PDA

View Full Version : New Gamma World...



cliff
01-30-2010, 05:40 AM
So, what're the thoughts on the new Gamma World? I'm pretty excited, if nothing else because I may be able to get the D&D group to play a Sci-Fi game for a change.

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
01-30-2010, 10:14 AM
Well, i love the original stuff... Darwin's World, not so much. Are you speaking of Alpha-Omega, specifically?

Otakar
01-30-2010, 02:02 PM
I really used to enjoy Gamma World. Is there some new info coming out? Please provide a good link.
Thanks!

Lucifer_Draconus
01-30-2010, 03:27 PM
It's a wikipedia article but it has a tidbit of info on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_World#Seventh_Edition_.282010.29

Arch Lich Thoth-Amon
01-30-2010, 04:43 PM
I'm sure it could be great, but IMO, Gamma World works best when it is not d20'd.

fmitchell
02-02-2010, 06:26 AM
From the blurb on the WotC site (http://www.wizards.com/DND/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/254600000), it appears to be a standalone game based on the 4th Edition rules. I'm curious to see what they do to 4th Edition, and what role the "Mutation power card deck" has. (A way to randomize mutations? Are they treating mutations as "Powers" now? What about the negative ones?)

cliff
02-02-2010, 05:38 PM
Yeah, not a whole ton of info about it yet, but I am curious. I personally prefer something more crunchy for my sci-fi, but the group I play with has an aversion to just about every rule system I am interested in so I try to find a good compromise that gives us the opportunity to try something OTHER than fantasy for a change.

I'm so sick of fantasy.

WhiteTiger
02-04-2010, 04:24 PM
I'm sure it could be great, but IMO, Gamma World works best when it is not d20'd.


Agreed. At this point, I am curious but worried.

fmitchell
02-05-2010, 03:18 AM
... the group I play with has an aversion to just about every rule system I am interested in so I try to find a good compromise that gives us the opportunity to try something OTHER than fantasy for a change.

I'm so sick of fantasy.

That's why I'm interested. Most people around here seem to play D&D 4e (or D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder or AD&D) to the exclusion of all else. I'm not so much into the "Mausoleums & Mutants" aspect of the new GW; I'd just like some idea how to change 4e into something I'd be more willing to run.

(WARNING: Whining ahead)

Then again, I keep saying that about OGL d20. When I tried as a thought experiment, I found a Catch-22: I want to replace the magic system, but that takes out half the core classes, arguably the ones that make D&D D&D. Would you play a game where you can only be a barbarian (maybe), a fighter, a ranger (sans spells), a rogue, or some brand new magic-using class you've never heard of before (if there is one)? I thought not. Oh, and I want to toss out the Tolkien races too, which means all but humans and maybe some kind of "small humans". Now how fast would you flee?

Webhead
02-05-2010, 09:47 PM
Then again, I keep saying that about OGL d20. When I tried as a thought experiment, I found a Catch-22: I want to replace the magic system, but that takes out half the core classes, arguably the ones that make D&D D&D. Would you play a game where you can only be a barbarian (maybe), a fighter, a ranger (sans spells), a rogue, or some brand new magic-using class you've never heard of before (if there is one)? I thought not. Oh, and I want to toss out the Tolkien races too, which means all but humans and maybe some kind of "small humans". Now how fast would you flee?

I hear ya. I've similarly struggled with this problem in the past until I realized that it just wasn't worth it and moved on. If I would have to so drastically alter the very core of the game (not to mention totally rework the balancing and basic advancement assumptsion to match), I'm probably better off starting with something else entirely. Not to mention the fact that all that "tinkering" will drive players expecting a more "conventional" game bonkers and just make them wander away from the game anyway.

Yeah...I hear ya.

girtablilu
06-05-2010, 02:36 PM
I started with Gamma World 2e in 1984. GM'd for about 15 years. I don't see what they could change to make it any better. Usually a new edition is just more complicated and a lot less fun.

cliff
06-05-2010, 09:38 PM
I started with Gamma World 2e in 1984. GM'd for about 15 years. I don't see what they could change to make it any better. Usually a new addition is just more complicated and a lot less fun.

Funny thing is, just earlier today in my gaming group, we were discussing how much better 1e Gamma World was than 2e... ;)

Max_Writer
06-06-2010, 09:28 AM
4th edition? pass.

Dark
06-06-2010, 05:04 PM
Meh depends on which 4e they plan on using the current or the essentials if it's the later I may perhaps give it a chance.

Skunkape
06-08-2010, 07:49 AM
I'll end up looking at it, I'm a sucker for Gamma World products, but will hold of my opinion of it till I actually see the game rules.

cliff
06-08-2010, 04:21 PM
I manage to appreciate the tactical play in 4e quite a bit, so that's not a turn-off to me... but I've heard that:

1. You'll draw your mutation at the beginning of the day from a deck of mutations.
2. The cards of the mutation deck will be collectible.

If that's the case, that's pretty unappealing. Ignoring the collectible nature of it, I really hate the idea of mutations changing constantly. I'm hoping that my information is inaccurate.

Skunkape
06-09-2010, 08:49 AM
I manage to appreciate the tactical play in 4e quite a bit, so that's not a turn-off to me... but I've heard that:

1. You'll draw your mutation at the beginning of the day from a deck of mutations.
2. The cards of the mutation deck will be collectible.

If that's the case, that's pretty unappealing. Ignoring the collectible nature of it, I really hate the idea of mutations changing constantly. I'm hoping that my information is inaccurate.

The collectible nature and constant change does sound unappealing!