UA - Whens the next product due out?

[Ian Young]

Bryant asks...

> So here's a question, meant seriously: what is it about UA 
> that makes us not mind that a) we don't know how the Naked 
> Goddess ascended, and if it was deliberate or coincidental;
> b) when the world is going to end; c) anything at all about
> the motivations of such powerful people as The Freak; and d)
> who's close to ascension in any archetype but The Herald? 
> I mean, these are big important questions that we'll need to 
> answer if we run a high-level campaign. So why isn't it bad 
> that we haven't been given the answers? 

My answer to all of the above is similar to my post about variable
archetypes from earlier today.  The game seems to have been laid out so
that the decisions and ambitions of the GM and players are held aloft as
more important than the official canon.  The Naked Goddess, and The
Freak, and the ascension of all 333 archetypes are food for thought and
inspiration for your games, but they aren't pigeon-holes.  Besides, even
if John and Greg do detail the official spin on The Sect of the Naked
Goddess, its only one of 333 possible archetypes to consider, and *my*
game focusses on the conflict between The Street Sweeper and The Knee
Biter -- I'm not boxed in at all.

The big difference with UA is plenty of inspirational background to get
your game going, and plenty of room to swing a cat (that is, plenty of
leeway to create your own campaign).  Now, if we're told that 327 of the
archetypes have already ascended, and only the following *five*
archetypes are up for grabs, *then* we're in trouble and looking at a
limiting storyline.
  
> Answering my own question -- because with Trinity, we all had 
> the expectation that there was a fixed game world and a fixed 
> metaplot (and we were right), whereas UA comes from a company 
> and people we trust more. We feel like Greg and John expect us 
> to wonk the world around, while White Wolf expects us to take 
> what's given. 

Very well put.  Wonk-away!

Gone,
Ian