[UA] What You Want

[Gregory Paul Stolze]

At 06:23 AM 2/11/99 -0800, Stacy Stroud wrote:
>I like the titles . . . but can you give me an idea of what would go into
>these books?  If I may make the obvious comparison, I'm sure we've all
>heard the complaints WW has gotten over the non-content of their
>"splatbooks."  It's clear from UA that the schools of magick are not
>coherent organizations or even consistent mindsets -- so why a whole
>sourcebook for each?  The old schedule included a "Postmodern Magick"
>sourcebook; it seems that would be the place to put new spells and such.  I
>could see a Sect of the Naked Goddess book to match the TNI book, but none
>of the other schools is so strongly tied to a specific group of people.

"PoMo Mag" is inching towards being in the works.  What you'd get (I think)
with the dipsomancer and epideromancer sourcebooks would be new rote
spells, lots of characters, a couple adventures, lots of adventure seeds,
and background on the Freak.  Similarly, the dipsomancer book would have
more spells, vessels, rumors about major charge boozes, characters, and
probably some Dirk Allen stuff.


>>	"Grand Secrets" - A bunch of red herring adventures and material.
>
>How does this differ from "One Shots"?  What's a "red herring adventure"?
>(I would presume an adventure that seems to involve the answer to one of
>the Big Questions of the UnAverse, but actually does not.  Is that it?)

I was thinking more along the lines of chapter twelve: a bunch of
situations that LOOK mystical, but are actually mundane.  I've got a gut
feeling that most UA GMs would have an easier time building "supernatural
explanation" homebrews than "scooby" adventures.

-G.
1899 Phrenologist: Your son has the sloping forehead of a sexual deviant:
better put him in an asylum.
1999 Gene Therapist: Your fetus has the "date rape" gene.  Better abort.