CelticMutt;19059986 wrote:
does anyone here know enough about the setting to talk about it?
Gama World wasn't so much a campaign setting as it was a separate (and unfortunately shorter lived) set of similar but alternate rules that were published by TSR.
I can't see it being updated for 4e.
Metamorphosis Alpha for 4th Edition D&D
Cheers,
Cam
Wow somebody is showing their age. ;)
I'm only 29.
I never played it myself...but it looks cool.
does anyone here know enough about the setting to talk about it?
It's a post-apocalyptic setting, kinda like Fallout, Mad Max, Thundarr, etc. all rolled into one, with humans, mutants, intelligent mutant animals, intelligent mutant plants, robots, sometimes aliens, radiation, wastelands, psionics, melee brawling mixed with sci-fi tech, and more.
It had 4 editions under TSR between ... I wanna say '78 and '90 or '92, plus a later TSR version that used the Alternity rules instead, and then a final edition a few years ago under D20 by White Wolf's Arthaus studio.
- It's a old TSR property that hasn't been revisited ("dusted off") in a while;
- It has "A"s prominently in the title; and,
- It sure would surprise a hell of a lot of people!
In the interests of ending the "Setting Wars" debates, I propose that Gamma World should be the official 2010 campaign setting!
If Gamma World gets a "do over" I really hope the property is sold off to another company that will work it exclusively. In the past the half-attempt to produce and maintain the system has just ended badly.
I love Gamma World, but not enough to see D&D suffer because of it.
It's hilarious how positive the reaction is to this setting, not to mention how good a fit it is for some of the "2010 setting clues" we've got!
- It's a old TSR property that hasn't been revisited ("dusted off") in a while;
- It has "A"s prominently in the title; and,
- It sure would surprise a hell of a lot of people!
In the interests of ending the "Setting Wars" debates, I propose that Gamma World should be the official 2010 campaign setting!
Yeah, but you have to ignore the Dark Sun Editor bit in order for it to be on equal footing with Dark Sun. Had you suggested this a week earlier then they would be equal. :P
I really doubt its the 2010 setting, but I can't think of a better game to get the 4e treatment. It would be very easy to turn the mutations into powers and to come up with some "martial" type powers for Pure Strain Humans, and go nuts. I think the 4e monster format would work really well for Gamma Worlds monsters, too.
Our MA Player's Guide will feature 4 new character classes based on the Mutant power source, as well as a bunch of new mutant races. This lets you introduce mutants into your 4E games even if you don't set the campaign on the Starship Warden. Standard characters can take multiclass feats to add just a little mutation, or go all out and play an enforcer, synergist, catalyst, or esper with mutations galore.
Cheers,
Cam
I really doubt its the 2010 setting, but I can't think of a better game to get the 4e treatment. It would be very easy to turn the mutations into powers and to come up with some "martial" type powers for Pure Strain Humans, and go nuts. I think the 4e monster format would work really well for Gamma Worlds monsters, too.
I agree, having run a one-shot 4E-style GW game for my buddies a couple years ago.
I had character creation down to one page of random charts ('cause I was going to be killing off characters fast and they needed to be able to generate a new one before the next encounter), with both mutations and artifacts working a lot like 4E's power system (but with fewer guarantees of a playable character, because, hey, one-shot Gamma World).
We used outdoor maps from D&D and some RoboRally boards for the "ruined factory" they had to delve through.
Good times.
Our MA Player's Guide will feature 4 new character classes based on the Mutant power source, as well as a bunch of new mutant races. This lets you introduce mutants into your 4E games even if you don't set the campaign on the Starship Warden. Standard characters can take multiclass feats to add just a little mutation, or go all out and play an enforcer, synergist, catalyst, or esper with mutations galore.
Cheers,
Cam
Looks neat Cam never heard of the original but it does sound pretty unique, if I have the money Ill definitley take a look at it, only problem using 3rd party stuff is it wont be in character builder but Im sure there is a way around that.
My only objection to a 4e Gamma World would be that if it was an official WotC setting it would either automatically throw a bunch of wierd mutant and technology stuff all over standard D&D that would cause a riot from the setting purists (at least in RPGA games; home games can restrict as they see fit), or else it'd be the first campaign PG where nearly everything was restricted from RPGA instead of just one major character option and some backgrounds.
Though in all fairness in the slot 0s for the LFR premier at PAX I played with a "black skinned vulcan starship captain with a beam weapon and partial cloaking technology" (drow warlock), so I for one am perfectly happy to roll with whatever random wierdness invades the Realms.
It may not contribute much but I find it hilarious that some poeple are actually commenting like this is serious. I mean this is funnier than someone claiming Maztica or Birthright as the next campaign setting, or god forbid council of wyrms.
What's wrong with Birthright?
What's wrong with Birthright?
Nothing, but it's more likely to have its essentials put into a future DMG than appear as a standalone world.
*Post by WotC_Andy*
We've got a WotC type person here?
Anyone got predictions for this thread?
Anyone got predictions for this thread?
It won't die until some point long after it has ceased to be amusing and fully devolved into a nerd-rage fueled internet ******* contest?
Our MA Player's Guide will feature 4 new character classes based on the Mutant power source, as well as a bunch of new mutant races. This lets you introduce mutants into your 4E games even if you don't set the campaign on the Starship Warden. Standard characters can take multiclass feats to add just a little mutation, or go all out and play an enforcer, synergist, catalyst, or esper with mutations galore.
Cheers,
Cam
Heh, I might have to check it out.
I agree, having run a one-shot 4E-style GW game for my buddies a couple years ago.
I had character creation down to one page of random charts ('cause I was going to be killing off characters fast and they needed to be able to generate a new one before the next encounter), with both mutations and artifacts working a lot like 4E's power system (but with fewer guarantees of a playable character, because, hey, one-shot Gamma World).
We used outdoor maps from D&D and some RoboRally boards for the "ruined factory" they had to delve through.
Good times.
Well there you go.
Is it too late to go to work on it for 2011?:P
Legion of Gold!!!!!
I just don't want yet another European fantasy unless it's like The Brothers Grimm meets Pan's Labyrinth; the market's saturated with diluted Tolkien imitations.Dragonlance > Darksun > Ravenloft. (the next settings we should see regardless of the naysaying and offical blahs);)
I never played it myself...but it looks cool.
does anyone here know enough about the setting to talk about it?
I bought first ed Gamma World when I was in junior high. It had been out a year or two at the time. It's a hoot. The original system was profoundly dysfunctional, the errors, inconsistencies, and imbalances in it would make any modern game look like a paragon of perfection by contrast. But it was a lot of fun.
The basic premise is that, in some distant future, when human beings have a peaceful, unified world with virtually unlimmitted technology, divisions start to form along special interest lines, and the world devolves into terrorism, then war. Finally, a secret society unleashes devestation that makes nuclear war look like a picnick, and civilization collapse.
Many generations later, the inhabitants of 'Gamma World' are profoundly mutated - intelligent animals, motile plants, humanoids with bizarre mutant powers, and, even the rare 'pure strain' unmutated human. Wild technologies, deadly mutations, and mad robot sentinels abound. The cartoon Thundaar the Barbarian could have been set in Gamma World. If you cross Mad Max with the X-Men, you'd get an inkling of it, too. Crazy, fun, Cold War era, post-apocalyptic insantity.
I run 1st Ed Gamma World at a local convention (DunDraCon if you're ever in San Ramon, CA in February) and always have a blast with it.
Would be interesting but won't happen. Atleast not for a long time.
Dragonlance > Darksun > Ravenloft. (the next settings we should see regardless of the naysaying and offical blahs);)
Darksun>new setting>Ravenloft>New Setting>Dragon Lance.
Dragonlance > Darksun >Ravenloft >Possible New Setting.
I completely agree.;)
My ultimate goal is to get this thread mentioned in a podcast.
yea lets start a letter writing campaign...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Well, it worked for a tv show with tabasco sauce once ... :P
I completely agree.;)
Uh no DL offers nothing really new to 4E like the others would. Id rather see Gamma world than DL. Or see Gamma world as its own game system.
But what about the miniatures? Would they be compatible with the ones we have now?I love technotopia! Where technology accomplishes human immortality and bliss.
On the other hand, if WotC wanted Gammaworld to be a "points of light" setting, where each "point of light" is an ideal technotopian civilization, surrounded by a "darkness" of post-apocalyptic wastelands ... I could live with that.
Mages ... and cyborgs ...
Psionics ...
Yes, please.
We can't give you Gamma World, but we can come close:
Metamorphosis Alpha for 4th Edition D&D
Cheers,
Cam
I love Metamorphosis Alpha and can not wait till this comes out. I really was hoping that you were working on Dragonlance 4th Edition.
Would be interesting but won't happen. Atleast not for a long time.
Dragonlance > Darksun > Ravenloft. (the next settings we should see regardless of the naysaying and offical blahs);)
I think they've pretty much stated that ravenloft has been absorbed into "core" and won't see its own setting. The same seems to have happened to Planscape and Spelljammer. I for one am betting the following:
Dragonlance> New Setting> Dark Sun> "Forgotten Realms add on" like Al Qadim or Kara-Tur
Hey I'd buy 4e Gamma World in a second. It's a perfect example of a campy but fun setting, and you get to have science fiction guns!
I never thought I woulda got this one right, especially not after Dark Sun was announced, but... I CALLED IT! Six months ago.
I know I talked to one of the Devs about this, either here or on ENWorld, and at the time they said it was definitely not on the table. I wonder if I've earned some royalties...
Wizards has the product page up for the Gamma World products(1, 2, 3). It seems that the first one is a starter kit and the other two are just adventures. Whole thing seems odd to me but hardly the first time that I've been confused by a decsion by Wizards.
Note: What I'm confused about is the decision to release adventures in a setting without a campaign guide, not the decision to use Gamma World. Frankly I think using Gamma World is awesome and hilarious at the same time.
I worry about the "collectible" nature. I do all my gaming with folks online and it's very easy with MapTool, the books, and DDI to do everything I need to online. If it's too reliant on the cards such that it becomes very difficult to do legally online, I think that's the killer for me...
Super eager to hear more, though. If I'm wrong I definitely would love to see this be somewhat successful for them and perhaps a springboard to other things like Alternity (star*drive) and perhaps some other neat extensions of the game.
Oh WotC, why do you hate low-income gamers?
Pen-&-paper games were one of the last few corners of the hobbyist world where a player's discretionary funds didn't dictate the quality of your in-game abilities. I have nothing against people who can spend more money on the hobby they enjoy. Instead, my ire is raised at those who allow games to be designed so low-income players get shafted in the game world as well. WotC can expect me (and many other low-income hobbyists) to bail out of any product line that goes this route.
It's stupid, it's classist, and it smacks of their utter disregard for us as customers.
Boosters? In a pen-&-paper rpg?
Oh WotC, why do you hate low-income gamers?
Pen-&-paper games were one of the last few corners of the hobbyist world where a player's discretionary funds didn't dictate the quality of your in-game abilities. I have nothing against people who can spend more money on the hobby they enjoy. Instead, my ire is raised at those who allow games to be designed so low-income players get shafted in the game world as well. WotC can expect me (and many other low-income hobbyists) to bail out of any product line that goes this route.
It's stupid, it's classist, and it smacks of their utter disregard for us as customers.
While I generally dislike it when people copypasta their own posts to other relevant topics, I'll forgive you here because I share your disappointment. However, I'm even more upset that they went the way of making Gamma World impossible of doing online.
Note: What I'm confused about is the decision to release adventures in a setting without a campaign guide, not the decision to use Gamma World. Frankly I think using Gamma World is awesome and hilarious at the same time.
I think that's because Gamma World is less a full fledged setting, and more of vague semi-genric theme, like the unnamed implied setting presented in the PHB and other CORE products.
It's stupid, it's classist, and it smacks of their utter disregard for us as customers.
While I generally dislike it when people copypasta their own posts to other relevant topics, I'll forgive you here because I share your disappointment. However, I'm even more upset that they went the way of making Gamma World impossible of doing online.
Where exactly does it say that online play will be IMPOSSIBLE? Sure the set includes mutation power cards, but it seems to me that might be more a case of bundling. Instead of releasing the rulebook and than having to wait months for the the relevant power cards (as is the case with the power source series) Gamma world is packing these useful game aids as part of the base product itself.
Nothing I've seen on the product page seems to suggest that the game will be any more difficult to play online than the wrest of 4e. Unless there's been some other statement directly from a WotC staff member explicitly saying otherwise, in which case, link please.
I worry about the "collectible" nature. I do all my gaming with folks online and it's very easy with MapTool, the books, and DDI to do everything I need to online. If it's too reliant on the cards such that it becomes very difficult to do legally online, I think that's the killer for me...
Super eager to hear more, though. If I'm wrong I definitely would love to see this be somewhat successful for them and perhaps a springboard to other things like Alternity (star*drive) and perhaps some other neat extensions of the game.
I share that concern. I despise collectible card games -- I much prefer games where I can purchase everything associated with a game to date for a known fixed price, without making purchases where I am unsure whether I will get nothing new or something so rare that nobody else has it. I just do not like to gamble that way.
Since this game is supposed to be 4E compatible, the degree of Character Builder support is the make or break issue for me. If there is no Character Builder support, I will totally ignore it. If the Character Builder supports at least the core boxed set rules, I will probably pick up that box to have something to reference off-line. If the Character Builder supports the core rules but not those random booster packs, guess what -- the powers in the random booster packs will not be legal in my campaign.
On the other hand, if the Character Builder does contain the powers from the random booster packs, I suspect that many of the people shelling out for those booster packs would be unhappy that anyone with a DDI subscription could get their hands on the "rare" powers. I am curious to see how these conflicting expectations will be resolved.
There may or may not be CB support, but I would expect it to work a lot more like the DM handing wands out to his players that give them new/extra encounter powers, than the power-cards that shipped with teh players handbook heroes minis.
D&D Gamma World Expansion Kit: Legion of Gold
D&D Gamma World Roleplaying Game
A D&D Roleplaying Game
Richard Baker and Bruce R. Cordell
A wacky, wily roleplaying game of post-apocalyptic peril.Earth. After the apocalypse. Never mind the radiation—you’re gonna like it here.
The D&D Gamma World Roleplaying Game offers hours of rollicking entertainment in a savage land of adventure, where the survivors of some mythical future disaster must contend with radioactive wastes, ravaged cities, and rampant lawlessness. Against a nuclear backdrop, heroic scavengers search crumbled ruins for lost artifacts while battling mutants and other perils.
This product is a complete, stand-alone roleplaying game that uses the 4th Edition D&D Roleplaying Game system as its foundation. It appeals to D&D players as well as gamers interested in fantasy science fiction set in a bizarre, post-apocalyptic world.
- 160-page book with rules for character creation, game rules, and an adventure
- 2 sheets of die-cut character and monster tokens
- 2 double-sided battle maps
- Cardstock character sheets and mutation power cards
- Mutation power card deck
- Loot power card deck
Item Details
Item Code: 254600000
Release Date: October 19, 2010
Format: Box
Page Count: 160
Price: $39.99
D&D Gamma World Expansion Kit: Famine in Far-go
A D&D Gamma World Roleplaying Game Expansion
Robert J. Schwalb
A new adventure and more monstrous mutants for your D&D Gamma World game!
The radioactive wastelands of Earth are home to many bizarre and barbaric creatures. The apocalypse hasn’t exactly made the world a better place. It’s survival of the fittest. Time to build a new food chain.
This game expansion presents a menagerie of mutant creatures and a ready-to-play adventure. The monsters presented herein can also be pulled over and used in the Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Roleplaying Game.
This product includes:
- 160-page adventure book, including new mutant monsters
- 4 sheets of die-cut mutant monster tokens
- A fold-out battle map
Item Details
Item Code: 254610000
Release Date: November 16, 2010
Format: Box
Page Count: 160
Price: $29.99
D'ho! They are all BOXED? Weird.
Is that because some of the earliest versions were always boxed? All 3 items have components (Cards maps, counters... ?Dice? Not listed.) so it will beeasier to keep thing together.
I started a group and a poll to see what people would want for the card aspect.
The fact that they say "designed to be a fun deviation from other games - not really made for long-term play" disappoints me. Hopefully Metamorphosis Alpha will be more like what I want.
Also in the document:
Q: Will Gamma World see DDI / Character Builder support?
A: (Chris) No plans right now, but it depends on what the community wants. Certainly not on the books for 2010.
Why does it need to be labeled as wacky? Doesn't that limit who will buy it? Paranoia is the wacky post-apocalyptic gaming, with an option for a more campaign-friendly set of rules. Gamma World with the 4e system sounds great, but I'll be disappointed if it's designed to be (and thusly pigeonholed as) wacky.
Well, probably because Gamma World pre-dates Paranoia by about six years, and except for the last edition or two, was always a whacky post-apocalyptic game.
Why does it need to be labeled as wacky? Doesn't that limit who will buy it? Paranoia is the wacky post-apocalyptic gaming, with an option for a more campaign-friendly set of rules. Gamma World with the 4e system sounds great, but I'll be disappointed if it's designed to be (and thusly pigeonholed as) wacky.
Well to be true to the original TSR edition they would have to put killer bunnies with shot guns as a creature. It was a wacky game to start with...
Well, probably because Gamma World pre-dates Paranoia by about six years, and except for the last edition or two, was always a whacky post-apocalyptic game.
Well to be true to the original TSR edition they would have to put killer bunnies with shot guns as a creature. It was a wacky game to start with...
I respectfully disagree. I played the first two editions of Gamma World, and while some of the art might have been wacky, and a GM could portray hoops (the mutated rabbits shown above) however she wanted, there was nothing wacky about deadly radiation, killer robots, or murderous cryptic alliances. I still own The Legion of Gold, the first adventure written for Gamma World by Gary Gygax, and it's down right serious.
But Gamma World could certainly be used for wackiness, if that's what a DM wanted. My personal feeling is that most new gamers today have their experiences of post-apocalyptic settings shaped by books and video games. Most such settings are gritty over wacky, and I'd keep that in mind when building the next Gamma World. It would be a mistake to pigeonhole the game as wacky.
As to the collectible card thing - We playtested Gamma World at D&D XP with Rich running, and we only had a DM deck - all the card based mutations were random from his deck. So with no player decks, we had a blast and I think people will be able to enjoy playing the game without touching the collectible card aspect if that's how they feel. If you want to get your hands on a couple more mutations, grab a booster and add them to the DM deck or put together a player deck.
Hopefully when we get closer to release people will get a better idea of how these cards work and we'll all be able to make more informed decisions, but until then - The version I we played was rediculously fun. Looking forward to the relese.
As to the collectible card thing - We playtested Gamma World at D&D XP with Rich running, and we only had a DM deck - all the card based mutations were random from his deck. So with no player decks, we had a blast and I think people will be able to enjoy playing the game without touching the collectible card aspect if that's how they feel. If you want to get your hands on a couple more mutations, grab a booster and add them to the DM deck or put together a player deck.
Now I'm worried. I had originally gotten the idea that the booster packs were fixed. Sort of like how Martial Power Fighter Power Cards is an "expansion" pack to Player's Handbook Fighter Power Cards. Now the words "collectible" has me thinking that these will be exactly the kind of product people feared 4e power cards would be.
I don't mean to go doomcrying, but if WotC is willing to try this with Gamma World, will they try and do the same with D&D?
As to the collectible card thing - We playtested Gamma World at D&D XP with Rich running, and we only had a DM deck - all the card based mutations were random from his deck. So with no player decks, we had a blast and I think people will be able to enjoy playing the game without touching the collectible card aspect if that's how they feel. If you want to get your hands on a couple more mutations, grab a booster and add them to the DM deck or put together a player deck.
Now I'm worried. I had originally gotten the idea that the booster packs were fixed. Sort of like how Martial Power Fighter Power Cards is an "expansion" pack to Player's Handbook Fighter Power Cards. Now the words "collectible" has me thinking that these will be exactly the kind of product people feared 4e power cards would be.
I don't mean to go doomcrying, but if WotC is willing to try this with Gamma World, will they try and do the same with D&D?
If we let them get away with it with Gamma World, then yes. They will try it with every product they have. Our best bet is to speak out. With letters and e-mail (to every WotC and Hasbro person we can find addresses for), and with our money by not buying it. I personally will also be boycotting any event they plan to bring it to.
The CCGRPG has to die now, or it will infect all our other favorite rpgs. Remember, not only will WotC spread it to other games if it works for them; but other companies will try to copy any successful moneymaking strategy. A successful Gamma World CCGRPG today will lead to Pathfinder, World of Darkness, and True20 CCGRPGs in the future.
As to the collectible card thing - We playtested Gamma World at D&D XP with Rich running, and we only had a DM deck - all the card based mutations were random from his deck. So with no player decks, we had a blast and I think people will be able to enjoy playing the game without touching the collectible card aspect if that's how they feel. If you want to get your hands on a couple more mutations, grab a booster and add them to the DM deck or put together a player deck.
Now I'm worried. I had originally gotten the idea that the booster packs were fixed. Sort of like how Martial Power Fighter Power Cards is an "expansion" pack to Player's Handbook Fighter Power Cards. Now the words "collectible" has me thinking that these will be exactly the kind of product people feared 4e power cards would be.
I don't mean to go doomcrying, but if WotC is willing to try this with Gamma World, will they try and do the same with D&D?
If we let them get away with it with Gamma World, then yes. They will try it with every product they have. Our best bet is to speak out. With letters and e-mail (to every WotC and Hasbro person we can find addresses for), and with our money by not buying it. I personally will also be boycotting any event they plan to bring it to.
The CCGRPG has to die now, or it will infect all our other favorite rpgs. Remember, not only will WotC spread it to other games if it works for them; but other companies will try to copy any successful moneymaking strategy. A successful Gamma World CCGRPG today will lead to Pathfinder, World of Darkness, and True20 CCGRPGs in the future.
Anyone up for a game of Munchkin?
Why does it need to be labeled as wacky? Doesn't that limit who will buy it? Paranoia is the wacky post-apocalyptic gaming, with an option for a more campaign-friendly set of rules. Gamma World with the 4e system sounds great, but I'll be disappointed if it's designed to be (and thusly pigeonholed as) wacky.
I agree.
I hope the powers are listening.
Make the GM section explain how to play serious OR wacky.
Just makes sense.
We already did speak out against this, with the D&D Heroes minis. They didn't do as well as WotC hoped, and have been dropped. One of the main selling points with those was the power cards, after all. And those were nonrandom. I guess they think random boosters will do better somehow. Yeah... guess again, WotC.
I don't think the power cards were ever supposed to be the major selling point of the PHH minis. The MAIN feature was undoubtedly the minis themselves, with the power cards never meant as anything but bonus material. I seriously doubt that the "exclusive" power cards played any role in the product lines demise.
White Wolf and Alternity didn't quite recapture the "wild and wahoo" spirit of the original setting. I'm generally not a fan of random character generation, but Gamma World's mutation system is one of my few exceptions to that rule. When White Wolf gave up the liscense a few years back, I was even tempted to approach Wizards of the Coast about another potential resurrection for the game.
In response to the people who complain that the game is being billed as "wacky" I think it's time to look back over the introduction to the last few editions. For better or worse, that has basically been Gamma World's reputation for decades now.
Originally these were achieved through a long series of d100 tables, and while that works for a game that is sold as a "complete experience" it makes introducing new powers and equipment cumbersome, especially if you expect there to be more than one supplement or expansion. With a card system, the designers do not have to generate a new table or system for each combination of supplements.
Also, as far as complaints about the card system, how else do you propose implementing the randomly generated mutations and "baubles and curiousities" that have always been a distinct feature of Gamma World?
Originally these were achieved through a long series of d100 tables, and while that works for a game that is sold as a "complete experience" it makes introducing new powers and equipment cumbersome, especially if you expect there to be more than one supplement or expansion. With a card system, the designers do not have to generate a new table or system for each combination of supplements.
It isn't the cards themselves that are the problem -- it is the randomized booster packs of collectible cards. Those of us who are not Magic fans would be quite happy if the booster packs were NOT randomized but organized along specific and reasonably predictable themes -- then anyone who wanted a complete set of all known available powers could spend a known amount of money on a known amount of items and get them all. I would have no problem with then taking all of those cards and shuffling them together and choosing mutations by drawing from that deck.
Was there evidence of collectible random distribution in a random podcast? Because none of the released information has indicated that's their intention. In fact, there were even several developper comments that seemed to specifically contradict that rumor.
I think you may be right. That rumor is all over various D&D related message boards, but the reference I found to booster packs said nothing about them being randomized -- so I may be getting my wish of having the entire product line available for a known price.
Pen & paper RPGs has never been a collector's game; and attempting to make it so will (imo) be the death of whatever line they do it to. It may work at first; but people who chose not play collectible card games will also opt out of RPGs that include their use. Everyone I personaly know who is not into CCGs as their primary hobby shares this opinion.
From the looks of it there will be 2 additional box sets with more mutations in them. I'll lay odds that the decks are just there for the novelty of randomization. No more rolls, it would be hilarious in convention/tournament play.
I personally hope so. I would love a post-apoc 4e game that I could use to houserule a 4e version of MWWG. And the few posts I've seen about GW of ages past being wacky, makes me think this might be even more doable. As long as the cards aren't collectible or randomized, I'll at least buy the core books for it.
...As to the collectible card thing...
Honestly that's not my only concern with the game. "At the beginning of your day/after a long rest - everyone draws a card to see what they've got." So it seems like mutants aren't stable instead they draw their powers each day. Combined with the comment "not really made for long-term play." It suggests to me that it is more meant as a quick party game than something to run a campaign in.
Since this isn't a competitive "deck building" game, there isn't the same incentive to purchase a random "booster pack" product. D&D Miniature packets are one of the few randomized RPG products that sell, but the collectible aspect of the D&D miniatures better reflects their quality as toys as it rarely affects a GM's actual choice of monster. Creating uncertainty and variability in the value of an RPG supplement would probably decrease the percieved value of the product and make most groups wary to make use of them. At best, selling the cards randomly would be like randomizing the content that each person receives from their DDI subscription articles.
Instead I can see it as a "must have" product if the extra card packs are certain, and players share the same deck. Then such as product would be easily viewed like any supplement that expands the options of the player characters.
Can you provide us with more links to what you're referencing, dulsi? I'd like to find out more about this "daily draw" system. Perhaps it's only implemented in the early stages to test a vast combination of powers. It would be more efficient than forcing someone to play hundreds of randomly generated characters.
Can you provide us with more links to what you're referencing, dulsi? I'd like to find out more about this "daily draw" system. Perhaps it's only implemented in the early stages to test a vast combination of powers. It would be more efficient than forcing someone to play hundreds of randomly generated characters.
Couple posts back has the link but here it is again.
@WolfStar76 from Twitter posted the following notes about Gamma World at docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AY_-lC9BZosWZ...
Loved playing Gama World back in the day, but the best all time post apocalyptic game was Aftermath but it did have a bit funky system.
Storm
...
As to the cards themselves, a booster pack will give players and DMs more options, not necessarily better options. I personally love more options, and having them in card form to draw from a deck during combat had an awesome visceral feel. The random card model I can live with, especially since this isn’t a game that lends itself easily to power gaming. You are encouraged to randomly roll up a character’s stats and base mutations, and you get random power draws during combat. You can definitely build to be uber powerful and tweak everything to your advantage, but again, it just doesn’t seem like that kind of game to me.
In the end, if you’re worried about the impact to your wallet or have some kind of deep hatred of collectible cards (damn you baseball cards for ruining everything!) – I would very strongly point out that you don’t need to pick up the random boosters to make a good, fun character in Gamma World. Those of us who want them, will buy them. Those of us who don’t, won’t. But with all that said, I would ask that we all just wait for final judgments until the game is out and we’ve had a chance to run through it or at least looked at it. Heck, I’ve played it and I still don’t know everything about the inner workings and complexities of the game.
Seems pretty clear to me that at the moment they intend to do random booster packs. That doesn't mean it won't change before release of course.
Seems pretty clear to me that at the moment they intend to do random booster packs. That doesn't mean it won't change before release of course.
At this point its wait and see. The comments "may" have been made as a marketing attempt to "test the waters" in regards to RPG+Random booster packs.
Agreed. The inclusion of random packs will cause me to boycott the game. Which is sad. Because I love 4e, and I love post-apocalyptic sci-fi. When I heard Gamma World I REALLY got my hopes up. Then I saw the randomized packs idea, and I got to tell you, my heart sank. I just won't buy the game if it sticks to that release model.
Hopefully, we'll all be able to look back on this one day. While playing a GW free of collectible random booster packs.
In fact, a better way to show WotC your distain is to buy the core box and then get none of the boosters. They'll see that the core books sell more than random cards.
In fact, a better way to show WotC your distain is to buy the core box and then get none of the boosters. They'll see that the core books sell more than random cards.
You may well be right about that. I imagine that the profit margin is infinitely higher for the boosters than it would be for the books; and that they're counting on booster sales to make up the largest part of that line's profit. If enough people boycott only the cards, their production and marketing costs will eventually outrun the profits earned from those who succumb to collectible randomness (Which is, I believe, the zeroth level of hell in Dante's inferno).
I hope the D&D monsters can be "pull over and used" in Gamma World.
If they put the info on the cards in the builder it will be a moot point anyway since everyone will just make complete bootleg sets out of index cards.
docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AY_-lC9BZosWZ...
- Q: Will Gamma World see DDI / Character Builder support?
- A: Chris Champagne: No plans right now, but it depends on what the community wants. Certainly not on the books for 2010.
- A: Rich: Gamma World will be simple enough that Character Builder support may not be needed "you guys" will likely have it broken down into Excel Spreadsheets in no time.
"This game expansion presents a menagerie of mutant creatures and a ready-to-play adventure. The monsters presented herein can also be pulled over and used in the Dungeons & Dragons Fantasy Roleplaying Game." - From Legion of Gold description.
I hope the D&D monsters can be "pull over and used" in Gamma World.
Since I got hooked on GammaWorld at DDXP (having never even heard of it before then), and since my notes are being bandied about, I guess I should chip in a little here.
Yes, you'll be able to port (4E) D&D monsters into GW, and you should similarly be pretty able to port GW monsters over to GW. In fact, Rich's "demo/sample" game featured a monster from the upcoming MM3.
I'm not going to hop into the debate on whether cards are a good thing or a bad thing - since I'm not familiar with other iterations of GW, it isn't my place to judge, but hopefully I can shed light on a few things I gleaned at the show.
I'm going to preface ALL of this with the disclaimer that GW is still a work in progress, AND my understanding of the details is pretty limited. So, take everything with a PINCH of salt instead of the standard grain. I may simply be wrong, or things may simply change before release. Such is life.
The following is ALL in my own words, I don't speak for WotC in any way. So, here's the "why" behind the cards as I understand it from Rich's point of view:
He wanted to re-create the feel of random power-generation that was table based, but still leave the system to be extensible. Instead of having pages and pages of tables that, once printed aren't easy to add to - by doing cards, more cards can be released over time.
Randomizing the cards (and including rarity levels - yes, this was asked and confirmed at one of the seminars, I thought it was in my notes somewhere, but I can't find it now*) was to replicate the randomness and to apply a balance factor. The strongest powers will be the hardest to get.
HOWEVER, it sounded like the powers in the boosters would be useful powers. The "bad" (Floppy Feet being the one he kept using as an example) powers are going to be in the DM deck. This is one of the points I'm the LEAST clear on, speculate freely as to how correct/wrong I am. I question myself, because I seem to recall him also stating that "bad" cards/powers exist in part because something like 33% of the powers you could get from other GW games were bad - so drawing a card that may be bad is his way of replicating that feel.
RE: Mutations
Without having ANY knowledge of what a character is like beyond first level, I don't know how many powers you get that are permanent, or how many are random/dynamic.
The characters in the demo game had powers (as well as resistances/vulnerabilities and other traits) that were based on their primary/secondary features. I played a Plant/Doppleganger - I had traits, and some powers (at-will and encounter) that were on my character sheet that were permanent results of "who" I was.
I also had a randomized Alpha Power that I drew off the deck. There are mechanics for when this power can/will change that were based on power consumption, taking rests - or even rolling a natural "1". I'll save the details because I don't know how much I'm really supposed to say, but in practice it was a lot of fun.
Hope that helps some of the speculation. I'm going to subscribe to this thread and see if I can't chip in a little more here and there, but again - all with the caveat (I can't state it enough) that I don't necessarily know the full/final details.
Overall Impression
Again, speaking as someone who, before DDXP had never even HEARD of Gamma World - I'm fairly hooked after playing the sample game.
In fact, I'm looking forward to the Worldwide D&D Game Day support for its launch, and even looking forward to snagging packs of cards to see what powers I get. I can easily get behind the idea of playing at a convention - or starting a fairly impromptu game with friends - and having everyone pick up a booster pack or two, and making random characters on the fly right there at the table.
The relatively quick setup and play intrigues me, especially when combined with the humor and oddities of the game. In the demo game we were getting beat-up pretty badly, but still grinning and chuckling through it all - which is perhaps what I liked best about the system.
Anyhow, that's my two cents. With hyper-inflation between now and the Gamma World future, it's probably worth less than nothing, but it's mine, and I'm happy to share it. ;)
[EDIT]
*- I found the reference - it's in my notes on the 2010 Product Overview Seminar.
So, here's the "why" behind the cards as I understand it from Rich's point of view:
He wanted to re-create the feel of random power-generation that was table based, but still leave the system to be extensible. Instead of having pages and pages of tables that, once printed aren't easy to add to - by doing cards, more cards can be released over time.
Randomizing the cards (and including rarity levels - yes, this was asked and confirmed at one of the seminars, I thought it was in my notes somewhere, but I can't find it now) was to replicate the randomness and to apply a balance factor. The strongest powers will be the hardest to get.
Hahahahahahahahahah!!!! Ok, so its the worst case scenario. I am officially boycotting. Rich, if you can read this, your idea is AWFUL! Balance? What balance. People with the money to throw around will simply go online and purchase singles of the more powerful mutations, and then come to the table with entire decks of rare cards. If there is some rule that forces people to play with a certain number of cards of each rarity level, the result will still be that people who have the money will be able to buy singles and control the nature of their deck, while people without won't be able to do so. That isn't balance. And why is that situation preferable to selling complete properly proportioned decks that have all of the powers inside them? Nothing about this model balances the game. What it does is give players with a real life monetary advantage a gaming advantage. What it does is force WotC customers to waste their money on multiple sets of the same cards in order to try and purchase a single copy of the gaming rules they are looking for. What it does is stop the game from being an experience in communal narrative, and transforms the game into a collectible card game. If this model of distribution isn't abandoned Gamma World isn't going to see a dime of my money.
Randomizing the cards (and including rarity levels - yes, this was asked and confirmed at one of the seminars, I thought it was in my notes somewhere, but I can't find it now*) was to replicate the randomness and to apply a balance factor. The strongest powers will be the hardest to get.
I can appreciate the intent, but I strongly feel that the powers being drawn randomly from a pile already accomplishes the feel without the need to turn Gamma Wold into a TCG. My character should get powers randomly, but as a player/customer I myself shouldn't. Expanding the game through booster packs is a great idea, but they should be fixed, not random. There certainly shouldn't be rarities, as that leads to a play experience that is overly dictated by ones wallet.
Randomizing the cards (and including rarity levels - yes, this was asked and confirmed at one of the seminars, I thought it was in my notes somewhere, but I can't find it now*) was to replicate the randomness and to apply a balance factor. The strongest powers will be the hardest to get.
I can appreciate the intent, but I strongly feel that the powers being drawn randomly from a pile already accomplishes the feel without the need to turn Gamma Wold into a TCG. My character should get powers randomly, but as a player/customer I myself shouldn't. Expanding the game through booster packs is a great idea, but they should be fixed, not random. There certainly shouldn't be rarities, as that leads to a play experience that is overly dictated by one wallet.
Exactly.
There certainly shouldn't be rarities, as that leads to a play experience that is overly dictated by one wallet.
Unless it's, ya know, a cooperative game not a tourney based competitive one. And even then there's a chance (probably a pretty good one) that all players draw from the same deck for powers. If that's the case then having that one rich guy who buys singles in your group gives everyone in the group the same chance of getting those "kewl powerz."
Randomizing the cards (and including rarity levels - yes, this was asked and confirmed at one of the seminars, I thought it was in my notes somewhere, but I can't find it now*) was to replicate the randomness and to apply a balance factor. The strongest powers will be the hardest to get.
I can appreciate the intent, but I strongly feel that the powers being drawn randomly from a pile already accomplishes the feel without the need to turn Gamma Wold into a TCG. My character should get powers randomly, but as a player/customer I myself shouldn't. Expanding the game through booster packs is a great idea, but they should be fixed, not random. There certainly shouldn't be rarities, as that leads to a play experience that is overly dictated by one wallet.
Exactly.
QFT.
If this is the model they're using, I will be boycotting the entire GW line (though I might pick up a used copy of the books or get them from the $5 clearance rack in a few years). Like Cyber-Dave, I am clearly part of the target audience for this genre of game (I purchased the d20 version of Macho Women With Guns; which is about as wacky and post-apoc as you can get); but my interest in GW is almost entirely killed by the addition of collectible cards in randomized boosters. I like the idea of cards as accessories to replace random tables. If the cards themselves were not collectible and didn't come in randomized boosters, I'd snap up the GW books and the full sets of the cards. Hopefully, it won't take long for WotC to realize blending CCGs and RPGs is a bad idea.
There certainly shouldn't be rarities, as that leads to a play experience that is overly dictated by one wallet.
Unless it's, ya know, a cooperative game not a tourney based competitive one. And even then there's a chance (probably a pretty good one) that all players draw from the same deck for powers. If that's the case then having that one rich guy who buys singles in your group gives everyone in the group the same chance of getting those "kewl powerz."
While this evens out the experience across any single group, the experience of each different group would still vary based entirely on the pooled financial resources of the players.
There certainly shouldn't be rarities, as that leads to a play experience that is overly dictated by one wallet.
Unless it's, ya know, a cooperative game not a tourney based competitive one. And even then there's a chance (probably a pretty good one) that all players draw from the same deck for powers. If that's the case then having that one rich guy who buys singles in your group gives everyone in the group the same chance of getting those "kewl powerz."
While this evens out the experience across any single group, the experience of each different group would still vary based entirely on the pooled financial resources of the players.
Isn't this how most games work anyway? If the group has enough dough to get more books/minis/gadgets/tech, they have a different (and in some ways better) play experience. This does nothing to change that dynamic. In a cooperative game, I see no reason why this is a deal breaker.
This is a deal breaker because it removes the price ceiling (when trying to purchase a specific set of expanded rules), and removes our ability to choose how we are going to shape our play experience when we purchase expansions of the base rule-set. In other words, it exacerbates the dichotomy of experience between those with and without money, and increases the quantity of money that needs to be spend in order to enjoy a complete play experience.
There is still a ceiling, it may not be an acceptable ceiling to you, but it is a ceiling. If your complaint is about the price point of purchasing an entire rule set (not just the amount you need to play), then that's your opinion. My opinion is that your opinion seems like complaining that the entire amount of rulebooks that will be released for 4e is not yet finite and it is very expensive to collect all of them, therefore you will not be buying any of them.
There is still a ceiling, it may not be an acceptable ceiling to you, but it is a ceiling. If your complaint is about the price point of purchasing an entire rule set (not just the amount you need to play), then that's your opinion. My opinion is that your opinion seems like complaining that the entire amount of rulebooks that will be released for 4e is not yet finite and it is very expensive to collect all of them, therefore you will not be buying any of them.
I could care less what your opinion of my opinion is. Fact is, I won't purchase a product unless I can choose what I am purchasing, and know what I am getting, in advance. Obviously I am not the only one who feels that way.
I don't have an issue that there is not a finate number of books that will be released for any game. I can choose whether or not I want to buy any single individual book, and I know what I will or will not purchase before I make that choice. I do have an issue when I don't know what the finate price I will have to pay for a desired piece of rules is, however. I want to know that I am going to pay 23 dollars for the content of Martial Power 2, not X dollars where X is a variable number based on luck. If you can not understand the difference, I don't know what to tell you.
...
As to the cards themselves, a booster pack will give players and DMs more options, not necessarily better options. I personally love more options, and having them in card form to draw from a deck during combat had an awesome visceral feel. The random card model I can live with, especially since this isn’t a game that lends itself easily to power gaming. You are encouraged to randomly roll up a character’s stats and base mutations, and you get random power draws during combat. You can definitely build to be uber powerful and tweak everything to your advantage, but again, it just doesn’t seem like that kind of game to me.
In the end, if you’re worried about the impact to your wallet or have some kind of deep hatred of collectible cards (damn you baseball cards for ruining everything!) – I would very strongly point out that you don’t need to pick up the random boosters to make a good, fun character in Gamma World. Those of us who want them, will buy them. Those of us who don’t, won’t. But with all that said, I would ask that we all just wait for final judgments until the game is out and we’ve had a chance to run through it or at least looked at it. Heck, I’ve played it and I still don’t know everything about the inner workings and complexities of the game.
I could care less what your opinion of my opinion is. Fact is, I won't purchase a product unless I can choose what I am purchasing, and know what I am getting, in advance. Obviously I am not the only one who feels that way.
Well, so far, you're in a very vocal minority, but that's just being picky.
I don't have an issue that there is not a finate number of books that will be released for any game. I can choose whether or not I want to buy any single individual book, and I know what I will or will not purchase before I make that choice. I do have an issue when I don't know what the finate price I will have to pay for a desired piece of rules is, however. I want to know that I am going to pay 23 dollars for the content of Martial Power 2, not X dollars where X is a variable number based on luck. If you can not understand the difference, I don't know what to tell you.
As with any collectible system, there will be an after-market. If you don't want to push your luck, the complete set of cards will be available for a very concrete price, I assure you. If you want every power/mutation in the game, it will probably cost you more than just the core rules and a couple boosters. Such is the nature of our hobby.
Hey guys. Help me understand this a bit. I view the cards as another add on that you don't need to play the game, so maybe that's my problem. Playing Gamma World without buying booster packs seems to be the same as playing D&D without ever getting a DDI subscription. Both of these things:
- Are not needed to play the game
- Are not needed to enjoy the game
- Cost extra money above and beyond the materials you NEED to play
- Include some kind of repeat purchase model
The biggest difference here of course is in the basic repeat purchase model. DDI has new content it publishes every month so you can purchase from one month to the next, or purchase a month's subscription when you hear about something you like. Gamma World has the random booster model, which allows you to buy a pack or two at a low price, most likely get something fun, and hopefully get something cool. If you're the kind of person that this appeals to, awesome, pick up a few packs and have fun cracking them and finding what you get. If it's not your bag, then don't ever pick up a booster. I know for me, it doesn't matter if Joe Bob in his other Gamma World game that I don't play in uses some neat mutations that I don't have. I'm not playing his game, and I may not have the same motivations for fun that he has.
On to some more hypotheticals. If player decks end up being seperate for each player, and there's no limit to the amount of rare vs not rare cards that you can put into it, I still feel this won't be a problem for the random booster model. Booster buying player buys some boosters, finds some rares he likes and finds others he doesn't. From the play through we had with Rich, this seems likely, as some mutant powers help with movement, some with tanking, some with damage, etc. So the player is focused on getting some kind of damage or attack mutations and shares the movement, defender, and all the other ones with his group, including rares that he's not interested in for his deck. Again, table wins. This is not a competitive game so I guess I'm confused by people thinking that the random card model changes that.
I also want to say that this isn't me trying to force my opinion down you throat. I'm just trying to put to voice (errr, word processor) this other side of the discussion. While other people are saying similar things, I wanted to lend my experience to what's out there . If you guys can explain to me how this is bad for people who don't want to buy the boosters - please continue to do so! I need to make sure that everyone else in the company is hearing what the different opinions are and how strongly people are behind them, and it will go over much better if I can actually quantify exactly what makes the boosters bad for the people who don't want to buy them.
One last thing! Assuming Gamma World comes out and has the random booster model, I hear a few people saying they're going to boycott the game entirely. If I can offer a different suggestion for how you can vote with your wallet: When GW comes out, if you love it but hate the boosters..... don't ever buy a booster. The base game will come with non-randomized power cards and the expansions might as well (not entirely sure on that last one, just a speculation). If we see that Gamma World is selling but the boosters aren't, I'm relatively certain we'd stop producing the boosters and focus on the boxed product.
On to some more hypotheticals. If player decks end up being seperate for each player, and there's no limit to the amount of rare vs not rare cards that you can put into it, I still feel this won't be a problem for the random booster model. Booster buying player buys some boosters, finds some rares he likes and finds others he doesn't. From the play through we had with Rich, this seems likely, as some mutant powers help with movement, some with tanking, some with damage, etc. So the player is focused on getting some kind of damage or attack mutations and shares the movement, defender, and all the other ones with his group, including rares that he's not interested in for his deck. Again, table wins. This is not a competitive game so I guess I'm confused by people thinking that the random card model changes that.
I also want to say that this isn't me trying to force my opinion down you throat. I'm just trying to put to voice (errr, word processor) this other side of the discussion. While other people are saying similar things, I wanted to lend my experience to what's out there . If you guys can explain to me how this is bad for people who don't want to buy the boosters - please continue to do so! I need to make sure that everyone else in the company is hearing what the different opinions are and how strongly people are behind them, and it will go over much better if I can actually quantify exactly what makes the boosters bad for the people who don't want to buy them.
One last thing! Assuming Gamma World comes out and has the random booster model, I hear a few people saying they're going to boycott the game entirely. If I can offer a different suggestion for how you can vote with your wallet: When GW comes out, if you love it but hate the boosters..... don't ever buy a booster. The base game will come with non-randomized power cards and the expansions might as well (not entirely sure on that last one, just a speculation). If we see that Gamma World is selling but the boosters aren't, I'm relatively certain we'd stop producing the boosters and focus on the boxed product.
All games are competitive. Not to say that you're competing against other players. This isn't necessarily so. In a cooperative game, everyone competes against whatever challenge is offered by the environment and the monsters against you. Those who have rarer (and thus presumably better) mutations will be more capable against these challenges. Those who don't will appear to be inferior. This is the same problem that existed pre 4e, where imbalanced classes led to some players trouncing monsters while others, in the same party, nearly died in the fight.
If each player has their own deck, which you yourself commented "seems likely", then the ability of a character to compete and survive in the world will be tied to the disposable income available to the person playing that character. This is a no-no. RPGs are the great equalizier. No character's ability to survive or thrive should be even partially influenced by the RL income of that character's player.
It comes down to business decisions at the company. WOTC is now a corporate entity and as such, it's #1 concern is profit (argue all you like, corporations exist to make money). This is a trial model intended to test the market and see whether or not this model can make money. The focus is on making a game that can make the most money i.e. make the most people happy.
Of course they want to make a fun game, of course they want to make us happy as gamers (in order to make money AND because I'm sure a number of people in the company have gamers at heart). Reality is that it is a corporation. Simple.
@trevor: The difference between DDi and this system is that you know what you are getting with DDi (assuming that they cards are randomized, with levels of rarity). DDi keeps you from having to purchase those books you think are too skimpy, overpriced, or somehow worthless to you. I'm not sure how randomized cards can do the same.
I don't know how much heat the people at the top are taking from Hasbro to make more money, but it is pretty obvious that there is some heat being applied (layoffs, boardgames, this, Essentials line). Gamma World is the test model and that's fine by me, but if it were a setting that I had invested alot into in the past, I would be upset as well. Do this to D&D (5th ed. or 4.5 or whatever) and you will lose my business. Scream all you want about me not having seen or played it, but the current information that I have leads me to say that I will buy the box in order to try it and never, ever will I purchase a booster. The only voice I have with a corporation is my wallet, take this as me waving it in the air so the corporation will take notice.
If each player has their own deck, which you yourself commented "seems likely", then the ability of a character to compete and survive in the world will be tied to the disposable income available to the person playing that character. This is a no-no. RPGs are the great equalizier. No character's ability to survive or thrive should be even partially influenced by the RL income of that character's player.
I still call this bogus.
It's like saying the rich kids get to be better in 4E, because they get more options, because they buy all the books. Why do they not share the books? Well, answer me why you can't share the cards?
No it's not. 4e is designed with a semblance of blance in mind. History has shown that the power creep in CCGs is massively greater than it is in splatbooks.
Wealth = success when it comes to collectible games. There is no way around that. Luck changes the equation, but eventually the lucky reach their budgetary limits. The rich can just afford to buy a whole case of the boosters to get every card. I had a friend who got his father into Mtg. His father used to buy 4 cases of each release so he could assemble the best possible deck. That is a prime example of how it works.
Edit: Oh, and btw. My friend's father didn't share the other cards he didn't use in his super-deck. He sold them online to recoup some of the cost of buying 4 cases.
One Last Time:
Can you answer me why you can't share the cards you do not use, whilst obviously you can share books?
I would really be interested in that, but you keep politely ignoring this rather important point.
I ignore it because the answer is obvious. I don't care what text size/color you use to ask the question.
I ignore it because the answer is obvious. I don't care what text size/color you use to ask the question.
So if it is obvious you can tell me. I see no problem there. Costs you less than ten seconds to type it in all likelihood.
Thing is: There is no reason you can't share the cards. None. Whatsoever.
You already know the answer. We all do.
People do not think and act with the interests of the group as their primary motivation.
It is not about whether or not card sharing is possible. It is about whether or not it will happen. People who go to their FLGS and buy boosters will try to trade or sell what they don't need/want for stuff that they do. Unless you and your frinds happen to be joined at the hip, you're not going to be there to say "hey, I could really use that" or "Bob has been looking for that one for a while". When people are on their own, they think only of their wants, their needs, and what benefits them.
Hey guys. Help me understand this a bit. I view the cards as another add on that you don't need to play the game, so maybe that's my problem. Playing Gamma World without buying booster packs seems to be the same as playing D&D without ever getting a DDI subscription. Both of these things:
- Are not needed to play the game
- Are not needed to enjoy the game
- Cost extra money above and beyond the materials you NEED to play
- Include some kind of repeat purchase model
The biggest difference here of course is in the basic repeat purchase model. DDI has new content it publishes every month so you can purchase from one month to the next, or purchase a month's subscription when you hear about something you like. Gamma World has the random booster model, which allows you to buy a pack or two at a low price, most likely get something fun, and hopefully get something cool. If you're the kind of person that this appeals to, awesome, pick up a few packs and have fun cracking them and finding what you get. If it's not your bag, then don't ever pick up a booster. I know for me, it doesn't matter if Joe Bob in his other Gamma World game that I don't play in uses some neat mutations that I don't have. I'm not playing his game, and I may not have the same motivations for fun that he has.
Here is the thing Trevor, you can say that people "don't need the booster packs to play" until you are blue in the face. Empirically you are of course correct. People do not need the booster packs to play the game. But here is the thing, a lot of us tend to be invested in the desire to be able to purchase a complete set of some aspect of the game's rules. We often subjectively feel that we do need particular splat rules in order to be able to enjoy the game. Which exact rules we subjectively feel that we need differs from person to person. One person might need the psionics rules. One person might need an intelligence based rogue. One person might just feel that they need a complete set of all the rules so that they have a full toolkit from which to build their setting. To us it doesn't matter that you don't need a specific rule to play. We want to be able to choose to purchase the rules we want to be able to purchase. We don't subjectively feel that we can enjoy the game if we can not do so. Randomized booster pack rule distribution stops us from being able to reasonably do so. The price ceiling of the rules we subjectively feel we need to enjoy the game disappears. How many booster packs will I need to effectively play an intelligence based rogue? How many booster packs will I need to purchase to own a complete set of the game's rules? What final price will I have to spend on the rules I want to own? If I try to buy the rules randomly the potential price is infinite. If I buy the rare cards online I reduce the potential price, but at the cost of also removing any hope of paying a reasonable price. I am not ok with that scenario in any shape or form. I want to be able to choose what I am going to buy, and know what I am going to get. If i can't do that with an RPG system I have no interest in purchasing that RPG system.
On to some more hypotheticals. If player decks end up being seperate for each player, and there's no limit to the amount of rare vs not rare cards that you can put into it, I still feel this won't be a problem for the random booster model. Booster buying player buys some boosters, finds some rares he likes and finds others he doesn't. From the play through we had with Rich, this seems likely, as some mutant powers help with movement, some with tanking, some with damage, etc. So the player is focused on getting some kind of damage or attack mutations and shares the movement, defender, and all the other ones with his group, including rares that he's not interested in for his deck. Again, table wins. This is not a competitive game so I guess I'm confused by people thinking that the random card model changes that.
Because that is not what is going to happen in many groups. What is going to happen in many groups is that the player with the money to do so will purchase individual cards, that fit their character concept, at vastly inflated prices. Or the player with the money to do so will purchase lots and lots of booster packs to get the cards they want, and then to make back some of the money they have spent they will sell off the cards they are not interested in. The only things that won't get shared are the cards that the player with money doesn't manage to sell off. Chances are, that isn't going to be the rare cards. The end result is that the player with money is likely to end up with the more powerful character. Its like telling rich players that they can play the spellcasters back in 3e, and the poor players that they all have to play non-spellcasters, or a spellcaster who can have the weak cast away spells that the rich player doesn't want. This is neither fair nor fun. Even assuming you get lucky enough to play with a rich altruistic player who doesn't do that, the rich player is still going to end up having much more ability to choose what he wants. The rich player is still going to end up with more options at their fingertips than the poor players. The rich player spent the money, so its only fair that he gets to take the first pick. Neither of these situations is fair or fun. I don't want to spend money on a game that plays that way.
I also want to say that this isn't me trying to force my opinion down you throat. I'm just trying to put to voice (errr, word processor) this other side of the discussion. While other people are saying similar things, I wanted to lend my experience to what's out there . If you guys can explain to me how this is bad for people who don't want to buy the boosters - please continue to do so! I need to make sure that everyone else in the company is hearing what the different opinions are and how strongly people are behind them, and it will go over much better if I can actually quantify exactly what makes the boosters bad for the people who don't want to buy them.
Well, I hope our posts have been of help. If you have any more questions please feel free to ask! I am certainly willing to take the time to answer them.
One last thing! Assuming Gamma World comes out and has the random booster model, I hear a few people saying they're going to boycott the game entirely. If I can offer a different suggestion for how you can vote with your wallet: When GW comes out, if you love it but hate the boosters..... don't ever buy a booster. The base game will come with non-randomized power cards and the expansions might as well (not entirely sure on that last one, just a speculation). If we see that Gamma World is selling but the boosters aren't, I'm relatively certain we'd stop producing the boosters and focus on the boxed product.
I am sorry, but no can do. If I do that I am sending the message that its ok that the game has a CCG aspect to it, I will just avoid the CCG aspect. I will still, however, be forced to play the game with players who might have more (or more realistically, considering my buying habits, less) ability to build effective characters due to their wallet size. I still will have to learn of rules I might really want to purchase (because the rules themselves interest me), but can only do so via unreasonable means (buying countless booster packs, or buying cards at inflated costs). Both those features are (to my subjectivity) like sores that I will constantly feel the need to scratch. I have no desire to purchase a game that will produce such cognitive sores.
If the CCG aspects of the game get dropped (but not the card mechanics. I think the card mechanics sound great! Its the randomized distribution that bothers me) I will 100% for sure give Gamma World a try. It is thematically right up my ally. But so long as the CCG aspects are part of the game, I won't purchase it.
If you guys release complete decks of cards, non randomized, and at reasonable prices, and then include sets of randomized cards as extra and optional booster sets (all of which are included in the non-randomized decks) I will purchase the game. But so long as the game includes rules that can only be purchased via randomized booster sets I won't be buying this game.
If each player has their own deck, which you yourself commented "seems likely", then the ability of a character to compete and survive in the world will be tied to the disposable income available to the person playing that character.
Just for clarification, when I said it "seems likely "I was referring to the statement that came directly previous to those lines, which was: "Booster buying player buys some boosters, finds some rares he likes and finds others he doesn't." I'm still unclear on if a player has a deck or if the whole player side has a deck. Sorry for the unintended confusion on that.
You already know the answer. We all do.
People do not think and act with the interests of the group as their primary motivation.
I'm not sure we're thinking of this the same way. Even if you run with the opinion that people will always do the most selfish thing, the idea that a player won't let another player at his own table use a powerful card that you're not using breaks down.
Example: I'm playing a striker character and I get a rare card in a booster that gives someone a taunt power once per encounter that makes it so a bad guy is highly incentivized to attack that character instead of other characters. However, even being purely selfish, I an incentivized to give this card to the player with the most tanky character at the table so he can, by using the randomized power card when it comes up, increase my characters chance of survival. Make sense?
Example 2: I am the player that is into buying boosters. I again am a strikery guy and I get two of the same rare that gives me a power that does a good amount of damage. Assuming there's a rule that says you can't have the same random mutation in a deck twice (again puuuure speculation on my part) you have no reason to keep that card. But if I give it to another strikery player at the table, the overall party has a chance of doing more damage/taking out an enemy faster/making it through an encounter without my character dieing.
So it seems to me that even if someone is playing these games and only worried about his/her enjoyment, sharing cards they're not using is to their best advantage.
Here is the thing Trevor, you can say that people "don't need the booster packs to play" until you are blue in the face. Empirically you are of course correct. People do not need the booster packs to play the game. But here is the thing, a lot of us tend to be invested in the desire to be able to purchase a complete set of some aspect of the game's rules. We often subjectively feel that we do need particular splat rules in order to be able to enjoy the game.
Now this I get. I'm often a completist in video games and I am the type of person that wants all my options. I've seen this particular opinion expressed in a few places and it definitely resonates with me.
Now, would it help if I said that the intention behind these cards isn't to buy a complete set? We didn't take a books worth of powers and cut them up into individuals cards. Everthing that comes in a player booster should be useful. We are definitely not running with the intention that you would have to collect them all (now I have pokemon in my head... great) to have a fun, useful, powerful character. The intention is that a player might buy a booster pack or two over your entire Gamma World play experience and have something fun/interesting to add to that play experience.
If you guys release complete decks of cards, non randomized, and at reasonable prices, and then include sets of randomized cards as extra and optional booster sets (all of which are included in the non-randomized decks) I will purchase the game. But so long as the game includes rules that can only be purchased via randomized booster sets I won't be buying this game.
If I remember correctly, there are two decks that come with the base game. I'm thinking of those as complete decks. I believe those are not randomized. So I think we're doing what you're asking for. Ah, nevermind, I see that you're saying that all cards should be included in the nonrandomized deck, and then you could buy a booster that would only have cards that you already have in your nonrandomized deck. How would that work exactly/why would people buy those boosters?
If I remember correctly, there are two decks that come with the base game. I'm thinking of those as complete decks. I believe those are not randomized.
This is why I'll buy the boxed set. If it works (as in its fun to play and there aren't huge holes due to not having certain cards), all well and good.
Ah, nevermind, I see that you're saying that all cards should be included in the nonrandomized deck, and then you could buy a booster that would only have cards that you already have in your nonrandomized deck. How would that work exactly/why would people buy those boosters?
The same way the power cards for D&D work (kind of). As additions that include a set of cards that are not randomized. As expansions to your nonrandomized deck. A power book (or mutations in this case) in card form. At least that is what I think he's saying and definitely what I'm saying. It's the randomization that is keeping me from fully supporting the idea.
It's like saying the rich kids get to be better in 4E, because they get more options, because they buy all the books. Why do they not share the books? Well, answer me why you can't share the cards?
There's also casual/pick-up/convention play, where the people at the table aren't close enough friends to do this.
It's also really hard to share cards if you want to get them back afterwards, as I know from playing M:tG with close friends. Either you create a communal pile of cards and hope you all stay friends for the duration of the system's life, or you create a database tracking which card is yours, or you Sharpie your name on them.
Hey guys. Help me understand this a bit.
I'm a bit biased because I'm not a DDI subscriber, but the difference is still great to my mind: A DDI subscription costs $71.40 a year. You may not know exactly what's going to be released that year, but whatever it is, you're going to get all of it. That includes unlimited use for yourself and your friends of all mechanical content, plus fluff. For the same price, you can get about 150 Gamma World cards that may or may not include anything you want, and even then may not have the quantity you want (if duplicates are allowed, which is probable). You probably don't need that many cards--but who knows? It's an unknown factor. If you want to create an all-rare player deck, then that's probably not even enough.
Second point is balance. I'm very confused that the D&D team seems to have a very strong concept of what balance is and why it's important, and the Gamma World team is clueless about this. When Player A uses his Neutronium Skin to walk into the middle of the bad guys without harm, Disintegrate the boss, then drop a Pocket Nuke to finish them all off, Player B looks at his Floppy Feet and Rusty Laser cards and just wants to go home.
Now, maybe Player A is rich enough to buy lots of boosters and share them with the others at the table, and if so, great. But more likely, Player A will have a concept in mind and will get the cards he wants via aftermarket or trading. He then has none to share, and the other players at the table will have to pony up if they want to have fun playing this game.
Or, a more minor example: Player A has just a little bit of money to burn, so he buys 3 packs. Of those 24 cards, 11 support a striker role, 7 support a defender role, 5 support a leader role, and 1 supports a controller role. So he chooses to play a striker. The other players are left with his leavings, and are thus less effective. Once again, Player A is the glory hound and the others are his flunkies.
Now, D&D isn't perfect this way. If the player with the druid can't afford Primal Power, but the fighter, the cleric, and the warlock all have their respective Power books, the druid is going to feel at a disadvantage. But there are no "rares" in D&D, so the druid player still has feats and powers that are at an appropriate power level, just not as much versatility. And they could switch to an invoker or wizard to use their friends' books.
I'm surprised by the fact that there are people out there supporting this horrible idea.
This entire thing makes me sad.
Anyway, since i know i can type here all day, explaining why i dislike the entire concept, and nobody that matters is going to listen.
I will just not buy it and hope enough people do the same. If this thing succeeds... well, i will loose some of my respect for humanity as a whole. But it is not like that matters either.
There is a D&D collectable miniatures game, but you don't need to use it to play D&D.
What I suspect might happen is this: in addition to reviving Gamma World as an RPG, Wizards might be coming out with a CCG that is an attempt to address the same market that is currently finding the World of Warcraft CCG popular, with its "loot cards" and other unusual characteristics.
I don't use smileys, but you can insert one in there on your own.
*looks at thread*
I'm surprised by the fact that there are people out there supporting this horrible idea.
This entire thing makes me sad.
Anyway, since i know i can type here all day, explaining why i dislike the entire concept, and nobody that matters is going to listen.
I will just not buy it and hope enough people do the same. If this thing succeeds... well, i will loose some of my respect for humanity as a whole. But it is not like that matters either.
Take another look at the thread. There is someone that matters that is listening. If I were you I would take the opportunity to tell him why you don't like the entire concept in a mature and non-confrontational way... it might actually get us somewhere.
However, in order to not be the only inmature dum-dum to stroll in, i will make a post that more clearly explains some of the many reasons i dislike this thing.
which will be planted on my next post on the thread.
Now, would it help if I said that the intention behind these cards isn't to buy a complete set? We didn't take a books worth of powers and cut them up into individuals cards. Everthing that comes in a player booster should be useful. We are definitely not running with the intention that you would have to collect them all (now I have pokemon in my head... great) to have a fun, useful, powerful character. The intention is that a player might buy a booster pack or two over your entire Gamma World play experience and have something fun/interesting to add to that play experience.
No. Intent is less important than result. Chances are I am still going to feel like I need a complete set, whatever the intent might be. Chances are I will learn about cards that have mechanics that interest me. Not necessarily because I want to play them, but because games and their design interest me. That is why I try and collect complete rulesets of games. For other players, chances are that there is still going to be a number of concepts that work well to represent a particular character concept, and they are still going to try and collect the deck that does so. Being unable to just buy what I want, being forced to deal with the logistics of a CCG model of distribution, is just too much of a turnoff for me to put up with a game that uses that model of distribution.
If I remember correctly, there are two decks that come with the base game. I'm thinking of those as complete decks. I believe those are not randomized. So I think we're doing what you're asking for. Ah, nevermind, I see that you're saying that all cards should be included in the nonrandomized deck, and then you could buy a booster that would only have cards that you already have in your nonrandomized deck. How would that work exactly/why would people buy those boosters?
It really depends on the model of the game. Since the plan is currently to use boosters, I am going to assume that it is ok to have more than one type of card in a deck (since people are likely to get many copies of the same card). Perhaps people will buy boosters just to get extra cards? I really don't know. I am the wrong person to ask. Like I said, boosters are a major turn off for me. I don't know why anyone would ever buy one. But you are right, it would certainly tone down the incentive to buy boosters if you could just buy a complete deck. But that is the whole point. I won't buy an RPG that includes any major incentive to buy boosters. They either have to be totally optional in a very major way (the way D&D miniatures are), so that I REALLY don't feel like I need them AT ALL (and then ironically I actually might pick up a few packs occasionally, the way I have picked up a few packs of miniatures), or I won't buy the game. Any game that makes me feel like I need to buy some sort of randomized booster packs of rules is going to be a game I am not going to buy, in any shape or form, ever.
You have to choose one, you can't have it both ways and make people happy. I like my TCGs to be TCGs and my Pen and Paper games to be Pen and Paper games. If i wanted to play with cards i would play one of the many TCGs available out there.
Being someone who plays both, RPGs and TCGs, i can clearly see where the line is drawn and how different both are. Not just in mechanics, but also in the mindset and what can be achieved.
RPGs of this kind are NOT competitive, the gm uses a set of rules to creates an interactive world for his players to inmmerse themselves into. The only reason additional rules are ever needed is because sometimes the rules are not flexible enough to allow for certain things to happen.
Additional rulebooks are created to compensate for a stiff corebook. Basically, they are errata of sorts. You don't need the Helix warrior from D20 future at all in order to create a hero who is physichally powerfull in d20 modern, but some people like the comfort of having official content that has been balanced before hand over homebrewing content that may unbalance the game.
Booster packs are created to frustrate players' efforts to gather what they need, forcing them to spend money on each pack for a modest chance to obtain that one card they want. It's sadistic and evil, but well fueled by the desire to beat their local badbutt player.
By it's design, TCGs are meant to be competitive. It's this desire to best someone else that pushes the sales of Randomized Card Packets (boosters). And the need to satisfy this desire creates product which is not blanaced but rare. An attempt to force players to purchase even larger amounts of boosters.
These are not optional. Tell a serious Magic the Gathering player that boosters are optional and he doesn't need to buy anything in order to enjoy the game and that same player will burst out in laughter. Sure, he can play magic with his preconstructed deck, but what is he going to do when another guy with a pimped out deck wants to play with him? loose terribly every single time?
Now, transfer these scenarios onto an RPG. what happens when the gm has a pimped out deck of doom for his NPCs and the PCs only have the preconstructed deck that came with their corebook?
Unlike a rulebook, where the gm can let his players read through the additional content and choose what they want (eliminating any obvious advantage on his side), the gm in this case can't let the players borrow the cards he is already using. The only option now is to get more cards. I'm guessing that is an advantage for Wizards, since more cards will be sold, but in my eye as a consumer...
A booster pack based TCG is a poor platform to rest a roleplaying game on. That's my conclusion as a fan of both, TCGs and Pen and Paper RPGs.
Couldn't they at least have the descency to call this thing Gamma World: The trading Card Game?
I'm going to speak out as probably the lone voice in favor of the randomized packs as a player option. Reason being, I like the idea of sitting down at a game day, rolling up a random character, buying a booster pack or two, and having nobody have a clue what's in the deck until you draw it. Even with something like a player deck or a DM deck, someone still knows the contents of that deck. The idea of having completely random play sounds entertaining to me, and I don't see where it would work outside of the current Gamma World game plan.
Because that's not roleplaying!!! That's playing a TCG. The fact that people have forgotten that Roleplaying is something very distinct from this... it makes me sad.
Please, consider the fact that roleplaying is not a bunch of random cards you will play with your buddies after work, it's the creation of a character, and a character is not a bunch of random things placed together.
Roleplaying is also the telling of a story, The Telling Of A Story. You can't tell a story with a bunch of random elements tacked together.
That being said, I agree that the mindset between those who want to tell an interactive story and those who want to play a CCG is different. As a storyteller, even if I randomize elements of the story I want to have a complete toolbox from which I can build the random elements and the fixed elements. I don't want my world building toolbox to be randomized at the purchase end of things, thus not only resulting in a random experience at the game table, but a random experience in terms of what I can and can not tell as a story due to the limit of what mechanics I do or do not possess. What I do or do not/can and can not posses on the purchase end of things is something I need to be fixed for me to consider purchasing a game.
I'm going to speak out as probably the lone voice in favor of the randomized packs as a player option. Reason being, I like the idea of sitting down at a game day, rolling up a random character, buying a booster pack or two, and having nobody have a clue what's in the deck until you draw it. Even with something like a player deck or a DM deck, someone still knows the contents of that deck. The idea of having completely random play sounds entertaining to me, and I don't see where it would work outside of the current Gamma World game plan.
Because that's not roleplaying!!! That's playing a TCG. The fact that people have forgotten that Roleplaying is something very distinct from this... it makes me sad.
Please, consider the fact that roleplaying is not a bunch of random cards you will play with your buddies after work, it's the creation of a character, and a character is not a bunch of random things placed together.
Roleplaying is also the telling of a story, The Telling Of A Story. You can't tell a story with a bunch of random elements tacked together.
And what is it about a series of random effects that tarnishes the roleplaying experience? The campaign setting of Gamma World directly encourages the characters to respond to a series of sudden random mutations, which can be demonstrated just as well via cards from a deck as a roll on a chart. From my perspective, an inability to play the mechanical metagame *enhances* the role-playing aspect.
As I tell my anti-4e friends often, it's not the system that determines the roleplaying elements - it's the players.
Edit: Also, I don't need someone else to tell me what is/isn't fun and/or what is/isn't roleplaying. If this setup of system doesn't suit you, that's perfectly fine; nobody is making you play it or even use these mechanics if you want to play in Gamma World. Your dislike of the mechanics doesn't mean that my like of them makes me a bad roleplayer (and conversely, my like of them from the roleplaying perspective doesn't make you a bad roleplayer if you don't like them). This may come off as a little bitter from having yet another Edition Wars discussion today, but I don't see - and never have seen - what the problem is with having a variety of different gaming systems to choose from.
I'm going to speak out as probably the lone voice in favor of the randomized packs as a player option. Reason being, I like the idea of sitting down at a game day, rolling up a random character, buying a booster pack or two, and having nobody have a clue what's in the deck until you draw it. Even with something like a player deck or a DM deck, someone still knows the contents of that deck. The idea of having completely random play sounds entertaining to me, and I don't see where it would work outside of the current Gamma World game plan.
Well, you are not the only one. The idea of random mutations from booster decks really appeals to me.
In all fairness, you can improvise a story with a bunch of random elements you didn't have any control or power over. It is a fairly classic drama storytelling exercise.
That being said, I agree that the mindset between those who want to tell an interactive story and those who want to play a CCG is different. As a storyteller, even if I randomize elements of the story I want to have a complete toolbox from which I can build the random elements and the fixed elements. I don't want my world building toolbox to be randomized at the purchase end of things, thus not only resulting in a random experience at the game table, but a random experience in terms of what I can and can not tell as a story due to the limit of what mechanics I do or do not possess. What I do or do not/can and can not posses on the purchase end of things is something I need to be fixed for me to consider purchasing a game.
Yeah, pretty much that.
Stuff
Nothing wrong with the game, It's mechanics are probably solid and flavorful. It's not an RPG though.
That's the problem. to use your own example 4e was an RPG and got marketed as such, this is not an RPG but is being marketed as one.
Like i just said a couple of posts ago: Why can't they call it Gamma World: The TCG?
Littlest strawman
(Content Removed by ORC_Chaos)
-----------
Simple put: i'm just saying this doesn't appeal to me and why. In my eyes, it's a terrible idea as an RPG. as a TCG it's perfectly fine with me.
Stuff
Nothing wrong with the game, It's mechanics are probably solid and flavorful. It's not an RPG though.
That's the problem. to use your own example 4e was an RPG and got marketed as such, this is not an RPG but is being marketed as one.
Like i just said a couple of posts ago: Why can't they call it Gamma World: The TCG?
I guess that depends on how you define each of those terms, and what the final product looks like. I'm going to note that some of the thoughts below are based not only on my perception of gaming and our shared knowledge of the new Gamma World system, but also from accounts of people who were able to play the system in closed previews at DDXP, so my perception is also biased from the perspective of having heard about the game through the context of an adventure being played.
In my gaming world (which is entirely based upon my own perception and interpretation), I break down the concept of RPG as a "game where you play a developed role within a world". Characters have backstory, motives, and means to achieve their ends, and attempt to do so within a shared storytelling world developed by a DM. From what we know of Gamma World, it satisfies this: the first two are defined by the players, and the fourth is defined by the DM, just as in most RPGs, and the means to achieve the ends are albeit somewhat random and occasionally both present and not present through the card concept. The cards, even their random distribution, do not inherently invalidate the game as an RPG.
A TCG, on the other hand, has developed more of a competitive role in the own schema of gaming. Where the purpose of an RPG is inherently cooperative - the players and DM cooperate to tell an interactive story - the TCG is competitive, and the method of competition is defined by a deck of collectible or tradeable cards. To me, Gamma World does not fit: while the cards are certainly tradeable and may even be collectible, the competitive aspect of the game isn't present - it maintains the cooperative "interactive storytelling" atmosphere of an RPG.
Simple put: i'm just saying this doesn't appeal to me and why. In my eyes, it's a terrible idea as an RPG. as a TCG it's perfectly fine with me.
And this game and system not appealing to you is totally cool with me - as long as you don't disparage someone else's (read: my) play experience or enjoyment of an RPG by declaring that it isn't a roleplaying game just because you don't like the system.
It might be an RPG. It might be a CCG. It is, in my opinion, a CCRPG. Thing is, the CC part of it is a total turn of for me, in any shape and form. If I don't have control over what I am purchasing, and prior knowledge of what cost I will pay for what fixed set of rules, I am not making the purchase.
I guess that depends on how you define each of those terms, and what the final product looks like. I'm going to note that some of the thoughts below are based not only on my perception of gaming and our shared knowledge of the new Gamma World system, but also from accounts of people who were able to play the system in closed previews at DDXP, so my perception is also biased from the perspective of having heard about the game through the context of an adventure being played.
In my gaming world (which is entirely based upon my own perception and interpretation), I break down the concept of RPG as a "game where you play a developed role within a world". Characters have backstory, motives, and means to achieve their ends, and attempt to do so within a shared storytelling world developed by a DM. From what we know of Gamma World, it satisfies this: the first two are defined by the players, and the fourth is defined by the DM, just as in most RPGs, and the means to achieve the ends are albeit somewhat random and occasionally both present and not present through the card concept. The cards, even their random distribution, do not inherently invalidate the game as an RPG.
A TCG, on the other hand, has developed more of a competitive role in the own schema of gaming. Where the purpose of an RPG is inherently cooperative - the players and DM cooperate to tell an interactive story - the TCG is competitive, and the method of competition is defined by a deck of collectible or tradeable cards. To me, Gamma World does not fit: while the cards are certainly tradeable and may even be collectible, the competitive aspect of the game isn't present - it maintains the cooperative "interactive storytelling" atmosphere of an RPG.
First off, you have additional knowledge i donot have. That's an important point.
Second i agree with all of the other bolded stuff.
In my opinion, you seem to apply the concepts a little too broadly. To the point where they would apply to Yu-gi-oh. Nothing wrong with that, i guess. Just pointing out where our views primarily differ.
I would also like to note that if the competitive aspect is not going to be present, the entire thing may BOMB HARD for wizards. As the competitive aspect is the one thing that moves booster sales. Incompatible concepts and all that. I refer you to my earlier long-long post.
The idea of random mutation appeals to me. The mechanics of the deck and picking cards out of it appeals to me. The notion that the deck I play with will be aquired via randomized booster packs instead of a fixed deck that I chose to purchase, however, turns me off so badly that I won't end up buying this game.
Agreed. boosters where the primary focus of my initial pseudorant.
Trevor, you have my sympathies, and if you ever need playtesters or someone to pimp the game in Omaha, let me know. I'd love to do some advanced screenings in the local store, but worst comes to worse, I'll tear open a new box and a couple boosters on release day and start running some games for everyone to play.
Personally, I love the idea and I think it makes for a great way to constantly expand those elements of a game that tend to expand and let people decide how much they want to expand their own games.
For those people who have OCD and need to own every element of a game, I'm sorry. I'm OK with playing with what I have, be that a lot or a little.
For those people who can't share or know people who can't share, I'm even sorrier. I'd rather buy new battlemats (again) than stop loaning mine out. I'd rather lose cards at a convention than say "No, bring your own.", but that's just me. To me, half the fun of the game is bringing new people into the game.
I remember when Magic came out. I don't think any of us ever thought anyone would buy more than a starter deck and a couple boosters. I remember losing to the White Weenie Deck and using Wayne's account to post "Magic, the Blathering" to the usenet Magic forums. ( cd.textfiles.com/arcadebbs/TEXT/MAGBLATH... for the way way back machine.) The one thing I learned from those days is what actually happened was far beyond what any of us thought would happen.
I think that's why I want you to charge forward Trevor. I don't know what the end result of this mixture will be, but in my heart I think something really cool will come out if it. And I'd like to be there when that happens once again. I'd hate to think we missed the magic because people were afraid of it.
That is a concern that is acceptable.
With all due respect, and attempting to keep a civil tongue, you are not the arbiter of what is or is not an acceptable concern.
The fact that people on your side of the argument have constantly attempted to demean our concerns and label us as "anti-diversity" and attempting to "extort a publicly traded company" is proof that your side is guilty of the same "hyperbole" and "ignorant overreaction" that my side has been accused of.
As for your assertion that my group is "horrible" I can assure you that they are a biopsy of the current culture we live in. If my group is horrible, so is every other person you meet on the street every day of your life.
The fact that people on your side of the argument have constantly attempted to demean our concerns and label us as "anti-diversity" and attempting to "extort a publicly traded company" is proof that your side is guilty of the same "hyperbole" and "ignorant overreaction" that my side has been accused of.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. You've threated a boycott if the company expands it's product line to create what could be called a new type of game, a CCRPG. Am I missing something here?
Randomizing the cards (and including rarity levels - yes, this was asked and confirmed at one of the seminars, I thought it was in my notes somewhere, but I can't find it now*) was to replicate the randomness and to apply a balance factor. The strongest powers will be the hardest to get.
I can appreciate the intent, but I strongly feel that the powers being drawn randomly from a pile already accomplishes the feel without the need to turn Gamma Wold into a TCG. My character should get powers randomly, but as a player/customer I myself shouldn't. Expanding the game through booster packs is a great idea, but they should be fixed, not random. There certainly shouldn't be rarities, as that leads to a play experience that is overly dictated by one wallet.
Exactly.
Agree.
Intent good.
Execution bad.
Important point (of several) of 4ED is balance. Should keep that in Gamma World and other games. IMHO
Calling this a "new and magical moment?" Feels like the death of an era to me. If this in any way, shape, or form, bleeds into WotC's D&D brand, that will be the moment I abandon WotC for good and find new companies to purchase games from (or simply keep playing the old games I already own). Its bad enough the inclusion of a CC element is going to totally ruin a game that aught to perfectly capture me in its target audience (as a huge 4e fan, a huge sci-fi fan, and a huge post-apocalyptic sci-fi fan), if it bleeds into the rest of WotC's games it will be time for me to pack up and become a non-purchasing grognard.
Which is ok I guess. Everyone has to be a grognard sometime. Considering how active I have been in purchasing WotC products, though (I own the entire d20 Modern line, the entire Star Wars Saga line, a few books short of the entire 4e line, and 33 3e books) and TSR products before that (I own all of the AD&D 2e line except for the DM blue books), it is going to feel weird never purchasing a WotC product again... assuming, of course, this is a "new and magical moment" that actually marks a shift in the way WotC markets its D&D brand.
I am honestly hoping that WotC instead changes its marketing strategy with Gamma World (which means I will be able to purchase and enjoy it). Or, in the worst case scenario, that Gamma World fails horribly and WotC never tries to release a CC element to a RPG line ever again...
The fact that people on your side of the argument have constantly attempted to demean our concerns and label us as "anti-diversity" and attempting to "extort a publicly traded company" is proof that your side is guilty of the same "hyperbole" and "ignorant overreaction" that my side has been accused of.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. You've threated a boycott if the company expands it's product line to create what could be called a new type of game, a CCRPG. Am I missing something here?
Correct. We have "threatened" to boycott any product line that includes a CC element to it. If that is just Gamma World, then it is only Gamma World we will boycott. If it turns out to be other games as well, those other games will get boycotted as well. If it becomes a general change in the way WotC markets its RPGs, it will be a boycott of WotC in general.
The fact that people on your side of the argument have constantly attempted to demean our concerns and label us as "anti-diversity" and attempting to "extort a publicly traded company" is proof that your side is guilty of the same "hyperbole" and "ignorant overreaction" that my side has been accused of.
Please correct me if I'm wrong. You've threated a boycott if the company expands it's product line to create what could be called a new type of game, a CCRPG. Am I missing something here?
I have threatened nothing.
I have stated honestly that I will not buy an rpg that includes collectible rules elements, and that I'll not buy anything from that line. I have further expounded that I think collectible rules elements is a bad idea, and that I will do likewise with any other line that adds the collectible rules feature.
Stating a preference honestly, and clearly defining how that preference will affect one's purchase decisions is not threatening. It is consumer feedback. Most companies have to pay other companies to conduct surveys to get it, and it's an important part of market research so you can stop labelling my combined rights to free speech and to decide my own purchases as threats and intimidation.
Important point (of several) of 4ED is balance. Should keep that in Gamma World and other games. IMHO
We don't even know any of the powers, or how the mutations will work, or anything. All we know is that there will be mutation cards that we will be able to pick up in booster packs.
I just don't see the logical llink between booster packs and imbalance.
(Note, I don't think that Strand0 is saying that the booster packs will automagically result in an imbalanced game.)
Ok... each their own I guess.
It has been leaked that booster packs will have a rarity system. It has been leaked that more rare cards will be more powerful. Couple that with randomized booster rules distribution, and you honestly don't see imbalance?
Ok... each their own I guess.
Really, there is not that much difference between that idea, and someone with only the core three books making a character of the same class as someone with all of the books.
Note that I am not trying to dismiss your arguments or say that they are invalid. I understand your arguments and desire to not haver a CCG-type mechanic in an RPG. I just don't agree with you that it is a big concern.
As a consumer, it is your right to decide, with your wallet, whether you want to buy something or not. How you make that decision is also up to you.
Really, there is not that much difference between that idea, and someone with only the core three books making a character of the same class as someone with all of the books.
Note that I am not trying to dismiss your arguments or say that they are invalid. I understand your arguments and desire to not haver a CCG-type mechanic in an RPG. I just don't agree with you that it is a big concern.
As a consumer, it is your right to decide, with your wallet, whether you want to buy something or not. How you make that decision is also up to you.
As someone who used to play MtG, played 3.0 & 3.5, and now plays 4e, I can honestly say that power creep is much more explosive in rare cards than it is in splatbooks.
Really, there is not that much difference between that idea, and someone with only the core three books making a character of the same class as someone with all of the books.
Note that I am not trying to dismiss your arguments or say that they are invalid. I understand your arguments and desire to not haver a CCG-type mechanic in an RPG. I just don't agree with you that it is a big concern.
As a consumer, it is your right to decide, with your wallet, whether you want to buy something or not. How you make that decision is also up to you.
As someone who used to play MtG, played 3.0 & 3.5, and now plays 4e, I can honestly say that power creep is much more explosive in rare cards than it is in splatbooks.
I understand that. However, the people who will be designing the mutations in the booster packs are the same people that designed 4E. They will (hopefully) be aware of the consequences of the cards and keep the power imbalance between the common mutations and the ultra-rare mutations to a minimum.
Really, there is not that much difference between that idea, and someone with only the core three books making a character of the same class as someone with all of the books.
Tell me, what do you think would be the difference in cost between buying all of the 4e splat books, and trying to get all of the 4e splat book material in randomized CCG format? Keeping that in mind, do you honestly not see a difference? Not to mention, the goal with 4e has been to try and keep all powers of the same level at about the same power. But it seems that their intent with Gamma World is to make the more rare cards more powerful...
Note that I am not trying to dismiss your arguments or say that they are invalid. I understand your arguments and desire to not haver a CCG-type mechanic in an RPG. I just don't agree with you that it is a big concern.
As a consumer, it is your right to decide, with your wallet, whether you want to buy something or not. How you make that decision is also up to you.
Fair is fair. We can of course agree to disagree. I have no desire to troll anyone, or be uncivil. Will sort of suck for me if this is the direction WotC decides to take, but if they are ok with loosing the customers they are going to loose if they take their RPG products in this direction, and they think they will make more profit despite the customers they are going to loose, that is a decision they need to make. I certainly won't hold it against them for trying to make money. I certainly won't support them (with my wallet) in this decision either, though.
At least there is a plethora of 4e D&D books on the horizon that I really want to buy!
I'll just copy pasta the better ways they could have done this without the need of CCs. From the other thread in GD
Show
Ya'll for the sake of trying to keep the page count down I'm gonna start sblockin posts. Hope you guys don't mind.ShowA question (or more like a line of thought) directly mainly at the Captain:
It seems you want GW to be a game with the same level of balance as 4E, IE, a tonne. From what I hear though, GW has always had a great deal of randomness. It seems they are trying to reproduce this randomness in this edition of GW.
If we want balance in the system, a 4E level of balance, then we have some tough choices to make. We can make every single random mutation identical in power. But then how to we balance pyrokenisis with, say, horns? I can see different power levels of mutation being represented with the At-Will, Encounter, Daily system (A weak fire attack is At-Will, a strong one Encounter), but doesn't it still limit our choices of premutations (hehe) of mutations? And will we have to remove the more "flavourful" but less useful mutations, since they are not as powerful?
We could make it that you don't randomize mutations. You get X of your choices. But then doesn't that remove some of the feel of GW? As well, won't that make it easier to CharOp, since those mutations found to be very powerful can simply be chosen all the time? And doesn't this again mean that no one will every use the "flavourful" but less useful options because they don't increse your effectivness as much?
What I'm getting at is: Should we remove the flavour and feel of GW to satisfy a need for balance? I love balance. I am thankful for the strides that 4E has made in balancing D&D. But I personally don't think I'd be interested in a GW game where it has been mor eor less reduced to a game that pays lipservice to its predecesors. How far can we go to the side of balance yet keep the wackiness? How much does it really imbalance the game to run like it used to, or similar?
Really, there is not that much difference between that idea, and someone with only the core three books making a character of the same class as someone with all of the books.
Note that I am not trying to dismiss your arguments or say that they are invalid. I understand your arguments and desire to not haver a CCG-type mechanic in an RPG. I just don't agree with you that it is a big concern.
As a consumer, it is your right to decide, with your wallet, whether you want to buy something or not. How you make that decision is also up to you.
As someone who used to play MtG, played 3.0 & 3.5, and now plays 4e, I can honestly say that power creep is much more explosive in rare cards than it is in splatbooks.
I understand that. However, the people who will be designing the mutations in the booster packs are the same people that designed 4E. They will (hopefully) be aware of the consequences of the cards and keep the power imbalance between the common mutations and the ultra-rare mutations to a minimum.
That is a good point and it is the only consolation I can find among what i vew to be a really bad idea.
Also, thanks for being civil enough to respect that we can have our own concerns and opinions without being fascists or extortionists. I know it should go without saying, but it doesn't seem to anymore. So thanks for the respectful tone.
Really, there is not that much difference between that idea, and someone with only the core three books making a character of the same class as someone with all of the books.
Tell me, what do you think would be the difference in cost between buying all of the 4e splat books, and trying to get all of the 4e splat book material in randomized CCG format? Keeping that in mind, do you honestly not see a difference?
You are talking a very big difference in scale here. We are not talking about putting all of the powers in 4E in a randomized booster format. The number of powers in 4E so far is orders of magnitude higher (I am guessing) that the number of mutations that we can reasonably expect to see present in GW. We also don't know how often the mutations will be able to be used. Based on the DDXP [pdcast, they appear to be looking at making them encounter-powers. (Note that I was dosing off on the bus when they were talking about this, so I may have mis-heard). How much will a booster pack cost? How many cards will be in a pack? How many cards will there be in a set? How many will be rare, etc? What will the power difference be?
For me, there are two things that prevent me from being overly concerned about this.
1 - We don't know nearly enough information for me to make any sort of judgement, one way or another, whether the idea of booster packs is bad or not.
2 - The idea of random mutations in battle fill me with such a large amount of giggle that I can't help but be excited.
Also, based on the podcast, I don't think, as I said above, that the mutatations will play a central part of a characters abilities.
Fair is fair. We can of course agree to disagree. I have no desire to troll anyone, or be uncivil. Will sort of suck for me if this is the direction WotC decides to take, but if they are ok with loosing the customers they are going to loose if they take their RPG products in this direction, and they think they will make more profit despite the customers they are going to loose, that is a decision they need to make. I certainly won't hold it against them for trying to make money. I certainly won't support them (with my wallet) in this decision, however.
At least there is a plethora of 4e D&D books on the horizon that I really want to buy!
I don't think that WotC will be taking all of their RPG products in this direction. This randomized mechanic, combined with the randomized way that you make your characters (this is revealed in the DDXP podcast) indicate to me that they are deliberately going with, for GW and only for GW, different direction. Given that 4E (as well as the various Campaign Settings) has, in character creations, greatly diminshed the amount of randomization, I think that it is highly unlikely that they will spread this mechanic to the rest of the 4E game.
Really, there is not that much difference between that idea, and someone with only the core three books making a character of the same class as someone with all of the books.
Note that I am not trying to dismiss your arguments or say that they are invalid. I understand your arguments and desire to not haver a CCG-type mechanic in an RPG. I just don't agree with you that it is a big concern.
As a consumer, it is your right to decide, with your wallet, whether you want to buy something or not. How you make that decision is also up to you.
As someone who used to play MtG, played 3.0 & 3.5, and now plays 4e, I can honestly say that power creep is much more explosive in rare cards than it is in splatbooks.
I understand that. However, the people who will be designing the mutations in the booster packs are the same people that designed 4E. They will (hopefully) be aware of the consequences of the cards and keep the power imbalance between the common mutations and the ultra-rare mutations to a minimum.
That is a good point and it is the only consolation I can find among what i vew to be a really bad idea.
Also, thanks for being civil enough to respect that we can have our own concerns and opinions without being fascists or extortionists. I know it should go without saying, but it doesn't seem to anymore. So thanks for the respectful tone.
Not to repeat myself, but, as consumers, we hold the ultimate power over a company. We hold the power to buy a companies products if we like them, and to not buy them if we don't like them. As I mentioned above, this randomized mechanic, combined with the character generation for GW, combined with the beer-and-pretzels feel of the game (for me) fills me with a great sense of amusement. As such, I will buy the game, and probably a bunch of booster packs. Not to get uber-powerful. But to be uber-amused.
At the same time, others are not and will not.
Neither opinion is right.
Neither opinion is wrong.1
No matter the position that you hold, the desire of another person to buy or not buy a game in no way diminishes the legitimacy of your position. The liking (or not) of a game is very subjective. We make our decisions based on our own personal quirks, biases and experiences. Discuss the like or dislike of a mechanic all youwant, but please, please, please avoid attributing to other posters any sort of motivation behind their opinion. That way lies only ORCage.
1 - Well, you are disagreeing with me, so you are a little bit wrong...
I remember when Magic came out. I don't think any of us ever thought anyone would buy more than a starter deck and a couple boosters. I remember losing to the White Weenie Deck and using Wayne's account to post "Magic, the Blathering" to the usenet Magic forums. ( cd.textfiles.com/arcadebbs/TEXT/MAGBLATH... for the way way back machine.) The one thing I learned from those days is what actually happened was far beyond what any of us thought would happen.
I think that's why I want you to charge forward Trevor. I don't know what the end result of this mixture will be, but in my heart I think something really cool will come out if it. And I'd like to be there when that happens once again. I'd hate to think we missed the magic because people were afraid of it.
This is precisely what worries me about Gamma World. As you said M:tG was originally designed with the idea that most players would just buy a starter deck plus one or two booster packs every few weeks. There are people that do indeed play that way, but there are also people who buy entire boxes, or even cases, of boosters. It's one thing for WotC to say that all you need is the boxed set and that boosters packs are just a way to tweak the core experience, but that may well have little baring on how the game is actually played once it is released.
I like the basic idea of decks being used to randomize the in-play game experience, but I don't want the pre-game set up aspect to be that way. To me randomized booster packs with rarity levels would be like if D&D was played using dice that were sold in random packs, with RARE dice that roll higher. Who wouldn't want the d20 with three 20s and no faces under 7?
I also want to say that this isn't me trying to force my opinion down you throat. I'm just trying to put to voice (errr, word processor) this other side of the discussion. While other people are saying similar things, I wanted to lend my experience to what's out there . If you guys can explain to me how this is bad for people who don't want to buy the boosters - please continue to do so! I need to make sure that everyone else in the company is hearing what the different opinions are and how strongly people are behind them, and it will go over much better if I can actually quantify exactly what makes the boosters bad for the people who don't want to buy them.
One last thing! Assuming Gamma World comes out and has the random booster model, I hear a few people saying they're going to boycott the game entirely. If I can offer a different suggestion for how you can vote with your wallet: When GW comes out, if you love it but hate the boosters... don't ever buy a booster. The base game will come with non-randomized power cards and the expansions might as well (not entirely sure on that last one, just a speculation). If we see that Gamma World is selling but the boosters aren't, I'm relatively certain we'd stop producing the boosters and focus on the boxed product.
Bad because it is not just whether one person chooses to Buy boosters or not. It is that if any Player buys boosters the GM also has to buy boosters. = Have you seen the seen the pressure from strangers on in this community when some DM says that he wants to exclude ONE race from his game.
Instead of random card sets. Just sell complete card expansions.
I think the idea is the game isn't advantaged by having more cards. It's possibly made more fun, because of more options. I doubt that these "rare" cards will be significantly better options than the "common" ones; they're probably just stranger options. It might also be that rarity will be related to usage – dailies more rare than encounters, encounters than at-wills, etc.
And we don't have to buy the boosters. I know all too well the impetus to buy 'em all! However, this is a case where more powers doesn't necessarily give me an advantage; though there seems to be an assumption that it does. It's not a competitive game, so we're not going to be competing for the best
"cards."
What I'm chiefly worried about is the difficulty in playing this online, when we have to draw random cards from pre-made decks. We couldn't really do this without an engine that knows all the different types of cards, and thus would be something like MtG:Online. We couldn't do this with MapTools or GameTable or something similar.
This is a little bit sad for me. I'm still going to buy the game though, because it sounds fun. And I'm not going to buy more than one or two packs of boosters, because I think that just that small amount will increase the variety, and I don't -need- to buy more. While I like to collect every D&D book, It's different with minis and MtG cards.
I don't think it's too much of a problem for me.
The reason is "That is not what people do."
Everyone whats to use their own stuff. If everyone is enjoying the game they want to own the stuff that they will play with. So? Well now two people will have to be shelling out money for random packs of cards. WHY random? Randon sells more because you can't get the whole set with a single purchase.
Don't forget that they tryed NON-random miniatures. Now they are not going to do that any more.
I plan to buy two parts of GW. But I wont be buying extra cards, unless I can get a set cheak of Ebay (or somewhere).
I'm going to speak out as probably the lone voice in favor of the randomized packs as a player option. Reason being, I like the idea of sitting down at a game day, rolling up a random character, buying a booster pack or two, and having nobody have a clue what's in the deck until you draw it. Even with something like a player deck or a DM deck, someone still knows the contents of that deck. The idea of having completely random play sounds entertaining to me, and I don't see where it would work outside of the current Gamma World game plan.
Why doesn't this work just as well with a Non-random collection of card?
I'm going to speak out as probably the lone voice in favor of the randomized packs as a player option. Reason being, I like the idea of sitting down at a game day, rolling up a random character, buying a booster pack or two, and having nobody have a clue what's in the deck until you draw it. Even with something like a player deck or a DM deck, someone still knows the contents of that deck. The idea of having completely random play sounds entertaining to me, and I don't see where it would work outside of the current Gamma World game plan.
Well, you are not the only one. The idea of random mutations from booster decks really appeals to me.
Same reason... or do you have a better one or two?
Why random instead of a single complete explansion set card?
The cards are a great idea for Gamma World, I'm pretty much sold.
Good idea for GW not so for D&D
Important point (of several) of 4ED is balance. Should keep that in Gamma World and other games. IMHO
We don't even know any of the powers, or how the mutations will work, or anything. All we know is that there will be mutation cards that we will be able to pick up in booster packs.
I just don't see the logical llink between booster packs and imbalance.
(Note, I don't think that Strand0 is saying that the booster packs will automagically result in an imbalanced game.)
It has already been said that the "better powers would be more rare". So yeah. As advertise it result in imbalance. Right?
Say, Flying is really great. But they don't print as many of those. Some games will not get acsess to that power.
Say, webbed fingers and toes for swimming is OK. But they print ten of those for every flying card. Gee, everyone in the in the campaign is going to have webbing.
The cards are a great idea for Gamma World, I'm pretty much sold.Good idea for GW not so for D&D
We're kind of having a arguement around here...
Can you give us a reason or two? Something thoughtful.
You didn't say anything about the random expansion packs. Do you have an opinion about that? Something thoughtful.
I'm going to speak out as probably the lone voice in favor of the randomized packs as a player option. Reason being, I like the idea of sitting down at a game day, rolling up a random character, buying a booster pack or two, and having nobody have a clue what's in the deck until you draw it. Even with something like a player deck or a DM deck, someone still knows the contents of that deck. The idea of having completely random play sounds entertaining to me, and I don't see where it would work outside of the current Gamma World game plan.
Why doesn't this work just as well with a Non-random collection of card?
Because with a non-random card collection, there's still a more significant element of being able to metagame the system. Take, for example, a regular deck of cards (which I have some experience with because a friend is developing a game system using a typical poker deck for its combat mechanics). Even though you do not know which card you are going to draw, you know that there are four aces, thirteen hearts, etc, and once you draw an ace, you know that there are now only three aces. While the random packs does have a certain set limit to it (e.g. it contains X cards from a certain set of Y with varying rarity levels), there is far less predictive ability, as though you took your standard deck of 52 cards, took out 15 random cards, and made that your deck. Now you know that you have somewhere between zero and four aces, and between zero and thirteen clubs; it's much harder to metagame a system when the possible results in the set are more varied and have exclusions, especially when that set had double-blinds in which neither the player nor DM knows what is in the deck.
And again, this is merely about a system that I think I would enjoy via its implementation of sudden, random, and novel mutations in a method as close to surprise as can be implemented in a system with a limit of options.
Show
I'm going to speak out as probably the lone voice in favor of the randomized packs as a player option. Reason being, I like the idea of sitting down at a game day, rolling up a random character, buying a booster pack or two, and having nobody have a clue what's in the deck until you draw it. Even with something like a player deck or a DM deck, someone still knows the contents of that deck. The idea of having completely random play sounds entertaining to me, and I don't see where it would work outside of the current Gamma World game plan.
Well, you are not the only one. The idea of random mutations from booster decks really appeals to me.
Same reason... or do you have a better one or two?
Why random instead of a single complete explansion set card?
Sci-Fi (To replace Star Wars Saga Edition)
Super Heroes
Zombie Apocalypse
Horror (Like WoD)
Mideival/Tech (Like Final Fantasy)
Low Magic/Historical-ish (Think 300)
BESM
EVIL D&D where the base characters are like Illithids and other wicked stuff and the classes are all really evil like Necromancers and stuff. It could be combined with D&D but its design direction would be a bit different and its definately not for all campaigns.
For me, it is all about the of the game. The impression that I get from hearing WotC talk about Gamma World is that it is not a "serious" game. It is a game that is aimed, for me at least, primarily at one-shots and fun times with your friends. The feel, the ambience of the game, for me, would be enhanced by just showing up with an unopened deck of booster cards and going from there.
Well, I personally would like to be able to run a serious campaign in it even if WotC says it isn't "serious". However, I don't see how random booster packs make it a better non serious game. Look at Munkin from Steve Jackson Games. GW could have a complete set of expansion cards and boosters that have random cards from that set. Alternatively they could have 20 or so booster pack sets labelled so that people could buy them all if they want or randomly pick them.
BTW I created a Gamma World group here if any didn't see that message a while back. It has a poll up about what you would like for the cards.
The cards are a great idea for Gamma World, I'm pretty much sold.Good idea for GW not so for D&D
We're kind of having a arguement around here...
Can you give us a reason or two? Something thoughtful.
You didn't say anything about the random expansion packs. Do you have an opinion about that? Something thoughtful.
It might be nice to have a gaming expense I can take to the FLGS with my tip money?
I've never actually approved of increased psychological response for erratic return instead of reliable return, but I know I've been slave to it on occasion. Seriously most behavioral studies say people would work harder if you flipped a coin every pay day to see they get their check or not.
But, the lure of variable reward could make a niche market like Gamma World into a success.
But I wouldn't want that variable reward in D&D, 'cause it's taken us a long time to get D&D to be reliable.
Important point (of several) of 4ED is balance. Should keep that in Gamma World and other games. IMHO
We don't even know any of the powers, or how the mutations will work, or anything. All we know is that there will be mutation cards that we will be able to pick up in booster packs.
I just don't see the logical llink between booster packs and imbalance.
(Note, I don't think that Strand0 is saying that the booster packs will automagically result in an imbalanced game.)
It has already been said that the "better powers would be more rare". So yeah. As advertise it result in imbalance. Right?
Say, Flying is really great. But they don't print as many of those. Some games will not get acsess to that power.
Say, webbed fingers and toes for swimming is OK. But they print ten of those for every flying card. Gee, everyone in the in the campaign is going to have webbing.
Firstly, I'm going to go ahead and operate under the presumption that many gaming groups are not like mine and that some have an aversion to sharing cards or are a little more competitive with each other (a concept that still baffles me in the context of an RPG, I admit). In this type of an environment, power creep should be a concern.
That being said, the PTB may have said that the "better powers would be more rare", but have they defined the context of that comparison? In other words, are the rare cards the more powerful in that specific booster set, or are they more powerful than any of the non-randomized core set? If the rares you can get in a booster are more powerful than any of the cards in the "core" set, then I can see a concern for power creep. If they are balanced, power-wise, against the "core" set of cards, what's the problem? If you don't buy the cards, you don't have as much variety (unless you make up your own cards or rules). That seems like the same as any RPG that I can think of.
My beef is this:
Magic packs sell for under $3.50 and include 15 cards. You don't need anything other than cards to play Magic.
Gamma World packs sell for $4.00 and include 8 cards. Thats more than TWICE the cost per card of Magic, and this is AFTER shelling out 40 bucks for the rules.
Further, Magic tournaments offer prizes, and a good player can recoup some of his expenses (or even turn a profit if he's REALLY good), whereas GW, as a cooperative game, doesn't even support the POSSIBILITY of such.
Drop the price to $1.50 a pack, and I'll be much happier.
Drop the price to $1.50 a pack, and I'll be much happier.
I don't think they can. They'll need the added booster income to make up for the people who would have bought GW if it didn't include the cards. The more niche your audience, the more they'll have to pay to make it profitable. That's one of the many reasons why I think the cards are a bad idea.
Gamma World packs sell for $4.00 and include 8 cards. Thats more than TWICE the cost per card of Magic, and this is AFTER shelling out 40 bucks for the rules.
How many people buy Magic Boosters?
How many people will buy Gamma World Boosters?
The more niche your audience, the more they'll have to pay to make it profitable.
Wow. We actually agreed on something.
Everyone get your raincoats. The apocalypse is nigh.Johndu Bois & Mudbunny. Thank you for your reasons.
Gamma World packs sell for $4.00 and include 8 cards. Thats more than TWICE the cost per card of Magic, and this is AFTER shelling out 40 bucks for the rules.
How many people buy Magic Boosters?
How many people will buy Gamma World Boosters?
Think some more about it.
Do you now see a difference in how they have to calculate the price?
I don't see the correlation. It isn't as though Wizards has to pay for all-new facilities to produce the cards- they can simply print them in the same factory where MTG cards are made, using the same cardstock and the same ink. If the expected player base is smaller, you print fewer cards.
Please, if you know more about this subject than I do, feel free to share. That's not sarcasm.
I don't think you need as many boosters for GW as you need to make a handful of quality decks. Namely because you aren't making quality decks.
Its only natural for people to want to have the good options though. Its only natural that gamers are going to want to build strongers characters or at least characters that have the abilities they want. WotC knows thins, and thats why they are capitalizing on peoples' competitive gaming nature by selling them random packs with the chance of getting something rare and more powerful.
If WotC didn't think people were going to powergame or optimize in Gamma World, they wouldn't be trying to bank on that very instinct through random packaging.
Optimize + Powergame >< Random Mutation + Random Loot/Equipment
Sounds as bad as watching someone try to use a Brutal 5 Dagger.
Optimize + Powergame >< Random Mutation + Random Loot/Equipment
Sounds as bad as watching someone try to use a Brutal 5 Dagger.
That would be a Brutal 3 dagger. ;)
But im not even talking about that kind of extreme cheese. Im talking about a player simply looking at the Ranger at-wills in the book and seeing that Twin Strike is clearly the best thing out there. With random packs, WotC is betting that people are going to keep spending money until they get that super rare GW version of Twin Strike. They know that players like to have the rare/powerful/awesome options, and they are pimping a format that juices the most out of it monetarily.
I don't see the correlation. It isn't as though Wizards has to pay for all-new facilities to produce the cards- they can simply print them in the same factory where MTG cards are made, using the same cardstock and the same ink. If the expected player base is smaller, you print fewer cards.
Please, if you know more about this subject than I do, feel free to share. That's not sarcasm.
Okay, I will try to explain my thoughts on the correlation.
Sure, WotC does not have to make new facilities (if they keep to standard format for the cards).
You actually hit the nail yourself: printing fewer cards. I am pretty sure that WotC does not own the card-"factories" and buying in bulk is always cheaper. Magic is cheaper because of any given card you print a few ten-thousand copies or a few-thousand. The price-tag for those cards is lower, because the bulk in which they produce is so much more enormous.
Now GW cards will be produced by the thousands at maximum, I'd say. A few thousand webbed toes, a few thousand horns, a few hundred Basilisk-Eye-Mutations. By virtue of producing less of each card, the prices will go up by a long shot.
It's the normal problem with printing. You order 10.000 copies? You pay 3$ per copy. You order 1.000 copies? You order 7$ per copy. Prices go up strongly if you print less.
That's why they will have to increase prices for GW boosters vs. Magic Boosters. The fanbase for magic is incredibly huge, even today, whilst the fanbase for GW will be tiny by comparison. A million people maybe? Probably a good chunk less.
I hope this illustrated the point I have.
As someone who works with the printing industry on a daily basis I concur with Leichenreiter's statements. I would also like to point out that random boosters are extremely wasteful. It not a very eco friendly business model. Gazillion common Magic (or any other CCG) cards get thrown away each day just after the boosters have been opened. Fixed «expension packs» like to ones published for D&D 4E are better in game terms and for the planet. In any case randomness in a game can be acheived through traditional means. Chez Geek and Munchkin by SJGames are the perfect exemple of that. They are in fact a very clever way of making money off the CCG trend. Alote of people who have stopped buying CCGs are playing these games. There is a lesson to learn in that...
Your right Magic is Huge. Hybridizing the systems can't be a bad idea.
So basically the Power in your daily "slot" is from the "Player deck" and it gets redrawn and changed on a regular basis.
And loots and mutations get handed down from the two "GM decks." They contain Good, bad and 'meh' cards.
Now a Player buying boosters will probably surrender GM cards to the GM and the GM buying boosters will probably surrender Player cards to the Players.
Makes me think "Class Deck" rather then boosters though...
Your right Magic is Huge. Hybridizing the systems can't be a bad idea.
So basically the Power in your daily "slot" is from the "Player deck" and it gets redrawn and changed on a regular basis.
And loots and mutations get handed down from the two "GM decks." They contain Good, bad and 'meh' cards.
Now a Player buying boosters will probably surrender GM cards to the GM and the GM buying boosters will probably surrender Player cards to the Players.
Makes me think "Class Deck" rather then boosters though...
Do we actually know the mechanical extent to which the mutation cards go? If they are the only way to use powers and abilities, then sure, you're metaphor makes sense. Either way, you are being sensationalist and more than likely overreacting.
Do we actually know the mechanical extent to which the mutation cards go?
We have vague reports from people who tried out the system, They are quoted below
If they are the only way to use powers and abilities, then sure, you're metaphor makes sense.
At-will and Encounter powers are pretty 4e like apparently.
Either way, you are being sensationalist and more than likely overreacting.
Attempting to comprehend the topic isn't very sensationalist. My reaction... Is to buy the game and invite people I can't rope into D&D games to try GW one shots.
It makes sense for the GM to have a separate Loot (Atomic Waffle Iron) and a Mutation (Flippers) Deck because players will be getting those at different times and makes sense for a Player to have a Power (You found a rock!) Deck.
The game is only as wacky or as serious as you make it. Yes there are people who are mutants with interesting features - some will look pig like, some will be plant like pigmies. How your DM and group play it is up to you however. The same light hearted tone that was in the first couple editions remains in these as well.
As to the collectible card thing - We playtested Gamma World at D&D XP with Rich running, and we only had a DM deck - all the card based mutations were random from his deck. So with no player decks, we had a blast and I think people will be able to enjoy playing the game without touching the collectible card aspect if that's how they feel. If you want to get your hands on a couple more mutations, grab a booster and add them to the DM deck or put together a player deck.
Hopefully when we get closer to release people will get a better idea of how these cards work and we'll all be able to make more informed decisions, but until then - The version I we played was rediculously fun. Looking forward to the relese.
RE: Cards
I'm not going to hop into the debate on whether cards are a good thing or a bad thing - since I'm not familiar with other iterations of GW, it isn't my place to judge, but hopefully I can shed light on a few things I gleaned at the show.
I'm going to preface ALL of this with the disclaimer that GW is still a work in progress, AND my understanding of the details is pretty limited. So, take everything with a PINCH of salt instead of the standard grain. I may simply be wrong, or things may simply change before release. Such is life.
So, here's the "why" behind the cards as I understand it from Rich's point of view:
He wanted to re-create the feel of random power-generation that was table based, but still leave the system to be extensible. Instead of having pages and pages of tables that, once printed aren't easy to add to - by doing cards, more cards can be released over time.
Randomizing the cards (and including rarity levels - yes, this was asked and confirmed at one of the seminars, I thought it was in my notes somewhere, but I can't find it now*) was to replicate the randomness and to apply a balance factor. The strongest powers will be the hardest to get.
HOWEVER, it sounded like the powers in the boosters would be useful powers. The "bad" (Floppy Feet being the one he kept using as an example) powers are going to be in the DM deck. This is one of the points I'm the LEAST clear on, speculate freely as to how correct/wrong I am. I question myself, because I seem to recall him also stating that "bad" cards/powers exist in part because something like 33% of the powers you could get from other GW games were bad - so drawing a card that may be bad is his way of replicating that feel.
RE: Mutations
Without having ANY knowledge of what a character is like beyond first level, I don't know how many powers you get that are permanent, or how many are random/dynamic.
The characters in the demo game had powers (as well as resistances/vulnerabilities and other traits) that were based on their primary/secondary features. I played a Plant/Doppleganger - I had traits, and some powers (at-will and encounter) that were on my character sheet that were permanent results of "who" I was.
I also had a randomized Alpha Power that I drew off the deck. There are mechanics for when this power can/will change that were based on power consumption, taking rests - or even rolling a natural "1". I'll save the details because I don't know how much I'm really supposed to say, but in practice it was a lot of fun.
Hope that helps some of the speculation. I'm going to subscribe to this thread and see if I can't chip in a little more here and there, but again - all with the caveat (I can't state it enough) that I don't necessarily know the full/final details.
Overall Impression
Again, speaking as someone who, before DDXP had never even HEARD of Gamma World - I'm fairly hooked after playing the sample game.
In fact, I'm looking forward to the Worldwide D&D Game Day support for its launch, and even looking forward to snagging packs of cards to see what powers I get. I can easily get behind the idea of playing at a convention - or starting a fairly impromptu game with friends - and having everyone pick up a booster pack or two, and making random characters on the fly right there at the table.
The relatively quick setup and play intrigues me, especially when combined with the humor and oddities of the game. In the demo game we were getting beat-up pretty badly, but still grinning and chuckling through it all - which is perhaps what I liked best about the system.
Anyhow, that's my two cents. With hyper-inflation between now and the Gamma World future, it's probably worth less than nothing, but it's mine, and I'm happy to share it. ;)
[EDIT]
*- I found the reference - it's in my notes on the 2010 Product Overview Seminar.
It makes sense for the GM to have a separate Loot (Atomic Waffle Iron) and a Mutation (Flippers) Deck because players will be getting those at different times and makes sense for a Player to have a Power (You found a rock!) Deck.
The problem im having is that is that random boosters are going to end up discouraging the "you found a rock!" moments because people aren't going to have the weak options in their deck.
By having a rarity system where the rares are stronger, they are basically guaranteeing that you are going to show up at tables where the serious gamers have stacked decks full of awesome cards (as someone mentioned earlier, neutronium skin + pocket atom bomb) while the less serious folks wind up with "you found a rock" and rusty laser gun. The idea basically insures things are going to be imbalanced.
Have the cost of ticket to the event include the cost of one or two Booster packs.
The problem im having is that is that random boosters are going to end up discouraging the "you found a rock!" moments because people aren't going to have the weak options in their deck.
By having a rarity system where the rares are stronger, they are basically guaranteeing that you are going to show up at tables where the serious gamers have stacked decks full of awesome cards (as someone mentioned earlier, neutronium skin + pocket atom bomb) while the less serious folks wind up with "you found a rock" and rusty laser gun. The idea basically insures things are going to be imbalanced.
Can I have a quote for where they have confirmed that every player comes to the table with a preconstructed deck of whatever card they want?
Can I have a quote for where they have confirmed that every player comes to the table with a preconstructed deck of whatever card they want?
While I suspect that it might happen at unofficial games, at official games (WotC-run events at cons, etc), I suspect that they will either include a pack or two of sealed cards for every event into the cost of the ticket, or willr equire people to show up with unopened packs.
Edit to add - Doesn't Magic do something like this for official tournaments?
Can I have a quote for where they have confirmed that every player comes to the table with a preconstructed deck of whatever card they want?
He'd need to quote Cyberdave (non offical source obviously). We are still going strongly on (bad) conjecture only concerning this.
We know so far that we have:
– Random boosters of players cards
– A rarity system with rare cards that are more powerful
– A system where you can apparently tweak things to wind up with a powerful character (WotC Trevor on the GD board)
The idea that you are actually going to have some kind of control of what goes in your deck hardly seems like a "bad" conjecture at this point.
"some kind of control"
does not equal
"every player has his own deck of cards completely pre-contructed allowing for as much powergaming as possible"
Well, yeah. So it could be just lke the example i used up thread where one guy winds up with Twin Strike because he bought enough packs. Meanwhile, other people are stuck with Precise Shot. LIke i said, i doesn't have to be total powergaming to be out of wack.
On the other hand, WotC Trevor specifically mentions how you can "tweak everything to your advantage" to make uber powerful characters in a paragraph about using the random cards and generating characters. Sure its nothing conclusive, but he really gives the impression that balance is out the window here.
At the very least there would probably be limit son how much "rare" cards you could make use of. I think we're still going on too much rumor, bad conjecture and hystery to actually talk about it without being ridiculous.
And like DnD, some options and combinations of options will be optimal compared to the alternatives. The only difference here is that in DnD, everyone with the same books has access to the same thing.
We don't really know how it all works, but we do know that there are players decks (plural) and they so far they are planning on using boosters with a rarity system for more powerful cards. We've also heard that you can tweak things to be "uber powerful" which was never a goal in 4E. Yes its conjecture, but at this point its pretty hard to look at what we know and think that this is being designed so that people sitting down to play this game are all going to be on equal footing.
Can I have a quote for where they have confirmed that every player comes to the table with a preconstructed deck of whatever card they want?
It is in the Audio file - D&D: Beyond the RPG.
Rich Baker is discribing the Boosters.
"With those cards you have the oppertunity to customize your own deck of specialty cards. Of the specialty technology things.You don't know what you are going to find ... becuse you might be drawing off the GMs deck. I've got disintegating touch in my personal deck, but it turns out I have to draw from the Gms deck..."
It is clear that players are expected to make customised decks, but why a GM would ever let them be used is unclear.
Also, it is never mentioned that a GM might want to add more cards to his own deck.
The D&D: Beyond the RPG audio is very interesting.
I'm working on a transcription.
"With those cards you have the oppertunity to customize your own deck of specialty cards. Of the specialty technology things.You don't know what you are going to find ... becuse you might be drawing off the GMs deck. I've got disintegating touch in my personal deck, but it turns out I have to draw from the Gms deck..."
It is clear that players are expected to make customised decks, but why a GM would ever let them be used is unclear.
Maybe the random mutations come out of your own deck since they relate specifically to your character while found gear is determined by what the DM puts in his deck?
"With those cards you have the oppertunity to customize your own deck of specialty cards. Of the specialty technology things.You don't know what you are going to find ... becuse you might be drawing off the GMs deck. I've got disintegating touch in my personal deck, but it turns out I have to draw from the Gms deck..."
It is clear that players are expected to make customised decks, but why a GM would ever let them be used is unclear.
Maybe the random mutations come out of your own deck since they relate specifically to your character while found gear is determined by what the DM puts in his deck?
It is in the Audio file - D&D: Beyond the RPG.
Rich Baker is discribing Boosters:
"So, the game comes with 80 cards for the GM which includes a full selection of these things. Plus we are going to create a number of uh… create an entire deck of booster cards. 120 card set of booster cards, that will be sold 8 cards to a booster pack. Cost is 3.99 a pack."
As they talked it was hard to tell if Mega-tech cards would be in the boosters. I seemed that they would be mutations only. Card mutations would be with the character semi-perminent (carapace) or temporarily (Gamma Eye - one shot). Even a long rest would have the player drawing a new card for his mutant.
It seemed like the PCs would have some fluidity in powers, but the Theme related powers are always there.
D&D: Beyond the RPG - Transcript
Sorry. This is not a complete transcript- I’ve got Mid-terms right now. But I’ve endeavored to be accurate.
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...
As they talked it was hard to tell if Mega-tech cards would be in the boosters. I seemed that they would be mutations only. Card mutations would be with the character semi-perminent (carapace) or temporarily (Gamma Eye - one shot). Even a long rest would have the player drawing a new card for his mutant.
It seemed like the PCs would have some fluidity in powers, but the Theme related powers are always there.
The GM Deck that comes with the game will feature 40 each of Alpha Mutations and Omega-Tech (at least, I assumed it was Omega-tech, maybe it was just Mega-Tech, and I'm a GW noob).
It was my impression that the boosters would have a fairly equal split as well - though to be fair I have mostly my own recollections and perceptions to base that on.
My notes from the 2010 Product Overview seminar do include the following notes on boosters:
- In addition to the core set - there will be booster packs
- 120 cards
- 8 randomized cards per pack
- Collectible (common, uncommon, rare, etc)
- $3.99
- Expanded options for more mutations and tech. (Orange emphasis for this post only)
- Wanted to capture the whimiscal, yet deadly/scary feel of Gamma World
- Cards aid that so that instead of always getting the same powers from a hardcover, cards give that "random" feel
Admittedly that doesn't indicate what the split will be (50/50? 75/25?) - but it should confirm tech in boosters.
As they talked it was hard to tell if Mega-tech cards...
The GM Deck that comes with the game will feature 40 each of Alpha Mutations and Omega-Tech (at least, I assumed it was Omega-tech, maybe it was just Mega-Tech, and I'm a GW noob).
I listened to the audio again... I think that it is Omega-tech. The 'oh' was soft on teh recording.
Thanks Wolfstar!
I've also been making a transcription of the 2010 D&D Product Overview audio file's info- on Gamma World. It mentions a few new thing and refures to old things in a slightly different way. I'll try to get that posted soon, with a full transcript of the D&D: Beyond the RPG
I finished my Mid-terms yesterday. Now I'm having trouble sleeping!
2010 D&D Product Overview (About 47 minutes into the Audio)
October. Revisiting Gamma World
December. Famine in Fargo
This would effectively create a post apocalyptic version of 4e dnd rather than a new type of hybrid game.
I am not really sure how this card system is supposed to work. Hopefully there can be a way for players to pick their powers/cards and keep them.
This would effectively create a post apocalyptic version of 4e dnd rather than a new type of hybrid game.
The card system does allow for players to purchase cards for themselves to create their own deck, if you wish to play it that way. The cards are a random element, though, so you do not get to pick which ones you use. Characters are created some baseline abilities and then random mutations and tech (the cards) are used throughout the game. If your players get into the game enough it may be worth their while to purchase additional cards. I'll probably be the only one getting them in my group as I will be the one running the game.
I am not really sure how this card system is supposed to work. Hopefully there can be a way for players to pick their powers/cards and keep them.
This would effectively create a post apocalyptic version of 4e dnd rather than a new type of hybrid game.
Card powers only stay with a character until they sleep, or take a long post-encouter rest.
Wierd. I assume it is a FUN element.
Weird because from what Rich Baker said Powers like Carapace (a shell) is something that can come and go... for every mutant character.
Gamma World is going to be completely compatable. The info so far is that the skills are a little different. but all the mutations (cards and themes) are written up in D&D style.
If I approve of Gamma World as a product but not the random booster aspect, wouldn't the right thing for me to do be to buy the main set but no booster packs? Wouldn't that send the right signal -- that people are interested in the setting, but the booster packs are a losing proposition? If the base product sells but the booster packs do not, doesn't that encourage WotC to support Gamma World but drop the random booster packs?
I just now saw that Gamma World was being updated and rereleased. I was happy and looking forward to picking it up. But then I saw that there were going to be boosters of random mutations, and I saw all the outcry about that and all the people saying they would not buy the game because of that.
If I approve of Gamma World as a product but not the random booster aspect, wouldn't the right thing for me to do be to buy the main set but no booster packs? Wouldn't that send the right signal -- that people are interested in the setting, but the booster packs are a losing proposition? If the base product sells but the booster packs do not, doesn't that encourage WotC to support Gamma World but drop the random booster packs?
It does send a specific and more accurate message. The problem is that it takes more people acting that way to send that message than it does if people stayed away from the line entirely. I am curious about checking it out. I may even end up buying the books. If I do buy the books, I will buy them used however; as I don't want my funds to contribute to any product line that involves collectiblity and randomized boosters.
I just now saw that Gamma World was being updated and rereleased. I was happy and looking forward to picking it up. But then I saw that there were going to be boosters of random mutations, and I saw all the outcry about that and all the people saying they would not buy the game because of that.
If I approve of Gamma World as a product but not the random booster aspect, wouldn't the right thing for me to do be to buy the main set but no booster packs? Wouldn't that send the right signal -- that people are interested in the setting, but the booster packs are a losing proposition? If the base product sells but the booster packs do not, doesn't that encourage WotC to support Gamma World but drop the random booster packs?
There is not ONE better way.
I will be buying the the core Box and plan to get the 2nd Expansion.
I think that the game as written/described is built around the random cards. You can play without them, we are told, but suppose I that you could play D&D without the Fighter class.
I will be happy to buy some of the game, but I'll be watching closely. If the game gets worse than I wont be buying it. Well, not until years later for my collection.
I've just completed my Villains and Vigilantes adventure collection.
If I approve of Gamma World as a product but not the random booster aspect, wouldn't the right thing for me to do be to buy the main set but no booster packs? Wouldn't that send the right signal -- that people are interested in the setting, but the booster packs are a losing proposition? If the base product sells but the booster packs do not, doesn't that encourage WotC to support Gamma World but drop the random booster packs?
Cyber-Dave brought up a good point about the idea of just buying the base product. It could end up telling WotC that it can sell the base product to everyone (including those who don't like the boosters) plus make a killing on those who are addicted to the boosters. I've debated doing that but I think I might be disappointed if I get to see what other powers are available in the boosters. Rather than let them suck me in, I might be better off just staying away.
If I approve of Gamma World as a product but not the random booster aspect, wouldn't the right thing for me to do be to buy the main set but no booster packs? Wouldn't that send the right signal -- that people are interested in the setting, but the booster packs are a losing proposition? If the base product sells but the booster packs do not, doesn't that encourage WotC to support Gamma World but drop the random booster packs?
Cyber-Dave brought up a good point about the idea of just buying the base product. It could end up telling WotC that it can sell the base product to everyone (including those who don't like the boosters) plus make a killing on those who are addicted to the boosters. I've debated doing that but I think I might be disappointed if I get to see what other powers are available in the boosters. Rather than let them suck me in, I might be better off just staying away.
Both scenarios are sensible.
But Cyber-Dave is making a good point. Even if it hard to image that GW will be that good. But it is often hard too understand Power-Gamers.
Well, I guess I'll have to hope the Core Rules box is bad enough so that I can resist it. After all I may not have anyone to play it with. But I'd still like the get Legion of Gold.
War at Sea Spoilers, Dark Sun Sorcerer-King PactTuesday, February 16, 2010, 01:38 PM PST
Welcome!
I’ve been busy with a number of short projects so far this year, which makes it hard to find the time to keep the blog up to date. Since January 1st, I’ve designed the maps for the adventure in a Gamma World expansion, knocked out the design work for half the Gamma World booster cards, gone to DDXP, and tackled the unit design for the fifth War at Sea set (which included a couple of tricky new unit types we haven’t seen before, like a hybrid carrier and a seaplane tender). The good news is that I think I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel, and it’s not a train!
Under line mine.
So, I guess it isn't to likely that we who dis' the booster cards are going to get a hearing. Oh, well. 
Bring them on them! I can resist the temptation! Arrr! 
I just now saw that Gamma World was being updated and rereleased. I was happy and looking forward to picking it up. But then I saw that there were going to be boosters of random mutations, and I saw all the outcry about that and all the people saying they would not buy the game because of that.
If I approve of Gamma World as a product but not the random booster aspect, wouldn't the right thing for me to do be to buy the main set but no booster packs? Wouldn't that send the right signal -- that people are interested in the setting, but the booster packs are a losing proposition? If the base product sells but the booster packs do not, doesn't that encourage WotC to support Gamma World but drop the random booster packs?
As others have said, in my opinion, not really. If you buy the core product, but not the boosters, and nobody else buys the boosters either, then that is the message that WotC will get. 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...
Current and past WotC products retain their value to consumers regardless of what WotC does in the future. In a 'worst case' scenario, wherein WotC only released CCG-RPGs, many other developers would happily step up to service the market for non-CCG RPGs.
Gamma World sounds great to me. I doubt I'll care at all about the 'collectability' of any cards, but if my group puts Gamma World into regular rotation, I'm sure I'll buy several packs in order to build my own deck/decks. Any cards I wasn't using would just go into the communal pool. Spending $15 to $20 doesn't seem like much of an investment compared to what I dropped on 3E ($60), 3.5E ($90) or 4E (not counting DDi, easily $150, and more soon I'm sure).
Nobody has a vested interest in future WotC products besides WotC.
Current and past WotC products retain their value to consumers regardless of what WotC does in the future. In a 'worst case' scenario, wherein WotC only released CCG-RPGs, many other developers would happily step up to service the market for non-CCG RPGs.
Gamma World sounds great to me. I doubt I'll care at all about the 'collectability' of any cards, but if my group puts Gamma World into regular rotation, I'm sure I'll buy several packs in order to build my own deck/decks. Any cards I wasn't using would just go into the communal pool. Spending $15 to $20 doesn't seem like much of an investment compared to what I dropped on 3E ($60), 3.5E ($90) or 4E (not counting DDi, easily $150, and more soon I'm sure).
But..
$15 = 30 cards This is like a 32 page book IIRC
$20 = 40 cards This is like a Trade Paperback page count 144 (I checked)
Each card isn't even going to be a halve page of information.
These cards will be GM's "Adventurer's Vault: D&D Rules Supplement" but that was:
Format: Trade Hardcover
Page Count: 224
Price: $29.95
So how many cards would be made from the information in that book.
EDIT: I don't mean to say that they can't CHOOSE to sell at those price points. But we need to think about it as shoppers, not just as consumers.
The profit margin seems really big compared to a book.
And new techs like slates, project Natal, video gogles...
Well maybe they will still do it.
I think the only problem I have with this kind of product is that it brings RPGs back to paper and table model. And I was really hoping to see 5th Digital D&D. You know with current Character Builder almost like digital PHB it would be an easy step to the future.
And new techs like slates, project Natal, video gogles...
Well maybe they will still do it.
The cards aspect means little to me. I think the aspect is being blown out of proportion for its effect. But if you wanted me to leave the hobby, going to digital only would be the best way to drive me away. I like books. I do not use a computer at my gaming table, probably never will. The tools are great before for set up, but overall I prefer a good book to a screen.
I think the only problem I have with this kind of product is that it brings RPGs back to paper and table model. And I was really hoping to see 5th Digital D&D
I don't play it, but I understand that Magic the Gathering Online is quite popular, and is an onine implementation of a CCG.
Microtransactions actually make the online CCG idea even more of an impulse buy, and you get the instant gratification of a whole online community of people to play/trade/etc with.
I doubt D&D will ever go CCG, but I could see WotC exploring more CCG RPG crossovers in the future - but I think those would be more likely to "go ditigal" than D&D really will be.
If I were going to guess, I'd say Gamma World is an experiment to see how well CCG RPGs sell. The fact that the game comes solely in 'box' formats, and has no books or guides or anything planned seems to suggest that the booster packs are the long term sales item, which means if they fail miserably the entire game line will likely be shut down.
I don't see the card aspect really becoming an issue for me. I've been printing power cards for D&D nearly since I started with it. Inevitably there's going to be a list put up somewhere. Unless WotC intends to pull some weird copyright protection shenaningans on these, they'll be as easy to find and print as MtG cards. Just put your base set cards and your printed cards in solid backed sleeves and nobody will know the difference.
I wouldn't. But if the info become available that way. I just dislike pirating something I like. In the long term it bad for the line.
If I were going to guess, I'd say Gamma World is an experiment to see how well CCG RPGs sell. The fact that the game comes solely in 'box' formats, and has no books or guides or anything planned seems to suggest that the booster packs are the long term sales item, which means if they fail miserably the entire game line will likely be shut down.
Well, if the boxes sell and the (booster) cards don't. That wouldn't kill the game. They could rerelease the information on the card (with more info) in a 32 page book. If that sells, then they know the booster idea is not the way to go.
I think the boosters could be profitable, if they have nice art and interesting "color commentary".
Hum...
After writing this I think you're right. If the cards fail. Gamma World will probably be considered a failure.
I doubt D&D will ever go CCG, but I could see WotC exploring more CCG RPG crossovers in the future - but I think those would be more likely to "go ditigal" than D&D really will be.
If the Gamma World Boosters are successful, then they could be added to D&D as is. The D&D booster cards would just be one hundred and twenty new spells, talents, etc... that the can be added without having to buy a whole new book, or new Edition, or Edition X.1.
They wouldn't even have to be as balanced, because rarity would keep the more powerful THINGS from showing up in everyone's game.
It's a good concept. bad execution.
Crossovers? Hum. Very rare in the old days. D&D just was not a polluted pool.
If Gamma World makes a ton of cash, that could push them to release more rulebooks, but otherwise, even if it performs as expected, I don't think we will see further rulebooks, adventures, or anything else for sale. They'll have the results of their experiement (whether or not the consumers are open to the idea), either way, and they'll already be working on the 2011 campaign worlds.
Nobody has a vested interest in future WotC products besides WotC.
Current and past WotC products retain their value to consumers regardless of what WotC does in the future. In a 'worst case' scenario, wherein WotC only released CCG-RPGs, many other developers would happily step up to service the market for non-CCG RPGs.
Gamma World sounds great to me. I doubt I'll care at all about the 'collectability' of any cards, but if my group puts Gamma World into regular rotation, I'm sure I'll buy several packs in order to build my own deck/decks. Any cards I wasn't using would just go into the communal pool. Spending $15 to $20 doesn't seem like much of an investment compared to what I dropped on 3E ($60), 3.5E ($90) or 4E (not counting DDi, easily $150, and more soon I'm sure).
Are you sure you know what a vested interest means? The term has an entry in the dictionary. It means, and I quote, "a personal interest in a sate of affairs." It doesn't mean "a personal interest with specific relation to the the value of current WotC products." Anybody can have a vested interest in anything. It requires nothing more than the decision that you care about a state of affairs in relation to your person. Nothing more, nothing less. I care about the nature of WotC products in relation to my person, because I personally desire to be the target audience of future products produced by this company. I thus have a vested intrest in future WotC products. See how that works?
Also, lets talk about the price and what you are getting for it. One class in a power book has roughly 122 new powers. That is roughly 15 packs of booster cards. I am rounding down in order to not overinflated my price estimate here. Packs sell at 8 dollars a pack. That means that if the packs are not randomized at all it would cost 60$ 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 over double the cost of what it takes to buy every single 4E D&D book published to date for the content of a single book. That doesn't seem like much of an investment compared to 4E? Ok...
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 primarly 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. And I want no part in that.
WotC has a financial stake in it's future products. Consumers like us might have an expectation of future personal enjoyment.
We haven't seen the game yet, so calculations about cost and 'value', even as hypotheticals, are premature. I don't think that a wacky cooperative RPG (with a ruleset and classes that work by themselves without any extra cards) will exert the same pressure to constantly buy cards that a competitive CCG does.
Perhaps I'm wrong and a year from now I'll be frantically buying packs, jonesing to find the ultra-rare plutonium pantaloons that I need to have in my deck.
I wouldn't. But if the info become available that way. I just dislike pirating something I like. In the long term it bad for the line.
I don't think it's necessarily pirating. What if I make copies of my cards so I have more of one or another? If I know what other cards do and make proxies?
It's a confusing area of discussion, admittedly. Does the content of these cards constitute a full text? If someone posts scans or photos of them on an auction site or web store are those images pirating or violating copyright? What about spoiler lists?
Someone elsewhere mentioned that one of the problems is that the game doesn't have any competitive play aspect. Once you know the text of the card the physical thing becomes significantly less important. Years ago these cards existed as random treasure tables. Roll percentile die, look up result and you might get mutant ears or a laser cannon or what have you. That was how you did 'random loot'. I'd even go so far to say that cards overcomplicate the process.
If I like the game a LOT... I'd certainly be likely to grab a list posted on-line.
But if it was a 100 card set for $10, I'd just buy it.
There are multiple definitions for the term 'vested interest'. Clearly we are using different ones.
WotC has a financial stake in it's future products. Consumers like us might have an expectation of future personal enjoyment.
We haven't seen the game yet, so calculations about cost and 'value', even as hypotheticals, are premature. I don't think that a wacky cooperative RPG (with a ruleset and classes that work by themselves without any extra cards) will exert the same pressure to constantly buy cards that a competitive CCG does.
Perhaps I'm wrong and a year from now I'll be frantically buying packs, jonesing to find the ultra-rare plutonium pantaloons that I need to have in my deck.
Well said Steam-powered Lincoln.
But hypothetical is my life.
WotC would be better off taking LCG path (like FFG), not CCG. All the bonii of cards, no-one is enraged by collectability. Besides after FFG changed some of their games from CCG-model to LCG their sales gone up and much more localization interest (and so new markets) appeared. Hint-hint.
Just a thought:
WotC would be better off taking LCG path (like FFG), not CCG. All the bonii of cards, no-one is enraged by collectability. Besides after FFG changed some of their games from CCG-model to LCG their sales gone up and much more localization interest (and so new markets) appeared. Hint-hint.
That is essentially what we've been saying here all along in our protests. That the randomness and collectiblity appear to turn off enough of the market segment for the product that another model is worth seriously considering.
That is essentially what we've been saying here all along in our protests. That the randomness and collectiblity appear to turn off enough of the market segment for the product that another model is worth seriously considering.
It only appears that some have an issue with it. Whether or not it is enough to make a difference only time will tell. I figure this year's GenCon will probably be more informative as to whether or not they will go forward with the random cards. Right now the desenters are nothing but voices in the whirlwind.
Right now the desenters are nothing but voices in the whirlwind.
But. I n a good way, Right?