Naut - Loremaster Application

[naut]

Ckey / Discord Username: Nauticall (for both)

Have you read the Lore Team Rules and Regulations wiki page?: Yes.

Past Experiences and Knowledge: Current deputy loremaster and acting loremaster for Aurora.

Examples of Past Work, if any: I've done several pieces of lore contributions to the setting and I plan to do more. My best (in my opinion) works so far would be the Mendell City rewrite as well as the Luceism rewrite and the lore on the Lemurian Sea, relevant today with Fyni's ongoing lore arc. I've also worked on the background science for the modern interpretation of phoron as a room-temperature superconductor, helping out Trio.

---

1) Describe your thoughts about the Anabasis project as a whole, whether they be negative or positive.

I have a generally positive opinion on the project. I still have certain reservations about more extreme ends of the events that catalyze the event to begin with (call me stubborn), but I'm willing to work within the bounds to see to it that we have a setting that's captivating. The soft-reset of lore allows us to clear a lot of baggage and established sediment with all the odd ends we've accrued over the years, as well as bring some more marginalized parts of the setting into the limelight some more. 

Gameplay wise I'm very excited for the contracts system and the setting revamp of the ship itself. Lately with recent lore arcs we've been struggling to justify why a corporate exploration flagship is going around running and gunning everywhere it goes, not to mention the "office job" standards make roleplaying fringe characters either very rigid or, if flexing the lines a little, a little unbelievable. Mercenary work for a mercenary company in a chaotic setting allows for a lot more freedom of expression, not to mention the excuse for the ship to do a lot more actively instead of simply exploration (and the occasional pirate outpost destruction).

 

2) What is your plan regarding Anabasis as a Lore Master? What sort of focus would you bring to the table?

I'm intent on, more than anything, fleshing out the "in-betweens" that govern lore, reinforcing internal consistencies, and answering the "whys" whenever possible. Why, for example, phoron behaves the way it behaves, why people did this during the war, why this political actor behaves the way it does.

As deputy loremaster now I've mostly been focused on maintenance of the setting above anything, but when pivoting to Anabasis I think that with a hand in shaping things from the ground up, I can take on a more proactive role, affect these parts of the setting a lot more, and make Anabasis believable, grounded, and logical.

 

3) What do you think the current setting lacks? What are its biggest flaws?

It'd have to be cohesion, I think. The setting of Aurora, while all very in-depth and detailed, has a lot to desire in terms of overall painting a setting. As it stands right now much of Aurora lore is centered around human-centric states and organizations getting all the spotlight while the other aliens/races have felt like set dressing. While this has proven difficult to do anything about in the current setting, I believe that Anabasis's fresh start will allow for us to get some more cohesive setting-laying done, making peripheral elements more relevant and tying everything together in a neat little ribbon that it doesn't have the luxury of doing now.

 

4) Do you lean towards a space opera writing style regarding the events and the setting, or towards a hard-scifi style? Why?

I've personally developed a philosophy in my past writing for science fiction to have things done in a "firm" sci-fi way; that is, have sci-fi that is believable, internally consistent, and follows the established rules and norms of in-universe science, while allowing for creative freedoms and a fair bit of drama in the process, unbeholden to rigidly adhering to things like 21st century understandings of science.

In terms of set-dressing I've always been one for a grounded approach. The space opera stuff can be cool every now and then, but ultimately considering none of the player characters here are Luke Skywalker, having a setting that's more grounded, believable and gritty, rather than dramatic and theatrical, would make it a lot easier for characters to inhabit a world instead of simply reacting to it. I fear having things be too theatrical, to the point of sacrificing believability, makes people get psychological detachment from the weight of things happening, as modern lore has demonstrated in past events - nobody really understands the consequences of dramatic things besides "this was a big tragedy" or "this was a big win." I'm not saying we can't blow something big up every once in a while, but the stuff needs to be believable, inhabited, and fleshed out.

 

5) What are your strengths and weaknesses when it comes to being in a management position?

Regarding strengths I like to think I'm very good at managing team satisfaction, talking with members, creative direction, enacting policy (I've implemented several policies for the lore team already) and overall keeping the fire burning. As DLM, while I haven't been as active as I ought to have been in recent months, if stoked properly I can have things running smoothly.

Weakness-wise, I do need frequent prodding and poking to make sure I don't drift away, both due to IRL obligations and due to ADHD. I can be fairly heavily opinionated as well and have a tendency of playing the contrarian to stoke an "other-side" debate, though I am trying to find a balance between being assertive where it matters and being gentle as to not piss people off. I think I can improve on that skill with due time.

[Omicega]

Haven't you been chronically inactive in your DLM position as of late? Wasn't this also an issue with your position as CO senator over on Colonial Marines? Do you mind me asking what will be different this time if you were to succeed at applying for loremaster, other than the assurances you've already given in your app? Your self-admitted weaknesses there don't exactly fill me with confidence that you wouldn't have commitment issues in what is an even more important slot to fill than the one you currently hold.

[naut]

I'm not sure how up-to-date your accusation of my chronic inactivity is coming from when you were yourself removed from the lore team 4 months ago for chronic inactivity. 

I have been active as DLM as of late and have been running things behind the scenes, and a lot of the lore team members themselves can attest to that - just because I'm not running events or writing a new planet every two weeks shouldn't decry me as being inactive to the point of it being a disqualifying issue. 

Regarding CO senator in the past, I did have plans to retire anyway once my activity was petering out, and it's unfair in my opinion to look only at the final few months of my career there when I spent four years being extremely active and dedicated to the team and whitelist there. You're welcome to ask the CO Council there about my history with it if you want to. 

And regarding my weaknesses, like I said, I literally have ADHD, I'm just being upfront about that fact of myself (+my IRL obligations, which many people have) and how it affects my self-regulation. I have a history of activity where it counts both here and on other servers and it hasn't been a problem for long when someone has been there to help me.

Edited August 7 by naut

[Shimmer]

I'll preface this by saying that Sammy is a dear friend of mine, and knowing who she is as a person and her personal character is a big reason for me to come about in a show of support and to wish you so much luck in this application. Good luck Sammy!!

 

But it also allows me to put in a few words to her character. Sammy is pleasant, affable, and joyful company to keep around. Committed and importantly punctual to whatever shenanigans I put her up to. She is willing and enthusiastic to put in the effort into a project or activity she finds passion in, and eagerly engages and participates in it. She is a joy to work with, a joy to talk to, and generally a complete sweetheart all around.

 

BUT this wouldn't be a Shimmer post without the requisite Yappanese questions would it? And I do have a few things I'd like you to elaborate on, to talk more about your vision for Aurora's lore beyond the big picture, the nitty gritty details and how you hope to address those in your tenure as loremaster.

 

On 05/08/2026 at 17:19, naut said:

I still have certain reservations about more extreme ends of the events that catalyze the event to begin with (call me stubborn), but I'm willing to work within the bounds to see to it that we have a setting that's captivating.

Could you expand (within reason, obviously, not asking for any leaks LMAO) what elements of Anabasis do you feel reservations towards? What extremes are we talking about? Do you have alternatives in mind? What is your general vision for the project's catalyst, the ground zero that kicks of the events leading into Aurora's soft-reboot?

Which elements are you excited for the most, what brings out your passion with Anabasis?

 

On 05/08/2026 at 17:19, naut said:

As it stands right now much of Aurora lore is centered around human-centric states and organizations getting all the spotlight while the other aliens/races have felt like set dressing. While this has proven difficult to do anything about in the current setting, I believe that Anabasis's fresh start will allow for us to get some more cohesive setting-laying done, making peripheral elements more relevant and tying everything together in a neat little ribbon that it doesn't have the luxury of doing now.

What do you believe currently stands in the way of achieving a more cohesive setting, that prevents you from leaning away from this feeling of aliens as a dress setting? What do you see in Anabasis that gives you the opportunity to break away from this issue, and how do you envision this cohesiveness going forward? Do you have any examples in mind? 

 

On 05/08/2026 at 17:19, naut said:

I fear having things be too theatrical, to the point of sacrificing believability, makes people get psychological detachment from the weight of things happening, as modern lore has demonstrated in past events - nobody really understands the consequences of dramatic things besides "this was a big tragedy" or "this was a big win." I'm not saying we can't blow something big up every once in a while, but the stuff needs to be believable, inhabited, and fleshed out.

What alternative do you envision to the theatrical? How do you intend to make the players feel more involved with the actions they commit? Can you provide an example of the theatrical getting in the way of believability, and how your alternative accounts for and solves those issues?

 

And for the final question, it isn't anything related to the application itself, but it is a question that I think matters for someone in a management position of the community's lore. Currently, in my opinion, the weight, influence, and workload of the various lore teams is incredibly out of balance. The majority of our lore is focused around humans and human nations, being physically the largest, having the most amount of content, diversity, and notably, workload.

Is this something you find issue with, or an issue period? How do you intend to go about resolving this imbalance? 

[naut]

Oh BOY here we go this is gonna be a whopper.

 

23 hours ago, Shimmer said:

Could you expand (within reason, obviously, not asking for any leaks LMAO) what elements of Anabasis do you feel reservations towards? What extremes are we talking about? Do you have alternatives in mind? What is your general vision for the project's catalyst, the ground zero that kicks of the events leading into Aurora's soft-reboot?

Which elements are you excited for the most, what brings out your passion with Anabasis?

I've made clear my reservations on the extremity of stuff like Earth and Biesel's destruction. I'm not going to say this is a hill I'll die on, I know it's a very critical point in terms of a lore reset, but I'd ideally like to make the process for it more... well, not realistic, but lived-in and visceral. As it stands right now "Earth blows up, billions die, very sad" is an abstract atrocity that has very little in the way of emotional weight. I plan to change that by introducing the destruction as a more slow-burn, less "and then everything exploded" kind of timeline - individual stories, a proper buildup, a protracted timeline that doesn't see a wipeout as if it's Alderaan. Again, these aren't hills I'll die on, and everything's still up in the air. I'll work with whatever lines in the sand are drawn in the end.

If it's negotiable, I would prefer to have some sort of remnant stuff on, at the very least Earth, and give a VERY long term (probably centuries) effort of rebuilding the planet(s) only after things have stabilized (definitely not during Anabasis's time period). A little bit of hope, if you will.

As for a catalyst, much has already been written about Anabasis's lead-up to the war, and I can't say right now what is and isn't up for change. However in line with what I've said previously I would like for the central thematic plot point to be greed and the price of dependency. This was alluded to in the dev diary and I intend to keep following up with it as a running theme: in times of shortage of the one thing that was assumed to be permanent, people cannibalize each other to save their own skin, oft to no avail. And the SCC, the biggest domino, becomes the first to fall.

 

23 hours ago, Shimmer said:

What do you believe currently stands in the way of achieving a more cohesive setting, that prevents you from leaning away from this feeling of aliens as a dress setting? What do you see in Anabasis that gives you the opportunity to break away from this issue, and how do you envision this cohesiveness going forward? Do you have any examples in mind? 

it's set dressing ☝️🤓

It's mostly sediment, if I'm being honest. Sediment of past lore (often an inconsistent and at times horrifying mess with staggering allegories) that nowadays is both barely acknowledged and perpetually tugs on present lore teams from simply being able to retcon things, even if it would objectively help either the lore faction/setting/event in question. Sediment also accrues with the fact that we're fundamentally a corporate ship with a corporatocratic center of attention.

With Biesel being so entrenched as the gravitational center of the setting, everything revolves around it and the SCC. The less direct impact you have on the SCC and Biesel, the less relevant you are in the setting. We see this everywhere you look with the alien races following a distinct pattern, with Human lore getting the limelight, Synthetic/Unathi/Skrell/Tajara playing second fiddle, then Diona/Vaurca having very little opportunity to express their side of the lore in the greater setting. I mean this to no offense of the people working on the team (nor do I intend to call anyone out), but it's simply the way the setting is structured to where the less-expressed lore teams have less and less opportunities for the spotlight to land on them because of said corporatocracy.

Nuke said corporatocracy (literally), nuke the sediment. The war is narratively intended to leave a power vacuum, and already there are plans for alien factions to start filling in the gaps, whether it be by politics, military, or technology. I have the full intent to let this run rampant and let the limelight fall on more power players that don't have a gravitational center to base themselves around anymore or have mentioned every time they're remotely on-stage. Unathi could be in the conversation without Hephaestus, as can Tajara without Nanotrasen, for example. They can have a seat at the round table of survivors, so to speak, and throw genuine narrative power around that directly affects the core setting (the ship) without it being filtered through proxy or as some sort of distant happening you only read of in a news article.

And yes, I'm aware some factions are getting more power in the current setting. Though I don't think it changes the underlying foundation that they have to work themselves off of, which a soft-reset would help solve and stop them from trying to fight an uphill battle versus both past lore and current affairs.

The "cohesion" I mentioned can really start to take root here, as it allows for us to really take the time to build the power-players from the ground up to be contenders against each other with genuine strengths instead of simply "Here are a handful of superpowers, and here is everyone else." The stuff that felt previously tacked-on can take center stage, and we can clear away tertiary lore elements with this soft-reset that previously felt vestigial rather than having them exist in a state of "technically it happened but technically not really."

 

23 hours ago, Shimmer said:

What alternative do you envision to the theatrical? How do you intend to make the players feel more involved with the actions they commit? Can you provide an example of the theatrical getting in the way of believability, and how your alternative accounts for and solves those issues?

Let me drop a big thing: Violet Dawn. A big still-relevant display of theatricality where a whole planet was engulfed in flames and billions died (sounds familiar?) that has swallowed the planet's entire plot relevancy to the point of it almost being a meme. The impact's lost - you ask a Martian with visible scars what Violet Dawn was like and they will invariably say something along the lines of "My home is gone, I was burned horrifically and lost my family."

The event's sudden-ness and sheer magnitude prevents most player characters from having a story that can be more elaborate than that, not for fault of their own but by fault of the way the setting is written. Mars could still have had a grand disaster that would shape several characters without it being as dramatic as it is.

Hence why my agenda of groundedness is such a sticking point for me; I want to make events be more slow-burn and weighty so that character development could blossom in through the cracks and give in-depth stories that are above all relatable. I'm not saying we can't have sudden and explosive disasters (we have plenty of those in real life) as much as I would like for there to be more surrounding context both before and after to shape stories by. Who was affected, what the aftermath was like, what actions were taken. Violet Dawn's "aftermath" was people pointing fingers at each other and then proceeding business as usual. I intend for such events to not only be less scaled but also have more lingering effects and preludes. In VD's case: refugee crises, regulation fights, political battles, violent battles, mistrust towards phoron, the political destruction of the Solarian research apparatus's credibility, anything more impactful than "And then Sol marched in with an army to quash the wastelands."

 

23 hours ago, Shimmer said:

Currently, in my opinion, the weight, influence, and workload of the various lore teams is incredibly out of balance. The majority of our lore is focused around humans and human nations, being physically the largest, having the most amount of content, diversity, and notably, workload.

Is this something you find issue with, or an issue period? How do you intend to go about resolving this imbalance? 

I do think it's an issue but I want to be careful to frame this as a systemic thing, rather than anything inherently wrong with human lore as a team. The spotlight issue I highlighted earlier really bares its teeth when it comes to basically everything being human-centric. The largest factions are human, the largest (and only) megacorporations are human, the most consequential lore events (used to be) human-centered. Mendell sneezes and Adhomai catches a cold. 

And that's simply the way the current lore structure is, well, structured: the Horizon is a human ship built by a human company working in a human nation. There's no real choice but for everything non-human to be fundamentally peripheral. 

There's not much of a way to fix this as of now that doesn't involve ripping pieces of human lore out of their jurisdiction and handing it to someone else. Much of the groundwork to solving the imbalance can be solved with Anabasis's reset. The founding of the corporate lore team is a step in the right direction in this regard I think, and while I can't name anything specific off the top of my head that I'd do to change it (yet), I think we can work with incremental reform on our way to Anabasis.

 

[hazelmouse]

On 05/08/2026 at 15:19, naut said:

3) What do you think the current setting lacks? What are its biggest flaws?

It'd have to be cohesion, I think. The setting of Aurora, while all very in-depth and detailed, has a lot to desire in terms of overall painting a setting. As it stands right now much of Aurora lore is centered around human-centric states and organizations getting all the spotlight while the other aliens/races have felt like set dressing. While this has proven difficult to do anything about in the current setting, I believe that Anabasis's fresh start will allow for us to get some more cohesive setting-laying done, making peripheral elements more relevant and tying everything together in a neat little ribbon that it doesn't have the luxury of doing now.

Our setting's lore tends to be very isolated according to whichever team wrote it. Collaborations between lore teams often end with one taking full control over the faction to the exclusion of the other, so almost every faction's history exists in a vacuum with minimal relations to anything not also written by the same team. Would you say that the lore of the time-skip should integrate the histories of the setting's various species closer together, and if so, how would you achieve this despite the structure of the lore team usually discouraging inter-team collaboration?

On 05/08/2026 at 15:19, naut said:

1) Describe your thoughts about the Anabasis project as a whole, whether they be negative or positive.

I have a generally positive opinion on the project. I still have certain reservations about more extreme ends of the events that catalyze the event to begin with (call me stubborn), but I'm willing to work within the bounds to see to it that we have a setting that's captivating. The soft-reset of lore allows us to clear a lot of baggage and established sediment with all the odd ends we've accrued over the years, as well as bring some more marginalized parts of the setting into the limelight some more.

Do you believe the setting's scope should become less or more expansive following the time-skip? Should any origins or factions be cut out entirely, or any introduced during it?

On 05/08/2026 at 15:19, naut said:

Gameplay wise I'm very excited for the contracts system and the setting revamp of the ship itself. Lately with recent lore arcs we've been struggling to justify why a corporate exploration flagship is going around running and gunning everywhere it goes, not to mention the "office job" standards make roleplaying fringe characters either very rigid or, if flexing the lines a little, a little unbelievable. Mercenary work for a mercenary company in a chaotic setting allows for a lot more freedom of expression, not to mention the excuse for the ship to do a lot more actively instead of simply exploration (and the occasional pirate outpost destruction).

Would you say that you're looking for the future ship to be more military or civilian in atmosphere? How would you ensure that your desired atmosphere is maintained?

Edited August 11 by hazelmouse

[wowzewow]

This is kind of ancillary from the Loremaster stuff, but what are your plans for your Spriter/Dev roles after you get Loremaster?

Edited August 11 by wowzewow

[meep109]

You've obviously shown skill on writing the lore itself (Mendell City rework was great  ) but I haven't seen much from you when it comes to running events. Do you have any plans for minievents or in-game arcs as loremaster? No spoilers of course I just want to hear what your approach to running events would look like

[naut]

On 11/08/2026 at 09:14, hazelmouse said:

Our setting's lore tends to be very isolated according to whichever team wrote it. Collaborations between lore teams often end with one taking full control over the faction to the exclusion of the other, so almost every faction's history exists in a vacuum with minimal relations to anything not also written by the same team. Would you say that the lore of the time-skip should integrate the histories of the setting's various species closer together, and if so, how would you achieve this despite the structure of the lore team usually discouraging inter-team collaboration?

I think that the timeskip lore should indeed integrate all the histories in one package - at least, the history between present-day (in lore) and that of Anabasis's time period (anything before would touch retcons, which I can't promise would go through). As for how I intend to do it, it's definitely going to be an uphill battle given the detached natures of the lore teams. I've already taken steps to facilitating better joint collaboration with things like the #joint-discussion channel on the staffcord and, while it has minimal use now, I imagine during phases of actual planning we can get that and related policies to be used more. 

We also ought to be able to meet more often, I think that would help with whole-team cohesion a lot. From what I've been told the lore team as a whole has only really met once or twice in years, and I'd like to get that changed and have something more regular to allow us to compare notes and such on what everyone's working on. Ideally, the meetings would allow for lore teams to share their ideas to everyone and receive constructive feedback and/or critique/issues from other people that you wouldn't really get normally, seeing as all the channels are currently separated and there's little incentive for lore members to peek in other channels besides out of curiosity.

In an ideal world the writers would all be part of one large team and be assigned provisional tasks or committees (that can be formed and dissolved at will) instead of being glued to a particular lore species. That'd be my proposal if the structural problem came to enough of a stress point that there needed to be a big reorganizing to prevent our lore team from becoming a rehash of what it is right now.

 

On 11/08/2026 at 09:14, hazelmouse said:

Do you believe the setting's scope should become less or more expansive following the time-skip? Should any origins or factions be cut out entirely, or any introduced during it?

It's a tough question to answer because both directions can very easily go wrong. "Cut the fat" by shrinking the scope uniformly, and we lose out on more exotic factions and make everything more monotonous; on the other hand, expand the setting carelessly and we get a lot of dangling bits of setting and worldbuilding that are poorly maintained and actively rotting at the fringes, to the point where the next time someone wants to pay attention, it's three years out of date and clashes massively with everything else that's been built up since then.

That said, if I had to choose one side, it would be to narrow everything down, at least from the current state it is in lore. Focus on a stage of major players while everything else gets peripheral. There's a form of this right now, but it's currently unbalanced: most of the factions getting the spotlight belong to Human lore, a systemic issue I've brought attention to in my earlier response to Shimmer's post. I'd like to even everything out, that would mean trimming the fat off of some more peripheral areas and allowing our team to focus on more relevant parts of the lore. I'm not saying pick a planet and blow it out of narrative existence, but some parts like certain origins don't bring enough to the table to be seen as something worth maintaining from a writer's perspective, which is often rather damning. Worth noting that I'd like to do it from a per-faction perspective, not nuking whole groups.

I would say, though, that Anabasis's more travel-heavy gameplay and nomadic nature of the ship should allow for a lot more areas to be explorable and made relevant in a way that directly contributes to everyone instead of a single origin, so, ideally it could be a dynamic fat-trimming instead of just picking and choosing things at random. We'll see how it goes.

 

On 11/08/2026 at 09:14, hazelmouse said:

Would you say that you're looking for the future ship to be more military or civilian in atmosphere? How would you ensure that your desired atmosphere is maintained?

Given my less-than-stellar experience with military-based settings (coughs in Bay), I would personally like a more civilian atmosphere, but with bits of military. What I mean by this is that the demeanor of the ship should be more relaxed and ragtag, think, mercenaries working to pay the bills (and food), rather than anything organized or overly rigid.

As for how it ought to be maintained: I don't think anything resembling military rank should be developed at all, to start. The current system of "Captain > Heads > Everyone else" holds up great for Aurora right now, so we don't need to pad it further with anything like paygrades or "Seaman/Petty Officer/Lieutenant/Commander". Stuff like personally decorating the ship in a sort of "improv" way would make the place look more alive, as would simply not trying to enforce any kind of hierarchy or "I am better than you" besides the good old fashioned job placement and job experience.

And what I mean by "bits of military": Make it clear this isn't some holiday retreat where any old bum could hitch a ride aboard the ship and apparently be welcomed. There ought to be minimal standards maintained, this is after all a group of mercs and not pirates or salvagers. Things like sensible grooming standards (and by that I mean "no beards that will get caught in a camshaft", that sort of stuff), basic uniform regulations, and at least pretending people are professionals. No customer service-forward behavior, that stuff should be gone with the death of the corporate setting, but it's worth at least adapting the standards that prevented crews from mutinying in the Age of Sail, which I think is a good place to draw from regarding how people do things in loose ships that were a brush away from death.

 

[naut]

On 11/08/2026 at 22:08, wowzewow said:

This is kind of ancillary from the Loremaster stuff, but what are your plans for your Spriter/Dev roles after you get Loremaster?

I have no intention to alter my position in the development team or leave any roles if I get Loremaster, if I can help it. 

 

13 hours ago, meep109 said:

You've obviously shown skill on writing the lore itself (Mendell City rework was great  ) but I haven't seen much from you when it comes to running events. Do you have any plans for minievents or in-game arcs as loremaster? No spoilers of course I just want to hear what your approach to running events would look like

Thanks! At the moment, I have no plans to be honest, event running is mostly a thing the species lore teams are handling right now. The big bucket-list thing I wanted to do aspirationally was an arc for Assunzione and, well, wish granted!

My agenda as it stands right now is that I'd like to mostly focus on Anabasis work, that's why I haven't thought much of the present stuff, personally. However if I do get the position (and even if I don't, I'd still be DLM, hopefully) I do intend on beginning writings on a transition to get us from current Aurora into Anabasis, long term. Short term, maybe a few things to explore the fringes of either the Coalition, Federation or Dionae a bit more, give them some needed love. I'd need to consult further with the lore team on what avenues are open for that.

As for my approach, I would like to fulfill my earlier statement of adding depth to the setting by making different things like third-parties reference events in question. A neat thing would probably be to have for example radio stations, news articles or stations mention what the Horizon is doing, or has done, to make the world feel more alive and stuff.

 

[Fyni]

14 hours ago, meep109 said:

You've obviously shown skill on writing the lore itself (Mendell City rework was great  ) but I haven't seen much from you when it comes to running events. Do you have any plans for minievents or in-game arcs as loremaster? No spoilers of course I just want to hear what your approach to running events would look like

I'd like to add here that he Dreams arc was built on a lot of lore written by @naut in her capacity as DLM, and we discussed ideas and lore direction constantly. While I personally ran the events, the arc could not have been what it is (was) without her help.

[Carver]

I would be negligent if I didn’t speak in support of Sammy. For all of my tenure as an interim writer she was one of the most supportive and helpful individuals amongst the wider lore team, handling her predecessor’s duties as best as she could in his absence. Without her we would have been directionless. She also overstates her weaknesses and supposed periods of low activity, as she was present whenever I’d had any questions or issues without exception. Nothing was left unanswered for weeks or even days, mere hours at most.

Let none be in doubt that she truly deserves the role of Loremaster, doubly for all that she has done so far.

[MattAtlas]

On 08/08/2026 at 18:13, naut said:

I plan to change that by introducing the destruction as a more slow-burn, less "and then everything exploded" kind of timeline - individual stories, a proper buildup, a protracted timeline that doesn't see a wipeout as if it's Alderaan.

What do you mean exactly when you say this? It's true that in the NBT2 plans I've mentioned that Earth and Biesel need to be devastated for the setting to really have a reboot, though I've mentioned in lore channels that I've become more partial towards not straight-up blowing up the planets. Earth was originally going to be phoron-bombed and entirely evacuated/dead barring a few scavengers, Biesel was going to be orbitally bombarded into nothingness, but I'm willing to change this slightly if I hear a compelling idea. I want to know what this looks like in your mind, basically. I disagree with your subsequent position that these events must be written as visceral, long-term, slow-burn and so on, but I need to hear what exactly you think to be able to form up a reply.

On 08/08/2026 at 18:13, naut said:

With Biesel being so entrenched as the gravitational center of the setting, everything revolves around it and the SCC. The less direct impact you have on the SCC and Biesel, the less relevant you are in the setting. We see this everywhere you look with the alien races following a distinct pattern, with Human lore getting the limelight, Synthetic/Unathi/Skrell/Tajara playing second fiddle, then Diona/Vaurca having very little opportunity to express their side of the lore in the greater setting. I mean this to no offense of the people working on the team (nor do I intend to call anyone out), but it's simply the way the setting is structured to where the less-expressed lore teams have less and less opportunities for the spotlight to land on them because of said corporatocracy.

Nuke said corporatocracy (literally), nuke the sediment. The war is narratively intended to leave a power vacuum, and already there are plans for alien factions to start filling in the gaps, whether it be by politics, military, or technology. I have the full intent to let this run rampant and let the limelight fall on more power players that don't have a gravitational center to base themselves around anymore or have mentioned every time they're remotely on-stage. Unathi could be in the conversation without Hephaestus, as can Tajara without Nanotrasen, for example. They can have a seat at the round table of survivors, so to speak, and throw genuine narrative power around that directly affects the core setting (the ship) without it being filtered through proxy or as some sort of distant happening you only read of in a news article.

Good answer, this is basically the idea behind the IW2 and the SCC falling, it's to leave a power vacuum/remove the current Spur hegemonies and allow the alien nations to grow in their place.

On 13/08/2026 at 15:43, naut said:

Given my less-than-stellar experience with military-based settings (coughs in Bay), I would personally like a more civilian atmosphere, but with bits of military. What I mean by this is that the demeanor of the ship should be more relaxed and ragtag, think, mercenaries working to pay the bills (and food), rather than anything organized or overly rigid.

As for how it ought to be maintained: I don't think anything resembling military rank should be developed at all, to start. The current system of "Captain > Heads > Everyone else" holds up great for Aurora right now, so we don't need to pad it further with anything like paygrades or "Seaman/Petty Officer/Lieutenant/Commander". Stuff like personally decorating the ship in a sort of "improv" way would make the place look more alive, as would simply not trying to enforce any kind of hierarchy or "I am better than you" besides the good old fashioned job placement and job experience.

And what I mean by "bits of military": Make it clear this isn't some holiday retreat where any old bum could hitch a ride aboard the ship and apparently be welcomed. There ought to be minimal standards maintained, this is after all a group of mercs and not pirates or salvagers. Things like sensible grooming standards (and by that I mean "no beards that will get caught in a camshaft", that sort of stuff), basic uniform regulations, and at least pretending people are professionals. No customer service-forward behavior, that stuff should be gone with the death of the corporate setting, but it's worth at least adapting the standards that prevented crews from mutinying in the Age of Sail, which I think is a good place to draw from regarding how people do things in loose ships that were a brush away from death.

Good answer here as well, I think I agree with all of this.

On 05/08/2026 at 16:19, naut said:

I've personally developed a philosophy in my past writing for science fiction to have things done in a "firm" sci-fi way; that is, have sci-fi that is believable, internally consistent, and follows the established rules and norms of in-universe science, while allowing for creative freedoms and a fair bit of drama in the process, unbeholden to rigidly adhering to things like 21st century understandings of science.

In terms of set-dressing I've always been one for a grounded approach. The space opera stuff can be cool every now and then, but ultimately considering none of the player characters here are Luke Skywalker, having a setting that's more grounded, believable and gritty, rather than dramatic and theatrical, would make it a lot easier for characters to inhabit a world instead of simply reacting to it. I fear having things be too theatrical, to the point of sacrificing believability, makes people get psychological detachment from the weight of things happening, as modern lore has demonstrated in past events - nobody really understands the consequences of dramatic things besides "this was a big tragedy" or "this was a big win." I'm not saying we can't blow something big up every once in a while, but the stuff needs to be believable, inhabited, and fleshed out.

I think this is where we disagree the most, so I want to be exactly sure of what you mean.

1. Why do you think it is imperative that a setting must follow "established rules and norms of in-universe science"? To what degree do you think this extends? If we want to take what you mean to the extreme, FTL travel isn't possible in the first place, neither is phoron, really. These are two foundational elements that allow our setting to work. 
2. In another application, I mentioned the discussion we had about fantasy-style metals/new alloys. I remember you disagreeing vemently on this point. What's your thought process behind this? Do you think the lore believability concession outweighs the gameplay improvements?
3. Why does a space opera-leaning setting require characters to be Luke Skywalker? The current arc, I would argue, is space opera-ish; look at the overarching plotline, psirens, the Lemurian Sea, and even how the events are structured. You say that psychological detachment is a consequence of things being theatrical. Why do you think this happens and can you provide a precise example?

 

[naut]

On 17/08/2026 at 21:54, MattAtlas said:

What do you mean exactly when you say this? It's true that in the NBT2 plans I've mentioned that Earth and Biesel need to be devastated for the setting to really have a reboot, though I've mentioned in lore channels that I've become more partial towards not straight-up blowing up the planets. Earth was originally going to be phoron-bombed and entirely evacuated/dead barring a few scavengers, Biesel was going to be orbitally bombarded into nothingness, but I'm willing to change this slightly if I hear a compelling idea. I want to know what this looks like in your mind, basically. I disagree with your subsequent position that these events must be written as visceral, long-term, slow-burn and so on, but I need to hear what exactly you think to be able to form up a reply.

In general I want Biesel/Earth to be salvageable. Instead of having them be death-worlds that are just devoid of everything I want to make sure they're still genuine settings to piggyback off of for story hooks and origins instead of being completely dead.

I know the goal of NBT2's objectives with Earth and Biesel are to wipe the slate and stop everything from being inevitably centered around them, but I think, and I know this has to be written around carefully, that Earth and Biesel can survive as sort of remnant, semi-post-apocalyptic planets where people still live on there but their power on the galactic stage is pretty much over. They retreat inwards, they stop focusing on the galactic stage, and they become self-absorbed and concerned more about their own continued survival than that of the galactic stage. They can be knackered and severely wounded without outright "dying" like the initial draft says they would. 

In more detail I intend for Earth and Biesel to become these sort of "post-worlds" that aren't quite Mad Max but are definitely regressed significantly compared to their pre-IW2 selves. The cities that are still standing are mostly abandoned, with a fraction of the population remaining to inhabit them. It's worth noting to distinguish this from generic zombie/Fallout type stuff that I think there should be some sort of society by Anabasis's time period and a provisional government, or several, that don't really do much besides try to wrangle the people under their control. It's best to think of them as sort of shells of their former past, like Rome after the Empire's collapse. Rome didn't evaporate into nothingness but it still lost pretty much all legitimacy and global power overnight even though people very much still lived there and society was very much still functioning (after a little rebuilding period at least). The narrative weight dies, but the planet remains intact, if you get what I mean.

I think it's a more compelling idea than the alternative, both because it doesn't require as big a suspension of disbelief - which I think is also a major problem of blowing up Earth and Biesel, as I alluded to earlier - and because the planets simply being extant means they'll still have writing hooks and origins whereas the origins for a blown-up Earth or Biesel would be like a rehash of Violet Dawn: "My home was destroyed and I barely made it out alive." It becomes an abstract atrocity rather than anything you can feel consciously, and being able to have a picture of those worlds after the fact with people living there still would hit so much harder, in my opinion. Compare that to a dead ball, where it's like Starfield's Earth, where you're just left wondering what the hell happened here and not really being able to grasp the situation intuitively. It's an intuition/dissociation problem, basically, and straying too far without a reference point makes something like "Earth is gone" not hit emotionally for the reader/player, just as it failed to hit for Violet Dawn and it failed to hit for the countless other times Earth was destroyed off-screen in sci-fi.

 

On 17/08/2026 at 21:54, MattAtlas said:

I think this is where we disagree the most, so I want to be exactly sure of what you mean.

1. Why do you think it is imperative that a setting must follow "established rules and norms of in-universe science"? To what degree do you think this extends? If we want to take what you mean to the extreme, FTL travel isn't possible in the first place, neither is phoron, really. These are two foundational elements that allow our setting to work. 
2. In another application, I mentioned the discussion we had about fantasy-style metals/new alloys. I remember you disagreeing vemently on this point. What's your thought process behind this? Do you think the lore believability concession outweighs the gameplay improvements?
3. Why does a space opera-leaning setting require characters to be Luke Skywalker? The current arc, I would argue, is space opera-ish; look at the overarching plotline, psirens, the Lemurian Sea, and even how the events are structured. You say that psychological detachment is a consequence of things being theatrical. Why do you think this happens and can you provide a precise example?

1. "In-universe" is the key here. I'm not saying we have to adhere to The Expanse-levels of rigid sci-fi (even they break stuff with the Protomolecule), because I've personally held that that's been a fallacy to begin with: basing distant sci-fi on existing laws of physics is like writing a modern medical setting using humoral and miasma theory. What I want, to clarify, is that we should establish a set of ground-rules that the in-universe science follows, and then build a framework around that - this is what I mean by "firm" sci-fi, and it means, above all else, consistent science, not accurate-to-life science. I know we have many fantastical elements in the setting already that would just straight-up die if we adapted hard sci-fi overnight.
   
   To be clear, my goal for firm sci-fi is not necessarily to require every reader have some sort of science degree to understand what we're talking about. What I am proposing is that the "internal consistency" allows for a cascading effect where edge and unexplained cases (i.e. "what happens if phoron explodes?") can be extrapolated using the established logic of the thing in question. Phoron being worked into what it is (and I am working on developing more about it science-wise) allows for these natural extrapolations to happen without needing to pull something out the ass. Previous works I've written for have that magic trick (the extrapolating, not the asspull) happen and it does lead to some really good self-sustaining logic that doesn't crumble under scrutiny.
    
2. My main reasoning for disagreeing against "any sort of new adamantium-type element" wasn't so much that phoron had to be a one-off (though one could've interpreted what I said this way, whoops) so much as trying to add something without a proper framework for it. Phoron has a framework because as I said in that thread I spent a lot of time making sure it had believability and internal consistency (folowing up on firm sci-fi here) with stuff like chemistry and natural effects. As I've said in the earlier question I want for the "frameworks" in question to have established logic, and shoehorning a brand new element into the picture throws that in for a loop because there's no clean way to explain it without scrutiny, or at least not without phoron levels of writing and physics-bending.
   
   I didn't argue against the item's addition, to be clear, I argued against it being called an element; I was fine with it being an alloy or metamaterial or the like. And no, I don't think believability outweighs gameplay improvements if it comes to it, but this wasn't a topic of believability vs. gameplay so much as it was naming things. 
    
3. I think our definitions diverge here. Space opera in my mind is something specifically related to lofty, overly-detached plotlines where everyone's a gung-ho superman and every stake is existential and larger-than-life. A Dream for Tomorrow is definitely dramatic, but I wouldn't personally call it operatic so much as it is just that, dramatic. Yes, the concept was dramatic, mind-eating space aliens and all that, but the plot line was fairly grounded compared to past arcs like Lii'dra invasions or Violet Dawn or god-knows-what. Those are theatrical, those are space opera, those are things where the main ship feels like it's the only player that matters.
   
   Think of it like this: what I don't want is the original trilogy of Star Wars. I don't want evil space wizards or the forces of light and darkness or a plot-armored ship that worms its way out of any situation no-problem. What I do want is Andor. Grounded stakes, no special people, nobody has true "plot armor," no world-ending stakes or missions at hand. And for all it was I doubt anyone had ever called Andor boring as a result of that groundedness: Aldhani, the prison, Ferrix, Ghorman, the Senate Building, all those settings still had incredible action and drama happen without it leaning into overly fantastical plotlines. I'd argue that's the thing we were supposed to head for with Anabasis to begin with, no? Less of this grand "Horizon is the main character" energy, more "We are a cog in a machine" stuff. 
   
   As for the psychological detachment question, there's a real phenomenon that exists for this known as scope insensitivity (and to a related extent the identifiable victim effect). You see this all the time in modern events and happenings, right: you can intuit smaller problems better than you can large ones. A plane crash is more visceral than a city airstrike. This isn't a failing of ourselves as much as it's a literal documented bias that larger things have less impact on people. And the identifiable victim effect is where if you can't identify or relate to a single person or group of people who've lived through such grandiose events, you stop being able to picture it, because you're not really able to relate to an amorphous blob. It needs a perspective, it needs grounding, and that's a way to make something feel real rather than yet another book thing.
   
   There's also the angle of narrative safety where an event that doesn't have an impact on the observer (the ship, in this case) tends to flatten tension because the brain has a habit of only really associating with stuff it is in immediate danger from. Again, that's normal. We can't force a brain into comprehending these intuitively as much as we can adapt the writing to be more relatable and grounded so that it HITS harder and hits better for individual people. Have the stakes affect the person, have them have something to see, give them something corporeal to look at and go, "Oh, so this is what that was like."
   
   As for examples: again, Violet Dawn. It was told as a single paragraph from a history book angle where no POV was shown nor any lasting personal cost as a backdrop. The planet today is an unreachable husk that killed 99% of everyone and never really got told as anything ever again except as a cautionary tale. The size of the spectacle was the only narrative hook one can have, because everything smaller just got reduced to ashes. In my opinion, that's bad writing and a key thing I'd like to use as a meta-cautionary tale and what not to do when writing things like Earth and Biesel's fall.
   
   And it all loops back to Andor, because the stakes were so personal and felt that you could truly feel it narratively without any sort of galaxy-wide needle being moved. The Empire is barely any closer to collapse than it was before, say, the heist on Aldhani. What it did do was set the range of events in motion that churned its own little story arc in motion, the after-effects, the consequences, Cassian being arrested on Niamos because of the Empire's crackdowns. That's the kind of visceral stuff I want to write for, and I appreciate that you say you disagree with me on that because there's definitely a middle-ground we can achieve on this here. I just want to state my personal goals for writing such stories because I want to have us be more truthful to Anabasis's design goals of being a more grounded and gritty setting than current-day Aurora. Going back to theatricality throws all that in the bin.
   
   I want to be clear by the way I'm not necessarily proposing we suddenly shift to small-guy stories or slotting in some sort of anthology of "little guys". We can't do that, that's not quite something we can pull off without a lot of extra effort. I still think we should do our style of articles and wiki pages and stuff, but add things like the people inside: human anchors, human stakes, a little tidbit of what happened that's more than "EVERYBODY DIES". Anecdotes, basically, even if they're only a sentence or two. I think those would help achieve the conceptual granularity I've been proposing.
   
    

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 15:01 by naut