# scoop: 4e gamma world



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 27, 2010)

You herd it hear first...

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Gamma-World-Roleplaying-Game-Setting/dp/0786955082"]amazzon link[/ame]

I can hardly wait....


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jan 27, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> You herd it hear first...
> 
> amazzon link
> 
> I can hardly wait....




Great googly-moogly!  Incredible find!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 27, 2010)

Holy bouncing crap on a pogo-stick!


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 27, 2010)

so does anyone know anything about this? 
    I really hope  to see firearm rules, and modern vehicals... maybe even a new ranged defender...

  I think this could also be the start of second small setting relases later int eh year then the main setting...


----------



## Siberys (Jan 27, 2010)

"Genre Setting" - interesting phrase.

I foresee an oriental book along these lines.

EDIT: I'm rather excited about this. I have a friend who loves original GW.


----------



## ggroy (Jan 27, 2010)

So far the details are somewhat vague.

Will it be a full 4E  setting book (ie. like Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Dark Sun)?

Or will it be like a boardgame, similar to what they're doing with  Ravenloft?

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Castle-Ravenloft-Wizards-RPG-Team/dp/0786955570"]Amazon.com: Castle Ravenloft: A D&D Boardgame (4th Edition D&D) (9780786955572): Wizards RPG Team: Books[/ame]


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jan 27, 2010)

*Reposting due to duplicate thread:*

Just saw that myself!  Glad to see it coming back.  I was hoping we'd see something modern-ish for 4e.  Gamma World is a nice surprise, though!

Now, how do we get Star Frontiers?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 27, 2010)

My guess is that this is the effective 4e face of d20 Modern. 

Actually, it fits as a setting. Mostly fantasy-based, using non-magical classes (no arcane, divine, or primal magic, but probably psionics, and of course martial talent, and perhaps "biological" or "technological" power sources). A sprinkling of tech goes good on magic, and it might tone down the wahoo to make it a decent setting.

Hmmm....I'm intrigued. It's clearly not a board game, and it seems to be a stand-alone game that perhaps uses 4e as a baseline for rules. Not part of the D&D game per se, but the newest version of Gamma World, like the previous two versions used the d20 rules.


----------



## Knightfall (Jan 27, 2010)

*Sweet! Sweet! Sweet!*


----------



## the Jester (Jan 27, 2010)

Oh HELL yeah!


----------



## Samurai (Jan 27, 2010)

Is 152 pages really enough to detail the whole setting?  I doubt they can use all the 4e classes, so new classes, feats, mutations, guns, vehicle rules, Gamma World creatures, etc, etc... all in that short a space?  I don't know.


----------



## Dannager (Jan 27, 2010)

Dark Sun, and now Gamma World? My year is _made_, and it's only January!


----------



## dm4hire (Jan 27, 2010)

Awesome find! I can't wait to read more about this.


----------



## avin (Jan 27, 2010)

Will it use 4E or it will be 7th edition (or something like that)?


----------



## dm4hire (Jan 27, 2010)

It would be nice if they made it stand alone like was done with the Alternity version.  Since it mentions setting I am sure that won't be the case this time.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jan 27, 2010)

Samurai said:


> Is 152 pages really enough to detail the whole setting?  I doubt they can use all the 4e classes, so new classes, feats, mutations, guns, vehicle rules, Gamma World creatures, etc, etc... all in that short a space?  I don't know.




This could mean that - after the necessary rules addons - they only give you a scetch of Gamma World, painting in broad strokes which the DM is supposed to fill in...

*gropes*

Gimmme!

EDIT: And the awesomest of awesomsauce is that we will possibly see MORE D&D genre settings! Experimental new stuff!


----------



## Klaus (Jan 27, 2010)

To quote a Supernatural episode I watched a couple of weeks ago:

HOLY MOTHER OF $%¨@#!

Squeeeeeeeeee!


----------



## Chainsaw (Jan 27, 2010)

Could have some good crunch to transplant into a sword/planet campaign.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (Jan 27, 2010)

Chainsaw said:


> Could have some good crunch to transplant into a sword/planet campaign.



Yeah, I was thinking it might be a good basis for a "John Carter of Mars" style science fantasy setting.


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 27, 2010)

deleted


----------



## TerraDave (Jan 27, 2010)

For the last few weeks, I had been thinking of a GW inspired D&D campaign using martial and psionic classes. 

Clearly evidence that great minds think alike. 

I just hope it lives up to my own personal hype.


----------



## Chainsaw (Jan 27, 2010)

Jonathan Moyer said:


> Yeah, I was thinking it might be a good basis for a "John Carter of Mars" style science fantasy setting.




I agree. I'm working on something like that now for use late in 2010 or early 2011, so this book's content and timing couldn't be better. Well, I suppose if it were coming out today, it could be better, but you know what I mean.


----------



## inkmonkeys (Jan 27, 2010)

Holy bananacrap, we're doing *what?*


----------



## Chainsaw (Jan 27, 2010)

inkmonkeys said:


> Holy bananacrap, we're doing *what?*




Come on.. don't tell me it's some sort of Amazon error!


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Jan 27, 2010)

I will definitely get this. I always loved GW!


----------



## Scribble (Jan 27, 2010)

This IS awesome.... I do, however, wonder how this type of stuff will be represented in the DDI? 

At all?

Will there be an update for the CB so you can make GW characters? Will you be able to mix the two if you want?  Will Dragon/Dungeon have GW elements (which I would like... remind me of the days of yore!)

Guess only time will tell!


----------



## Dragonbait (Jan 27, 2010)

inkmonkeys said:


> Holy bananacrap, we're doing *what?*






Chainsaw said:


> Come on.. don't tell me it's some sort of Amazon error!




... pleaseohplease let this be real..


----------



## Klaus (Jan 27, 2010)

inkmonkeys said:


> Holy bananacrap, we're doing *what?*



Between this and Dark Sun, I'm guessing the answer is "you're giving me tools to make a Thundarr The Barbarian + He-Man" campaign.


----------



## Chainsaw (Jan 27, 2010)

Klaus said:


> Between this and Dark Sun, I'm guessing the answer is "you're giving me tools to make a Thundarr The Barbarian + He-Man" campaign.




A He-Man setting could be really cool, actually. I probably wouldn't want to call it He-Man or have any of the cartoon characters running around stealing the show, but the sword/sorcery/technology/monster mix might be cool. There are enough vanilla fantasy setting materials available for me.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 27, 2010)

inkmonkeys said:


> Holy bananacrap, we're doing *what?*




Oh, man.... please tell me this is real!!!!


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Jan 27, 2010)

This sounds awesome!  I'm with the "John Carter" crew on this: I hope a new GW would easily support stuff in that vein of pulp as well as the normal GW. 
The page count seems a little low, but frankly a 4e GW just might get me on that bandwagon


----------



## Zaran (Jan 27, 2010)

Samurai said:


> Is 152 pages really enough to detail the whole setting? I doubt they can use all the 4e classes, so new classes, feats, mutations, guns, vehicle rules, Gamma World creatures, etc, etc... all in that short a space? I don't know.




No Kidding!  and they want $40 for it.   I won't buy it unless they put alot more effort into it than 150 pages worth.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jan 27, 2010)

*Wow!*

This might make a good system for Slavelords of Cydonia.

Ken


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 27, 2010)

Zaran said:


> No Kidding!  and they want $40 for it.   I won't buy it unless they put alot more effort into it than 150 pages worth.




  I strongly suspect that the page counts for the Rules Compendium (320 pages for $20, softcover) and Player's Essentials (352 pages for $20, softcover) given on Amazon got flipped around with Gamma World (152, $40 hardcover) and DM's Essentials (192, $40 hardcover).

  My guesses? GW, 352; DM's Essentails, 320; RC and Player's Essentials, one of them 152 and the other 192.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Jan 27, 2010)

I dunno. Will 4Es balance straightjacket allow for the sort of wackyness that was Gamma World? On the other hand, if it works for a John Carter campaign, I'm for it.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 27, 2010)

Ed_Laprade said:


> I dunno. Will 4Es balance straightjacket allow for the sort of wackyness that was Gamma World? On the other hand, if it works for a John Carter campaign, I'm for it.




Well the same can be said for AD&D in general... If balance is something you enjoy it will probably work. If not, it probably won't work for you.


----------



## Treebore (Jan 27, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> You herd it hear first...
> 
> amazzon link
> 
> I can hardly wait....




Actually, I heard of it first from James Ward at Troll Con last July, and I am pretty sure I also read a post about it in the publishers forum at that time as well.

Glad people are finally paying attention to it, though.


----------



## darjr (Jan 27, 2010)

Treebore, I think, that you are thinking of the 4e 'Metamorphosis Alpha'.

I also hope that this is real, has anyone found a players book?


----------



## Vael (Jan 27, 2010)

Okay, yesterday I'd never even heard of Gamma World, any fans want to sell me on the concept?


----------



## coyote6 (Jan 27, 2010)

Gamma World, according Wikipedia.


----------



## summonedmonkey (Jan 27, 2010)

Anyone looking forward to this might dig the 4th ed. modern-type rules for the upcoming Amethyst setting from Dias Ex Machinas. They also just put up a free preview adventure w/rules and pregens. Looks kinda neat. Guns and explosions and all that.

Dias Ex Machina


----------



## Treebore (Jan 27, 2010)

darjr said:


> Treebore, I think, that you are thinking of the 4e 'Metamorphosis Alpha'.
> 
> I also hope that this is real, has anyone found a players book?




True, I could be confusing it with that. But Ward was also involved in Gamma World.


----------



## denzoner (Jan 27, 2010)

It's obvious now how WotC is going to incorporate other "genres" into their 4e D&D system. Instead of releasing a "modern" system (ala d20 Modern) they're releasing campaign genres (as opposed to Campaign Settings). Very interesting, and it should be very EASY (i'd think) to transport Bards and Paladins into a post apocalyptic you know where. 

Paladins fighting mutants? Would Bahamut give rats ass? Bards "hacking" a Network? 

I'm sure we'll see all this in Character Builder too. I already have a hard time dealing with Dragonmarks and Tattoos in my "generic" D&D, now add bio-tech and laser guns, I'm ed as a DM.


----------



## Knightfall (Jan 28, 2010)

El Mahdi said:


> When I just saw this on the News page, I was going to PM you with the news.  Glad I checked around first to see if you heard about it.



I only just heard about it yesterday while lurking about, browsing threads. Still, I'm psyched about the idea of a Gamma World as a 4e game. First, Dark Sun and now this! 



El Mahdi said:


> This is very cool news.  I'm very intrigued to see how 4E translates to this type of campaign.



It could be great. I'm hoping they stay true to the setting and don't fill it with dwarves, elves, and dragonborn. That would be bad. 

I'm thinking the setting could (should) include a new power source: mutation. Also, I'm hoping for a large chapter detailing Gamma World critters. A separate Mutant Manual would be better, however.


----------



## scourger (Jan 28, 2010)

Gamma World might be the thing to get me into 4e after all.


----------



## darjr (Jan 28, 2010)

Looking back at some of the articles... Gamma World was strongly hinted at least once. Maybe many more times.


Sneaky sneaky. Wonder what else is being hinted at?


----------



## Sutekh (Jan 28, 2010)

It's strange, I actually preferred the revised editions of Gamma World where the emphasis wasnt so much on the crazyness of things. I ran a Fallout game with the 4th edition of the rules a long time ago that went well. As Scifi (and more importantly post apoc) is my favorite genre Im looking forward to this game. 

Now if its just one book, I think its fertile ground for 3rd party expansion with possible 'setting /fluff' books to give locations and maybe some plot. 

Of course it could be a frakkin big error by Amazon. Its not the first time they have posted something incorrectly.


----------



## coyote6 (Jan 28, 2010)

DDXP starts today, so maybe we'll learn more from helpful scoopers that are there. 

Hint, hint.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 28, 2010)

darjr said:


> Looking back at some of the articles... Gamma World was strongly hinted at least once. Maybe many more times.
> 
> 
> Sneaky sneaky. Wonder what else is being hinted at?




Lie what? Can you point out some of the places it was hinted at? Maybe we can start "decoding" their style.


----------



## Stoat (Jan 28, 2010)

Vael said:


> Okay, yesterday I'd never even heard of Gamma World, any fans want to sell me on the concept?




Super-wahoo post-apocalyptic insanity.  A three-armed mutant with the ability to belch poison gas, an anthropomorphic raccoon with a bandolier full of nuclear grenades and a walking, psychic cactis do battle with Aardvark people around the ruins of an old U.S. Military installation.  In the midst of the fight, an ancient military cyborg creaks to life and starts blasting away at both sides.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Jan 28, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> DDXP starts today, so maybe we'll learn more from helpful scoopers that are there.



Wow, that's right! 

Is there a particular event or keynote that will likely be the place they talk about what's coming?

(and, boy, didn't DDXP quietly sneak up on us, or is it just me?)


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Jan 28, 2010)

The idea of a Gamma World (or other sci-fi setting) being supported by the D&D 4e rules is very exciting.


----------



## DarthMouth (Jan 28, 2010)

WoW.. a 100% topic aproval. How Wizards dont did this faster ? make minis for D_Sun and Gamma e lets everyone be megahappy


----------



## lrac_hsan (Jan 29, 2010)

I am way too excited about this.

I love Gamma World.

I have been running a Mutant Future campaign and having a blast, and the whole time I was thinking that mutations would fit in perfectly with the way 4e does powers.

Sweeeeet!


----------



## Quantarum (Jan 29, 2010)

Gamma world was the second RPG I was introduced to and "Legion of Gold" was the first TSR module I ran. I think this might surpass Dark Sun on my wish list.  -Q.


----------



## Qualidar (Jan 29, 2010)

Wow, I can _not_ believe this hasn't broken here yet.

From Madwerewabbit over at CM:



> Update from product development session at DDXP this afternoon (tweeted by Dave Chalker @ critical-hits.com):
> 
> "Gamma World. Uses D&D rules. Complete game experience in box. 160 rulebook included. Rooted in d&d. Chargen, how to GM, monsters. 10 encounters, poster map, tokens. New card mechanics. Character will be mutant. "part cockroach, part yeti" In GW starter box, item cards and mutation cards that come up randomly. Some powerful, some silly. GW will have booster cards for players. GW booster packs will be random, only found in hobby stores (not bookstore) Will also have game day."
> 
> ...


----------



## Obryn (Jan 29, 2010)

The collectible card thing makes my soul bleed a little.

Hopefully, much like the Powers in the Players Handbook Heroes series of minis, they'll all be available in a DDI-esque setup.  (Perhaps even in DDI itself, for that matter, if it's based on 4e.)  I just can't see myself playing an RPG for which my players or I would want randomized booster packs...  I think cards are awesome for organizational and reference purposes - but that's as far as it goes.

-O


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 29, 2010)

Yeah, anything that says "Randomized Booster Packs" makes my eyes glaze over and the instinct to preserve my wallet take over. In a collector's hobby like this, the thought of NOT COLLECTING THEM ALL, for me, translates into either "I must have them all" or "I must not have any." 

I'd maybe give it a whirl if there was a collection somewhere (which I could half-expect, seeing as Magic and D&D both have such things). I wouldn't bother with it otherwise.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jan 29, 2010)

It looks like WotC has updated their online catalog through Christmas. 

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Product Catalog

What's more interesting to me is the TWO expansion sets coming out in November and December: _Famine in Far-go_ and _Legion of Gold_.

Both expansions say that they come with 1) 160-page adventure book, 2) including new mutant monsters, 3) 4 sheets of die-cut mutant monster tokens, and 4) A fold-out battle map.

This doesn't sound like a CCG to me. I didn't see the random booster packs mentioned in the DDX thread. It does sound awesome though.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Jan 29, 2010)

Radom packs for mutations and stuff makes sense, but i think i´ll just use the core ones and create the others myself. No need to collect anything. 

But i admit, the hater party about "CCG Gammaworld" and "Gammaworld: the Gathering" is tasty, tasty stuff on the Interwebs. I needed a new fix for extreme reactions after the "WFRPG 3 Boardgame NNNooo!" threads subsided.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jan 29, 2010)

I notice a tendency to put out 'tokens' rather than minis...


----------



## WalterKovacs (Jan 29, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I notice a tendency to put out 'tokens' rather than minis...




It's mostly a combination of being cheaper, and being smaller. The various box sets are mostly flat objects, so the tokens are just another sheet to include. And, the idea would be, in part, to create a market for miniatures, instead of just giving minis away in the main sets.

-------------------

On the random booster packs, the main reason for them seems to be the concept of the game night usage (your mutations are based on the booster you open that night). Hopefully that means they don't have rarities, or at least ones that scale to the point where collecting a set requires getting tons of copies of the same common cards.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jan 29, 2010)

Will Gamma World use Character Builder?  I'd assume so, if this is a D&D setting like the description says, yet some of the other descriptions make it out to be something that isn't D&D.

Color me confused.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 29, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> I notice a tendency to put out 'tokens' rather than minis...




Fine with me... Monster tokens are awesome.


----------



## arscott (Jan 29, 2010)

The absence of any random Gamma World booster packs in the WotC catalog is telling.  I wonder if Dave might have misinterpreted the speaker when he tweeted about randomized card packs.


----------



## Knightfall (Jan 29, 2010)

arscott said:


> The absence of any random Gamma World booster packs in the WotC catalog is telling.  I wonder if Dave might have misinterpreted the speaker when he tweeted about randomized card packs.



Or perhaps the first set of booster cards won't be available until Q1 of 2011.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 29, 2010)

I'll be thrilled if that turns out to be an error of some kind.

Otherwise, it'll just be another game I don't want to buy.  Nothing wrong with that. 

-O


----------



## fanboy2000 (Jan 29, 2010)

Knightfall said:


> Or perhaps the first set of booster cards won't be available until Q1 of 2011.



Maybe, but then why are they putting out two $30 expansions? A $40 set followed immediately by two $30 expansions doesn't sound like a CCG to me. But then, those two expansions don't include cards.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 29, 2010)

I'm hoping the "card packs" aren't something you need to play the game, and instead are just something you can buy to add on to it... Like buying Martial Power, isn't really essential, but cool if you want more martial powers and stuff.


----------



## Dannager (Jan 29, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I'm hoping the "card packs" aren't something you need to play the game, and instead are just something you can buy to add on to it... Like buying Martial Power, isn't really essential, but cool if you want more martial powers and stuff.



I am almost positive that this will turn out to be the case.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 29, 2010)

Dannager said:


> I am almost positive that this will turn out to be the case.




I get the feeling this is true as well. But you never know.


----------



## DMShoe (Jan 29, 2010)

Dannager said:


> I am almost positive that this will turn out to be the case.




Me too.

Dunno how much Rich is spilling at D&D XP this weekend, but we've got a pretty exciting and fun system put together here. And I'm sure we'll be talking more about the system and our design directions as we get closer to release. One thing's for sure - gamma world adds a degree of randomness to the setting, and random characters are random, or something like that.

"Now if we can just keep it from exploding" -Ick, _Real Genius_


----------



## Scribble (Jan 29, 2010)

DMShoe said:


> Me too.
> 
> Dunno how much Rich is spilling at D&D XP this weekend, but we've got a pretty exciting and fun system put together here. And I'm sure we'll be talking more about the system and our design directions as we get closer to release. One thing's for sure - gamma world adds a degree of randomness to the setting, and random characters are random, or something like that.
> 
> "Now if we can just keep it from exploding" -Ick, _Real Genius_




In the words of a great man.... "WORD!"


----------



## Knightfall (Jan 29, 2010)

DMShoe said:


> Me too.
> 
> Dunno how much Rich is spilling at D&D XP this weekend, but we've got a pretty exciting and fun system put together here. And I'm sure we'll be talking more about the system and our design directions as we get closer to release. One thing's for sure - gamma world adds a degree of randomness to the setting, and random characters are random, or something like that.
> 
> "Now if we can just keep it from exploding" -Ick, _Real Genius_



So, is there anything YOU can tell us about the Gamma World RPG. (I'm holding you to idea that it is a RPG and not a CCG.)

Like...

Will the game allow players to play non-mutants (and mutated plants)?

How many classes will the game have?

How compatible will those classes be with the 4th edition core rulebooks? (We already know the monsters will be 4E compatible.) Can players import the Gamma World rules into 4E, seemlessly? And vice versa?

Is there an aspect of the game that brings in the Cryptic Alliances?

Will there be DDI support for Gamma World?

Will the product line continue into 2011 as its own game line? How likely is it that we'll see a Mutant Power book or a Monster Manual specifically for Gamma World?

I'll stop now...


----------



## Obryn (Jan 29, 2010)

Honestly, that's exactly what I expect it to be.  But it doesn't make me any happier with it.

RPGs and CCGs are different sorts of games, largely because they're not competitive among players.  My players shouldn't need to buy randomized booster packs in order to power up their characters.  And the rarity of abilities should be dictated by the DM or by the campaign - not by what Rares someone found in a foil-wrapped pack.

The existence of supplements isn't offensive, of course.  Random abilities are likewise great - they're a hallmark of many excellent RPGs.  It's when you combine randomization with payment for power-ups that it gets icky, to me.  A player character isn't a Magic deck, and I don't want either myself or my players to have to buy randomized RPG elements.  Or scour second-hand markets to find that perfect combo, for that matter.  It's simply not something I want in my RPGs.

-O


----------



## sckeener (Jan 29, 2010)

Dang...they finally found a setting I think might work for 4e.

GW and Darksun would probably get me to play 4e.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Jan 29, 2010)

*Wow*

randomized boosters?

Wasn't there a rumor way back that something like that would be in D&D 4E?  That certainly didn't happen.

I guess what I would not like, would be if I was running this and certain of my players got advantages in the game because they spent more money than other players.  

I'm not understanding how these boosters would work.  Do you mutations change every week?

Ken


----------



## DMShoe (Jan 29, 2010)

Knightfall said:


> So, is there anything YOU can tell us about the Gamma World RPG. (I'm holding you to idea that it is a RPG and not a CCG.)
> 
> Like...
> 
> ...



exactly the questions I want to answer, and I expect to be answered before the product hits the shelves. As soon as the robot overlords let us do so.

Did I say overlords? I meant "protectors"...


----------



## Chainsaw (Jan 29, 2010)

Probably gonna have to pass.. the card stuff ain't my bag and I don't want to contribute to it being successful - voting with your dollars and all that. There are alot of homebrew modern rules for weapons (some right here on ENW) that would likely be indistinguishable in a blind playtest.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 30, 2010)

I'm great with randomness (I think it adds a lot of fun).

I am not so great with paying for randomness (I think it adds a lot of frustration). 

If I don't know what my dollar is going to buy me, I am not going to buy it. An RPG, for me, is normally about a shared narrative, and if those narrative elements are randomized based on someone's ability to shell out for them, then it moves narrative control from the DM, to whoever at the table has the most disposable income.

It's what drove me away from Magic when I was a teenager, and it's not something I'm interested in even from my card games now.

I don't begrudge those who are interested in it, but it is REALLY not my bag. A lot like minis, honestly.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 30, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm great with randomness (I think it adds a lot of fun).
> 
> I am not so great with paying for randomness (I think it adds a lot of frustration).
> 
> If I don't know what my dollar is going to buy me, I am not going to buy it. An RPG, for me, is normally about a shared narrative, and if those narrative elements are randomized based on someone's ability to shell out for them, then it moves narrative control from the DM, to whoever at the table has the most disposable income.




My guess is that the players won't collect the card packs in order to boost their personal decks.  

I'm thinking the "deck" will be a communal thing, and rather then roll on a chart to discover new mutations and tech, the players will just draw from the pile.

Kind of neat in a way as it allows you to add in new mutations and stuff without having to re-do an entire chart. 

So the randomness won't be based on anyone's ability to pay for anything, it will be the same as it ever was, just instead of rolling you draw.

This probably is a way for them to continue to support smaller run games like this, where the fan base wouldn't be large enough to support continuously printing new books.


----------



## scourger (Jan 30, 2010)

I'm still interested in seeing it.  I've had a lot of fun with Gamma World over the years.  My favorite iterations used the Omega Worlds rules with earlier modules: played Legion of Gold and ran the Alternity adventures with Omega World rules.  So, I'm looking forward to seeing if WOTC can do something good with this new version.  The idea of cards & counters doesn't bother me per se, but I do prefer it to be limited to a core game and/or expansions.  But, I will see what they publish and then decide if it is for me.  It's still exciting, though.


----------



## Phaezen (Jan 30, 2010)

More Gamma World being discussed at DDXP, Wolfstar76 is putting up a summary here.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 30, 2010)

> I'm thinking the "deck" will be a communal thing, and rather then roll on a chart to discover new mutations and tech, the players will just draw from the pile.




If this is the case, then, to me, the key difference is that the chart doesn't vary in length depending on how much I've spent on the book containing it.

"Pay another $10 to get access to the full chart!" doesn't fly with me.

I get that it flies okay with others, which is fine, but in such a situation I am more likely to say "OR, I could pay NOTHING, and go do something else with my time."


----------



## Turtlejay (Jan 30, 2010)

Or, you could wait until you know the details before flying off the handle about it.

LiveBlogging: Dungeons & Dragons Experience 2010 (DDXP) : Geek's Dream Girl

It's still early  yet, but it looks to me like the deck buying is entirely optional.

Jay


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 30, 2010)

Turtlejay said:


> Or, you could wait until you know the details before flying off the handle about it.
> 
> LiveBlogging: Dungeons & Dragons Experience 2010 (DDXP) : Geek's Dream Girl
> 
> ...




That has nothing to do with the issue.

When you tell gamers that they have to buy _randomized boosters_ for your addons, you're telling them "Go screw yourselves, and give us your money while you do so."

Randomized boosters add *nothing* to the game.  Having to fork over cash for a _chance_ to get something doesn't make the game more fun.  It's just a cheap and hilariously obvious cash grab.

Screw that.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jan 30, 2010)

Turtlejay said:


> It's still early  yet, but it looks to me like the deck buying is entirely optional.



Of course, it's optional. It's an expansion to the game. Still, I dislike the idea of RPGs with collectible components.


----------



## Kez Darksun (Jan 30, 2010)

Seeing the cards priced at $4 for 8 cards in a 120 card set has pretty much sold me on looking at various card resellers online to price out a complete set before I even think about shelling out for random boosters.


----------



## Turtlejay (Jan 30, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> That has nothing to do with the issue.
> 
> When you tell gamers that *they have to buy* _randomized boosters_ for your addons, you're telling them "Go screw yourselves, and give us your money while you do so."
> 
> ...




Nobody is shoving their hand in your pocket and taking your money.  The game comes with a deck of cards.  If that is as much as you want to spend on the game, *it will work just fine as is*.  Read the transcript, it is plain as day.  For those that are completists or rabid fans, they are selling the option of having more.  It is an **option**!

What is hilarious is your outrage about a board game that won't be released for nine months, and about which we know next to nothing.

Jay


----------



## darjr (Jan 30, 2010)

I dunno. The cards sound like a cool mechanic. I probably won't collect, cause I'm not really a collector, but I might buy some.

As far as cards, not a big deal, I own a set of Pegleg Pete's Deck of royal Rogues for Savage Worlds and the serpent cards provide a little something like jokers.

Oh... and any WotC folks reading... are the podcasts going into the feed?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 30, 2010)

Turtlejay said:


> Nobody is shoving their hand in your pocket and taking your money.  The game comes with a deck of cards.  If that is as much as you want to spend on the game, *it will work just fine as is*.  Read the transcript, it is plain as day.  For those that are completists or rabid fans, they are selling the option of having more.  It is an **option**!
> 
> What is hilarious is your outrage about a board game that won't be released for nine months, and about which we know next to nothing.
> 
> Jay




What's hilarious is that you'll defend anything, no matter what it is.

It's a douchebag move to force players to buy randomized decks in order to get supplemental material.  Period.  When I buy a book, I buy a known quantity.  I know what's in it.  It's not going to change.  If there's things in the book I want, I get it.  I don't have that with booster decks.  Have fun buying more and more booster decks to get your Plant Body mutation, all while drowning in your ten million Third Arm cards.

There is, once again, *nothing* that the booster decks add that couldn't have been done with a goddamn little booklet, or hell, a chart.  Yeah, remember the original Gamma World that had a chart?  You didn't need to pay money to have a chance at maybe being able to use part of the chart.

This is nothing ore then an effort to squeeze out more money for almost no work done.  It's an  move, and it's hilariously disrespectful to the customers.  CCGs and RPGs are kept seperate for a reason.


----------



## Turtlejay (Jan 30, 2010)

I'm glad you know me so well!  I know as much as anyone else here about this stupid board game, which is next to nothing.  What I *hate*, is your negativity, and your seemingly insatiable need to knock down what other people build.  You hate on topics up and down the General Forum, and this is no different.

You know *nothing* about the nature of the booster packs, all you see is the word 'random', and the froth begins to flow.  Why don't you try just letting those of us with something constructive to say post for awhile, you can take a Valium and lie down for awhile.

Jay


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 30, 2010)

I'm generally willing to give game designers the benefit of the doubt on things . . . 

   But the way these were being promoted on the podcast of the seminar that I listened to last night made it sound like "buy boosters to power up your character!", which I think is just a bad approach all around.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 30, 2010)

Turtlejay said:


> I'm glad you know me so well!  I know as much as anyone else here about this stupid board game, which is next to nothing.  What I *hate*, is your negativity, and your seemingly insatiable need to knock down what other people build.  You hate on topics up and down the General Forum, and this is no different.
> 
> You know *nothing* about the nature of the booster packs, all you see is the word 'random', and the froth begins to flow.  Why don't you try just letting those of us with something constructive to say post for awhile, you can take a Valium and lie down for awhile.
> 
> Jay




Tsk, just couldn't stay away from the personal judgements, could you?

Lets look at the facts we know.

1) Part of Gamma World is based on cards
(I'm fine with this)
2) These cards effect the players and provide additional randomized options
(I'm fine with this)
3) Cards will be sold
(I'm fine with this)
4) ...In randomized booster packs
(Here's the issue)

How about instead of whinging about me disliking it, you defend it?  Tell me how the randomized booster packs add to the game.  By all means, show me the good part in "Hey, now I have a chance to not get what I want when I buy a product!"


----------



## Knightfall (Jan 31, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> I'm generally willing to give game designers the benefit of the doubt on things . . .
> 
> But the way these were being promoted on the podcast of the seminar that I listened to last night made it sound like "buy boosters to power up your character!", which I think is just a bad approach all around.



I must agree with you, Matthew.

Plus, there doesn't seem to be an option to play the game without the cards. Sure, you don't have to buy the booster packs but what do you want to bet the best powers are only available in the boosters. 

Plus, after reading through the link that Phaezen posted, I'm very disappointed that the game only has 10 levels. That's just lame.


----------



## coyote6 (Jan 31, 2010)

I imagine you'll be able to find the text of all the cards on the Internet soon enough after release. Make up your own charts, and roll rather than draw.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 31, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> It's an  move...





Watch your language.

Really.  We have a language filter, but if you invoke it, that means you're over the line.  If you are too hot-headed about this to keep a civil tongue, you should not be posting on the subject.

Everyone, I hope this is clear.  I don't care how much you hate a particular business or design choice, you will speak in a polite manner on these board.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 31, 2010)

coyote6 said:


> I imagine you'll be able to find the text of all the cards on the Internet soon enough after release. Make up your own charts, and roll rather than draw.




And oh, the "Piracy is good/bad" arguments that will bring about


----------



## Hussar (Jan 31, 2010)

Knightfall said:


> I must agree with you, Matthew.
> 
> Plus, there doesn't seem to be an option to play the game without the cards. Sure, you don't have to buy the booster packs but what do you want to be the best powers are only available in the boosters.
> 
> Plus, after reading through the link that Phaezen posted, I'm very disappointed that the game only has 10 levels. That's just lame.




I'm not so sure about the idea that the best powers will only be available in the boosters.

After all, unless WOTC takes a radical right turn from their design principles in 4e, the booster abilities will have to be balanced with the ones that come with the core game.  Sure, there will be some different stuff, but, it's not like MtG where you have cards that are blatantly better than others.  You can't and still have a system balanced on the 4e paradigm.

The ten levels thing means that the game is for Heroic tier only.  It does fit rather well with the Gamma World setting, where the PC's aren't meant to become top dogs in the setting.  One would hope, though, that they will slow down advancement considerably from 4e.  You could be blowing through a campaign in very short order otherwise.

I look at the cards like any other optional doodad they come out with.  It's fine, if you want them.  If you don't, don't sweat it and move on.  It won't likely affect your game all that much.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 31, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> How about instead of whinging about me disliking it, you defend it?  Tell me how the randomized booster packs add to the game.  By all means, show me the good part in "Hey, now I have a chance to not get what I want when I buy a product!"




   Actually, if done right, I can see this enhancing certain design goals--the wild, unpredictable, 'you never know what you'll get' element of GW mutations and tech. Plus, the randomization allows them to put out cards at a low price point, so DMs can pick up a booster or two as an impulse purchase or when they feel the deck starting to get stale.

  Unfortunately, that direction doesn't seem to be the way they're going. From the podcast of Thursday's seminar, starting at about 39:47 to about 40:38



> We also have coming up Gamma World booster cards, which is a place where you have an opportunity as a player to invest in making your character better, give yourself better options on the card draws. So things like powered armor, and fusion rifles, and really good, kick-butt mutations like the Gamma Eye and all sorts of fun things like that--a lot of those are in the boosters . . .




   Now, if I were in charge of this, I'd also try to put out a full 'factory set' a few months later and make sure people knew it would be coming, so those who want a complete set but don't enjoy the random element can still get it. (This isn't feasible with miniatures, and undercuts the whole competitive side of TCG play, but I believe most other trading card companies do something like this. I know TSR did with the AD&D Trading Cards in the 1990s, and I can't imagine they were trendsetters.)


----------



## ggroy (Jan 31, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I'm not so sure about the idea that the best powers will only be available in the boosters.
> 
> After all, unless WOTC takes a radical right turn from their design principles in 4e, the booster abilities will have to be balanced with the ones that come with the core game.  Sure, there will be some different stuff, but, it's not like MtG where you have cards that are blatantly better than others.  You can't and still have a system balanced on the 4e paradigm.




One way of doing the rare card thing is to have the less popular classes, powers, races, monsters, magic items, etc ... as "rare" cards (ie. tiefling, avenger, invoker, deva, etc ...).

The cards for the more popular traditional classes, powers, races, monsters, weapons, magic items, etc ... are made to be more common (ie. elves, dwarfs, fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue, kobalds, orcs, ogres, etc ...).


----------



## Siberys (Jan 31, 2010)

Eh. I'm neutral on the cards.

If they aren't on DDI, they'll be somewhere else on the 'net, and I'll just print off a visual spoiler or a table or somesuch. I mean, Wizards puts out full visual spoilers for Magic. I'd be surprised if they didn't do it for this.

It's not like Magic, where it's cheating (or illegal) to not have the real deal.

But if I can get 'em _real_ cheap, or as singles cheaply? Sure. I'll bite.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 31, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Actually, if done right, I can see this enhancing certain design goals--the wild, unpredictable, 'you never know what you'll get' element of GW mutations and tech. Plus, the randomization allows them to put out cards at a low price point, so DMs can pick up a booster or two as an impulse purchase or when they feel the deck starting to get stale.
> 
> Unfortunately, that direction doesn't seem to be the way they're going. From the podcast of Thursday's seminar, starting at about 39:47 to about 40:38
> 
> ...




So it's exactly as I said.  The good stuff?  You have to go into randomized boosters to get that.

WotC has literally just given you the fantastic ability to *not* get what you want when you buy a product.

Still waiting for someone to tell me how that's a good thing.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Jan 31, 2010)

After reading the link my interest in this has gone from reasonably enthusiastic to zero. And did I read it wrong, or do the character's mutations change after every extended rest? (Drawing more/new cards from the deck...) If so, then I'm doubly uninterested. ("I'll blast him with my Gamma Vision... Oh wait, I don't have it anymore, I've got Floppy Feet instead!")


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 31, 2010)

Ignoring the deliberate provocations...



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure about the idea that the best powers will only be available in the boosters.




That seems to be counteracted by this:



			
				Podcast said:
			
		

> We also have coming up Gamma World booster cards, which is a place where you have an opportunity as a player to invest in making your character better, give yourself better options on the card draws. So things like powered armor, and fusion rifles, and really good, kick-butt mutations like the Gamma Eye and all sorts of fun things like that--a lot of those are in the boosters . . .




If boosters are a place where you can make your character "better," then they are exactly that: better than non-booster stuff.

I mean, it could be he misspoke, but the message of "Pay more money to have more fun!" seemed to come across pretty strongly there. 



			
				Siberys said:
			
		

> If they aren't on DDI, they'll be somewhere else on the 'net, and I'll just print off a visual spoiler or a table or somesuch. I mean, Wizards puts out full visual spoilers for Magic. I'd be surprised if they didn't do it for this.




If this is true (and I haven't seen evidence that it is true yet, but it certainly seems plausible), that'll change the dynamic a bit more in favor of the game for me. If there's some reference for the powers that includes them all and isn't randomized, it's not so bad. I still won't buy the card boosters, but I didn't by the minis sets with the "extra power" in them, either, since the power is in the DDI, and I have little to no need of minis. 



			
				ProfessorCirno said:
			
		

> WotC has literally just given you the fantastic ability to not get what you want when you buy a product.
> 
> Still waiting for someone to tell me how that's a good thing.




Well, I do think it reflects the feel of a Gamma World game, where you might not get what you want when you mutate or whatever.

I still don't want my access determined by collectible random anything, personally. If enough customers feel that way, GW will flop, and they might not try the "collectible cards" thing for a while. If enough customers don't care or think it's fun, GW will be a success, and we might see more "booster packs" for other WotC items (possibly even in some limited form in D&D, if they think there's a market for it...could work well for "randomized treasure" from dungeons, for example, or "randomized monsters"). 

But even if I'm in the minority in disliking this, I'll not personally play or run a game that requires such investments. To me, they just make the game not fun anymore. I don't like the feel of having to buy random packs of cards to make the character I want or to reward or punish the players how I want. I'm totally OK with being the only person in the world who believes that, though I don't think I'm alone.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 31, 2010)

Ed_Laprade said:


> did I read it wrong, or do the character's mutations change after every extended rest? (Drawing more/new cards from the deck...) If so, then I'm doubly uninterested. ("I'll blast him with my Gamma Vision... Oh wait, I don't have it anymore, I've got Floppy Feet instead!")




I belive you read that right... infact I am alittle scared of that as well... however I still hope there guns tech can be brought over to other 4e modern games...


----------



## M.L. Martin (Jan 31, 2010)

Ed_Laprade said:


> After reading the link my interest in this has gone from reasonably enthusiastic to zero. And did I read it wrong, or do the character's mutations change after every extended rest? (Drawing more/new cards from the deck...) If so, then I'm doubly uninterested. ("I'll blast him with my Gamma Vision... Oh wait, I don't have it anymore, I've got Floppy Feet instead!")




   According to the podcast, some elements of your character (the basic stock/theme, at least, is the impression I got) stay constant, some change daily "because that's Gamma World."


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Jan 31, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Well, I do think it reflects the feel of a Gamma World game, where you might not get what you want when you mutate or whatever.




Rolling stats was random, but I didn't have to pay five dollars to maybe get a chance to roll 5d6 instead of 4d6.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 31, 2010)

Huh. Wow, I... Huh.

I'll probably still get the GW core game, because I like a lot of what I'm hearing about it, and I'm willing to wing/houserule the rest. And also because I want the line of "genre settings" to be a long and prosperous one.

But if the booster card packs truly are randomized, I will never buy one. Not one. And if I'm running a GW game, the players will know in advance that the sets won't be permitted. I don't do random collectibles, and I won't run a game where the player who spent the most money has an advantage.

I'm perfectly happy running a core game only, without supplements; I just wish that wasn't a choice I had to make.  (Again, assuming what we're hearing is accurate.)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 31, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Rolling stats was random, but I didn't have to pay five dollars to maybe get a chance to roll 5d6 instead of 4d6.




You never played with kurt as your DM then...



			
				not a joke said:
			
		

> If you brought 2 or more 2 liters of soda to the table, if you bought him lunch (or pizza for the table), if you brought enough snacks you would get 'cool points'... in game everytime you did good rp, or made a good joke, or anything like that you got a cool point... at the end of everygame you tallied you 'cool points' and did some math to get bonus xp...
> 
> Level 1-5 cp*Level*10
> Level 6-10 cp*level*50
> ...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 31, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> I won't run a game where the player who spent the most money has an advantage.




so would it make a diffrence if everyone used the same deck...and as such even if player A spent $50 more on it, everyone just gets those power ups...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 31, 2010)

GMforPowergamers said:


> so would it make a diffrence if everyone used the same deck...and as such even if player A spent $50 more on it, everyone just gets those power ups...




While that's better, it's still not sufficient, and I still wouldn't permit it in a game I was running. It's not something I want to encourage in future games. It won't keep from buying the core game, as I said, but if the booster decks really are random, they won't be used at my table.


----------



## Knightfall (Jan 31, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> While that's better, it's still not sufficient, and I still wouldn't permit it in a game I was running. It's not something I want to encourage in future games. It won't keep from buying the core game, as I said, but if the booster decks really are random, they won't be used at my table.



Damn straight! 

I'll likely get the three sets but I won't be buying CCG-like booster packs. No way. No how.

Plus, I'll be heavily modifying it so you can play to higher levels and hopefully play without the cards. Of course, I cannot say for certain at this point.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jan 31, 2010)

Knightfall said:


> I'll likely get the three sets but I won't be buying CCG-like booster packs. No way. No how.




Which is actually the best way to make the point. If people don't buy the game, the message is "Gamma World failed," and that could be for any number of reasons. If people buy the game but not the cards, the message is "We don't want random rules."

Obviously, not saying people who weren't going to buy GW anyway should suddenly buy it; just saying that, if people were interested except for the random angle, it's still worth getting the game itself without the boosters.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Jan 31, 2010)

Well, watching this card thing unfold has left me a bit disappointed. 
*scowl* 

I might still look into the core rules, because I _was_ really excited about hopping into 4e via GW-- and there's definite potential beyond that, if core looks good & doable without the weird ccg-like "randomization by investment".  

I'll reserve judgment til I see it.


----------



## Psion (Jan 31, 2010)

I hope this release goes down in flames, if for no other reason than to send the noisome idea of a CCG-RPG packing.


----------



## jgbrowning (Jan 31, 2010)

Psion said:


> I hope this release goes down in flame, if for no other reason than to send the noisome idea of a CCG-RPG packing.




Yep. I find the idea offensive and wish it to die.

joe b.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Jan 31, 2010)

Honestly, the move towards cards, tokens, and the like tell me that the game industry is doing what a lot of people try to advocate.

"Adapt to new business models"

I see that said a lot when they talk about dealing with piracy--so making the games look more like collectables with cards, tokens, minis, etc, is part of that matter.  Even if you can adapt the text and put it on the Internet, it is not the same thing and if some gamers use the stuff and others don't, there will be some peer pressure involved.


----------



## Riley (Jan 31, 2010)

As Ari said: I'll definitely check out the core GW books, because I think 4e is a great fit for the gonzo feel of Gamma World.  Unless they are woefully misbegotten (or hobbled by the lack of cards), I will probably buy the core book(s).

However, I really loathe the CCG plan, and like Joe, I want it to die.  Note: I am not opposed to cards - just randomized cards.


----------



## Psion (Jan 31, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> According to the podcast, some elements of your character (the basic stock/theme, at least, is the impression I got) stay constant, some change daily "because that's Gamma World."




For some re-imaginations of Gamma World, I suppose. Oy.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 31, 2010)

JohnRTroy said:


> I see that said a lot when they talk about dealing with piracy--so making the games look more like collectables with cards, tokens, minis, etc, is part of that matter.




Well, with respect, I don't think it has anything to do with piracy.  It has to to with taking a known business model that has made the company more money then RPGS ever have, and trying to use it to make an RPG more profitable, and bring in a more continuous, longer lasting revenue stream

Seeing how amazingly successful CCGs have been, I honestly cannot fault WotC for the attempt.  It is not a moral lapse or anything - it is just a game design we here don't prefer in RPGs.

But then, maybe we aren't the target market.  Perhaps they don't expect hard-core RPG players to pick up the cards, and instead are hoping those who play the card games might use this as an excuse to play RPGs...


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 31, 2010)

Huh. Some days _are_ just funnier than others. 

FTR though, I'm neither stunned nor dazed, nor even staggered.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 31, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Well, with respect, I don't think it has anything to do with piracy.  It has to to with taking a known business model that has made the company more money then RPGS ever have, and trying to use it to make an RPG more profitable, and bring in a more continuous, longer lasting revenue stream
> 
> Seeing how amazingly successful CCGs have been, I honestly cannot fault WotC for the attempt.  It is not a moral lapse or anything - it is just a game design we here don't prefer in RPGs.
> 
> But then, maybe we aren't the target market.  Perhaps they don't expect hard-core RPG players to pick up the cards, and instead are hoping those who play the card games might use this as an excuse to play RPGs...



That's possible. Get the magic players into D&D, not the other way around (since that doesn't bring enough people?). 

I have no problem with supplements and expansions, but I don't think random card decks are too my taste. That said, neither are random mutations nor mutated giant chicken. I guess it's not my kind of game _or_ setting. 

Though I like the idea of "genre" games, using D&D 4 as base system, with genre specific mechanics added. It's probably just the wrong genre for me...


----------



## Umbran (Jan 31, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> That's possible. Get the magic players into D&D, not the other way around (since that doesn't bring enough people?).




Probably not even "get them into D&D".  It may not be a "leader" product - just an RPG designed with game elements CCG players are known to like. 

One doesn't come up with new design that appeals to new audiences unless one experiments on occasion.  And a property that's been pretty much dead for a long time is a decent opportunity for experiment.


----------



## AllisterH (Jan 31, 2010)

Heh....I personally don't have the adverse reaction to *randomized* packs (be it miniatures or cards) for games.

Probably because I've been primarily a Limited player and probably why my initial thoughts seemed to be different than most on this thread.

To me, when I first read about this, my initial thought was how each time you choose your powers, EVERYONE does a drafting table.

To many Constructed fans here (and a prime example of why people don't understand M:TG lasting appeal - it has never really been Constructed that drives M:TG sales. It has ALWAYS been the Limited fans and M:TGonline is the best way to see this)


----------



## Riley (Jan 31, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Well, with respect, I don't think it has anything to do with piracy.  It has to to with taking a known business model that has made the company more money then RPGS ever have, and trying to use it to make an RPG more profitable, and bring in a more continuous, longer lasting revenue stream
> 
> Seeing how amazingly successful CCGs have been, I honestly cannot fault WotC for the attempt.  It is not a moral lapse or anything - it is just a game design we here don't prefer in RPGs.




I'm just glad that they haven't done this to D&D yet.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 31, 2010)

> But then, maybe we aren't the target market. Perhaps they don't expect hard-core RPG players to pick up the cards, and instead are hoping those who play the card games might use this as an excuse to play RPGs...




Y'know what I would've liked before "booster packs," if that were the case?

Solid PvP rules. 

A lot of the fun in CCG's is going up against other players to try and win. Everybody puts their all in, and then someone emerges on top.

D&D doesn't have solid PvP rules generally because it's collaborative and narrative. The PC's are generally supposed to win, and the DM is generally supposed to be OK with that, because they're characters with history and goals, part of the world. Characters are supposed to be persistent. 

But EVERYONE has that "which character could win in a fight?" moment. Appealing to that style of play (one that is much more familiar than D&D's amorphous "imaginary character goals" style) would expand the base to competitive players...

...and it wouldn't HAVE to have the booster packs, but I suppose it could, and get away with them better.

All randomized packs do, in my mind, in a collaborative, narrative game, is artificially limit how cool my character can be. That's less important if my character isn't really something to roleplay as much as it is something to hurl against my opponent until one or the other of us breaks.


----------



## Hawke (Jan 31, 2010)

AllisterH said:


> Probably because I've been primarily a Limited player and probably why my initial thoughts seemed to be different than most on this thread.
> 
> To me, when I first read about this, my initial thought was how each time you choose your powers, EVERYONE does a drafting table.
> 
> To many Constructed fans here (and a prime example of why people don't understand M:TG lasting appeal - it has never really been Constructed that drives M:TG sales. It has ALWAYS been the Limited fans and M:TGonline is the best way to see this)




Can you explain what you mean by limited vs constructed for non CCG players here?


----------



## qstor (Jan 31, 2010)

is gamma world the 2011 setting or is this something different? Are there laser guns and robots etc

I think it fits in since WOTC isn't renewing the Star Wars license.

maybe star frontiers is next?

Mike


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Jan 31, 2010)

qstor said:


> is gamma world the 2011 setting or is this something different? Are there laser guns and robots




it is due out at the end of this year...and I hope the tech rules can be imported to 4e


----------



## Knightfall (Jan 31, 2010)

Mouseferatu said:


> Which is actually the best way to make the point. If people don't buy the game, the message is "Gamma World failed," and that could be for any number of reasons. If people buy the game but not the cards, the message is "We don't want random rules."
> 
> Obviously, not saying people who weren't going to buy GW anyway should suddenly buy it; just saying that, if people were interested except for the random angle, it's still worth getting the game itself without the boosters.



The core game will be worth it just for the Gamma World monsters.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 31, 2010)

Yeah, for the record, if the DM could buy the newest card-deck "supplement" and get a complete kit for a reasonable price, I wouldn't mind this much.

It's the randomized player-purchased powerup boosters that's IMO pretty egregious.

I mean, I don't begrudge anyone else enjoying a game.  But it's not a game I would want to play, and it's not a move I'll support with my gaming dollars.

-O


----------



## Scribble (Jan 31, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> If this is the case, then, to me, the key difference is that the chart doesn't vary in length depending on how much I've spent on the book containing it.
> 
> "Pay another $10 to get access to the full chart!" doesn't fly with me.
> 
> I get that it flies okay with others, which is fine, but in such a situation I am more likely to say "OR, I could pay NOTHING, and go do something else with my time."




Ummm everytime you buy an expansion book for any system you're "adding to the charts..." 

But in the end yeah if its that big an issue to you go buy something g else. 



ProfessorCirno said:


> When you tell gamers that they have to buy _randomized boosters_ for your addons, you're telling them "Go screw yourselves, and give us your money while you do so."
> 
> Randomized boosters add *nothing* to the game.  Having to fork over cash for a _chance_ to get something doesn't make the game more fun.  It's just a cheap and hilariously obvious cash grab.
> 
> Screw that.




I think your over reacting here. Some people like collecting things. The randomized card aspect probably will allow them to support a system they woulddnt otherwise have the budget for. Randomized support is better then no support in my opinion. But again if its not your thing don't buy them. Go do something g else and let the people who are excited about the game talk about it.


----------



## Hawke (Jan 31, 2010)

I just wish we could get some more details form WotC about the random nature & the rarity nature of the game.  

While its true I wont buy boosters with my money so it may not affect me, I'd also like to see the risk of different game models pay off for WotC rather than end up a failure if too many resources are placed into the collectible/random nature of the game and it ends up a project in the red leading to a more risk-averse WotC that doesn't provide us with new and different ways to game.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 31, 2010)

If the core game itself is fun I'd probably be tempted to buy the boosters thinking about it especially if they're in common stores like target (like magic is.) Four bux is cheap for an instant set of new gaming fun.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Feb 1, 2010)

Scribble said:


> If the core game itself is fun I'd probably be tempted to buy the boosters thinking about it especially if they're in common stores like target (like magic is.)




  WotC has said that they'll be limited to speciality stores; bookstores and other mass market outlets won't get them. 

  Given that, it seems to me that this must be an experiment and/or an attempt to hook CCG fans.


----------



## Nikosandros (Feb 1, 2010)

Matthew L. Martin said:


> Given that, it seems to me that this must be an experiment and/or an attempt to hook CCG fans.



I've seen this suggested by several people already, but I don't get it. Why should a CCG fan be interested in a game, just because it has a collectible element? The new Gamma World is being sold as a boxed set and from what we know so far, the boosters will just be add-ons to that. Besides, if all the mutations are drawn at random from a common deck, there is no element of deck building whatsoever.

I personally find the experiment angle far more likely. See how the random thing works with a secondary product before trying it with mainstream D&D.


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 1, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Well, with respect, I don't think it has anything to do with piracy.  It has to to with taking a known business model that has made the company more money then RPGS ever have, and trying to use it to make an RPG more profitable, and bring in a more continuous, longer lasting revenue stream
> 
> Seeing how amazingly successful CCGs have been, I honestly cannot fault WotC for the attempt.  It is not a moral lapse or anything - it is just a game design we here don't prefer in RPGs.
> 
> But then, maybe we aren't the target market.  Perhaps they don't expect hard-core RPG players to pick up the cards, and instead are hoping those who play the card games might use this as an excuse to play RPGs...




Another possibility for the booster decks is that it would then be easy for the gamer to tell his non-gamer friends/parents/etc to just go to the store and pick up a couple packs of boosters for me...

Of course, this is all assuming that between now and then, they don't change their minds.


----------



## arscott (Feb 1, 2010)

Nikosandros said:


> I've seen this suggested by several people already, but I don't get it. Why should a CCG fan be interested in a game, just because it has a collectible element? The new Gamma World is being sold as a boxed set and from what we know so far, the boosters will just be add-ons to that. Besides, if all the mutations are drawn at random from a common deck, there is no element of deck building whatsoever.



Exactly.  And from the look of things, you'll maybe draw ten cards per session, tops?  Buying a pack of randomized cards to help me build 60 card decks that I'll be using multiple games per week is one thing.  Buying a pack of randomized cards for a game I won't play more than once per week?  when I'm only using a fraction of those cards in each game?

On the other Hand, look at Fantasy Flight Games, and how they deal with their "Living Card Games"  $10 gets you a pack of 40 cards (3 copies of each  of ten commons, and one copy of each of 10 rares).  If Wizards followed that format, they could sell their 120 card set for $60, and I'm betting they'll find more customers that way.

It seems like the big hit of last year in my gaming circle has been Dominion, which is marketed like a boardgame and incorporates Deckbuilding into the game itself.  Magic is the only Collectible Game that seems to be going strong--play of the other CCGs has pretty much died out.  Even then, I see a lot less limited, and more constructed and vintage.  In this economy, people are just less willing to throw away $5 for a few more cards.

I'm all for new business models, but I feel that WotC is really out of touch.  They're canceling D&D minis sets, and ditching the Star Wars license--indicators that their collectible miniatures lines aren't doing so hot.  Do they really thing collectible power cards will be successful?


----------



## M.L. Martin (Feb 1, 2010)

Nikosandros said:


> I've seen this suggested by several people already, but I don't get it. Why should a CCG fan be interested in a game, just because it has a collectible element?
> <SNIP>
> 
> I personally find the experiment angle far more likely. See how the random thing works with a secondary product before trying it with mainstream D&D.




  I agree. My chain of reasoning was:

  1) This must be either an experiment or an attempt to grow the market; 
  2) If the boosters aren't being sold in mainstream retail outlets, it can't really be an effort to market to casual gamers;
  3) Therefore the boosters must be an attempt to attract RPG or CCG fans (the two types of fans who generally frequent specialty stores);
  4) Therefore, it is either an experiment (most likely) or an attempt to somehow attract CCG fans (unlikely).

  I don't think it's an experiment that's likely to work well based on what we know now, but that's assuming it retains the "buy boosters for better options" and the somewhat adversarial tone suggested in the podcast (where they also describe the deck included in the core set as the "DM's deck", implying that the boosters are for players who want an edge). If it loses that, I could see it working--although given the hostility of a large portion of gamers to randomized packaging, I wouldn't want to bet money on it. It's probably why they're deciding to use Gamma World for this.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 1, 2010)

Hawke said:


> Can you explain what you mean by limited vs constructed for non CCG players here?




Sorry for not explaining. Hope this doesnt get the thread booted to the CCG forum.

Constructed

vs

Limited

The problem with criticisms of the MTG model is that there is a mistaken belief that it is Constructed that drives MTG sales. It isn't. Again, MTGOnline shows a microcosm of what drives MTG sales and it isn't people randomly buying cards. It's the constant firing off of the drafters.

It has always been Limited  (I'm honestly in shock that FFG thinks it can make up the difference without Limited fans in their Living Card Game)

Constructed, in all honesty, is somewhat looked down upon in the hardcore M:TG circles mainly because of the rock-papper-scissors effect of decks and the relatively less effect play skill has on your ability to win matches all thanks to the internet

Pre-internet, when decks were "local" affairs, there was more  "oh wow, what deck are you playing" and "what does this card do?" but now, a grand prix being held in japan means that two hours later, everyone in Toronto is playing the winning deck.


----------



## broghammerj (Feb 2, 2010)

This really reeks of an experimental model.  I'm not trying to start an edition wars or talk about 5E, but I am really having flashbacks to Alternity and its percursor status/impact on 3E.  I think 5E is way way off, but they are trying a new game/business model.  It worries me they are doing something new with their sci-fi line again rather than trying to build a great stand alone game.

It could be more akin to Dragonlance The Fifth Age and wither on the vine.

I am not a 4E supporter as it is not my cup of tea.  GW had the chance to draw me into 4E but I was looking for a more in depth game.  Going to level 10, making a character in 15 minutes, and developing the game as a fun diversion wasn't really what I was after.  I fear the mechanic will cause the game to fail and they will just blame the GW genre.

Darwin's World....you'll always be in my heart.


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 8, 2010)

I pointed this thread (as well as the corresponding thread on the WotC forums) out to Trevor Kidd at WotC, and here is his response:



			
				Trevor Kidd said:
			
		

> I’m definitely as excited to see Gamma World coming this year as some of you are, and I get the uncertainty and dislike for the idea of random booster packs that some have expressed. I would like to remind everyone that the game is about eight months from releasing and the only things that most people are commenting on are just based on the idea of the game and the cards.
> 
> To clear up some confusion that I’ve seen, the iteration I played with Rich doesn’t use the cards for character creations or base character powers. I got a random mutation at the beginning of the day which I pulled from the deck, and once per combat the mutation could randomly change, prompting a new draw from the deck. It was a fun and awesome way to keep things interesting, change up the encounters, and keep me guessing as to what would happen next. While I found myself hoping for a fun or powerful mutation from time to time, I never had a mutation that I didn’t enjoy in some way.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dragonhelm (Feb 8, 2010)

Mudbunny, thanks for passing that along.  I get the impression that Gamma World is meant to be kind of a cross between an RPG and a board game (minus the board).  Hope that makes sense.



broghammerj said:


> It could be more akin to Dragonlance The Fifth Age and wither on the vine.




There are some differences here.  The Dragonlance: Fifth Age products, using the SAGA game system, was a rapid departure from the world established in Chronicles, Legends, and the DL gaming products.  New uber-dragons appeared that we never saw before.  The gods were gone, and with them the arcane and divine magic of old.  In their place was new, strange magic.

Now, I don't know Gamma World that well, but I don't get the impression that the world is changing to the same extent that Dragonlance did.

You may have a point since the game system is changing, but I think 4e is more comparable to prior iterations of the GW rules than SAGA was to AD&D.  Plus, it's been long enough that WotC should have a fresher start.

I, for one, will be giving GW a chance.  When I think of the possibility of playing a half-yeti/half-cockroach with big floppy feet and a stop sign as a weapon, it brings all kinds of joy to my heart.


----------



## Falstaff (Feb 8, 2010)

Awwww, crap! And I _was_ really excited about seeing one of my childhood games coming back - until I saw the words "booster pack". Way to go Wizards.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Feb 8, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> I pointed this thread (as well as the corresponding thread on the WotC forums) out to Trevor Kidd at WotC, and here is his response:



Screwed up, trying again.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Feb 8, 2010)

[I got a random mutation at the beginning of the day which I pulled from the deck, and once per combat the mutation could randomly change, prompting a new draw from the deck.]

This may be a fun game, but it isn't a role playing game. Or, how can I play my character right if he keeps changing on me? If you got something like a pool of *non-physical* mutations that you could use once per combat maybe. But this? No.


----------



## coyote6 (Feb 8, 2010)

Wouldn't a constantly mutating character be more of a roleplaying challenge?


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 8, 2010)

broghammerj said:


> This really reeks of an experimental model.  I'm not trying to start an edition wars or talk about 5E, but I am really having flashbacks to Alternity and its percursor status/impact on 3E.  I think 5E is way way off, but they are trying a new game/business model.  It worries me they are doing something new with their sci-fi line again rather than trying to build a great stand alone game.




"Reeks"?  Wow, when I need some negativity, all I have to do is read the threads on new WotC products.

Yes, the format is experimental, that much is obvious.  While you see bad, I see good.  Or, at least not a failure half-a-year before the game is even released.



Ed_Laprade said:


> [I got a random mutation at the beginning of the day which I pulled from the deck, and once per combat the mutation could randomly change, prompting a new draw from the deck.]
> 
> This may be a fun game, but it isn't a role playing game. Or, how can I play my character right if he keeps changing on me? If you got something like a pool of *non-physical* mutations that you could use once per combat maybe. But this? No.




So, randomly choosing powers makes Gamma World *not* a role playing game?  Changing powers during play somehow takes away the role playing aspect?

Heh.  While you guys are grousing, I'll be enjoying the new Gamma World RPG in the fall.  Random powers and all.  I may or may not purchase some of the boosters, but as everything you need to enjoy the game is in the box, I should be fine.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 8, 2010)

Ed_Laprade said:


> [I got a random mutation at the beginning of the day which I pulled from the deck, and once per combat the mutation could randomly change, prompting a new draw from the deck.]
> 
> This may be a fun game, but it isn't a role playing game. Or, how can I play my character right if he keeps changing on me? If you got something like a pool of *non-physical* mutations that you could use once per combat maybe. But this? No.



Is it any different from Wild Magic or a Deck of Many Things?


----------



## darjr (Feb 8, 2010)

Klaus said:


> Is it any different from Wild Magic or a Deck of Many Things?




Or a wand of wonder.

I was listening to the D&D Podcast and they had an idea of using the mutation cards and mechanic in D&D for temporary powers granted by the spell plague. Wand of wonder and wild magic and Deck results would be cool as well.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 8, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> I pointed this thread (as well as the corresponding thread on the WotC forums) out to Trevor Kidd at WotC, and here is his response:




That tells us...nothing new.

It's still "Yeah ok, there are randomized boosters for you to buy...but you don't *have* to buy them!  And they're totally awesome!"  They're completely missing why those of us who are so tetchy are feeling such.

*We do not want randomized boosters in the game at all :|*


----------



## M.L. Martin (Feb 9, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> That tells us...nothing new.




  Actually, it _does_ alleviate the "boosters as power boosts" concern raised by some of the comments at D&DXP.


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 9, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> That tells us...nothing new.




Given that it is still 8 months out, that is honestly not surprising.



> It's still "Yeah ok, there are randomized boosters for you to buy...but you don't *have* to buy them!  And they're totally awesome!"  They're completely missing why those of us who are so tetchy are feeling such.
> 
> *We do not want randomized boosters in the game at all :|*




If you were required to buy them, I could see the complaint and understand it. However, much like D&D, they are optional. In D&D (or pretty much any RPG with splatbooks), if you don't want to use the powers/items/classes/etc from a given splatbook, don't buy it or use it. The mutation booster packs for GW will be the same, to the best of my knowledge. If you don't like the idea of them, don't buy them or allow them to be used at your table.

_shrug_

And, I do think that they understand why some people are anti booster packs. They just disagree with you that it is a bad thing.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Feb 9, 2010)

Klaus said:


> Is it any different from Wild Magic or a Deck of Many Things?



Never played in a game with Wild Magic, and would probably kill the user if it messed up the party's plans too often. 

Yes, yes it is quite different from using a Deck of Many Things or a Wand of Wonder. (Love the Wand, hate the Deck.) In those cases you are making a decision to use _them at the time_. But if you have to use a new power every round (or so) there is nothing for you to decide. Except, perhaps, to use it or not. While that's bad enough, it also effects physical mutations. And my suspension of disbelief comes to a screeching halt at that. I always considered Gamma World a fun game, but not pure slapstick.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 9, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> *We do not want randomized boosters in the game at all :|*




Speak for yourself!  Many of us aren't getting so excited over an optional add-on to the game.  I don't know if I'll be purchasing any or not yet, but screaming that "nobody" wants them is a bit much.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 9, 2010)

> screaming that "nobody" wants them is a bit much.




Well, he didn't say "nobody," he said, "we," which might be the Royal We, or it might just be him and his imaginary friend Carl, or whatever, but as long as he knows two people who don't want it, he's good. 

I, personally, don't want randomized boosters in any game that I play or run.

While I appreciate the perspective that they are not "better" powers and that the boosters are "optional," like a D&D splatbook, there is one defining difference that still casts a pallor on the whole affair for me.

I buy a D&D splatbook, and I know what I am getting. I can page through it at the bookstore, read reviews of the contents, see previews, get excited for new abilities and archetypes and rules and tricks, and totally dork out on that gearhead aspect of this hobby.

I buy a randomized booster pack, and I have no idea what I am getting. It might be something awesome, it might be 90% crap, it might be repeats of everything I've seen before, it might be nothing fun, it might be EVERYTHING fun. Usually, what sells a D&D book to me is the equivalent of a "killer app," something that I want to use in my games next week, and some stuff that I might want to use in my games in the future. There's nothing like that for a random booster pack. I might get something good, but I might also get a lot of poo.

The point is, I don't know if it's worth the money I'm going to spend on it. The "draw from a deck" mechanic can still be random without every supplement I'm buying being random, too. The Wand of Wonder and the Deck of Many Things are randomized mechanics, but I don't pay $6 for extra Wild Magic results that may or may not be awesome. 

Combine that with what is, for me, the uniquely narrative nature of an RPG, and you have a problem. Random supplements steal narrative control away from the group and put it in the hands of a random card-shuffling machine at the WotC card-mill. When I am making a story (which is part of what I do when I play D&D), I want to have freedom to determine my character's nature, behavior, abilities, history, etc.; and if I'm the DM, I want to be able to do the same thing for the setting. "Booster Packs" hurt that control. Suddenly, chance is the arbiter of cool in the game, and, of course, the more $6 booster packs you buy, the better chance you have of actually being cool. The choice isn't in my hands or the player's hands, like it is with D&D supplements, but in the hands of a little vacuum-sealed plastic pack.

Now, this is only my personal opinion. Others might not have a problem with it, or might even be excited by it (though I'm not hearing much from those who are excited by it in this thread, at least). I'm okay with that. 

But I am not going to purchase a game that recommends randomized boosters of anything. I won't even buy the first starter set, because I don't want to buy into something I'm not going to support. I don't want to get it and miss out on the cool, so I just won't get it. I also don't want to encourage this model of generating revenue, because if it was successful, and if it grew beyond this little GW experiment, into the games that I do like to play, I would become increasingly marginalized until I gave up the hobby altogether and went to play videogames (and bring any kids I have with me). 

Not everyone agrees with me, probably, which is fine, but GW seems niche enough within a niche that I won't really have to deal with it, and if most people agree with me, the model won't spread beyond GW's little borders.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 9, 2010)

Dire Bare said:


> Speak for yourself!  Many of us aren't getting so excited over an optional add-on to the game.  I don't know if I'll be purchasing any or not yet, but screaming that "nobody" wants them is a bit much.




Did you even read my goddamn post?  Seriously.  Here, let me help you.  I'll post the sentance that came *right before what you quoted*.  In fact, I'll make it extra large, since apparently it's so easy to miss.



> They're completely missing why those of us who are so tetchy are feeling such.





There.  Is that easier to read?


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 9, 2010)

Ed_Laprade said:


> Never played in a game with Wild Magic, and would probably kill the user if it messed up the party's plans too often.



Well, for me the question would be: does every character have to have those constantly mutating mutations?

If the answer is yes, I don't think I'd be interested. I don't necessarily mind playing a wild mage from time to time, but if everyone always played a wild mage that would get old pretty soon.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 9, 2010)

I'm actually excited by the booster packs myself.

Since you don't have to buy them, it just feels like a new game idea. I think it's good that the various game companies are trying new stuff- Combating stagnation.




ProfessorCirno said:


> There.  Is that easier to read?




Too much caffeine this morning?


----------



## Rel (Feb 9, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Did you even read my goddamn post?  Seriously.  Here, let me help you.  I'll post the sentance that came *right before what you quoted*.  In fact, I'll make it extra large, since apparently it's so easy to miss.




The Professor will be unavailable for comment for the next three days.


----------



## Dire Bare (Feb 9, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Did you even read my goddamn post?  Seriously.  Here, let me help you.  I'll post the sentance that came *right before what you quoted*.  In fact, I'll make it extra large, since apparently it's so easy to miss.
> 
> There.  Is that easier to read?
> [/SIZE]




Yes, I read your post.  The whole thing.  Your second post wasn't easier to read, just more annoying.  Doesn't change my comments any.

It's cool if you don't care for the idea of purchasing random boosters for an RPG, you're obviously not alone.  But I take exception to the idea that this ruins the game or that you represent any sort of majority of fans on the issue.


----------



## lin_fusan (Feb 9, 2010)

I'm mainly curious as to the reasoning behind the randomness mechanic. 

Random mutations in Gamma World are part of the game (as well as horrific death due to radiation), but it feels odd that they are doing a per day and per encounter style of randomness.

In the older versions, I liked building a hybrid mold/wolf dual brain mental blast armored character, but if I lose my dual brain and mental blast every day/encounter, I would be a little annoyed. 

On the other hand, I'd love a Wild Mage deck , but that is for a specific character concept as opposed to a whole game mechanic.

I guess I will have to wait for more design excerpts before getting more or less huffy about this game.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 9, 2010)

lin_fusan said:


> In the older versions, I liked building a hybrid mold/wolf dual brain mental blast armored character, but if I lose my dual brain and mental blast every day/encounter, I would be a little annoyed.




From some of the leaks I've read it seems not everything is a daily regen.. Some stuff sticks.


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 9, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Well, for me the question would be: does every character have to have those constantly mutating mutations?
> 
> If the answer is yes, I don't think I'd be interested. I don't necessarily mind playing a wild mage from time to time, but if everyone always played a wild mage that would get old pretty soon.




To the best of my knowledge, that is not the case. (Note, I have not playtested, played or seen people play. I am going based on discussions with people who have, so I may be misinterpreting things.) I believe Trevor's character had a specific mutation/power that caused a random mutation at the beginning of each combat.

I would be surprised if WotC made it so that each character had that mechanic. I rather suspect that for those people who like that idea, there will be the option of choosing it, while for those that prefer more stable mutations, that option will be there as well.


----------



## Knightfall (Feb 9, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> To the best of my knowledge, that is not the case. (Note, I have not playtested, played or seen people play. I am going based on discussions with people who have, so I may be misinterpreting things.) I believe Trevor's character had a specific mutation/power that caused a random mutation at the beginning of each combat.
> 
> I would be surprised if WotC made it so that each character had that mechanic. I rather suspect that for those people who like that idea, there will be the option of choosing it, while for those that prefer more stable mutations, that option will be there as well.



If there is such an option then I will definitely buy the game and house rule out the cards.

What I'd like to know is... how much "fluff" is included in the game? Is there an overview of the Gamma World setting? Or is GW only going to be a game of rules?

Now, I'm not looking for a lot of fluff but I'd like some background material.


----------



## lin_fusan (Feb 9, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> I would be surprised if WotC made it so that each character had that mechanic. I rather suspect that for those people who like that idea, there will be the option of choosing it, while for those that prefer more stable mutations, that option will be there as well.




With such investment and necessary buy-in for a deck mechanic, it would appear that it would have to be a major aspect of the game. (Like how there wouldn't be a deck of a Deck of Many Things included with the DMG because the cost to produce would be too much for a small aspect of the game.)

I was wondering, didn't White Wolf do something similar with their 1st edition Changling: The Dreaming game with powers cards?


----------



## Scribble (Feb 9, 2010)

From what I saw it looked more like the daily/encounter changing mutations were sort of the default, but you could do stuff to get them to stick and be a permanent thing.

The tech is handled in a similar way... Like a rusty laser pistol good for 3 shots.


Also it seems the game is supposed to be kind of tongue in cheek B-Movie style. If you look at it that way, constantly changing mutations fits in well.

If you're looking for ultra serious post apocalyptic gaming... GW probably ain't it.


----------



## lin_fusan (Feb 9, 2010)

I wonder if this version will have those "figuring out tech" charts? the concepts appears to be the opposite of 4ed's philosophy, but I've always liked the idea that the characters can't tell that the "clam-like creature that fits in the palm of your hand" is really a cell phone!


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 9, 2010)

Knightfall said:


> If there is such an option then I will definitely buy the game and house rule out the cards.
> 
> What I'd like to know is... how much "fluff" is included in the game? Is there an overview of the Gamma World setting? Or is GW only going to be a game of rules?
> 
> Now, I'm not looking for a lot of fluff but I'd like some background material.




Those who played it at DDXP were only given a brief intro into the world, a bit of explanation as to why their mutations worked the way they did, and that is it. It is currently unknown ow much fluff will make its way into the final product. I expect that as we get closer, there will be sneak previews, teasers, etc...


----------



## davethegame (Feb 9, 2010)

mudbunny said:


> To the best of my knowledge, that is not the case. (Note, I have not playtested, played or seen people play. I am going based on discussions with people who have, so I may be misinterpreting things.) I believe Trevor's character had a specific mutation/power that caused a random mutation at the beginning of each combat.
> 
> I would be surprised if WotC made it so that each character had that mechanic. I rather suspect that for those people who like that idea, there will be the option of choosing it, while for those that prefer more stable mutations, that option will be there as well.




I was in the game that Trevor was in, and we all had the same mutation rules. Most of your character persists all the time except for one random mutation.  They seemed pretty core to the game, so I would be surprised if they were just an option, although they would be really, really easy to house rule out.

I should also point out this was still an early playtest and probably the first time the public in any way has seen it, so a lot could still change as they playtest more.

I should also also point out that I had an absolute blast playing it, and it went from a "maybe buy" to "must buy" from one playtest. The booster packs are so non-essential to the game that it doesn't bug me in the slightest, but it did cause me to make a post on my site about the idea.

Edit: I take it back, slightly. There was one character that used tech instead of mutations, but those rules weren't ready for prime time yet, so we don't know how those will work.


----------



## mudbunny (Feb 9, 2010)

Thanks Dave!!


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 9, 2010)

davethegame said:


> I was in the game that Trevor was in, and we all had the same mutation rules. Most of your character persists all the time except for one random mutation.  They seemed pretty core to the game, so I would be surprised if they were just an option, although they would be really, really easy to house rule out.
> 
> I should also point out this was still an early playtest and probably the first time the public in any way has seen it, so a lot could still change as they playtest more.




This is the same feeling I am getting from the feedback and discussion around the 'net.  I am guessing that each PC might have a regular changing mutation and then a bunch of static stuff.



davethegame said:


> I should also point out that I had an absolute blast playing it, and it went from a "maybe buy" to "must buy" from one playtest. The booster packs are so non-essential to the game that it doesn't bug me in the slightest, but it did cause me to make a post on my site about the idea.



This is good to know.  I've been sitting on "maybe buy", but if it's as fun as you say, it could easily go "must buy".


----------



## Scribble (Feb 9, 2010)

I wonder... If it sells well do you think we'll see an expansion pack of levels say 11-20?


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Feb 9, 2010)

Jhaelen said:


> Well, for me the question would be: does every character have to have those constantly mutating mutations?
> 
> If the answer is yes, I don't think I'd be interested. I don't necessarily mind playing a wild mage from time to time, but if everyone always played a wild mage that would get old pretty soon.



I'm certainly not going to argue with that.


----------



## Nikosandros (Feb 9, 2010)

One thing that's bothering me, besides my general dislike of collectible elements in RPG is the fact that it will be rather difficult to trade the cards. I haven't collected Magic in many years, but if I should start again, I can just go to my game shop and find a lot of people to trade with, but if I end up buying GW, I'll be likely to be the only one I know that has it...


----------



## catsclaw227 (Feb 10, 2010)

Yea, that's a good point.

I am not going to look at it as "collectible", but instead just randomized booster packs of new mutations and such.  I don't intend to "collect" them just for the sake of it.


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Feb 10, 2010)

The more I think about it, the more odd the "collectible" card aspect seems to me.  Randomized boosters I can understand (at least from a biz perspective), but is making them "collectible" really a viable goal?  

It would make more sense to me if the cards could be collected independent of the game, perhaps usable to play a more standard CCG in the GW setting, as well as being in usable in the GW rpg.  Then the cards would have a dual purpose-- and broader appeal.

_(Umm, did that make sense?)_


----------



## Scribble (Feb 10, 2010)

the_orc_within said:


> The more I think about it, the more odd the "collectible" card aspect seems to me.  Randomized boosters I can understand (at least from a biz perspective), but is making them "collectible" really a viable goal?
> 
> It would make more sense to me if the cards could be collected independent of the game, perhaps usable to play a more standard CCG in the GW setting, as well as being in usable in the GW rpg.  Then the cards would have a dual purpose-- and broader appeal.
> 
> _(Umm, did that make sense?)_




I'm sure they'll be traded the same way all things are traded... In school lunch rooms, at comic/game stores at conventions, on the internet, and with friends.

Aside from that... not really sure how the card element will work. I wonder if it might be possible for the DM to sort of customize the deck? 

Like for instance if you want more say, road signs to show up in the tech section... do you keep multiple copies of the road sign card in the deck?


----------



## Nikosandros (Feb 10, 2010)

Scribble said:


> I'm sure they'll be traded the same way all things are traded... In school lunch rooms, at comic/game stores at conventions, on the internet, and with friends.




But those require a wide player base. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'm skeptical that you'll be able to meet all that many GW players around.



Scribble said:


> Aside from that... not really sure how the card element will work. I wonder if it might be possible for the DM to sort of customize the deck?
> 
> Like for instance if you want more say, road signs to show up in the tech section... do you keep multiple copies of the road sign card in the deck?



Interesting question. From what we know, the whole purpose of the player deck is customization, but will the GM be able to do something similar?


----------



## Scribble (Feb 10, 2010)

Nikosandros said:


> But those require a wide player base. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'm skeptical that you'll be able to meet all that many GW players around.




Shrug... Develop a product based on it selling not based on it not selling. 




> Interesting question. From what we know, the whole purpose of the player deck is customization, but will the GM be able to do something similar?




I'm almost positive all decks will be customizable. (To an extent.)


----------



## Nikosandros (Feb 10, 2010)

Has anything be said about D&DI support for GW? In the podcast they mentioned something about the possibility for new adventures IIRC, but I'm wondering if the rules will be available in the various tools (compendium, CB, monster builder, etc...).


----------



## Scribble (Feb 10, 2010)

Nikosandros said:


> Has anything be said about D&DI support for GW? In the podcast they mentioned something about the possibility for new adventures IIRC, but I'm wondering if the rules will be available in the various tools (compendium, CB, monster builder, etc...).




I thin k they mentioned possible DDI support "if the demand is there."

So... ummm if we like the game, guess we should demand it.


----------



## Twowolves (Feb 10, 2010)

I own every copy every released of Gamma World, so I should be the target audience for this release.

But I don't think I'm getting it. About 25% of this is due to the force-feeding CCG-aspects onto a tabletop RPG (really?), but the other 75% is the notion that Gamma World is supposed to be.... "special needs". I understand that some aspects are goofy (Famine in Far-Go, I'm looking at you), but the game I learned wasn't necessarily silly. Legion of Gold had almost nothing "wahoo" in it, nor did most of the early adventures (barring Far-Go above). Yeah, things were weird with a touch of superpowers thrown in, but we never played it as tongue-in-cheek/anti-serious as some developers have deemed it MUST be, at least in recent years. I understand it ain't "The Morrow Project" or "Aftermath", but even Thundaar the Barbarian was internally more serious than some versions of Gamma World, and that show could have been called "Gamma World, the Animated Series (featuring Thundaar and Friends)".


----------



## arscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Shrug... Develop a product based on it selling not based on it not selling.



Well, Develop a product based on how well you want it to sell.  I don't think WotC has any fantasies about Gamma World replacing D&D.

I imagine that each person will have an average of one GW campaign happening in their "gaming circle".  That's enough for WotC to make good money selling the books.  But that's not enough density for regular card trading between friends or a thriving local secondary market.


----------



## Scribble (Feb 11, 2010)

arscott said:


> Well, Develop a product based on how well you want it to sell.  I don't think WotC has any fantasies about Gamma World replacing D&D.
> 
> I imagine that each person will have an average of one GW campaign happening in their "gaming circle".  That's enough for WotC to make good money selling the books.  But that's not enough density for regular card trading between friends or a thriving local secondary market.




Sure I doubt they think it will replace D&D as the primary game... (They even mentioned the picture it as an in-between thing.)  But I also don't think they're designing it with the mindset that "no one will buy this game."

Did they know MtG would be a raving success when it was released? 

Do business with optimism- and optimism says people will like/want your product, and when people want your product they find a way to use it. 

In this case, if that means trading cards- they'll find a way to trade them. (Even if it's mainly on-line.)

Hell I used to collect/trade with my friends some of the weirdest collectible cards... (Anyone remember those dinosaur invasion cards? The ones where some weird quantum fluke caused our world to merge with a dinosaur world?)

My real guess though is they're designing it with the idea that the cards are a sort of tag on purchase. You're in the store, buying books.. at the counter... oh hell why not just toss in a pack or two of Gamma World cards! They're only 3 bux!

Just like the game is supposed to be a sort of "break" from your normal D&D game, the cards are just designed to be an impulse buy. 

Unlike MtG they don't really seem to be designed with the idea that you NEED certain cards. You might want them, but you're not really going to suffer much without them.

They're at that price point where compared to the 30 dollar book in my hand,  the 3 extra bux aren't going to break the bank... and if they're not as great as they could be? Eh... I spent more on my coffee on the way to the store.


I see it as a win-win situation myself.

As you point out, I don't think the game will garner enough support to warrant a whole product line of published books supporting it, and as I said earlier I think cards allow them an alternative to give us more support without it being out of the price range.


----------



## davethegame (Feb 11, 2010)

Scribble said:


> Unlike MtG they don't really seem to be designed with the idea that you NEED certain cards. You might want them, but you're not really going to suffer much without them.




This is key to my acceptance of the whole thing. In fact, I think it's a bit crazy how UNessential they are- since Trevor spoiled it first, I think I can say that the current idea is to have a player mutation deck and a GM mutation deck. Sometimes you'll draw from one, and sometimes from another. And you're still drawing from a deck in either case. And you're swapping that power between each encounter. And it will probably swap once during the encounter. Then the power itself doesn't necessarily empower your mostly-random character in the first place. In the midst of all that randomness, I would find it hard to plan anything for the cards, so I don't care what I get in random booster packs.


----------



## darkrose50 (Jul 26, 2010)

*Calm down guys.  You can use a proxy.*

People will:
1) Sell singles on eBay.
2) Sell sets on eBay.
3) Post card effect on the internet.
4) Scan and post cards on the internet.

You will be a be to:
1) Buy the card you want.
2) Buy the set if you want it.
3) Copy the effects into a word processing program and make a chart (I bet people will do this for you, and from the looks of things . . . lots of people).
4) Print them out, or bring a laptop.


I like the idea:
1) Piazo makes money printing cards http://paizo.com/gameMastery.
2) Thanks to magic, WoTC can print cards cheaper than Piazo.
3) Making new charts will be easy as the chart is the deck.
4) The GM can make a deck for his / her game with the powers he / she wants.

People seem to like cards with RPGs, and randomness (random dice rolls in RPGs, random mutations in Gamma World, and random card draws in MTG).

Just buy a set of cards some guy put together and sells on eBay. 

I am going to put together a set for myself, and sell the others on eBay. The font is a nice size I thought.


----------



## Rel (Jul 26, 2010)

> Calm down guys. You can use a proxy.




Actually they seem fairly calm about it since around...February.


----------



## renau1g (Jul 26, 2010)

When I first saw the "sell singles on ebay" line I thought it had to be one of those spammers, especially with the huge font and resurrected thread...


----------



## Insight (Jul 26, 2010)

Rel said:


> Actually they seem fairly calm about it since around...February.




There's been a silent, boiling rage about it since February.  Can't you feel it?


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jul 26, 2010)

renau1g said:


> When I first saw the "sell singles on ebay" line I thought it had to be one of those spammers, especially with the huge font and resurrected thread...



"thought". . .? "had". . .?


----------



## Lord_Blacksteel (Aug 4, 2010)

6 months and the rage still boils...


----------



## lin_fusan (Aug 5, 2010)

Twowolves said:


> but the other 75% is the notion that Gamma World is supposed to be.... "special needs". I understand that some aspects are goofy (Famine in Far-Go, I'm looking at you), but the game I learned wasn't necessarily silly. Legion of Gold had almost nothing "wahoo" in it, nor did most of the early adventures (barring Far-Go above).




Old-school AD&D had the same sense of goofy irony as Gamma World, but I too didn't think the original GW was so far as silly. Up to 3rd(?) edition (was that the one with the ACT table?), the game had some tongue-in-cheek humor, but it was nowhere near spoof level.

I'll be watching this version with a mix of hope and skepticism. Is that technically ambivalence?


----------



## TarionzCousin (Aug 5, 2010)

Insight said:


> There's been a silent, boiling rage about it since February.  Can't you feel it?


----------

