that "Kinship vs Hunger", but Beast has always had a soft predilection for the Greco-epic traditions, and I would very summarily describe Beast's corner of the Chronicle's world as one where character is fate in a fairy tale where in you are the monster. I've described before how the horror of Beast derives from the fatalism of where the thing standing in the way of yours dreams is that the one who is having them is you(the main characters, the Three Children, of Beast: the Primordial), how the conflict is trying to escape that fate while still being true to who you are, where in both are one and the same. Beasts and Heroes are bastards stuck in cycle of violence with each other, each the active force personified that binds the other to a continually repeating and unsatisfying narrative, with Beasts embracing themselves but making the argument that the world must have a place for them if they exist in their acceptance of themselves at all, and so seek to find/make that place for their own happy ending, and Heroes contending that by rejecting their character, they can reject their fate and conquer/remake the world into one of their own happy ending. The text of Beast doesn't deny either the possibility of either being right, but makes the point that such is unlikely, the most absolute ardent choristers for this being the Insatiable, who embody the self-destructive embrace fatalism and the absurdity of trying to escape it by demonstration of excessive ruin and absolute annihilation. For Beasts, they are trapped by the fact that, for whatever else they are or may be, they are monsters, that they are some form of strife, and that for all the world has lions and hurricanes, that things in the world will usually, inevitably, seek to end that strife. For Heroes, they are trapped by their own failure to engage with fundamental realities that could very well point the way to freedom of being.

Beast is pretty deliberately setup to be a game about tragedy, and it's Heroes are definitely understood in the Greco-Heroic tradition of tragedy. They, too, commit frequently to the fatal sin of hubris, in a game series built on humanism, against the gods named "I".

Sure, part of the appeal is that Beast lets you decide how to fight against that, and even permits you to win*, but it's built on the usual assumption being.....


*Now that said, the game's still more interested in how Beasts can win than Heroes, because we literally have everything else for that-but Beasts are able to help Heroes win too.

You know, I can actually get behind this framing just fine, and I've realized that I probably did not understand a certain percentage of your authorial intent, so I do apologize for that. I'm looking forward to your proper Forsworn thread, with that classic style of prose and analysis you're known for. Hopefully I helped you in one way or another, and I'll try to pay closer attention to what you write next so I can give more relevant feedback. Have a most excellent day.