Anyone homebrewing such a system right now?
I'm sure a lot of people won't agree with it, but for me, I'm looking forward to 4E's equivilant to d20 Modern. And if they ever make this, I'm guessing it wouldnt have "4E" in the name (even though this system seems to be known mostly as "4E"). What is 4E's system called? Is there even a name for it?
Anyone homebrewing such a system right now?
Stills says d20 on the back of the books.
Stills says d20 on the back of the books.
RIGHT!
I'm looking forward to 4E's equivilant to d20 Modern.
If you take the Jedi out of Star Wars you get a pretty reasonable approximation of 4E Modern. Personally I'd rather gargle nails than play 4E Modern, but I'll concede that I'm not aware of anything that does 4E's kind of combat-centric power-based gaming in a modern setting, so there's probably a niche and players just waiting for it.
It's certainly a more worthwhile product than the existing d20 modern, inasmuch as a 4E Modern would be a distinct and different product to Cyberpunk, GURPS, White Wolf and Shadowrun, rather than just an inferior competitor.
Would need a more dynamic name than "Modern" though.
If you take the Jedi out of Star Wars you get a pretty reasonable approximation of 4E Modern. Personally I'd rather gargle nails than play 4E Modern, but I'll concede that I'm not aware of anything that does 4E's kind of combat-centric power-based gaming in a modern setting, so there's probably a niche and players just waiting for it.
It's certainly a more worthwhile product than the existing d20 modern, inasmuch as a 4E Modern would be a distinct and different product to Cyberpunk, GURPS, White Wolf and Shadowrun, rather than just an inferior competitor.
Would need a more dynamic name than "Modern" though.
How about "Gargling Nails"?
How about "Gargling Nails"?
Oh man! Gritty and edgy! I'd play that game! :D
Ima gonna be a 4th Level Nailmaster! With a Gun of Bullets +3! In my background I'm going to be a Master Pimp with a Heart of Gold who was trained by Kung Fu Ninjas to fight Hitler! His name will be Rorschach and he murders people but in a totally bad-ass heroic way. He's something of a hit with the ladies.
Who's up to run a game?
Wasn't there an official WotC poll in the d20 Modern forums asking people whether they wanted an updated Modern system, and if so whether they wanted it based on SAGA, 4e, or a blend of the two?
There is a poll on the modern board, at the top of the first page of the Modern forum.
Fair warning though, there is a vocal minority of 4e haters there. Along with the more rational types too. I'm not gonna paint a whole board as haters.
Look at Austin Powers, which openly recognises the fact that Bond Type bad guys have minions.
Of course, i have a copy of Spycraft *and* a copy of d20 modern sitting on my shelf. They are different games in their flavour. I wouldn't want to use a 4th ed modern for any sort of realistic modern setting, however, as its just too over the top for normal stuff.
As an aside, 4th edition would make a good superhero game system i think, with a few tweaks.
Ok... to be fair, I'm really hoping the return of those two games...^_^
I don't see how a power-based system would exactly work for a non-fantasy game, but just go ahead and at that to the list of things I don't see.
ahem Cyberpunk (& Hong Kong Action) (genre): Netrunning, Martial Arts, Gun Fu, Free Running, and an argument could be made for powers based on better adapting to implants.
Paranoia (RPG): Mutations, Skill Powers to reflect stunts involving fast-talking, bereaucratics, spurious logic, and general deception.
Mekton Z (RPG): A mecha system eternally in need of a real character system, powers for Psionics and special mecha attacks would be par for the course.
Superheroes (genre): I like the job M&M did with d20, but I think 4e could do it better.
Of course there are also a lot of modern/alternative fantasy settings that could benefit from a "4e Modern", but the main point is that science fiction and cinematic action games are just as likely to use "powers" as D&D-style fantasy.
We may have a better idea on how guns and stuff will work in 4e when gamma world comes out.
I would rather trust Amethyst for a model of guns in 4e, which is already out, than the collectible card including mess that Gamma World promises to be.
Quote from a critic...
"Modern weapons then follow the standard idea of magic weapons in D&D, having minimal levels, and encounter/daily powers. Overall, I’m impressed in how much the modern weapons still felt like modern weapons, while fitting pretty seamlessly into the D&D magic item economy."
I'm kinda assuming that the new "Gamma World" is a bit of a test run for a new D20 Modern... With it they can gage an interest in a "future" setting. I would love to see a new d20 Modern, but I think I'd like to see a set of off shoot games that are compatible with DnD 4th ed. ---- i.e. Top Secret SI 4th Ed.; Star Frontiers 4th Ed.; etc...
Ok... to be fair, I'm really hoping the return of those two games...^_^
It is a pretty piss poor gauge. I know I love Modern settings. I know I love 4e. I know I hate the Gamma World Collectible Card Game SOOOOOO much (based solely on its model of rules distribution) that I am boycotting the setting and all its products. I know a lot of players feel the same way I do. If Gamma World tanks it may have nothing to do with its setting, and everything to do with its distribution model. A lot of RPG players don't like CCG elements in their RPGs.
I had an opportunity to ask Rich Baker about this (My FLGS was the winner of the "Pimp Your Store" contest), and he said that they are exploring the idea of porting the 4E engine to other Genres, and yes Gamma World is a "testing the waters" game for that
That's a horrible test. I would hope that Rich Baker would understand that you don't test the desire for other genres with a 4e game that includes randomized collectible cards. That's like adding ketchup to a soda to test if people like your soda. It's just stupid.
I had an opportunity to ask Rich Baker about this (My FLGS was the winner of the "Pimp Your Store" contest), and he said that they are exploring the idea of porting the 4E engine to other Genres, and yes Gamma World is a "testing the waters" game for that
That's a horrible test. I would hope that Rich Baker would understand that you don't test the desire for other genres with a 4e game that includes randomized collectible cards. That's like adding ketchup to a soda to test if people like your soda. It's just stupid.
Agreed.
It is a pretty piss poor gauge. I know I love Modern settings. I know I love 4e. I know I hate the Gamma World Collectible Card Game SOOOOOO much (based solely on its model of rules distribution) that I am boycotting the setting and all its products. I know a lot of players feel the same way I do. If Gamma World tanks it may have nothing to do with its setting, and everything to do with its distribution model. A lot of RPG players don't like CCG elements in their RPGs.
Could someone explain why it's necessary to boycott all the Gamma World products instead of just the random booster packs? I'm not quite sure I understand the reasoning.
It is a pretty piss poor gauge. I know I love Modern settings. I know I love 4e. I know I hate the Gamma World Collectible Card Game SOOOOOO much (based solely on its model of rules distribution) that I am boycotting the setting and all its products. I know a lot of players feel the same way I do. If Gamma World tanks it may have nothing to do with its setting, and everything to do with its distribution model. A lot of RPG players don't like CCG elements in their RPGs.
Could someone explain why it's necessary to boycott all the Gamma World products instead of just the random booster packs? I'm not quite sure I understand the reasoning.
You cant reason with them so dont even try.
They can sit at home and pout while the rest of us have fun enjoying the game. And money says they will whine and moan here about it but will purchase the stuff in reality. Because they know we have no way of knowing that they did it. Some people just live to whine and moan.
It is a pretty piss poor gauge. I know I love Modern settings. I know I love 4e. I know I hate the Gamma World Collectible Card Game SOOOOOO much (based solely on its model of rules distribution) that I am boycotting the setting and all its products. I know a lot of players feel the same way I do. If Gamma World tanks it may have nothing to do with its setting, and everything to do with its distribution model. A lot of RPG players don't like CCG elements in their RPGs.
Could someone explain why it's necessary to boycott all the Gamma World products instead of just the random booster packs? I'm not quite sure I understand the reasoning.
You cant reason with them so dont even try.
That's an assumption, and an erroneous one at that. Dave and I have calmly and rationally laid out our reasons for both 1) our dislike of adding randomized collectible card to rpgs and 2) our unwillingness to support any line that contains that randomized collectible cards.
They can sit at home and pout while the rest of us have fun enjoying the game. And money says they will whine and moan here about it but will purchase the stuff in reality. Because they know we have no way of knowing that they did it. Some people just live to whine and moan.
Another assumption, and this time it's both erroneous and judgemental. If you enjoy Gamma World, I wish you good experiences with it. I'm afraid I won't spend much time pouting however, as I will instead spend my time on product lines such as Amethyst and Neurospasta. Both are 4e games that do not contain randomized collectible cards.
Maybe I should do a Road Warrior / Fallout game next. ;)
That would actually be a better metric for determining the interest in a 4e game than using Gamma World.
I had an opportunity to ask Rich Baker about this (My FLGS was the winner of the "Pimp Your Store" contest), and he said that they are exploring the idea of porting the 4E engine to other Genres.....
This should be considered promising news, Gamma World aside.
Hmm no magic, no gods no psionics, sure will cut down on a lot of powers.
No monsters and no odd races, sure will cut down on a lot of classes.
Humans humans humans, and just various forms of martial artist, gun toting warriors and the occasional geek I suppose.
Modern to me = real world of course. If they want it to be a scifi, I'd hope they pick a more suitable name. Loved Alternity, enough so you'd need to go along way to make me buy something else if you want me to play scifi.
Currently 4th is just a short form way of saying the current Dungeons and Dragons.
I don't require the game mechanics deliver every game setting under the sun though.
4th edition modern, what would it look like?
Hmm no magic, no gods no psionics, sure will cut down on a lot of powers.
No monsters and no odd races, sure will cut down on a lot of classes.
Humans humans humans, and just various forms of martial artist, gun toting warriors and the occasional geek I suppose.
Modern to me = real world of course. If they want it to be a scifi, I'd hope they pick a more suitable name. Loved Alternity, enough so you'd need to go along way to make me buy something else if you want me to play scifi.
Currently 4th is just a short form way of saying the current Dungeons and Dragons.
I don't require the game mechanics deliver every game setting under the sun though.
Well those are really assumptions. If you look at the D20 Modern core rulebook you'll see that magic and psionics and monsters are all in there. You could play it as straight modern, or you could go a more Supernatural, Special Unit 2, or X-Files approach with it.
It is a pretty piss poor gauge. I know I love Modern settings. I know I love 4e. I know I hate the Gamma World Collectible Card Game SOOOOOO much (based solely on its model of rules distribution) that I am boycotting the setting and all its products. I know a lot of players feel the same way I do. If Gamma World tanks it may have nothing to do with its setting, and everything to do with its distribution model. A lot of RPG players don't like CCG elements in their RPGs.
Could someone explain why it's necessary to boycott all the Gamma World products instead of just the random booster packs? I'm not quite sure I understand the reasoning.
It is (fairly) simple. If I buy the core product, but not the boosters, and almost nobody else buys the boosters either, then the message that WotC will get is that boosters are a poor method of rules distribution, economically speaking, for role playing games. The money spent on producing the boosters is a waste of money, because almost all player's won't purchase the boosters, and so there will be almost no return on the money invested in their production. This message is the message I want to spend. However, this outcome relies on the gamble that almost everyone else will avoid buying the booster packs as well.
However, if all of us buy the core rulebook, and a sizable minority buys the boosters as well as the core rulebook, the message that will be sent to WotC is that the boosters are a smart business investment. They will make the same profit off the books as with any other RPG they make. Meanwhile, there will be a sizable minority of players who will feed the collectible card game aspect of the game. Since it takes far fewer players to generate a sizable portion of wealth off cards then it does to generate wealth off books (so long as the people buying the cards really get into the collectible craze), the message will be that the cards should be implemented into future RPGs that WotC makes in order to increase their profit margin. Those who hate CCGs just wont buy the CCG splats. Meanwhile, those who do will generate a sizable income increase in the brand. Those of us who hate CCGs will forever be forced to deal with a CCG aspect to the games we purchase from WotC, and we will have no one to blame but our own purchasing habits.
In my honest opinion, if you hate the idea of randomized collectible card rules distribution in your RPG, and you have a vested interest in keeping such rules distribution out of future WotC products, I seriously suggest you boycott this product line. If enough of us don't buy the rulebook at all then the income lost to boycotts might offset the income gained from a CCRPG model of distribution, and the message sent to WotC (in this case) will be that this is a terrible business idea. RPGs and CCGs should be kept separate as the market interested in their purchase is niche enough that WotC will be unable to sell as many D&D brand books as they currently do if they implement such a system into their primary RPG brand. That is my opinion, in any case. And as such I won't be touching this product line with a ten foot pole.
Of course, if you purchase a used copy of the book then WotC still only makes a single purchase of the book in revenue from you. As someone else has already purchased the book, WotC won't be making any money off your purchase of the used copy. So, if you really want a copy I suggest you look for a used one. But that first requires that there be a used copy for sale... one day down the line I might purchase a used copy of Gamma World. I will never, however, purchase a single new Gamma World product because I do not want to use my wallet to tell WotC that it is a good idea to add CCG elements to an RPG.
As for why I hate CCG elements in an RPG, that too is fairly simple. It has to do with what I feel my dollar is worth. One class in a power book has roughly 122 new powers. That is roughly 15 packs of booster cards. I am rounding down in order to not overinflated my price estimate here. Packs sell at 8 dollars a pack. That means that if the packs are not randomized at all it would cost 60$ to get the power content of 1 class from a book that currently has 5 classes worth of content for 23 dollars. If you want to get all 5 classes worth of content, and the packs are not randomized at all, that means you have to spend roughly 300$ instead of 23 dollars. Now lets add in the randomized and collectible element of the game. Now a power book costs 300 times X dollars, where X is an unknown variable based on personal luck, instead of 23$. Now, while I have not ever really heavily got into miniatures, I have bought a few in my time. I know that with packs of randomized miniatures I have bought over 4 boxes trying to get one specific miniature I wanted. So, lets assume that X is 4. That means that the power content of a power book now costs 1,200$ instead of 23 dollars. That is about double (over, in fact, last time I checked; but a few more books have been published since then) the cost of what it takes to buy every single 4E D&D book published to date for the content of a single book.
Sorry, I am not getting suckered into that distribution model. Those of you who want your pockets fleeced are welcome to oblige WotC. While I have nothing against the idea of cards as a supplement, this level of price inflation is ridiculous. I am not willing to spend the same price that I currently spend on a D&D book in order to buy only 5 packs of booster cards, which is only 40 powers, and which will most likely result in me primarily spending my money in order to rebuy the same "common" powers. From my perspective, this model of rules distribution is little more than a legal scam. Its a clever way of making your consumer have to buy the same product multiple times in order to actually purchase what they want. Its a clever way to make someone pay 1,200$ for something that currently costs only 23 dollars. I want no part in that.
I'm a gamer, and I started with CCGs. Marvel Overpower, Pokemon, M:TG, then D&D. Without those fantasy baseball cards that I kept in binders for two years before playing them, I would never have become a RPGer and boardgamer. Gateway drug, man. CCGs are like Mary Jane. 
I'm a gamer, and I started with CCGs. Marvel Overpower, Pokemon, M:TG, then D&D. Without those fantasy baseball cards that I kept in binders for two years before playing them, I would never have become a RPGer and boardgamer. Gateway drug, man. CCGs are like Mary Jane.
Hey, I never said nobody else should ever like collectable card games. If that is what you are into that is what you are into. But the established genre of gaming that I am into is pencil and paper role playing games. That market has been allong for a while now. And that market has an established model of distribution and value per splat book. I am simply not willing to pay the price inflation created by collectible card disbirution models for my role playing game rules.
But what if that process helped companies make more games we like? Many settings and genres have a very limited fanbase to grow into, and are unlikely to be greenlighted by the WotC suits. They sit in the closet collecting dust, doing their fans no good. However, with a business plan that promotes deeper investment from the fanbase, then you have a viable project. If it fails, at least fans will have the original product, if it means that much to them.
You don't sound like the type interested in how profitable a game is for the company that makes it. You're focused on what's right for you. And that's good. What I'd suggest is that you judge Gamma World on how much you would (or would not) enjoy the Standalone Starter product on its own merits.
You cant reason with them so dont even try.
They can sit at home and pout while the rest of us have fun enjoying the game. And money says they will whine and moan here about it but will purchase the stuff in reality. Because they know we have no way of knowing that they did it. Some people just live to whine and moan.
P.S. The word reason means, "a rational motive for a belief or action." Reasonable means: "having sound judgement.... ready to listen to reason." Rational means "based on reason." Sort of circular, I know. The word rationale helps. It gets the definition "fundamental reason, logical basis." Logic's primary defintion doesn't fix the circular problem; that definition is, "of or according to logic." The third definition (in the dictionary in front of me), however, begins to clear things up a little bit; "defensible or explicable on the ground of consistency." The basic jist of all this is that a person who is reasonable can explain their motives based on a consistant and explicable set of reasons. Reasons, in case you were wondering, means a "motive, cause, or justification." Consistent, as I am using it, means, "constant to the same principles." The word constant means "unchanging."
Lets take a look at my reasons:
1) I like RPGs.
2) I currently pay a certain quantity of money for the rules of the RPGs I play.
3) I feel that the amount of money that I am paying is fair.
4) I believe that when I purchase a product, I am letting that company know that I like that product and they should produce more such products in the future.
5) I believe number 4 is true due to the fact that companies tend to, statistically speaking, remake new versions of older products that sold well.
5) I believe that a CCG model of rules distribution will likely drastically raise the price of the RPG content I like to buy.
6) I believe this due to a mathematically accurate comparison of the price I currently pay for the RPG content I have bought versus the price I would pay for that same content distributed randomly via a CCG model (that comparison can be found in my above post).
7) As I currently feel that the amount of money I am paying for RPG content is fair, I do not think it is fair to raise the price of such content, and thus I do not think it is fair to distribute such content via a CCG model.
8) Since I don't think it is fair to distribute such content via a CCG model, and I do not want to tell WotC that they should produce more RPG products distributed by this model.
9) Since I feel that when I purchase a product I am letting a company know that I like that product and they should produce more such products in the future I am not willing to purchase any aspect of an RPG that makes use of a CCG rules distribution model.
What do you know. My reasons are consitent. Moreover, I fullfill another aspect of the definition of reasonable. I am moderate in my views. I am moderate in my views because I am willing to listen to reason. In other words, if someone can point out where one of my reasons for my opinions or course of action are inacurate, I am willing to change my opinion. Inacurate means "not accurate," acurate meaning, "precise; conforming exactly with the truth or standard."
However, as hard as I looked, guess which defintion for reasonable I could not find? If you guessed--"stating that a group of people are unreasonable, because of a specific belief and/or planned course of action, despite the fact that they can very clearly explain why they hold to a specific belief and/or plan of action with a consistant and (at least up to now, considered) accurate set of reasons, and the fact that they are willing to listen to an argument that proposes that one of their set of reasons is not accurate or consistant"--you are correct. I also could not find the following definition in the dictionary: "stating an assumption, an assumption whose accuracy you cannot varify, an assumption about a group of individuals who will obviously tell you that your assumption is false, because we have explicitly stated that we plan to do the exact opposite of what you have stated you assume, and sticking to that assumption all evidence to the contrary."
Cheers.
Those who hate CCGs just wont buy the CCG splats. Meanwhile, those who do will generate a sizable income increase in the brand. Those of us who hate CCGs will forever be forced to deal with a CCG aspect to the games we purchase from WotC, and we will have no one to blame but our own purchasing habits.
In what way will those who don't want CCG aspects be forced to deal with them? The first thing that comes to mind is people who have spent money on cards complaining if the GM won't let them use them, but we already have people with a hate for certain races and classes and even whole powersources who ban them from any game they run. How will it be worse than that? Or is it something else I'm not seeing.
Do you have any concern that boycotting the whole line might lead WotC to believe it's Gamma World that's the problem, not the CCG model?
But what if that process helped companies make more games we like?
This process would not help companies make more games we like, because we includes me. I don't like collectable card games. And while I like role playing games very much, paradoxically, I only like to get into role playing games that allow me to feel like it is possible for me to purchase the complete set of the games' rules should I choose to. That means that the complete set of the games' rules has to be inside what I feel is my price range.
You don't sound like the type interested in how profitable a game is for the company that makes it. You're focused on what's right for you. And that's good. What I'd suggest is that you judge Gamma World on how much you would (or would not) enjoy the Standalone Starter product on its own merits.
Almost exactly right. However, what is right for me is not necessarily "how much I would or would not enjoy the standalone starter product on its own merits." No matter how much I would or would not enjoy the standalone starter product on its own merrits, I can not play pencil and paper role playing games alone. That means that if I buy the product, and I want to make use of it, I must play with other people; other people might not take kindly to me outright banning the power decks they have paid good money for when they find that the use of those decks enhances their enjoyment of the game; other people might not be willing to ban the use of those decks at their game tables. That means that for me to play a RPG that introduces a CCG distribution model I have to be willing to play with other people who not only share my like of the game but also share my dislike of the CCG aspect of the game, and so are willing to play without any CCG distributed rules. That, however, means that I will have a smaller pool of local gamers to play with. In my experience the market of people who like RPGs is select enough that it can be, at times, hard to find a group of people who happen to like the same game, or at least who want to play the same game at the same time. To further reduce that number by taking that smaller pool of people (who all happen to want to play the same game at the same time) and reducing it by an additional common factor (our shared dislike of the CCG distribution model) seriously reduces the value of that stanalone starter product. The pool of people who I would want to play it with is just too watered down for me to want to purchase that product; I would rather spend my money on another game, a game that features a larger pool of players that I can play that game with.
Alternativly, it also means that for me to play a RPG that introduces a CCG distribution model I have to be willing to play with people who will be able to play with a much larger pool of options than me, because they will have first pick of all of their own purchased cards while I have no purchased cards, and cards (unlike the rules in books) can only be used by a single player at a time. I am not willing to play under that circumstance; I do not believe that certain players at a fantasy game of make believe should have more options at a game table then other players at that same game table due to the monetary inncome brackets of the respective players.
In either case, the result is the same: because I consider neither option a) nor option b) to be acceptable on principle, I do not plan to use my wallet to tell the company that I like the game, and its model of distribution, and the company should thus produce more such games with such a model of distribution. Even if I am happy to consider the experience of playing the game to be a write-off, and I happen to have some extra cash, and I am willing to pay the price of the book just to own the stand alone product so that I can flip through the rules and pilfer ideas for my own homebrewed 4e games, I do not want to tell the company that the method of rules distribution is acceptable because I do not want to be forced to write off the experience of playing more games (that I might otherwise like) in the future. It is hard enough finding games I like, and I want to play, I don't want to also be forced to find games that I like that ALSO don't make use of a system of distribution I don't like (and what is monetarily successful will become more prevalent). That means that no matter what I am not willing to commit any action that makes WotC money, off me, from a game that includes a CCG aspect to it. I don't want to shoot myself in the foot; I don't want to sabotage my own enjoyment of this hobby.
If Gamma World sells great, and makes lots of money, that is fine. If many RPGs switch to that model of distribution in the future (so that companies that produce RPGs can make more money) that is fine. I can live with that. But I do not want to aid that outcome in coming about. As a result, I will not purchase the product in a manner that ever makes WotC any money; if I ever see a used copy for sale I might purchase that.
In what way will those who don't want CCG aspects be forced to deal with them? The first thing that comes to mind is people who have spent money on cards complaining if the GM won't let them use them, but we already have people with a hate for certain races and classes and even whole powersources who ban them from any game they run. How will it be worse than that? Or is it something else I'm not seeing.
Do you have any concern that boycotting the whole line might lead WotC to believe it's Gamma World that's the problem, not the CCG model?
See my last post. As well as answering the poster I was responding to it also answers a large part of your question. As for the second part of your question, we do already have people with a hate for certain races and classes, and even whole power-sources. Thankfully, I don't. I like them all. As a result I can play any race, class, or power-source, and have a grand old time. I can play at a table that bans certain races and classes and enjoy myself (because I will be able to find something I enjoy from what is offered, as I like all the races and classes, and you can only play one race and class combination at a time anyway), and I can play at a table that bans nothing and enjoy myself (because I can both make use of all the rules I have purchased, and because no individual at the table will have more or less options than any other individual at the table for any reason, let alone real world economic reasons). The pool of players I can play with is not lessened due to the hatred that some individuals have for a certain race or class.
On the other hand, for reasons I listed above, the pool of players I can play with is lessened by my hatred of CCG elements. And thus me and any other player who hates CCG elements would be forced to deal with this CCG element in our RPGs in the same way people who hate elves must deal with elves in their role playing game; they deal with the elf either by including it in their game, or accepting that they are going to lessen their player pool by only playing with people who are ok with not playing elves.
Additionally, I should note that if I did ever (theoretically speaking) purchase any CCG cards and those cards were disallowed by a GM I would be fuming in a way that I am not by banned races or classes. This is because of the dollar value of what is being banned. When my entire product line of purchased 4e D&D books costs me about 1,200 dollars, and I have the option to use any of that content, banning a few dollars worth of content is not a big deal to me. Hell, even if someone banned an entire book I would not be bothered. Not being able to use 23 dollars out of my 1,200 dollar collection is not a big deal. Now, when the jump in price suddenly becomes 1,200 dollars for the equivalent content of a single power source book that suddenly changes. Then I can only afford that one single book. You tell me that that book is suddenly banned and I will be pissed.
Yea, I realize that we will be talking in the ratio of single cards and not entire books. But the principle is the same. I can afford to not worry about an entire book being banned. But many players would be very upset by this. When a power costs a fraction of a cent, or even a few cents, those players won't mind being told that they can not use a single power. But when they pay in the range of 32 dollars for a single power they really want to own you better believe they are going to be pissed if you tell me them they can not use it. Ditto for errata nerfing a power they paid 32 dollars to own, which means either that there will be overpowered powers (because it is not worth the fan rage to nerf the power) or they are likely to frequently find themselves upset over powerful powers I paid good money to collect getting nerfed.
I really don't want these sort of money issues to become a feature of the RPGs I like to play one way or another. However, these sort of money issues can not be avoided if you add CCG elements to a RPG. What happens when I don't like the way a power works in a game I am GMing, and I try to ban it, only to find I can't? Banning a power in the past was not a problem. I might have to consult my group about banning a book, but nobody reasonable cares if I ban a small number of powers. There are just so many other options to choose! That will no longer be true when each (good) power our group owns costs 32 dollars. And this is based on a lowball estimate of the price that some powers might sell for! There are CCGs out there with cards that sell for over a hundred dollars! And none of this takes into account the way, if only one player can use one card at a time, this model will favor the richer players at the table by giving them more options, possibly causing players with less money to quit the game. Way to go an additional tax on the pool of players you can play! Literally, a monetarily paid tax...
Which leads me to the final part of your question; do I have any concern that boycotting the whole line might lead WotC to believe it's Gamma World that's the problem, not the CCG model? Yes. That is why I am on here being very vocal about why I plan to boycott Gamma World. If everyone who boycotts Gamma World is very vocal about why they are doing so, if even a vocal minority of the people who boycott Gamma World for this reason are vocal about why we are boycotting this product, WotC will get the idea. They are not dumb. They keep an eye on these forums. If we voice our opinion, our planned course of action, and the game flops, WotC will be able to see the correlation. That correlation will not be enough to prove causation, but it will be enough for WotC to question the possibility. Companies tend to be conservative with their money. A strong possibility is likely to have the same results as a proven fact in terms of future product lines. Hell, worst case scenario WotC comes to the wrong conclusion, they release a new/different CCG-RPG hybrid in the future, that flops due to the exact same boycott, and that is that.
Of course, there is the real possibility that if this boycott is successful it will hurt Gamma World (and even, potentially, 4e Modern style games as whole) as well as CCG-RPG hybrids. That is a possibility I can live with. As much as I would love a 4e Modern or 4e Gamma World game, I would not be happy if the expense of such a game existing in the future is WotC largely shifting its RPG product line gears into CCG distribution model speeds. It is just not worth it to me.
Hence the beauty of my actions. They are very personal. The only way my boycott can have any effect is if a significant number of players shares my opinion and course of action. And if that is the case, well, then, my opinion stop being my personal opinion and becomes the opinion of a large portion of the community that purchases these products. At that point in time listening to my--then to become the proverbial "our"--opinion will just be good business sense.
Maybe I should do a Road Warrior / Fallout game next. ;)
If you manage to capture the feel of GW, I'd buy it. I keep hoping Signal Fire Studios comes out with Metamophosis Alpha using D&D 4E mechanics.
Could someone explain why it's necessary to boycott all the Gamma World products instead of just the random booster packs? I'm not quite sure I understand the reasoning.
Cyber-Dave's explaination pretty much won me over when he explained it in other threads. I've collected every edition of GW so I really want the game. Especially to see the Gallus Gallus 5/13 in Famine in Fargo. But alas I can't easily collect the entire game due to the random booster packs so I probably won't buy it.
I wouldn't worry too much. Ultimately the game will live or die and I doubt anything said here will impact it much. It will either be popular or not. I really think any concerns on the cards will only be concerns if the game becomes as popular as D&D or Magic. While certainly possible, the game seems more aimed at one-shot or short term playing rather than long term what with the randomness and the fun aspects. I really don't see this "I must have this card!" aspect as being much of a problem. Not that it won't happen because you will always have those OP types, but the game just doesn't seem to come across as predisposed to those types. I think they will be a fair minority of the players of this game. Personally, I hope the game does extremely well, well enough to keep it going. I like the sounds of the cards and the random nature of the game. It sounds like a lot of fun. I also think that combining aspects of two of their best selling games is a worthy idea.
I agree, as a stand alone product, I think Gamma World is going to be a lot of fun. I plan to use it for a side game to play every once in a while, rather than a campaign that will last several months. Although I am not wild about collectible cards, I think the mechanics of random mutations etc. will be interesting to experience. I will most likely only buy the box set, but you never know.
P.S. Getting back on track, I still have my hopes up for a 4e version of D20 Modern or Future.