[UA] What You Want, Baby I Got It (long)

[Gregory Paul Stolze]

jason.durall at milliman.com wrote

>I've never heard of a game developer asking what products the fans would
>like to see, but I'm game for it...

It's a weird confluence of factors.  When WW puts out a new game, they've
got the publication schedule set for a year.  (They have to in order to
give writers nice long deadlines.  That way they can get stuff to
distributors on time and ensure distribution.  They're smart that way.)
Atlas has a few UA books in development, but there's time to work on future
stuff.  Most small press games don't have a mailing list up and running
before the game's in stores, so that's another advantage...

All right, folks.  Here's the tally of your preferences so far.  Feel free
to correct as you wish.  To assess this, I just gave one or more + or -
ratings to the projects, as seemed appropriate from the comments received.
I suppose if I'd thought through it better when I sent that first post, I
could have it all mathy and neat, but then we might not have gotten as much
interesting and productive back-chat.

Just so you know, when people said "I'd rather see a book based on an
organization than a school of magick" I put that as a + for the NG book,
since it's one of the few splatbooks that would be both.

NG = Naked Goddess book, "Mature Audiences."
D = Dipsomancer book, "One Bourbon, One Scotch, One Beer."
E = Epideromancer book, "Flesh for Fantasy."
G = Godwalker.  (Incidentally, I'd probably be writing it, if that
influences anyone.) 
Ci = Small, specific, individual city books
Ca = Big, world-changing campaign.
Os2 = One Shots 2
GS = Grand Secrets

			NG	D	E	G	Ci	Ca	Os2	GS
A. Stimson			++	+
A. Blair		-	-	-		+	++		+
S. Stroud			-	-	++	+		++	+
J. Palmer		+	+	+		-	--
K. Mowry		+	+	+		+		-
D. Lackey		+	-	-		+			+
B. Durrell					-	+	-	+	+
M. Mearls								+	+
T. Dedopulous		-	-	-		+
P. Heaver		++			+			+	+
J. Fiala		-	-	-	-	-			+
P. Edson			+
R. Orldorff		+	+	+
M. Friedman		+			-	-			+
C. Neumier		-	-	-		+			+
S. Hamilton		+							+
Brighoff					-		+
J. Iglesias					+	+?	-		++
G. Gart		-	-	-	+	-	+	+	+
S. Melhuish						(big)
N. Laughlin		+	-	-					+
R. Neal					-		-	+	+
J. Durhall					-	(big)	-	+	+
C. Congdon		+			+	-	-	-	-
F. Letherfut(?)	-	-	-		+	++	+
J. Prince		+	+	+	-	(big)	+	-	-
J. Knorr						+	+		+

TOTALS			+5	-2	-4	-1	+4/5	0	+6	+15

(Wow, tallying stuff up on a big chart.  This is just like work!  Or like
old style D&D...)

The clear big winner is "Grand Secrets" -- the book that would, of course,
be hardest to write and about which the least was said.  Let me clarify: I
envision "Grand Secrets" to be a book of stuff that LOOKS supernatural but
ISN'T.  If you thought it was a grab bag of fiddly occult stuff, that's
"Postmodern Magick," which is somewhere in the mill right now.  

There were also several people who liked the idea of a single, big city
book, with split opinions about fictional cities vs. real cities.  I'll
throw my hat into the ring on this issue: I prefer real cities to fictional
because of the historic grounding of UA.  Everyone knows where the Statue
of Liberty is.  BUT... how about this for a compromise?  A single book
split into two sections.  The first section is generic city stuff -
settings, ideas and individuals who can be stuck anywhere.  The second half
would be SPECIFIC city stuff - chapters on Seattle, Chicago, New York,
London, L.A., San Francisco, D.C. or whatever - giving the local history,
the local cabals and the local STUFF.  If you set your game in Chicago, you
can use the specific stuff and all the generic stuff.  If you set your game
in a fictional burg, you can still use the generic stuff while saving the
specific stuff for use if your characters ever decide to beard the NG cult
in its den or go get some cliomancy charges off the Washington Monument.

-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.