Things That Go BUMP…[Monday Meeting Notes]

157 thoughts on “Things That Go BUMP…[Monday Meeting Notes]”

1. I liked Mage20. These uh, 20th anniversary things have been my first real exposure to anything more than the metaplot and stories of the games, and I’m liking them all, though I did notice what you talked about the other week, with how Vampire sort of stayed timewise ambiguous and other books are more sort of advanced, I guess you’d say? And I was really pleased to see that the Vampire books (Anarchs and Lore of the Clans) have both sort of moved on, timewise.

   Is there any info you can share about Forsaken’s The Pack, which is in first draft? It seems self evident, its about the pack, but if there’s any other details or expectations we could get from it that would be great.

   Reply

   • I’m sure Stew Wilson will share more info as the book moves through the initial writing stages, so I’ll leave that with him.

     Reply

2. Beast delivered everything I wanted out of it, plus a few things I didn’t know I needed. Are we going to find out about future Beast books at GenCon? I’d really like to see a Player’s Companion. The core book just feels like it doesn’t have enough Atavisms, Nightmares or Lair Traits, or examples of Life and Legend.

   Still looking forward to Awakening and Exalted.

   Reply

   • Glad Beast is working for you and you want more. Gen Con announcements are Gen Con announcements. And yep, they’re a comin’

     Reply

3. You’re awesome Rich. You may be wondering where that came from but its just I think your response to the controversy surrounding Beast is extremely well put. Also, Stannis makes me want to drink as well; friggin’ Stannis.

   Reply

   • Thanks and yeah, that guy. Not liking him now.

     Reply

4. “Friggin’ Stannis.”

   Seriously, fuck that guy.

   Reply

   • Mostly thinking how much I’d enjoy seeing a dragon eat him.

     Reply

5. Never let it be said that Onyx Path doesn’t listen to its customers. You may not always agree with the feedback; but it’s nice that none of it gets rejected out of hand.

   I especially appreciate your willingness to rewrite BtP for more clarity of intent, instead of going with “it’s already written; we’ll fix typos and simple errata, but nothing more.”

   Reply

   • Well, it’s clear that in this case there’s something not coming through like we intended. We need, in cases like this, to figure out why and how our intentions- see responses below- can be brought forward.

     Reply

6. Friggin’ Stannis. D:

   Also, personally, I’m loving Beast. And that *image*! Whatever he’s doing, it looks Amazing!

   Reply

   • Agreed, and thanks-glad you do!

     Reply

7. How excited is the team to almost be done with the Demon Translation Guide and have no more translations in sight?

   Reply

   • For the first, we’re pretty darn glad as I think this particular Guide might be one of the most helpful. Descent is a very different game that uses different terminology, but which can evoke the same kind of stories as Fallen. And we hope this Guide can demonstrate that.

     Reply

8. So… admittedly, I may be a terrible person, but I’m a little surprised to see any controversy over Beast. (Not terribly surprised that I didn’t see it mind; there’s a reason I stay off of forums.) I mean…
   Really?
   Disclaimer: I appreciate the levity with which Rich seems to have handled the subject. I will attempt to remain within that spirit.
   Personally I feel like Beast was a little… tame, in comparison with the other games. In the writing as well as the subject matter. It just doesn’t have (for me) the same sting that Strix or Idigam do. Regardless of that though, it is certainly up there for favorite game.
   You literally take a hold of your nightmares, your worst fears, and you learn to draw strength from them. To defy them. To cast aside the lot you drew and redefine who you are and why.
   Who doesn’t need that kind of strength?

   Reply

   • Appreciate that. I’m not trying to make light of any concerns, so much as to keep perspective so as to be able to better figure out what we need to do with Beast.

     Reply

9. I am very, very confused by these reactions to Beast. I mean, clearly, it’s not the majority’s reaction because, well, the Kickstarter seems to be doing just fine (yay!), but still.

   We’re sort of beyond that “omg you want me to play a monster!” reaction. This is World of Darkness. Second edition of second iteration of it, no less. Everyone knows the score by now. So if you’re still here, how the hell can Beast cause any issues?

   I just don’t get it.

   Reply

   • Eh.. I dont know.

     Maybe people dont see the corelation between Beast and other WoD Articles?

     Maybe it has to do with people responding from a view outside of those who know these games?

     I mean Werewolf is a monstrous game.
     Vampire is pretty grim as well.

     Spoiler: The game tests the boundaries of what you consider standard activtity in a tabletop rpg game (im looking at PF and D&D especially) where common tropes such as Good vs Evil is a big deal. I like PF and D&D, Wod (especially in 2 ed) is a very different experience from these.

     Some people dont like this form of storytelling. Thats too bad, but as Rich says: Not all games are for all people.

     Me? im starting to warm up to Beast. Im considering to back it.

     Onyx Path has revitalised World of Darkness for me.

     Reply

     • To be clear, I’m not saying that how nasty the Beasts are is the big issue folks are having so much that is is AN issue some folks have brought up. I mention it because it is actually something that has a reasonable answer that I can place out there vs the much more complex issues I’ll respond to below.

       Reply

   • The problem isn’t really that you’re playing a monster, the problem is that the game design and themes are at odds with each other. The biggest complaint, for instance, is that Heroes are completely justified in hunting down and destroying Beasts because Beasts feed on suffering. The counter is “Heroes think it’s *their* story”, but in what way is it the Beast’s story any more than the Heroes’?
     The one Hero that’s close to sympathetic is a teenage girl who stood up to her abuser (and that’s the other major complaint; that Beasts constantly use abuser tactics even though the developer seems to want the victims of bullying and oppression to sympathize with them), and while she’s selfcentered and sees herself as this larger than life avenging angel and would be physically attacking Beasts if she were able to get out of her coma, the fact of the matter is that her only “crime” is hunting down the same monsters that abused her. She ended up in a coma because she fought back against someone who, many readers theorize, wanted to “Collect” her virginity.

     Basically, the problem with Beast isn’t that you’re playing a monster. It’s that you’re playing a monster that people feel is treated as a heroic, selfless, justified monster. The notion people have is that Beasts are woobies, but they’re not. They’re incredibly powerful to a Mary Sue degree. And they even have the ability to make everyone love them. Which really forces them into everyone else’s business inorganically. So you’ve got this group that you’re told to sympathize with being hunted and harassed by people they tormented, and are much stronger than, and they get to be everyone’s best friend.

     Reply

     • This right here summarizes my opinion perfectly. I’m still backing the project because the book offers great material for my other games but that’s it. However from here till the product is finished there’s still a long time, so I reserve my final opinion till a read the final pdf version.

       Reply

     • I think that sums up some of the concerns pretty well. In the other WoD games, the protagonists and the antagonists are never established as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, as ‘justified’ or ‘unjustified’. So something is taken away here, instead of an interesting moral dilemma, we have predefined ‘selfish’ heroes and beasts that act as selfishly but seem to have every right to have ‘their’ story told. This leaves little space for actual ‘heroes’ that altruisticly want to save themselves or their fellow humans from very real nightmares. I find that aspect of Beast disappointing, too.

       Reply

       • In one early V:tM book, the PCs came up against a hunter who had joined the Inquisition after her entire family had been killed by vampires. The ST was told to emphasize her suffering and how her actions were justified. As someone said, the Inquisition were the good guys in V:tM.

         Reply

     • Thank you for explaining that. I can see where some people would have a problem; I hadn’t considered it in that light. I agree that the writing could make more emphasis on the fact that Beasts cause and eat nightmares-as-psychological-trauma (and I actually think that capitalizing it in the text removes it from the true meaning and description of what they’re doing).
       I still will enjoy the game, but I think I’ll enjoy it a little bit more, responsibly now.

       Reply

     • Well stated issue that some folks are having. For me, this tells me that somewhere in the presentation we did not clearly communicate what Beasts are. This was that ambiguity issue I mentioned in the blog. I know what Matt intended, and we’re going to discuss why that intention wasn’t clear to a bunch of posters.

       Reply

     • Somebody said they thought the Beast was to ‘collect’ on her virginity? Wow, they have some pretty dirty minds. There’s literally nothing sexual at all in that description nor are sexual acts ever described as something that a Collector could use to feed from. That’s some pretty serious projection there.

       Reply

       • The more I talk about and discuss Beast the more I see another problem with it. The terminology is bland and confusing when in the context of the larger World of Darkness.
         When I say “beast”, am I talking about the Begotten or the parasite in the soul of a Vampire? When I say Soul am I talking about an actual soul or the Beast Soul that drives a Beast?

         Honestly I feel like Primordial: The Begotten would be a much better name, one that evokes less confusion.

         I also feel like there isn’t enough focus on Beasts as ancient monstrosities that have clung to the souls of human beings. I’m still taking notes for the thread in the hopes that Matt will listen, but it really feels like there’s too much smugness of Beasts as “we’re the original” without much reason for it. I’ve seen it suggested that they be dreams themselves, but I think more interesting would be ancient beings from before reality who retreated to the Astral when they lost and are now coming back. They feel Kinship with all sorts of monsters because they’re creatures from the ancient dark, not because “you’re our little brothers” but because they were the proto Ur-monsters that came before the others.

         Reply

         • Use a capital B for Beast, it’s easier to keep track that way. The Soul question is actually something Matt is working on.

     • In what world does making people scared or upset justify serial murder of anyone who is remotely like you, or is confused for someone that looks like you, or gets in the way of the person trying to kill all the people like you?

       Hero actions are not even remotely justified ever, unless you think it’s also okay to kill all the shift managers that mistreat their employees, all of the pretty thieves and all of the muggers; most Beast feeding actions generate roughly equivalent actions to those.

       Reply

       • It’s not whether she’s justified or not. But the game explicitly tells us we aren’t supposed to *sympathize* with her. Nevermind that it’s serial murder of horrible monstrosities that cause suffering and anguish. The game says “if you want sympathetic antagonists, use a Hunter”. She also never chose to be a Hero. As I mentioned elsewhere, do you hate the people who murder due to Disquiet, or do you feel sorry for them?

         Reply

       • They get a +1 bonus if it involves killing, as do a lot of the feeding descriptions. The rules explicitly state they have no problem with killing. In the example of a PC feeding, she breaks into the house of someone who had stolen Halloween candy, poisoned it, then smothered him with a plastic bag while he was retching, then inflicting a Nightmare on him and forms a Chamber in his house that leaves him vulnerable to attacks in his dreams. That’s a lot more than a shift manager. If a human did that, it would be a breaking point for torture.

         Reply

   • Well, that’s what we’ll be looking at. See below for some of the concerns.

     Reply

10. Impressively at one point this morning (GMT anyway) OPP products made up the first TEN threads on RPG.net. That’s just incredible.

    Whatever your views on Beast, Exalted, Ascension, Awakening, etc… they sure as heck are sparking debate.

    Reply

    • As I mention in the blog, a lot of those threads are pretty great, and even the concerns over Beast contain gems of insight even beyond helping us figure out what isn’t connecting with those posters and why.

      Reply

      • I’ll admit, I’m a little worried that none of the complaints will be hard, especially after hearing things like “Matt said someone must be an MRA for disagreeing with him”, but I’m hopeful all the same. I’m also definitely hoping that this kurfluffle encourages more commitment to open development.

        Reply

        • Considering that there has been more than a few people on other forums who have outright invented and made up things that the book doesn’t say in order to attack it I would borrow the gaming attitude of “Screenshot or it didn’t happen” myself. In any event, Matt has already posted he is working on some changes he thinks will benefit the game so once they come out we’ll all know what any changes to be made are.

          Reply

          • Unfortunately, I really think your attitude makes sense with this. There has been some very nasty commenting that neither the material, nor Onyx, nor Matt deserves.

        • How the hell would we not hear them? And please, do not believe everything people say they saw or heard. As hard as it might be to believe in our little community, there have been some cases of bad faith commenting.

          Reply

        • I did not actually say that, of course.

          Reply

          • “I did not actually say that, of course. Also Ian is a stinky poop-face.”

            HOW DARE YOU

11. Maybe Mr. Garibaldi has synesthesia and experiences colors as smells? And since each line has a different color palette to him each has a different scent?

    Also what Ex3 thread are we talking about here? I thought the leak was on the forums.

    Reply

    • *the leak was verboten*

      Reply

    • Y’know, that could be. And maybe he doesn’t realize it. Actually, that’s pretty cool. There are a couple ongoing EX3 threads on RPGnet.

      Reply

12. Will there be any game mechanics in WTA- Shattered Dreams and will there be any rules for Dhampirs in VTM – Ghouls (or anywhere else)

    Reply

    • I can’t speak for Dhampirs, but ‘yes’ for Shattered Dreams.

      Reply

    • And I’ll let Maniacal Matt McElroy pop in here if he wants to reveal anything about Ghouls.

      Reply

13. Still no more detail about VDA20 and his never ending indexing? No news about its Tome of Secrets? 🙁

    Reply

    • We hear it is coming in soon, but I don’t post maybes on the Updates if I can avoid it. If a book isn’t on the Update list from Rose, then it is not yet at the writing first draft stage.

      Reply

    • Yeah, I’m still outlining it. I’m trying to get my plate clear of a couple of other projects that are mentally dissonant with the themes of V20DA, so I can get in the right headspace. Trust me, you don’t want me working on V20DA stuff while I’m working on Changeling: The Lost. That would be a FUCKED up game.

      Reply

14. I’m confused why people are confused over the upset about Beast. If you want to know why, just browse the threads on it. There’s plenty not to like, from the unconnected nature of Beasts to setting fiction that calls monsters who poison children’s candy victims of mundane humans who have been magically coerced into trying to stop them, villains.

    In Vampire, all feeding is victimization of someone, even when done to the “right” people. The books never shy from this. Vampires are always treated as morally grey at best.

    Beasts are nightmare incarnate who hurt people just by existing and the book paints them as wounded victims. They are people who, by the book’s own admission, share a mutual smile and nod with the Gentry. Their dialogue with Prometheans is Strix.txt. Top it off that there is no justification for this, nor any playing it up as mustache-twirling villainy. It’s just a straight-faced abuse sim, and a straight-up revenge fantasy sim at worst.

    If that’s the game you want to play, more power to you. The devs feel this game has a right to exist, and I say go for it; their company, their money, people clearly want it. Personally, I think that stating the desire to clear up ambiguity is the last thing they need but there we go.

    I’ve got my own feelings – I’ll probably use Beasts as villains at some point, they fit the role perfectly – but this sums up most of what I’ve seen. Really not sure why people would be confused at the upset.

    Reply

    • To try to answer why some (probably just me and a few others) don’t get the upset, I’d say the answer is empathy. I empathize with the Begotten because I feel a connection to their impulses and addictions. It’s similar to the Professor X vs. Magneto thought experiment, i.e.: if you’ve discovered that you have superhuman power and have been othered all your life, do you try to be like Charles Xavier, and try to make peace, or Magneto, and pursue revenge? I fall on the Magneto side of that argument, because I believe that that is a valid response. I understand that there are some who question the righteousness of such a choice, and that’s their right, but some of the critiques just don’t seem rigorous enough to sway me. Particularly claims that there are no consequences for a Beast’s actions, or that they must be out-and-out abusive in order to be viable. I don’t see those points as valid because the evidence isn’t there. I do however think this could be remedied by bringing more inspirational material in, especially material dealing with addiction, coming into power on your own, and dealing with obsession. Chronicle, The Number Twenty-Three, The Rockinrolla. Fight Club, even. I think keeping these films in mind would give more perspective on how the Begotten operate, and how they deal with other Supernatural social groups.

      Reply

      • There is no consequence for killing, except .external ones if they get caught. They have no Morality equivalent, except for Satiety. They can also quit anytime by getting Satiety 10.

        Reply

        • As I’ve said before, Satiety is, to my mind, an inversion of the Integrity mechanic, in that the risk, represented by the Feeding roll, is not going mad, by way of losing Integrity, but being forced to act in progressively more monstrous ways, or dying slowly, or spawning a Hero, by failing a roll. The consequences of failure, beyond not gaining Satiety, should be more visceral, and yes the game should better reflect that. Also, the game should do a better job of encouraging the players to be measured in how they satisfy their Hungers. The Conditions tied to Satiety levels do some of that, but the Feeding mechanics could do more to limit the efficacy of defaulting to any one level of Feeding action, particularly those that are gratuitously monstrous.

          Reply

          • That may be what’s in your mind, but it’s not in the rules. The Conditions actually give advantages.

        • Most of those conditions have hefty drawbacks, like stopping most Willpower expenditures, or opening you to anathema, or flat turning off your powers.

          Reply

          • Not that hefty except for the extreme ones, and they have significant advantages for Nightmares and Atavisms. No willpower expenditure except for feeding is better than becoming a non-thinking NPC.

      • Where does it say they’ve been “othered” all their lives?

        Reply

        • The book quite clearly states that potential Beasts go through a lot of judgment from other people prior to their Homecoming. Look at the central from the Fiction, Ben. He’s policed, bullied, even subjected to Medical Discrimination prior to his Homecoming.

          Reply

          • There are plenty that aren’t. Nany from antagonists, Greedy Squid, Shen Lung.

      • More examples that help clarify the expected experience of being a Beast, like your references, would certainly be helpful. Thanks for yours.

        Reply

    • The issue is not in playing a good character. In New Wave Requiem they threw murder orgies and raped stand ins of the royal couple. A friend’s character once kidnapped political rivals and turned them into homonculus incubators. I’ve had a Promethean rape someone during Torment and then start slashing up his own face when he couldn’t understand why she didn’t love him. Atrocity and horrible characters isn’t the problem.

      The problem is that people feel that the text reinforces the notion that Beasts are not bad guys. People feel that the book is telling them Beasts are meant to be innocent minority stand ins. Their Antagonists, after all, are caricatures of GamerGate and Anonymous. And we’re told that Heroes are NEVER Sympathetic. Even when we see a potential hero suffocated and terrorized for stealing candy. Or a teenage girl in a coma who “dared to fight back against her attacker”. Saying that “they need to be Integrity 4” seems like a cop out, and people have pointed out that this conflates Integrity with Morality. Being bullied could put you at Integrity 4. It also means that when a Beast Feeds on a character who *isn’t* a jerkface, they have less chance of creating a monsterhunter that will try to kill them. This is as much an unfortunate implication as the Unihar.

      The difference is that Vampires are portrayed as being potentially good, or mitigating their atrocities. So is everything else. You feel bad for the people affected by Disquiet and the book reinforces that, but the book tells you explicitly not to feel bad for Sleeping Beauty or the Hero smothered by a bag of Halloween candy.

      People aren’t upset that Beasts are monsters. Anyone familiar with the World of Darkness knows about The Circle of the Crone or The Autumn Court or anything like that. But the difference is that it’s possible to play a “good” one of those. It’s incredibly difficult to play a “good” Beast. But even THAT isn’t really the problem. People play Slashers, and it’s nearly impossible to be a good serial killer. The problem is that we’re explicitly meant to sympathize with Beasts but not their victims. We’re told they deserve it, and that if they stand up to the Beast–as Sleeping Beauty did, for instance–they deserve more punishment because they become monsters intent on killing Beasts; intent on killing the people who have wronged them, but it’s somehow a flaw.

      Reply

      • This was what I was referring to when I mention ambiguity in the text. The intended meaning clearly was lost in the process, and we’ll be discussing in-house how to get that back later this week.

        Reply

15. Well, because a lot of people, including the creative team, don’t get the same things from the text as you and others do. Plus, while there is _some_ agreement from the folks that have issues, there are a huge amount of contradictions in the concerns. Someone who has read the text and comes away without those concerns has to try and parse a gamut of issues ranging from “Beasts need social/cultural groups like Clans”, to Beast is a “straight-faced abuse sim”. And that’s just your one post.

    Reply

    • I don’t necessarily think The Begotten–from now on I refuse to use the confusing term Beast–need social groups, but as Geist shows it makes a game line feel empty without them, and it IS odd that a game with “Kinship” as an actual mechanical ability doesn’t have any social groups.

      Reply

16. Stannis has no legitimate claim to the throne though if you have read the books, and being eaten by one of Dani’s dragons is too good for him. He needs to be turned into a white walker then burned. Also thanks for the heads up regarding M20.

    Reply

    • His claim is as the elder of Robert’s two younger brothers, via Robert’s own right of conquest.

      Reply

      • I have no idea what’s going on in the completely divergent narrative of the show but, yes, Stannis is the only one with a rightful claim to the throne. Robert’s conquest of the throne was legitimate and he has no heirs, his brothers aside.

        Reply

        • That was my take as well. Hence why I want him eaten by dragons.

          Reply

      • That’s what I remember from the books, too.

        Reply

17. Will it be possible to find out when specific authors or developers will be at the Onyx Path booth during GenCon? There are several people I would like to meet during the convention and I have other events and meetings that I need to plan around.

    Reply

    • I’ll be at the Gen Con booth a lot of the time. I’m the handsome one with red hair. Ian’s the one with red hair. (BA-ZINGA)

      Reply

    • I’ll be at the booth on Thursday up until probably 1 or so (well, a little before that, because I have my Beast game to run). Otherwise, I think I’m booked.

      Also, listening to Neall is not advised. Except when he says something wise. Then listen to him.

      Reply

    • We’re getting a list together as I write this. Some of our creative crew make their plans later than others. More when we have it.

      Reply

18. If I may add my grain of salt, people have various complaints about Beast. Abuse-Sim being one of them, but that has been debated enough already. The thing that doesn’t connect for me is the idea that Beasts are supposed to be PCs, thus not only antagonistic, but during the intro they wrote something akin to:

    “Will you become the thing other monsters fear, or will you fall to a hero’s blade?” (might not be accurate citation)

    which intrinsically interconnect the idea of strength and morals. “Will you torture innocents while bathing in the blood of unborn babies, or will you try to save people and die in the attempt because Good-Is-Weak(tm)?”

    I know that was not the intended goal, but it left a sour taste in my mouth, one that was hard to remove while reading the rest of the material. I play WoD for the grey morals, tragedies and personal horror. Do I only play capital G good guys? Not at all. Does that mean I only play Murder-Hoboes? Hell no. So I’ll try to look at the 3 things that make me play:

    1- Grey morals: Beast is absolutely great in this, no questions asked.

    2 – Tragedies: I don’t feel like there is much tragedies to be told. You’re huge, powerful, you slam people down other people’s throat because you feel the urge to do so… I think what makes me feel like there is no tragedy is that, unlike I.E. Werewolves, you feel relieved to become a monster and a murderer, rather than confused and conflicted. Hunger should not, in my own opinion, be something that you go “F- Yeah! Feeding!”

    3 – Personal horror: See point #2 but basically: you’re happy to be the monster you are. You are relieved to be a monstrous creature terrorizing the night and slashing people in two. So it loses a whole lot of potential on my side of things.

    The whole thing makes me think of Exalted-Infernals: get awesome powers and little-to-no moral compass and go wild because vengeance and torment is Cool(tm)!

    Reply

    • Having ready a ways in, it seems that all of the examples of Beasts run across a wide spectrum as do those of Vampires. You have the gibbering horrors that relish what they do but then there are also those who are very selective about their prey, trying to pick and choose and minimize the damage they do while staying alive. There are sympathetic Beasts who are sort of brooding antihero types like Spawn or the Punisher and then there are ones that arguably should be put down because they have become no more than sapient animals, doing what they must to survive yes but what they must do is so destructive from a humancentric view point that destroying the Beast is inexcusable.

      I see a game that is rich in opportunity for many styles of play – like every other WoD game out there – and I don’t see any reason to consider the inclusion of playing something that is objectively evil invalid (D&D has support for evil alignments after all) so long as it is equally supported to play a character trying to do good in spite of survival needs that put the character in opposition to basically most of what an average person considers objectively good and moral. Being good and playing against type shouldn’t be easy though (not impossible, just not easy) because exploring decisions made in morally ambiguous scenarios is part of what WoD is all about.

      Reply

      • Certainly, that was the intent.Glad you nailed it, and thanks!

        Reply

      • Rich in opportunity for many styles of play is fine. However, in almost every other WoD gameline, playing the ruthless mass murderer who piles corpses in his way to get what he wants is somewhat kept in check by the game mechanics.

        In Vampire, for example, those are concepts like ‘Humanity’ and ‘The Masquerade’ etc. You can still play the mass murderer and those downward-spiraling characters can be interesting to play; I have seen my share. But in Vampire at least the murderer has to face the consequences. First, people start feeling uneasy towards him and finally he will arrive at a point where he will have to make a decision: a little redemption or going straight to hell (e.g. becoming a draugr).

        To see those consequences play out is satisfying for both the storyteller and the other players involved. The player who has second thoughts and plays a ‘nicer’ character is not automatically at a disadvantage for not just ruthlessly elbowing his way around, but is rewarded in a way.

        Introducing moral dilemmas into roleplaying was a big step. IMO when White Wolf introduced these rules many years ago roleplaying became so much more mature. You are not a D&D adventurer who kills everything in his path and collects their treasure without a second thought. You are a being with a consciousness and your actions have consequences.

        Now we seem to have come a full circle and the element of checks and balances is completely left out in Beast. Once again you can walk around killing people and collect their treasures without a second thought. Your supernatural abilities prevent mundane world reactions from having much meaning and the reaction of the other supernaturals to you is ‘good’ by default. Those that arise to oppose you are even defined as complete ‘selfish idiots’ by the rules.

        Reply

    • Yeah, I’d suggest you take a closer look at the actual rules for feeding Hunger; there’s a huge huge space between the requirements for pretty much all of the levels of Satiety and any of the things you mentioned Beasts reveling in. Like, you can do that, but you hardly have to and most of the examples don’t, even. Those are not your two choices.

      Reply

    • We’ll be clarifying a couple of these things as we tweak the text, but the grey moral issue is important with how we intended Beast to play. Thanks-

      Reply

19. I’m a bit confused about the V20 and W20 novels. I thought that the W20 novel was Houses of the Moon … and that Beast Within Revised was published in 2001.

    Reply

    • W20 novel title was changed and this is a new size and format version of the Beast Within book from back then. Hope that helps!

      Reply

20. Beast is a troubled game, not just because its so easy to read Beast as horrible abusers. Don’t get me wrong, its terrible that its so very easy to come away with that impression. Most people here have been paying attention to what the Devs have said and are letting that lead their reading, nothing wrong with that, but the problem is that some people didn’t obsessively follow every leak and are handed this game cold and are coming away with a completely different reading

    And its impossible to blame them, look at what Beasts do in the fiction sections. There’s one example Beast who runs a Juvenile Correction Center and is presented as being the guardian of these kids even if he’s strict with them. It then specifically says he won’t feed on the Kids… unless they piss him off and then all bets are off. I believe he’s the third Beast in the book who preys on Children, sure he justifies it and dresses it up as him taking corrective action, but that’s exactly how an Abuser justifies their actions and its done to children who are trapped in with him! Worse, Beasts by the Devs are suppose to be minorities like Homosexuals, which is why the Home Coming is basically an out of the Closet Metaphor. Hey, which minority is traditionally depicted as sating their dark unnatural urges on helpless children? Probably not intentional, but it bothers me that this even happens, I mean even in Vampire a game about playing a horrible monster who takes people blood feeding on a Child is made to be something only the truly depraved do, yet Beasts in the Core Book can’t stop doing it.

    But even if all the unclear metaphor gets cleaned up, which makes me a bit queasy acting like writing about victimizing children is no big deal, Beast will still be a troubled product. Beasts don’t do anything unique to their Splat, at least nothing I noticed in my reading, but I could have been distracted by all the horrible things Beasts are doing through out the book.

    In theory Beasts are the explore splat, which is problematic because Mages already exist and tell stories about discovery far better than Beast. Beast is also about Hunger, which hey Vampire does way better. They also have some idea that they’re about legends and stories, to which we have Changeling. Now I’m not saying that these ideas have been mined and they can’t use them ever again, the problem is that there is that Beasts don’t really bring their own twist to any of these subjects. Any story I could tell with Beast, I could tell far better with any other Splat.

    Worse, Beasts are pitched as the Cross Over Splat which gives them the literal Mary Sue power of everyone loves them! Even though Vampires should hear the, “We’re family, you and I” bit from the Beast and immediately think Strix. Or Werewolves should be hunting them down as they’re nexuses of fear and terror that must be gorging the fear spirits of the Shadow. On top of these logistical issues, this is all Beasts have going for them. My first thought when I read Beast was, “What does a Beast only Campaign look like.” Pretend I didn’t own other books and just bought Beast, what do I have to work with? And the fact that I lose half the Nightmares for my players if I do that, Beasts just sit around and nose into other peoples affairs. If there are no other splats, the only thing they have to do is kill Heroes.

    And that brings us to Heroes. Heroes are horribly troubled. Its obvious to me that the stated design goal for Heroes was, “People who think its all about them, when its not” which lead to things like, Heroes are always NPCs, which is a cute way of saying they aren’t important. The problem is that the book decides that one, Beasts create Heroes hollowing a normal human out and making him only capable of Hate and then telling us that this tragic figure deserves no sympathy because if he was a good person he wouldn’t be a Hero. Literally the rules say you must be Integrity 4 and have gotten there by doing bad things (I will assume the Devs didn’t mean to suggest that non supernatural abuse, like a Soldier who cracked under pressure, also can lead to being a terrible enough person to become a Hero) and this is done to justify Beasts killing Heroes. The game mechanics literally justify the Beasts world view. I can’t get over this, it’s so insane, like people were complaining that Heroes were sympathetic so the devs instead of toning it down, upped the ante. Heroes are these super tragic figures that Beasts literally caused, they ruined that human being and made him a part of their story, a part that wants to murder them, and we’re suppose to side with the Beasts on this. Why not embrace the tragedy there, give Beasts some form of inner conflict rather than making them gleefully justified serial killers.

    Other game lines do have villains who earn no sympathy, the Strix for example are terrible monsters through and through. Why aren’t people complaining about them? Because the Strix were (well probably) never human, the Vampire didn’t cause the Strix to be. No one yells about Gentry being cacklingly evil abuse monster, because they’re terrible alien beings. Heroes are human beings who stood up to monsters, sure this broke their brains, but that just makes it all the more tragic as they charge off into the darkness for a Beast scythe down.

    I’m sure I’ll change no minds with all this, its been said a hundred times. The reason why there are so many varied complaints is that there is a laundry list of issues that need to be addressed.

    Reply

    • The book and the entire narrative of the game called Beast is focused on, y’know, Beasts. It is literally their story. Literally. You are not required to assume the position of the ultimate moral arbiter and proclaim people who hunt them bad. You are asked to look from the perspective of the narrative’s antihero and realize that they feel a certain way. They might be selfish in feeling that way, but that’s just how it is.

      They are capable of horrific deeds but they are also isolated and ultimately tragic figures. They are “bad” because they are what they are. Outside of being suicidal, they can’t stop being themselves and they are punished for it, in a way. It doesn’t take a lot of empathy to be able to understand this position, I think. Worse, there is probably some understanding that their punishers (heroes, specifically) are literally the product of their own nature, which is where Bad People issue comes in.

      It’s a common trope with monster hunter stories. You have good guy monster hunters and you have bad guy monster hunters, in it not due to some noble intent but simply because they are eaten up by their own hate and rage. Heroes are not every possible human being ever who might decide to hunt down Beasts. They are a specific subset, spawned by the very same thing that is the essence of Beasts. And that’s why it’s not their story. And also why the can’t possible be anything but capital-b Bad.

      Which has no bearing on the fact that you can play Hunter and have Beasts as the thing they hunt. Do not confuse a specific type of antagonist with every possible enemy.

      Reply

      • They can stop themselves at any time by going into Slumber.

        Reply

      • I’m not entirely sure what part of my thing you wanted to respond to Dawngreeter, but let me try and address the issues you raise.

        First, yes, Beasts are the focus of the game and I should in theory empathizes with them. By authorial intent they’re suppose to represent marginalized groups coming to terms with what they actually are and just accepting themselves for what they are. But I don’t empathize with them because instead the writers accidentally wrote a book about serial abusers and murders. Abusers and Murders are driven by urges to do the horrible things they do and you know what, I do sort of empathize with them, something happened to them that made them this way which is tragic, but I still want them arrested and locked away so they can’t hurt anyone ever again. Now again, this isn’t what the authors thought they were writing, but its what it reads as, which is a huge problem Beast has and would be nice if they fixed it.

        Second, Beasts are not Antiheroes. They’re not suppose to be anyway. Its easy to miss, what with their insane super powers with no downsides, but Beasts are suppose to be people who just want to be themselves in a world where they can’t be. A Beast with the hunger for Punishment could sate his hunger solely on criminals who deserve it, or they could see someone stealing candy from a child, break into his home, poison him and suffocate him before dragging him into a hell dimension, which what the book suggests in an example of actual play.

        Now then, Heroes are a mess and thankfully the writers have said they’re going to actually examine them, to which I say thank god. Yes, Heroes are the bad monster hunters who contrast with Hunters proper, at least in theory. In practice Heroes are normal human beings the Beasts have utterly damaged and made into creatures only capable of Hate. You’ll notice that its not the Heroes fault that he’s a Hero, its the Beasts fault, which is at odds with Heroes being unjustified. This is classic story and game mechanics not meshing.

        Take everyone’s favorite Hero in the book, Melanie. She’s a young girl, age 14 when she was attacked, 16 now, that a collector Beast tried to take something from. The book is unwilling to list what it was, probably so the storyteller using Melanie could sub in whatever they wanted if it mattered, but the evasiveness and general awfulness of Beasts through out the book supports a reading of what he was after is her virginity. As before, this is a Beast feeding on a child in possibly the worst way possible. But what is Melanie’s crime? She stood up to her abuser and fought back. If she had laid down and let him do god knows what, she wouldn’t be a Hero, and because Heroes are automatically bad people this means 14 year old Melanie had done awful awful things, which is the only reason she as able to fight back. How problematic is this? On other forums, RPG.net in particular, there are people bending over backwards and scouring her character sheet for signs that she’s a bad person. So what happened here? Well you have a totally justified reaction to someone preying upon you being caught up in game mechanics trying to retroactively justify the Beast trying to hurt a young girl. This is bad.

        Worse, we know the Integrity thing was a late addition after people went on about how Heroes seem sympathetic. Its the writers trying to force people to hate Heroes when, by the process that creates them, Heroes are sympathetic. Which is an issue because Heroes are suppose to represent hate groups.

        Beast come off as the Gentry, which is supported by them having okay relationships with the Gentry. This makes it very hard for me to not see Heroes as Changelings, which is deeply troubling if they’re suppose to be unlikeable, when you can relate them to the most benign and most sympathetic splat

        Sure, I could Hunters to be good Monster Hunters, but that’s dodging the issue. I’m not looking to make Heroes sympathetic, I didn’t set out to subvert the games intentions. I read the book and walked away feeling confused as to how badly it bungles dealing with Heroes. And my suggestion is to stop trying to marginalize Heroes and just accept that they are tragic figures. This won’t happen, because Heroes are suppose to be hate groups, so what they’re going to have to do is completely rewrite what makes Heroes or make Heroes less pathetic. The best idea I can see is to make Heroes Beasts who can’t come to terms with what they are and have perverted their hunger into feeding on other Beasts.

        But that’s all moot, because I’m not a game designer. My only desire is to point out these issues so they fix them. They said they will, so now we have to wait and see.

        Reply

        • I think anyone who seriously thinks that a reading of the text for Melanie has any sexual connotations should really look up what the psychological term for projection is. There is literally nothing in the description or in the books that suggests any form of sexual violence in the Melanie scenario and to suggest so is plainly false. To even suggest so from the text in the books says far more about the reader than it does about the author.

          Reply

          • As much as I think that there is no reasonable way to assume that was what was being stolen, let’s not go after the motives and mental states of folks posting here, please. Thanks!

          • [[High Satiety: The Collector must hunt for rare, very specific examples of his desire. He can’t settle for any blonde man as a lover; he needs a blonde virgin with a large birthmark on his ass, a soprano voice, and a boyish stutter.]]

            I believe THAT is why people think that he was taking her virginity.

        • The Hero/Beast relationship is on the agenda for making clearer in the next pass at the text. And no, it was not her virginity as far as I know.

          Reply

          • As mentioned above, it is a valid thing for a Collector:
            [[High Satiety: The Collector must hunt for rare, very specific examples of his desire. He can’t settle for any blonde man as a lover; he needs a blonde virgin with a large birthmark on his ass, a soprano voice, and a boyish stutter.]]

        • I will take a cue and apologize for my previous post. Hearing that brought up twice in the thread did trigger me and my previous post was made in anger when I should have stepped back and waited until I was calm before posting. I do feel that your interpretation of the Melanie character is entirely baseless but I have no desire nor should post anymore regarding this issue; I am only posting now for the apology and so you may take my other comments with a grain of salt as I posted while in an emotional state.

          Reply

        • So, I had to sleep on this before sitting down to write a reply.

          First off, I think it’s safe to conclude at this point that the kind of a book that was written is clearly perceived differently by different people. I have no idea why that is. It’s making me a bit uncomfortable reading about impressions such as yours because I don’t really know where they’re coming from. In particular the virginity thing, that’s just so jarringly painful to read about. It feels like we can’t even communicate if there’s such a disconnect between what you see in the book and what I see. Perhaps that’s because Beast treads into some very uncomfortable territory (which is brave and awesome!). But I’m willing to accept that you are honest about your position if you’re willing to accept that I am about mine. And if we both do that, I think the conclusion has to be that the book ISN’T about serial abusers and murderers, it just might lend itself to being parsed that way by a certain set of eyes.

          Now, about Heroes – they aren’t just simply helpless victims. And the Integrity thing isn’t supposed to make anyone hate them. It’s there to clearly establish that Heroes are broken people. They were broken before they became Heroes and they weren’t abducted, brainwashed or indoctrinated to be what they have become. What they became is the result of a particular brand of broken soul encountering the stuff nightmares are made of. Yes, Beasts are the cause of that happening and that’s part of the tragedy, as I said in my previous comment. But the way I’m reading your impressions is that you’re going out of your way to claim, no, these are Changeling-like victims. RPG authors are not unreliable narrators in common prose. You can either take what’s there or build your own variation, but you can’t claim they are WRONG in what they have written down. They’re establishing a narrative. The narrative says Heroes are broken people driven to hate and rage BECAUSE they are broken people. That’s not open to interpretation any more than attack dice pools are.

          In any case, this wasn’t the most comfortable of discussions I’ve had, but I’m glad we’re having it.

          Reply

      • This is part of what we were intending with Beast. The fact that some people like yourself clearly got that intent actually makes it harder to parse out the reasons why some people did not. But, I have confidence that we will and will be able to tweak the writing to a greater level of clarity.

        Reply

21. If we’re airing our criticisms about Beast, can I say that the Crossover section is also a bit poorly written?

    The discussion on RPGnet has more, but Beasts are a bit patronizing towards other splats, which is…not good, for the crossover splat.

    Also, they lack an identity and mood of their own. It could really use a theme/mood intro.

    Reply

    • Patronizing, that sums it up pretty well. ‘Little Vampires, here is your new BUDDY, and you all have to LIKE HIM. Look, he can even help you with FEEDING, because obviously you can’t get this right by yourself.’ This just makes me want to kick the Beast in the mouth. Should I ever play this game, I will leave out the entire crossover section for sure.

      Reply

      • I think a fair point illustrating a disconnect with the intentions of the game/setting and how the text presents it.

        Reply

    • The other supers seem to function as bodyguards for the Beasts against Heroes, which they do twice in the pdf. In Vancouver, the vampires are slaves to the Beasts due to a truly twinkish power.

      Reply

    • You can, but don’t expect much sympathy when commenting like that. “Poorly written” is both subjective and far too broad as well as insulting to the writer, so it’ll be lumped in with the other insulting comments. Now your other two points give us something to work with.

      Reply

      • That was a function of the other two points, ie “I think this is poorly written, and here’s why.”

        Sorry that I came off as insulting.

        Reply

22. “At Press (on Drivethru… or whatever)
    Red List – Out to the CotR backers and awaiting errata.”

    I did not find it on Drivethru, are you certain its there? I didn’t back CotR but have been really looking forward to buying Dread Names.

    Reply

    • It’s only available to the CotR Kickstarter backers at the moment. It will be available to the public over next couple of weeks.

      Reply

23. After having expressed my concerns I would like to add that I do like the basic concepts of the game. Being a … person … with a mythological nightmare beast for a soul does sound most intriguing.

    The troubled young man, locked away by his religious parents since becoming a teen, escapes to the big city and a scholar has a dream of a black serpent rising out of dark ocean. ‘I have existed from the beginning of time in the waters of primeval chaos. My hunger will devour the sun. When I become the beast incarnate, the world will end. I am Apophis.’ The scholar wakes up shivering and fearful. He knows something must be done …

    I can see very interesting stories here. I just wish the game would not try to be so patronizing (thanks again, Leliel) in certain regards. But I guess we can make up house-rules.

    Reply

    • Tone is also an aspect of the text that we’ll be looking at. Thanks!

      Reply

24. Looking at the pdf, my impression of a powergamer’s wet dream is true beyond my expectations. As others have said, it’s a Mary Sue. In addition to the lack of depth of the Heroes, there’s their weakness as antagonists. I’ve quoted before, “Great power without great challenge is just crass spectacle.” Heroes have some minor supernatural gifts that don’t rise to the level of other supers’ powers, let alone Beasts, and the gimmick of causing one Anathema under certain circumstances, still better than what vampires and werewolves are stuck with. The Beast can even remove the Anathema with effort. The Heroes are easy prey for other supernatural allies of the Begotten, as demonstrated twice in the book. Demon at least pretends Angels are an existential threat, but Heroes are openly mocked. Virtually every example has them being killed. They can’t really cooperate with themselves or others like the Begotten. They’re portrayed as unstable loners. Compare with the Strix, Idagimn, and Huntsmen.

    Making the Begotten even more Mary Sue-ish is the way they have all the strengths of monsters and humans and almost none of the weaknesses. In addition to Atavisms, Nightmares, Lair, and advanced merits, they can use human reasoning better than Heroes, allying them selves with other Beasts, other supers, even using society against Heroes. The Soul, for an incarnation of primal Hunger, seems like a tame house pet. Unlike a vampire’s Beast, it never takes over the begotten or drives him to frenzy, even if Starving or Ravenous. Even at those Conditions, he never gets any penalty for dealing with humans. Unlike a vampire’s Humanity, Life is never threatened no matter what a Begotten does. He can eat a kindergarten class with out penalty. There’s talk about a Begotten struggling to maintain his human life but it isn’t really true. There’s no real equivalent of Integrity, so they don’t fall to NPC-dom or experience debilitating Conditions from failing breaking points. A non-human with a primordial soul can actually function better as a human than ordinary humans can. what sense does that make?

    Reply

    • Some of the issues you raise are connected to other problems with the text that are a real concern. And we’ll be altering those to insure that the setting and game Matt intended to present to you comes through clearly. Punishing players who play Beasts simply because somebody has to stop them from being powergamers sounds a lot like wrongbadfun to me. These are a new type of supernatural being to play and they are designed to be of the type that spawned our earliest legends of monsters, their abilities need to be designed to evoke that.

      Reply

      • “Punished”? Is giving humans Integrity a punishment? Sunlight and fire for vampires, silver for werewolves, paradox for mages? Like my quote indicates, a character with no challenges is boring. The monsters of myth didn’t have internal struggles, but they weren’t functioning as humans in human society.

        Reply

25. Ever since Promethean, through Geist, (maybe pausing with Mummy) Demon and now Beast, the trend seems to be catering towards the powergaming crowd. I’m sure doing that wil ensure a successful Kickstarter, but is it a viable strategy?

    Reply

    • Powergaming crowd? And exception of Mummy?

      Really, I have to wonder if we’re playing the same games.

      Reply

      • I can’t say for mummy, but I must admit that the trend seems to go for more power than less. Automatic successes, impossibly powerful effects, the removal of the moral compass of humanity. If one were to look at the game with the D&D lens I would have to admit that it is indeed going through a Power Creep

        Reply

        • Not really our intent, different stories require different kinds of power. You’ll like next year’s new line.

          Reply

          • Gods damnit Rich, you can’t just drop a bomb like that. Now I’ll go crazy working out what the next line might be…

          • Every story should have a decent challenge.

          • Well thank you Rich, I’ll be looking forward for the next year

      • Probably not.

        Reply

      • That’s why I said maybe. I haven’t gone into Mummy in depth, but they have the Judges limiting them and the decrease in Sekhem.

        Reply

    • For what?

      Reply

      • For a gaming company.

        Reply

        • Tau, let me be straight with you: Ask yourself why Exalted has a fanbase, if “powergaming” is such an awful spectre of a thing.

          Reply

          • Because the Exalted are balanced against the challenges they face, giving the potential for epic stories. There are the Dragon-Blooded Exalted of the Realm, individually weaker but greater in number, their dark reflections the Abyssal Exalted, the Sideral Exalted, the Fair Folk, their own Limit Break…

        • I think we’ll be just fine, thanks for your concern.

          Reply

26. Too monstrous? Too Evil? Beast feels to me like an exploration of human cruelty. Everyone has bad urges, but they just have them a lot. People notice they have them a lot. Maybe they say the wrong thing out loud like “I could just push this fucker down the stairs.”

    Whether they are actually the monsters they are tied to is entirely up to the game group though, no?

    Reply

    • Yes indeed, although if the text is not sufficiently clear on just how that works, like whether the PCs are expected to be like the examples in the book or are anticipated to be able to make a choice whether to be like the oter Beasts, it is harder for folks to see that they can play them as they wish. We’ll be looking at that with our in-house review this week.

      Reply

    • Except in places it paints the Begotten as the victimized minority.

      Reply

      • I didn’t feel that they were really a victimized minority. Rather I thought they felt like outsiders and disconnected to humanity. Kind of like aliens, rather tham some discriminated section of humanity.

        Reply

        • The fiction with Ben seems like a metaphor for coming out, and the Heroes are supposed to be hate groups by some accounts.

          Reply

          • Just because Heroes are allegories for hate groups doesn’t mean Beasts are minority stand ins, although there are going to be obvious overlaps in some areas because Beasts by their very nature make people uncomfortable and afraid, which is very much a part of the Othering process minorities face.

            I think it’s a huge mistake to take that analogy too far though. The Hero/Beast dynamic is rooted as much in ancient myth and folklore as anything else, and not all things that are Other are a preyed upon minority. I really don’t see the book explicitly presenting them as such, just presenting the Heroes as extremely self engrossed fanatics, which, again going back to the classic myths they spring from, is very in keeping with the source. Those ancient Greek heroes were kind of massive assholes.

          • Why do you feel everything in the game has to be a metaphor? Why they can’t just have some elements in common without representing anything?

27. If the Begotten are supposed to represent minorities like homosexuals, doesn’t making them nonhuman monsters who prey on humans, including children, and have no problem with killing them have really unfortunate implications?

    Steven Brown intended for Sabbat PCs to have the opportunity to explore whether they would join the mindless brutality or stand against it, but it often became someone asking whether his Tzimisce could use fleshcrafting to turn women into human urinals for his nightclub. Here’s hoping Beast doesn’t go that direction.

    Reply

    • No it doesn’t.

      Reply

      • Because shut up. Can’t argue with that sound reasoning.

        Reply

        • The reasoning, as Matt points out in several other places than here on this blog, is that he never intended them to represent those specific groups. So, that means there’s no concern actually there.

          Reply

    • I think the problem here, and this is not something that’d be easy to avoid I fear, is that hate groups seize on mythic style narratives as a way of marginalizing people and increasing their own importance; the parallel between a classical style, self engrossed, obsessive jerk of a hero trying to rid the world of monsters (and I think this is a fair description of at least the Greek heroes), and a hate group turning an entire group of people into monsters so that they can oppress them end up looking very much the same in terms of the way they talk about themselves and the Other.

      But Beast doesn’t present Heroes as oppressors to Beasts, it presents them as delusional, obsessive, self engrossed, but still primarily existential threats; the dynamic of the minority and the oppressor is not present in the dynamic of the Beast and the Hero. The Hero does not seek to establish or maintain systemic power, to apply the tactics of terror to keep the Beast in their place as lesser; The Hero seeks the Beast’s utter annihilation. It’s about what moves people to supporting genocide, not simple homophobia or racism.

      And I think the parallel that paints, between placing all of the world’s ills on a single group that is called monster and which you then have the right to try to uncritically wipe out and the mythic arc of stories about the things in the dark that keep people huddled together around the fire for safety, never straying too far into the wild, and the saviors of humanity who ride in to the rescue to free them from oppression, is a commentary solely on the ridiculousness of that fantasy.

      Because Beasts aren’t good stand ins for gays, or blacks, or trans, or whatever oppressed minority you can think of. They’re the fear, they’re the discomfort, they’re the things that keep the huddled frightened humans from walking the dark roads, from trusting the stranger, from breaking the rules. The Beast is the discomfort and fear we feel in the *presence* of the Other, not the Other *itself*; that fear and discomfort we have is the dark reflection of ourselves, not the mirror we project it on. In it, we see all of our darkest flaws.

      All the ways the Beast feeds it’s hunger? Taken in the abstract, rather than focusing on the extremes, that’s all stuff we all do as humans; it’s every moment of callousness, of possessiveness and greed, of lashing out in anger, every time we find the need to assert ourselves at the expense of others, to seek retribution for slights. The Beast is us, all of us, those parts of ourselves that we reject to acknowledge, made manifest, it’s Hunger our basest impulses, it’s form our greatest insecurities. They’re not some marginalized group that we project those flaws onto; they’re the flaws *themselves*, the ones we all possess.

      The Hero refuses to see that in himself; he projects all of his ills, all of his discomforts, all of his fears, onto a more convenient shape. He will save us all, free us from the dangerous external forces that keep us afraid and oppressed, that drive us to improper action; but there is no such force. There’s only the darkness that lies in the human heart.

      Reply

      • That’s not true. The Beasts are clearly defined as nonhuman souls from the Primordial Dream who create the Heroes from their own predations. The book even calls the Heroes antibodies, a reminder the Beasts don’t belong.

        As for them being representative of minorities, Rich Thomas hasn’t corrected that impression.

        Reply

        • I also haven’t “corrected” the idea that one of them are Nazis and other are Jews. What’s your point?

          Reply

        • That’s like saying bacteria and viruses don’t belong because our bodies kill them in self defense, despite there being good evidence that life as we know it would not exist without them.

          The source material that Beasts are based on are ancient cautionary takes meant to strengthen human communities and limit human excesses, to discourage dangerous behaviors. This has obvious implications. You’re being excessively reductionist in your reading I think. It’s nothing near that black and white.

          Reply

          • They don’t belong in our bodies; as you say, killing them is self-defense. Almost no one complained when smallpox was eradicated. Your analogy makes the Beasts look worse.

28. I’ve found this conversation to be so incredibly toxic that I’ve had to stay away from it for a few days, but I have some observations that I think are helpful:

    I’ve seen a *lot* of people immediately taking the least charitable view of Beasts possible as a sort automatic reflex, and so anywhere that there’s ambiguity, the Beast is read as performing horrific acts of violence and causing extreme trauma, even though the book actually presents a huge number of examples of Beasts *not* doing that, and the rules, for the most part, do not require it.

    Melanie is a great example of this: the text surrounding her encounter with a Beast only tells us that a Collector of some sort attempted to take something from her, that she attacked him, chased him back to his lair, and killed him, and then via a freak accident got stuck there. This is read as a home invasion and severe physical assault of a 12 year old by an adult by some, with her killing of him being the result of a life or death struggle; you can also just as easily read that as her being 16 or 17, carrying around a weapon waiting for a chance to meet the monster she’d been having dreams about, the Beast being her age or even younger, and his attempt at using a Nightmare on her to make her afraid of her favorite bracelet so she’d discard it failing, at which point she physically assaults him, and chases him down, having intended to kill him since before their paths crossed.

    There’s a huge range of scope between those two points, and leaving it vague is fine as it lets the ST tweak the level of sympathy you could have for her history, so I’m not suggesting much of a change there, but it contrasts a lot with the problems people have with the feeding example for Ms Winters:

    The text is also ambiguous there, and a lot of people read the human she assaults as a child, rather than the late teen/early 20s that I read that passage as suggesting. She pretty nastily physically assaults him, but she’s also being careful not to kill him, and he’s basically been mugging little kids for their Halloween candy. This is not a justifiable level of response, just to be clear, he doesn’t deserve that, and the Beast is a monster for doing it, but I bring this up to contrast the attitude people are having as they approach the text. When a Beast does something that can be read in exactly the same was as taking candy from little kids, in the case of Melanie, many people feel she’s completely justified in killing him, while simultaneously feeling that Ms Winters’ much less lethal response to someone doing the exact same thing to even younger kids is appropriately horrific.

    It makes it clear that the default assumptions some people are bringing to the text is that Beasts are intrinsically and irredeemably evil and that violence against them is, by default, appropriate. I personally don’t see that being supported by the text, which is full of counter examples, but it seems to be what people are fixating on; Beasts can be murderers and torturers, and all sorts of truly horrific bullies, or they can a lot more subtle and a lot more benign, but for some reason the idea that that’s a spectrum is getting washed out, and I’m not sure it’s entirely the text’s fault.

    I think there’s also a subtle conflating of the Beast’s need to cause fear and trauma due to Hunger, with a constant need to torture and bully people until they’re mentally broken, or perhaps, that that Hunger is the *only* defining trait of a Beast; basically that Beasts are always on abusers of everyone around them rather than being sometimes abusive in specific ways when they get really hungry.

    And I think it’d maybe help if people recognized that something like the show Leverage is a perfectly fine example of a Beast brood; Nate is an obvious Nemesis, Sophie is a Tyrant (or maybe a Collector), Parker is a Collector, Eliot is a Ravager, albeit a very conflicted one (or possibly a Tyrant), and Hardison is a Predator (he hunts secrets not people). Together they fight crime!

    The show is tonally out of place, sure, but concept behind it is completely supported by the setting and the rules; Hunger is a compulsion, not a morality. Parker could as soon give up stealing as breathing, and Nate is driven by a pathological need to take down people who abuse their authority. It’s how they channel those impulses that define them, not that they *have* those impulses.

    Reply

    • It should be also pointed out that just about every Leverage episode would count as fulfilling the criteria for the High Satiety requirements for at least Power, Prey and Punishment (though I think the write up for Punishment should be a bit clearer that the punishment doesn’t need to be through physical violence; systematically destroying a person’s reputation, business, relationships and wealth really should be just as valid as the examples, and is implied to be in other places.), and in most cases an argument can be made for at least the Moderate level of Ruin; reputation is, I would think, a completely viable interpretation of something someone holds as valuable, as is freedom (and they get people arrested), though the text should probably be clearer that symbolic things count (relationships are a big one there), but they also sometimes take down entire companies, and that has impacts on the people working for them that’d probably qualify for at least Moderate Satiety. A slight reworking of the Hunger would make taking down or exposing a well known and possibly respected business owner could count for High Satiety, but I think, at least as currently worded, that’s a bit of a stretch.

      Ruin is, though, probably the most problematic of the Hungers as currently written; it’s focused very heavily on physical destruction, which is really limiting and doesn’t conform to the other Hungers which all allow a level of abstract or symbolic application, and none of the listed examples lend themselves very well to obvious moral ambiguity, especially at the High Satiety level. I think it needs to be more flexible in how it approaches value and loss; scandals involving the Catholic Church, for instance, filled people with horror and revulsion in a way that feels thematically appropriate to that Hunger; faith and trust were destroyed in the process, and what could be more valuable than that? Making people feel unsafe, or losing trust in an institution, or tearing away the comfort of ignorance that a person’s using to protect themselves from the horror of the world should all be valid options for feeding the Hunger for Ruin.

      And, again, Punishment could stand to be broadened a little for High Satiety, rather than focusing so heavily on physical violence; the lower tiers are pretty explicit about not requiring it.

      Reply

    • The problem is not per se that a beast can perform horrific acts of violence and cause extreme trauma. Other WoD gamelines include very dark characters, too. But under the rules as presented, there are no consequences for Beasts if they choose the dark path. Absolutely nothing happens to them if they do the most terrible things. The Morality/Humanity aspect that is included in other gamelines is completely absent here.

      Combine that with the fact that even if the Beast chooses the darkest path possible, under the current rules the Hero is still predefined as a selfish fop and other Supernaturals still have a default ‘good’ impression of the Beast as long as the violence is not turned directly at them.

      Obviously you have never experienced a bunch of Sabbat Vampire players if you see no problem here. And even they had at least to follow some code of conduct.

      Reply

      • As a player who, among other things, liked to play Sabbat games in VtM I would like to kindly inform you that your arbitrage in validity of other people’s entertainment is unwanted.

        Reply

        • Yeah, a Sabbat player obvioulsy.

          Reply

          • Okay, so, as someone who is not a Sabbat player, who’s never liked the Sabbat terribly much, and who tends to be averse to excessive and gratuitous violence and cruelty in their games, let me say that not wanting to play in the games like that is totally awesome. Not wanting players to play that way in *your* games where that’s not supported is also totally awesome. But telling groups, which you do not belong to, that the style of play that they enjoy is badwrongfun is simply not cool.

          • I apologize. Can we move on ?

          • Absolutely, and no worries.

      • 2E dispenses with morality as a mechanic, and it was never intended to be a punishment either, merely a way to reinforce thematic associations; Werewolves have never had a problem murdering humans, for instance, because it wasn’t thematically appropriate for them to. But, to note, a 2E serial killer mortal doesn’t suffer Breaking Points for killing people. Whether you playing a serial killer is okay is really is entirely up to your table.

        Beast does not need a mechanic to thematically reinforce a morality that it does not view as particularly important; Beasts, as characters, can choose whatever paths they want with no particular concern for any sort of moral code beyond what they choose to cling to. It’s up to the players to hash out what is and isn’t okay.

        There’s a basic assumption, and one that I feel is important, that the players are adults who will conform to a social contract and not be jerks to each other, that, when someone says they’re not okay with something the rest of the group won’t ignore them but will instead stop doing that thing. If you don’t have a group like that, I really strongly recommend not playing Beast, it’s really just not a good fit.

        Reply

        • 2E = Vampire The Requiem Second edition etc. ? Then I don’t know what you are talking about. Humanity is still there (and much needed and appreciated). And it is a sin under Werewolf the Forsaken’s (1st edition) Harmony rules to “needlessly kill a human”, to hunt them for food or to torture them. Serial Killer ? Is that a Slasher character ? I don’t use Hunter, so I have no idea.

          Of course humanity rolls are not “punishment”. I never said that but was talking of consequences. They are part of a well made game concept that worked for 20 years. While it is true that there is new tendency by some developers to get rid of morality, breaking points are still an important part of the game and even the God Machine Chronicle rules update and Demon: The Descent say that killing a human is always a breaking point. As it should be.

          Beast wants to be a crossover game. But how is this supposed to work if it does not respect those “thematic associations” you are talking about?

          Let me provide an example: In a recent session, my Vampire players had decided to get rid of a draugr. As the storyteller I played out the last bits of his remaining humanity, he had been locked away for a long time. For the first time in many years, he was on the outside and touched the snow-covered ground with an expression of puzzlement and a hint of joy. Some players were touched by the scene. The Mekhet count talked about things that need to be done, but did not step forward and actually did it. Others just left the scene. Finally it was the ancient gangrel nun that stepped forward and led the draugr into the forest. I reminded her that once she had sworn to follow the way of a true christian saint and was now on her way to become an executor. She described how her character closed her eyes and thought of the saint whom she had met long ago. When she opened her eyes, the draugr was still there and looking up to her timidly like a cowed animal (she had used her Predator’s aura on him earlier). She extended her claws and ended his existence. She knew what was coming and did not complain at all when I asked her to make a humanity roll. She never took a
          bane on premidiated murder, even so I tempted her with it several times, because she does not want murder to be without consequence for her character. It was a good scene.

          Imagine a Beast among my characters. He would have killed the draugr without a second thought. Scene over.

          Let me just finish with saying that I do not write this stuff because I hate the game, but because I love WoD games and have played them for 21 years now. And I really would like to love Beast: The Primordial, too. I just can’t right now, for the reasons above.

          Reply

          • It was a good scene. It was appropriate for your humane group.

            The problem with your attitude is that you apparently think that was the only way for the scene to be good.

            You seem to fail to realize that different people play for different reasons.

            There is nothing inherently wrong in the scene if instead of focusing on the gravity and guilt of murder, someone chooses to focus on the power, righteousness, tyranity and finality of capital punishment.

            Or even in the pleasure of terrorizing something that is supposedly terrifying. Of overpowering something supposedly powerful. Of being more monstrous than the monster.

            You can play “bleeding heart”, I can play “holier than thou”, and someone else can play “I got the Devil´s tail in my hand, Joe”.

            The scene is not over because the draugr would be killed by something without remorse or even consideration, it is over because you fail/don´t want to to explore different angles and points of view.

            But I see nothing wrong with a game proposing an exploration of sating base impulses without guilt or degradation of the core of your character.

            You can be a erinye, or you can be virgin eating dragon. Whats wrong with that?

            I´ve read a bit of Beast, and I found it a bit confusing, yes. I also dislike that the Hero has to be a maniac. So in my opinion it does need clarification. But i don´t think adding Humanity is the right thing to do.

          • I was referring to the core, or God Machine Chronicles until we get a proper 2E core, I guess; Mortals have Integrity as a stat, it’s got nothing to do with morality at all, and while they say killing a human being should be always be a Breaking Point, they say that with the assumption that playing sociopathic serial killers, and I do not mean this as a splat type, I mean it as a character concept, is bad idea that wouldn’t fly with most groups; given the way Integrity works, a homicidal psychopath should not actually suffer a Breaking Point for killing people (this is the *only* kind of character that that applies to mind). But even Humanity isn’t really about morality anymore either, it’s about being reminded that you aren’t human.

            And I’d suggest that, no, that Beast wouldn’t just kill that character without blinking; the absence of a stat to curtail that kind of behavior doesn’t mean the player has to play a character that’d behave that way. There are many examples of Beast characters in the book that avoid killing people, and even examples of Beasts that feel tremendous grief over the consequences of feeding their Hunger. But more than that it’s so easy to have a Beast that’d flat out refuse to kill the draugr under any circumstances because as far as he’s concerned it has as much right to live and as much claim to family as any other creature of the night; he could be actively hostile to the idea even, questioning what right any of them have to end it’s existence because he doesn’t necessarily care about the Masquerade or collateral damage the way the Vampires do. Or one that regrets having to destroy something that it views as beautiful, but still sees the necessity of it, and finally relents.

            But as with all crossover it requires a careful hand on the part of the ST to make sure that there’s a coherency to the thematic elements of play; a game with only Vampires in it is a different game than one with Vampires and a Beast, and they need to focus on different themes and concerns. Expectation especially need to be laid out in advance, and characters need to be compatible up front.

        • The good-natured serial killer is explicitly rejected as a way to avoid breaking points for killing.

          In the nWoD, retaining the ability to act like a human as opposed to degenerating into a mindless NPC takes effort, even for humans. That’s why everyone had an equivalent of Morality and later Integrity. Beasts themselves have Life, but it never gets affected no matter how non-human they act. They never seem to get any penalty for interacting with humans, no matter what Saiety. That doesn’t make sense for beings with nonhuman, often non-sentient souls.

          Reply

          • Sorry, did I say good natured? I don’t think I did, nor did I mean to imply such. They’re basically saying don’t game the system when they say that, basically that serial killers do not make good player character concepts. And they’re right! In a group of non serial killers it’s fairly hard to not have that be disruptive. But an individual group could be okay with it in the right game; there’s no reason why you can’t use the nWoD core rules to play Dexter.

            The way Breaking Points and Integrity work demand that serial killers not suffer them for murder. Psychopathic serial killers don’t show the signs of a low Integrity score; as much as they’re not good PCs for the vast majority of groups or games, certainly as a ST, if I’m going to put Hannibal Lector in one of my games he’s going to have a fairly high Integrity score.

          • It’s from the Integrity rules: “Players might make the argument
            for soldiers, policemen, gang members or
            good-hearted serial killers to be exempt from
            suffering breaking points from taking a life, up to a point. For mortal, non-supernatural characters, our recommendation is that if a character kills
            a person, it’s always a breaking point, even if the
            player gets a positive modifier to the roll.”
            Psychopaths definitely exhibit low Integrity scores. They have “Poor impulse control including problems with planning and foresight, lacking affect and urge control, demand for immediate gratification, and poor behavioral restraints.” Even Hannibal Lector has “deficiencies” that let him be captured.

    • Never saw Leverage.

      As for Melanie, the desc says the Beast sought her out and she fought back instead of cowering. If the Beast used a Nightmare on her, that’s a supernatural attack causing a breaking point at -2, and the pdf calls loss of Integrity damaging to the soul. That’s a far cry from snatching a candy bag.

      Most of the examples of feeding involve harm to the human. Rich Thomas has said that the point is give PCs the option to avoid the usual victimization.

      Reply

      • On what planet does any level of harm suddenly require death in response? There would not be many people left alive on this planet if we were operating by that rule.

        But no, when I implied that it could be read as being equivalent, I meant it literally, I was not calling back to the example of using a Nightmare. That line can just as easily be read as the Collector walking up to her, and commanding her to give him her hair ribbon. At which point she, already waiting for an opportunity to kill him, pulls out a knife and stabs him; something if done by a human to another human would be viewed as a fairly psychotic response. There are many ways to read that where the resulting level of violence is not warranted. There are fewer where it is.

        Reply

        • Self-defense is allowed when the person is in legitimate of her life, which “cowering” as an expected reaction would seem to fit.

          Reply

      • Also to note: needing to cause harm to feed is hardly new to the WoD, but in the case of Beasts some of that ‘harm’ is really banal; winning an election to high office counts as fulfilling the High Satiety requirement for Power, ffs. Yeah, the losing party feels bad about it, but you’d expect them to. Outbidding someone on a rare item at an auction counts as fulfilling the High Satiety requirement for Hoard, and yes, it’ll inspire jealously and disappointment in the other bidders, but again, of course it will.

        Fear, pain and even humiliation don’t necessarily imply victimization, unless you broaden that term so much that just about every human on the planet is guilty of doing it pretty much constantly.

        Reply

        • “Fear, pain, and humiliation” would be bullying at the least, which everyone is trying to stop.

          Reply

29. Might as well do the comment on politics in M20 that Beast distracted me from. I was surprised that Thatcher, Fox News and especially Ayn Rand were criticized more than Stalin and Hitler. Maybe it’s only one page out of 700, but people paid $135+ for those pages and don’t want to see propaganda in them. The irony is that the book celebrates those who challenge convention, but apparently not the writers’ own taboos. In Ayn Rand’s case, she would have probably approved of the idea of crowdfunding like Kickstarter that uses enlightened self-interest and little regulation. If people followed the anti-Randian path of no selfishness, they would have donated their pledges to charity and Mage20 wouldn’t exist.

    Irony becomes hypocrisy with this section on Nephandi tactics on p.231, Isolation:
    “All the while, the Nephandus draws her target further away from dissenting voices. She encourages the target to get angry at everyone who doesn’t think they way he
    does. You actually believe in gun control? You vote Republican? You eat meat or worship Jesus or follow a different sect of Islam than I do? You’re everything WRONG with the world!!! Especially in the age of the
    Internet, this tactic is incredibly effective, and mages – being at least halfway isolated from the Sleepers to begin with – are especially vulnerable to it.”
    In that same section, anyone disagreeing with the writer on things like social program spending is described as an unwitting pawn of evil. Here’s the counter for the isolation tactic. I watch FOX News. Don’t like it? FOAD.

    Reply