Gamma World d20 unmentioned in this week's Design & Development - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Gamma World d20 unmentioned in this week's Design & Development

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
mark_argent
Oct 18, 2010 16:26:20 So this article gets posted today, with a sidebar discussing the versions of Gamma World that have been published over the years. The sidebar mentions Omega World but completely ignores the d20 Modern version of Gamma World, published by Sword & Sorcery Studios in 2003.

www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d...

Whatever you may think of GWd20, it existed. Actual human writers and designers cranked out nearly a thousand pages of it. The mechanics may be a bit of a mess, but every page oozes glowing green love for the game and the genre. At the very least, it deserves a sentence in a sidebar in a PR puff piece. I mean, if this is the treatment Gamma World gets, I can't wait to see S&S's run on Ravenloft get ignored next year.
#2
Oraibi
Oct 18, 2010 16:36:02 I find myself hard-pressed to feel any particular amount of outrage about this, sorry.
#3
Chandrak
Oct 18, 2010 17:59:57 I wouldnt say I'm outraged, but rather feel like directing a vague 'tsk-tsk' at Wizards. Not that I'm surprised. I mean really, one company's PR piece conveniently leaving out mentions of another company they intensely dislike?

Like that never happens. /sarcasm
#4
ah_anarchy
Oct 18, 2010 19:04:07 Different game by a different company... I don't think it's malicious, just standard operating procedure. Wizards isn't under any obligation to mention another company's game are they?
#5
guest1412820596
Oct 18, 2010 19:05:55 Im fine with it, since it was the worst GW edition EVER!

I want to forget it even happened and I spent that much money...
#6
doctorcomics
Oct 18, 2010 19:06:45
I mean really, one company's PR piece conveniently leaving out mentions of another company they intensely dislike?

Like that never happens. /sarcasm

I'm just curious, but what's our evidence that there's any kind of a grudge between WotC and Sword & Sorcery/White Wolf? I mean, we can guess, or even presume, that there is some rivalry there. But "intense dislike"?

Again, just curious. Because I like dirty gossip as much as the next guy, I just want to make sure I'm not pulling out of my butt.
#7
Finarvyn
Oct 18, 2010 19:32:54 My guess is that their focus was on the TSR-WotC line of products. I suspect the d20 version was forgotten since the d20 version was done by a totally different group. I know I never had any interest in it, and I've got copies of 1E, 3E, 4E, and Alternity GW. There was probably no hidden agenda other than "which of these isn't like the others...."
#8
Tony_Vargas
Oct 18, 2010 20:17:33 Presumably the 6th Ed was excluded not because it sucked (had that been the reason, the Alternity version and 3rd edition would also have been conspicous in their absence), but because it simply wasn't done by WotC or one of their corporate predecessors. They don't own it, so don't get to take credit (or blame) for it.

That'd be my guess, anyway.
#9
andrew_cermak
Oct 18, 2010 20:49:25
Whatever you may think of GWd20, it existed. Actual human writers and designers cranked out nearly a thousand pages of it. The mechanics may be a bit of a mess, but every page oozes glowing green love for the game and the genre. At the very least, it deserves a sentence in a sidebar in a PR puff piece. I mean, if this is the treatment Gamma World gets, I can't wait to see S&S's run on Ravenloft get ignored next year.

I can't speak for the S&S Gamma World writers, but I wrote for the S&S run on Ravenloft, and I wouldn't be offended if they didn't mention that run in their run-down. Nor would I honestly expect them to.
#10
FlashbackJon
Oct 19, 2010 1:13:38 Mildly topical, genuine curiosity: why did 6th edition suck?
#11
doctorcomics
Oct 19, 2010 2:08:18 It was an editing nightmare, full of simple bonehead errors, and showed almost no familiarity with the rules for d20 Modern. Instead of using d20 Modern's various subsystems or terms for various things, 6th edition of GW invented new rules components or used terms already in d20 Modern, but gave them different meanings. It was a classic example of a game split up into a dozen chapters, each written by a different author, none of whom read what the other person did until the whole project was over. The point was getting the book done fast, not done well, and it really showed.
#12
Chandrak
Oct 19, 2010 7:25:30
I'm just curious, but what's our evidence that there's any kind of a grudge between WotC and Sword & Sorcery/White Wolf? I mean, we can guess, or even presume, that there is some rivalry there. But "intense dislike"?

I am referring to the business of Monte Cook's defection from WotC over to S&S. There was a pretty big hoopla about it for awhile.
#13
guest1412820596
Oct 19, 2010 9:33:28 6th Edition also tried to explain the Apocalypse and be serious & dark. Flavorwise it just never felt like GW ever. d20 Apocalypse was a much better accessory for d20 Modern (probably the best of the entire d20 line)
#14
doctorcomics
Oct 19, 2010 11:57:23
I am referring to the business of Monte Cook's defection from WotC over to S&S. There was a pretty big hoopla about it for awhile.

Ah hah! Thanks.

I have not kept up on all that.
#15
crazykobold
Oct 19, 2010 12:11:10 Why would anyone expec t WOTC to mention a product produced by another party under license?
#16
Chandrak
Oct 19, 2010 12:19:14 Probably because some of us still hold out hope for a little honesty and less backstabbing between corporate entities. In vain, I know, but hey, some of us are optimists, I guess.
#17
Tony_Vargas
Oct 19, 2010 15:06:31 Not a lot to add. 6th just failed to be Gamma World in any meaningful sense. It tried way too hard to 'update' it, with genetically-engineered this and nannite-everything instead of kitzchy old irradiated mutants and ray guns.
#18
mvincent
Oct 19, 2010 18:37:43
Why would anyone expec t WOTC to mention a product produced by another party under license?

It seems more a matter of them stating an actual falsehood with "This year’s model marks Gamma World’s first appearance in almost ten years."

I'm not sure why they made that statement when they didn't need to (i.e. they could've simply made a similarly misleading statement without actually being dishonest).

#19
dulsi
Oct 20, 2010 12:51:01
Not a lot to add. 6th just failed to be Gamma World in any meaningful sense. It tried way too hard to 'update' it, with genetically-engineered this and nannite-everything instead of kitzchy old irradiated mutants and ray guns.

Some of that was WotC/WW fault not the developers.

The prospectus I inherited called for a very '80s-esque grim cyberpunk-ish corporate sort of thing - very much what you might expect if White Wolf had done Gamma World around the era of Werewolf 1st edition. I proposed something rather Thundarr-like with magnetic pole reversals and some Velikovsky-influenced rapid geological shifts and such. That got turned down pretty hard, and what emerged was my effort at averaging it out.

I went back an looked at 6E GW a while ago. While the first book was a bit of a mess, I think they did a good job with the latter books. The Machines and Mutants book is a real gem IMHO. Nearly everything in the book had a LA so that everything can be a PC race.
#20
Tony_Vargas
Oct 20, 2010 16:28:55 Wow, like I needed something else to hold against WWGS. They couldn've had a Thundarr-esque Gamma World, and they insisted on trying to shoehorn it into cyberpunk?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 mark_argent Oct 18, 2010 16:26:20	So this article gets posted today, with a sidebar discussing the versions of Gamma World that have been published over the years. The sidebar mentions Omega World but completely ignores the d20 Modern version of Gamma World, published by Sword & Sorcery Studios in 2003. www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/d... Whatever you may think of GWd20, it existed. Actual human writers and designers cranked out nearly a thousand pages of it. The mechanics may be a bit of a mess, but every page oozes glowing green love for the game and the genre. At the very least, it deserves a sentence in a sidebar in a PR puff piece. I mean, if this is the treatment Gamma World gets, I can't wait to see S&S's run on Ravenloft get ignored next year.
#2 Oraibi Oct 18, 2010 16:36:02	I find myself hard-pressed to feel any particular amount of outrage about this, sorry.
#3 Chandrak Oct 18, 2010 17:59:57	I wouldnt say I'm outraged, but rather feel like directing a vague 'tsk-tsk' at Wizards. Not that I'm surprised. I mean really, one company's PR piece conveniently leaving out mentions of another company they intensely dislike? Like that never happens. /sarcasm
#4 ah_anarchy Oct 18, 2010 19:04:07	Different game by a different company... I don't think it's malicious, just standard operating procedure. Wizards isn't under any obligation to mention another company's game are they?
#5 guest1412820596 Oct 18, 2010 19:05:55	Im fine with it, since it was the worst GW edition EVER! I want to forget it even happened and I spent that much money...
#6 doctorcomics Oct 18, 2010 19:06:45	I mean really, one company's PR piece conveniently leaving out mentions of another company they intensely dislike? Like that never happens. /sarcasm I'm just curious, but what's our evidence that there's any kind of a grudge between WotC and Sword & Sorcery/White Wolf? I mean, we can guess, or even presume, that there is some rivalry there. But "intense dislike"? Again, just curious. Because I like dirty gossip as much as the next guy, I just want to make sure I'm not pulling out of my butt.
#7 Finarvyn Oct 18, 2010 19:32:54	My guess is that their focus was on the TSR-WotC line of products. I suspect the d20 version was forgotten since the d20 version was done by a totally different group. I know I never had any interest in it, and I've got copies of 1E, 3E, 4E, and Alternity GW. There was probably no hidden agenda other than "which of these isn't like the others...."
#8 Tony_Vargas Oct 18, 2010 20:17:33	Presumably the 6th Ed was excluded not because it sucked (had that been the reason, the Alternity version and 3rd edition would also have been conspicous in their absence), but because it simply wasn't done by WotC or one of their corporate predecessors. They don't own it, so don't get to take credit (or blame) for it. That'd be my guess, anyway.
#9 andrew_cermak Oct 18, 2010 20:49:25	Whatever you may think of GWd20, it existed. Actual human writers and designers cranked out nearly a thousand pages of it. The mechanics may be a bit of a mess, but every page oozes glowing green love for the game and the genre. At the very least, it deserves a sentence in a sidebar in a PR puff piece. I mean, if this is the treatment Gamma World gets, I can't wait to see S&S's run on Ravenloft get ignored next year. I can't speak for the S&S Gamma World writers, but I wrote for the S&S run on Ravenloft, and I wouldn't be offended if they didn't mention that run in their run-down. Nor would I honestly expect them to.
#10 FlashbackJon Oct 19, 2010 1:13:38	Mildly topical, genuine curiosity: why did 6th edition suck?
#11 doctorcomics Oct 19, 2010 2:08:18	It was an editing nightmare, full of simple bonehead errors, and showed almost no familiarity with the rules for d20 Modern. Instead of using d20 Modern's various subsystems or terms for various things, 6th edition of GW invented new rules components or used terms already in d20 Modern, but gave them different meanings. It was a classic example of a game split up into a dozen chapters, each written by a different author, none of whom read what the other person did until the whole project was over. The point was getting the book done fast, not done well, and it really showed.
#12 Chandrak Oct 19, 2010 7:25:30	I'm just curious, but what's our evidence that there's any kind of a grudge between WotC and Sword & Sorcery/White Wolf? I mean, we can guess, or even presume, that there is some rivalry there. But "intense dislike"? I am referring to the business of Monte Cook's defection from WotC over to S&S. There was a pretty big hoopla about it for awhile.
#13 guest1412820596 Oct 19, 2010 9:33:28	6th Edition also tried to explain the Apocalypse and be serious & dark. Flavorwise it just never felt like GW ever. d20 Apocalypse was a much better accessory for d20 Modern (probably the best of the entire d20 line)
#14 doctorcomics Oct 19, 2010 11:57:23	I am referring to the business of Monte Cook's defection from WotC over to S&S. There was a pretty big hoopla about it for awhile. Ah hah! Thanks. I have not kept up on all that.
#15 crazykobold Oct 19, 2010 12:11:10	Why would anyone expec t WOTC to mention a product produced by another party under license?
#16 Chandrak Oct 19, 2010 12:19:14	Probably because some of us still hold out hope for a little honesty and less backstabbing between corporate entities. In vain, I know, but hey, some of us are optimists, I guess.
#17 Tony_Vargas Oct 19, 2010 15:06:31	Not a lot to add. 6th just failed to be Gamma World in any meaningful sense. It tried way too hard to 'update' it, with genetically-engineered this and nannite-everything instead of kitzchy old irradiated mutants and ray guns.
#18 mvincent Oct 19, 2010 18:37:43	Why would anyone expec t WOTC to mention a product produced by another party under license? It seems more a matter of them stating an actual falsehood with "This year’s model marks Gamma World’s first appearance in almost ten years." I'm not sure why they made that statement when they didn't need to (i.e. they could've simply made a similarly misleading statement without actually being dishonest).
#19 dulsi Oct 20, 2010 12:51:01	Not a lot to add. 6th just failed to be Gamma World in any meaningful sense. It tried way too hard to 'update' it, with genetically-engineered this and nannite-everything instead of kitzchy old irradiated mutants and ray guns. Some of that was WotC/WW fault not the developers. The prospectus I inherited called for a very '80s-esque grim cyberpunk-ish corporate sort of thing - very much what you might expect if White Wolf had done Gamma World around the era of Werewolf 1st edition. I proposed something rather Thundarr-like with magnetic pole reversals and some Velikovsky-influenced rapid geological shifts and such. That got turned down pretty hard, and what emerged was my effort at averaging it out. I went back an looked at 6E GW a while ago. While the first book was a bit of a mess, I think they did a good job with the latter books. The Machines and Mutants book is a real gem IMHO. Nearly everything in the book had a LA so that everything can be a PC race.
#20 Tony_Vargas Oct 20, 2010 16:28:55	Wow, like I needed something else to hold against WWGS. They couldn've had a Thundarr-esque Gamma World, and they insisted on trying to shoehorn it into cyberpunk?