[UA] BoUA2: mild dislike or abject hatred? Commentary Thread Here.

[Tim Bisaillon]

>From: Chris Cooper <insectking at yahoo.com>
>Hey all.
>
>Since most of you who wanted the BoUA2 document
>received it through various channels, I want to know
>what your thoughts revolved around.
>
>As a fan project in continual process what did you
>like or didn't? What should we all be doing with this?
>
>I do realise that there is a glaring error with one of
>the contributor's names and the odd typo and
>grammatical shoddiness.
>
>I am looking to make a larger collection of adept
>formulae spells for BoUA3 with maybe a crunchy section
>on explosives. Rather than do new Adept schools and
>avatars, I want to put in something which has
>immediate game use.
>
>Comments?
>

Granted BoUA II is good and it's not a bad looking supplement and kudos to 
those that submitted et all. It has some neat stuff in it, but I will prolly 
won't use since my players and I normally make things along the way to make 
the game system  our own interpetation. And that's the beauty of UA, since 
the game is a cerebral journey and the players like to come up with funky 
names for skills like "This'll do in a pinch", "Neo-like Zeness" or my all 
time favourite player name skill "Not The Face! Not The Face!"

I leave the schools of magic and avatars for my players, too many of them 
and the soup will lose it's flavour. It's a creative decision for both GM 
and Player to help invent their own mythos along the way, with the staple of 
the core rules in the background. Like I play my "Alex Abel" like a 
combination of Morgan Freeman with a little touch of Donald Trump.

I'm merely looking for adventures and unnatural beings  in the fold. Mainly 
adventures. Well, maybe if I get off my duff and start typing some .

I wouldn't worry about the grammatical shoddiness and the errors... heck 
that's what fanboy/fangirl stuff is all about. ;)