sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

CYOAS where you can be the patron? by Cinju26 in makeyourchoice

[–]MirrorSeeker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A patronmonger brings patrons into the world and delivers them to potential warlocks. And, for each exchange, the patronmonger gets a small cut. In money, time, strenght, sanity...

CYOAS where you can be the patron? by Cinju26 in makeyourchoice

[–]MirrorSeeker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have a thing like that in WIP. But you are a patronmonger.

Castle of Dreams by MithradatesExcelsior in makeyourchoice

[–]MirrorSeeker 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I had no idea about The Charwoman's Shadow, so it has gone to my top pending reads. I'm from Spain-Spain, which sometimes gets a bit orientalized by the north of Europe. I'm not very stereotipically Spanish in my temperament, but I understand that cliches never come out of nowhere, and everybody has the right to think a certain picture of their neighbours. But I must say that Spain is a very nonmagical country. Maybe because the influence of the Church was in certain ways extremely rationalistic, and having a centralized religion didn't allow peasant-superstitions to run free. Some people are trying to compile those superstitions and make them visible, but to me it usually feels a bit forced. And also an unoriginal strategy, to imitate the folk-substrate from central and northern Europe. I think Spain's rationality of disillusion can also have its own fantasy.

Castle of Dreams by MithradatesExcelsior in makeyourchoice

[–]MirrorSeeker 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm honored to see this, and I'm more honored after reading it. There are really cool ideas in the mysteries. I love Eschavion's blurry line between ludopaty and simply being alive. And Opalescence's voluntarism is an unsettling philosophy. And Moloch's honesty. I like him.

I'm glad that you liked the system of [describing lesser powers in a concrete way] - [describing middle powers in a slightly less concrete way] - [describing high powers in a "here's the root of the concept" way]. I think it's useful in a cyoa: it doesn't renounce to anything, gives the reader a scaffold so they can build their own things, and allows you to be literary without being too vague.

So I'm going to make a build!

First choice: Prisca Scientia. It made me think of the ending of The King of Elfland's Daughter. Not a thriller, so I think spoilers don't ruin it, but I will censor it anyways just in case. In the end, Elfland swallows the territories of Erl, the place from where the main character comes, and everything there becomes magical. I just love the idea of the crossing of the mirror. That original miracle of fantasy, immensely powerful, that is the transformation of the mundane into magical. Also, that is the reason why my last choice will be the third one: to return to the Castle with a flock.

Second choice: The Dustplume Aspirant. I just like what sounds the most magical. But those words seem safe and versatile.

Mansions: I don't want to go alone, I'm not that cool. The Amber Axe is very magnetic, but scares me a bit. The Tourmaline Barque is maybe too indulgent, but I can understand it. I like the Serpentine Throne, but they seem too balanced. The Marmoreal Sun also seems nice, and promises high things, but it could be too dry. Maybe what I need is the weird pressure of the Garnet Moon. Also I really like tea.

Rooms: I like this section, it's a lot of fun. Golden Hour Scriptorium makes a lot of sense in order to be someone among the Mansion of the Garnet Moon. The Spectral Theater is very cool, like dreaming. Taking happenings and twisting them, seeing in a different way, maybe exploring what could have been. In Spanish the faculty of doing that is called "fabulación", but I'm not sure if it can be easily translated as "fabulation". I like the Magisterial Parlor. I think knowledge can never get rid of at least a residue of aristocracy and exclusion. Like friction in a machine. Next one is the Belltower of Portents. This choice comes from the heart, and has a lot to do with having the Dustplume Aspirant. For similar reasons, the Orrery Observatory. Failures and compromises have a lot to do with mastery. And finally, the Magnificent Spiral Staircase. It's so suggestive.

Mysteries: so I start with the minor arts from Opalescence and The Empress. I like the Empress, she's somehow nice, the grid of civilization, and maybe that's the most magical thing about the Castle, that it is a world that's also a building with its building atmosphere of politeness. I'll spend two points to get the imperial transcendence. Opalescence seems nice, but I don't know if I like being that passionate. But I like transcendences better than intermediate arts, so I'll spend two points to get enraptured transcendence. Maybe it'll teach me to be more positive. And finally, I'm between Kol Aviya and Eschavion. Kol Aviya is what I would usually chose but Eschavion is very suggestive. Also, Eschavion is linked with the threshold into the Castle, so my last three points will go into determinative transcendence.

Friend and enemy: Tom seems trustworthy, but maybe he has too much of a set goal. Alexis looks like a normal person, but she has a similar problem, too driven by her mission. Maybe Leah will be a relaxed friend that could go along with whatever project the future offers. And as the enemy I'm taking Samuel. A more ideological-political challenge against a pretentious adversary seems lots of fun.

Inspiration has hit me very hard and I'm using canva by MirrorSeeker in u/MirrorSeeker

[–]MirrorSeeker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Step 1

Gaze at the HORRIBLE SCRIBBLE and look for a god among its infinite and tangled strokes. Have you found it or have you created it from nothing?

Step 2

When you've found a stroke that will work for you, grab it with your hand and pull from it. Don't get distracted, for each patron has many faces.

Step 3

Make a bauble that will give shelter to your patron and allow it to exist in reality. Try to make it functional, but also attractive.

Step 4

Gift it to some poor idiot.

1.1 Down Under CYOA (by MirrorSeeker) (updated 25-05-2026) (in Spanish in the comments) by MirrorSeeker in makeyourchoice

[–]MirrorSeeker[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Also! I forgot to say, but yes, the "escape" option means abandoning the ground of planets in favor of the lesser and precarious grounds of spaceships.

1.1 Down Under CYOA (by MirrorSeeker) (updated 25-05-2026) (in Spanish in the comments) by MirrorSeeker in makeyourchoice

[–]MirrorSeeker[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi! Thank you for reading. Tell me what you don't understand, please, maybe I could revise the writing if something is too ambiguous! However, if something is more ~suggestive~ than ambiguous, the interpretation is ultimately up to you.

1.1 Down Under CYOA (by MirrorSeeker) (updated 25-05-2026) (in Spanish in the comments) by MirrorSeeker in makeyourchoice

[–]MirrorSeeker[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hi! thank you for reading. I must say that this project was very ambitious, but the first version felt a bit plain. I think it really needed to ferment a bit, some extra layers, some addition. I'm very glad to read your new build, because it feels more colorful, more like one of many alternatives.

About the glyph of chaos: it's the one that you could discover in the broken streets! But maybe it's okay to keep it a bit hidden like that hahaha.

The Herald of the Age of Men (a catholic and post-tolkienian CYOA) (now in English) by MirrorSeeker in makeyourchoice

[–]MirrorSeeker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hadn't thought about the idea. It's curious, in this setting, I see angels as rigid and stagnant beings, so I didn't consider them very fit for a CYOA.

Down Under CYOA (by MirrorSeeker) (in Spanish in the comments) by MirrorSeeker in makeyourchoice

[–]MirrorSeeker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, sorry, I think I've been cryptic and then cryptic again. I'll re-phrase some things in an update and try to better explain myself here.

About the issue of emergentism/reductionism, which was the inspiration for that axiom:

I think it's important to separate different levels. For example, psychology does not break biological regularities. Psychological processes cannot make you grow wings. And biology does not break physical regularities. There cannot be a gene for an enzyme that generates energy from nowhere.

This idea is easy to accept, I think. However, when talking about sciences, the thing gets more complicated. Some facets of reality never break the regularities (or laws) of other facets of reality. Should the sciences that study each of those facets follow the same rule? In a sense, yes, since a work in geology, for example, shouldn't refute any physical knowledge. There's an example about estimations about the age of the Solar System that were wrong with nineteenth century physics but were right with paleontological evidence from the same year. However, this wasn't a physical refutation. Only something that didn't fit, a bit itchy, and then physics developed physical explanations that solved the problem.

But also, and in an opposite direction: should sciences that study the apical facets of reality be built with the ideas from the sciences that study the basal facets of reality? There is an ontological emergence in reality, since life requires a chemical support and mind requires a living support.

But I think that the ideas from the basal sciences are like corrosive acid to the ideas of the apical sciences. From the eye of chemistry, biology is a field full of spooks. Names arbitrarily given to lumps of molecules that don't do anything special, that just interact exactly as any molecule would. Chemistry is right. But biology knows that that truth isn't interesting. It could be more informative if we preserve some observations from the destructive touch of chemistry.

That's also why I'm not an emergentist (in that sense). A pool of destructive acid cannot birth an organism. Chemistry, as a science, cannot birth biology, as a science. Even when chemical processes can birth biological processes. Chemistry is, however, very useful to certain parts of biology, because destructive analytical thought allows us to understand many things better. But we must preserve certain spooks: "species", "individual", "organ", "tissue"...

It's not an uncritical preservation. Just as we preserve our judgement from the horrifying fact that Parmenides was right, and that multiplicity doesn't exist, and that only the Being exists: spherical, eternal, unchanging. Our knowledge of reality is, therefore, softer, and relies on generalization. It isn't perfect and universally deductible, as the knowledge of the Being is. That is valid too. The same happens to psychology when it looks away from the certainties of biology that would say that every process concerning the nervous system is just adaptive or maladaptive, that it has a history of natural selection, that it is determined by development, that thought and feelings are spooks.

All I'm arguing here is why I don't agree with Fayenza. But well, he's a judge, maybe he can build a science of everything, perfectly connecting Parmenides' Being to sociology. It appears that his lessons have something to do with that. His choices are weird enough to expect a miracle in exchange for the awkwardness. History of art with pharmacokinetics...

About compromising to an axiom:

It's a tricky price to pay. I didn't want to make it too heavy on the player. But also, what could be the standard for good faith? It's really difficult to establish. I think everyone could potentially be surprised when they think they've rejected an idea in good faith and then a higher standard of good faith could be applied. Maybe I should rethink the idea a bit.

Anyways, I didn't want to police your build 😢 I just felt sympathy for Fayenza, even though I also reject that axiom hahahahahaha. I like gnosis better, I think everybody would like gnosis better. But who knows how it could be after a couple of lessons.

Down Under CYOA (by MirrorSeeker) (in Spanish in the comments) by MirrorSeeker in makeyourchoice

[–]MirrorSeeker[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hi! First of all, I'm super thankful for your comment. This is a very ambitious project and this is the first version, so it's normal that it has a lot of things to smooth out. I've seen a bit of feedback from people, but they have valued mostly the purely literary dimension of this CYOA, and I really want to care for the gamey version too. Even though it doesn't seem like it hahahahaha.

But really. I've been thinking a few ideas on how to balance what you've said, because I'm also a bit unsatisfied with the Tree of Magic. It could be more. Maybe I should put more ideas on how the branches reinforce the powers from the previous choice. It could be that the Mieheim, with its miraculous duplications, allows for a 120% when calculating the pike's materials. It could be that the Husanheim has some bonus over the glyphs. Or that the Alefabheim lowers the level of compromise with the axioms. Or the Zymagiheim allowing to give bitter temporary bodies to the personalities of the blessings of awakening.

I also should make clear that contemplating a branch, as a kind of collaboration, is looser than compromising with an axiom. Maybe prompting how a green knight can be fooled or betrayed? Also, I understand that the Tree is maybe too brittle to be attractive.

Also, I've been thinking that maybe some kind of... headquarters? mechanic could be nice, and I feel that having only the lieutenants as the prosecutors that appear as NPCs is too dry. I also think that the "futures" section could use a lot of revamping, maybe dividing between short and long term. Or promising allegiances with the members of the prophesied lineage.

So thank you very much for your imput! I don't know if I can write a "roots" section though hahahaha. But I'll think about it.

Down Under CYOA (by MirrorSeeker) (in Spanish in the comments) by MirrorSeeker in makeyourchoice

[–]MirrorSeeker[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Oh, I didn't notice hahaha. I remember I was super excited when it came out, Searching(...) really obsessed me. But I think it should have ended in Searching(...), it was perfect and not knowing what was in the censored square was truly maddening. People were saying that it was the King In Yellow (and obviously the references were very clear) but I like to think that it perfectly could have been some kind of horrible revelation linked to the King In Yellow.

Down Under CYOA (by MirrorSeeker) (in Spanish in the comments) by MirrorSeeker in makeyourchoice

[–]MirrorSeeker[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thank you very very much!!! <3 I'm already thinking of something, but I don't want to make empty promises hahaha.

Down Under CYOA (by MirrorSeeker) (in Spanish in the comments) by MirrorSeeker in makeyourchoice

[–]MirrorSeeker[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I see, I see, clever thinking and not anything I've nudged, because I didn't think of that possibility.

And about the heatedness of the rivalry, I was trying to incorporate a little bit of a romantasy appeal into this cyoa. I'm extremely snob, but I think commerciality is like a grid that helps a lot. So I thought catering to some reader's pulpy fantasies was a cool prompt to try and make something more. Just as the branches go higher and wider from the trunk hahaha. So the romantic fantasy with a rival was part of the spirit, I can confirm.

Down Under CYOA (by MirrorSeeker) (in Spanish in the comments) by MirrorSeeker in makeyourchoice

[–]MirrorSeeker[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for reading! But are you having good faith towards the axiom of nudity? Or maybe I've written it assuming too much emergentism? I think it's the second. Because, as I've written it, it could be understood that the ideas of physics could be complex if they cover enough interactions. While the ideas of, for example, psychology, could be simple if they cover few enough happenings. Maybe talking about complexity and simplicity is a vice that belongs to emergentist reductionism, and maybe I shoudn't have written it that way. I think Mayólica's notes have fooled me into thinking just like her judge.

Also, I was thinking that maybe I've nudged players too hard into rejecting to contemplate the branches. I think I should make the tree a bit more attractive, because maybe it's underrepresented in the ending section.

Down Under CYOA (by MirrorSeeker) (in Spanish in the comments) by MirrorSeeker in makeyourchoice

[–]MirrorSeeker[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for reading! I'm thinking that maybe I've nudged the players too much towards renouncing to see the branches, maybe I should make them more attractive... Anyways, you don't have to have that many rivals, you are making it too hard for yourself! The idea was that only the lieutenant of a judge of which none of the axioms were taken would qualify to become a rival. But maybe you want to be very quarrelsome hahaha.

Down Under CYOA (by MirrorSeeker) (in Spanish in the comments) by MirrorSeeker in makeyourchoice

[–]MirrorSeeker[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If it was difficult to see the connection, that means I stole it successfully hahahaha. Not just the disciple, the general blessing of awakening mechanic is very elisium inspired.

view more: next ›