GW has random booster packs...
I'd hate to see true randomness come in to D&D as well, but it does occur to me that their powers are conveniently printed in the form of card-like rectangles.
How exactly does it work? Do the random packs supplement information in the books, or do you genuinely not have access to some abilities because they don't come in your random pack?
I'd hate to see true randomness come in to D&D as well, but it does occur to me that their powers are conveniently printed in the form of card-like rectangles.
The powers are on the cards. Some cards come with the boxed set, but you woun't have access to all the powers in the game unless you collect all of the cards; which are distributed through factory randomized boosters.
Pessimist: this is the day that D&D died.
Pessimist: this is the day that D&D died.
Singin’, "this’ll be the day that D&D died.
"this’ll be the day that D&D die."
Optimist: this is an experiment in a side game and it'll never cross over to D&D.
Pessimist: this is the day that D&D died.
There is no need to buy any of the boosters according to alote of reviews I have read. The cards are used for random mutation powers that change daily on each of the characters. The new GW has nothing to do with what we remember. Its not built to do long terms apocalyptic campaigns. Its built on purpose as a fast paced crazy game where your characters don't last long. So the random boosters fit in nicely within these parameters.
Well for those who didn't notice D&D died with the birth of the 4th Edition. The character rules engine is so different from the previous editions you can't call it D&D anymore. It is a well thought out game and it has become our system of choice for fantasy heroic campaigns. I run a Dark Sun campaign.
Are they going to introduce boosters in the next D&D? Only time will tell. But experience tells us that WoTC always uses smaller licences to test out new ideas. So it is safe to assume that the next edition of D&D will include random booster cards if the response to GW is good overall. Will it be good? Yes. There are countless MtG players out there who will jump on the new edition of GW and then the new D&D.
The D&D corps is already cold. So that will be the last nail in the coffin for me... [I'm so dramatic... LOL]
All that being said, if Gamma World is genuinely not trying to do something like a role-playing game, if it's really just a card game in book form, then that's fine with me. I probably just won't play it. Those kinds of games interest me as little as board games do; I want the on-going narrative element of a role-playing game, one where I have a role. What doesn't bode well, though, is Wizards' tendency to introduce more and more card-based thinking/philosophy to RPGs. It's a more profitable model, certainly, and Hasbro is breathing down their necks to be profitable, so it might very well succeed in the market, but there will come a tipping point--which I don't personally think we've reached yet--where it's not just "not D&D anymore" but not a role-playing game at all. That's what makes me nervous and resentful.
I don't feel like I left D&D. I feel like D&D is leaving me.
Are they going to introduce boosters in the next D&D? Only time will tell. But experience tells us that WoTC always uses smaller licences to test out new ideas. So it is safe to assume that the next edition of D&D will include random booster cards if the response to GW is good overall. Will it be good? Yes. There are countless MtG players out there who will jump on the new edition of GW and then the new D&D.
I doubt that many MtG players will jump to GW. RPGs have a different time investment than MtG. There are lots of collectible card games and MtG fans don't all go crazy over the latest one. The raid decks of warcraft have even been considered rpg like. I don't think the majority MtG players will be jumping at a chance to play an rpg. I wouldn't be surprised if the GW cards are profitable but that has to do with the lack of artwork and increased price per card over MtG.
You make some good points, Shesheyan, but I can't help but feel that Advanced was shockingly different from Basic, and 3e was shockingly different from 2nd Ed.. There are major rule differences going back through the history of the game. What made me think that D&D was dead was the idea that when you buy the manual (for Gamma World, in this case), you don't actually get all the rules. I can accept rewriting the rules themselves in order to create a different kind of game. That's revision. I might not like 4e, but I don't think it's "not D&D" (just my opinion, not trying to make a thing of it). Introducing randomness into what rules you have access to is, it seems to me, "not D&D" because it's, in a larger sense, "not an RPG."
Hum... As someone who both every single edition of D&D I would have to respectfuly disagree. Its true that the step from Basic to Advanced was huge but that was the birth of the true D&D to me. 2nd and 3rd editions where not shockling different. They were carefull adjustments of the games mecanics coupled with introduction of novel elements. But on the whole they were the continuation of previous editions.
4E is dramaticaly different from its predecessors. The change is similar to the one Apple emplimented when they switched from OS9 to OSX. It was a total rebuild from the ground up. It uses all the same elements but in a - magical - new way !
For D&D the seminal change is called «balanced classes». Game play is totaly different from any previous edition of D&D. The game mechanic of pumping and boosting each others powers forces the players to cooperate all the time or face total party kill. Because of that experience of previous editions is a handicap rather than helpful. Now that is something new - Its a fun game but its not the «unbalanced, imperfect and flavorful» D&D we used to love to hate... Pathfinder is a huge success because it mimics the imperfect model of 3.5 perfectly. If 4E wasn't such a departure from to 3.5 there would be no need for Pathfinder... IMHO
I doubt that many MtG players will jump to GW. RPGs have a different time investment than MtG. There are lots of collectible card games and MtG fans don't all go crazy over the latest one. The raid decks of warcraft have even been considered rpg like. I don't think the majority MtG players will be jumping at a chance to play an rpg. I wouldn't be surprised if the GW cards are profitable but that has to do with the lack of artwork and increased price per card over MtG.
They is a large market out there of people who play both MtG and D&D. The Holy Grail for WoTC will be the «Magic the Gathering» D&D campaign setting coupled with the release of the 5E D&D CRPG. The market will go crazy for the power boosters showcasing beautiful illustrations by the same artist who produce those for the CCG.
CRPG : Collectible RPG.
I mean, I certainly understand where you are coming from, and I respect your points. I am not saying they are not valid. But I think that ultimately the value judgement is fairly subjective... it will differ from person to person depending on what value each individual person subjectively attributes to the different facets of D&D over the years. Because, that imbalance between the fighter and the wizard, the various aspects that you are attributing as the defining factors of D&D, were never the defining factors of D&D to me. They were the unfortunate aspects of the game that I kept trying to kill with house rules. 4e, to me, is D&D that I don't need to house rule. It has everything I liked from earlier editions, and none of the things I hated. It is just a better version of the game. Which, I understand and fully accept, is a subjective value judgement in and of itself.
Unfortunately, the subjective value judgement I attribute to collectible cards is so negative that I won't be able to purchase any game that contains them. I am just not interested in playing a CCG, an RPG that is also a CCG, a CRPG, a CCRPG, or however else anyone wants to define whatever it is that WotC released with Gamma World. The game is a major turn off to me.
Unfortunately, the subjective value judgement I attribute to collectible cards is so negative that I won't be able to purchase any game that contains them. I am just not interested in playing a CCG, an RPG that is also a CCG, a CRPG, a CCRPG, or however else anyone wants to define whatever it is that WotC released with Gamma World. The game is a major turn off to me.
I think we can all agree on this part. I don't see 4e as a different game either. It's just not a game I particularly want to play. If I get a chance to really take it for a test run--I did a little two-hour game at PAX which was pretty fun--I might change my mind, but introducing collectible cards to an RPG, any RPG, is only an improvement if your goal is purely economic.
The biggest improvement to D&D of the last 20 years is the OGL because it means that we can continue to play 3e-type games effectively forever. Totally aside from any in-game changes--which I agree are very subjective--that's a genuine improvement. It's always been a DIY hobby. The OGL just turned that aspect of it up to 11.
Unfortunately, the subjective value judgement I attribute to collectible cards is so negative that I won't be able to purchase any game that contains them. I am just not interested in playing a CCG, an RPG that is also a CCG, a CRPG, a CCRPG, or however else anyone wants to define whatever it is that WotC released with Gamma World. The game is a major turn off to me.
I think we can all agree on this part. I don't see 4e as a different game either. It's just not a game I particularly want to play. If I get a chance to really take it for a test run--I did a little two-hour game at PAX which was pretty fun--I might change my mind, but introducing collectible cards to an RPG, any RPG, is only an improvement if your goal is purely economic.
The biggest improvement to D&D of the last 20 years is the OGL because it means that we can continue to play 3e-type games effectively forever. Totally aside from any in-game changes--which I agree are very subjective--that's a genuine improvement. It's always been a DIY hobby. The OGL just turned that aspect of it up to 11.
I don't know if the OGL was the biggest improvement to D&D, but I can honestly say that (IMO) dropping the OGL was a middle finger to those 3PPs whose quality material helped grow the audience base.
I mean, I certainly understand where you are coming from, and I respect your points. I am not saying they are not valid. But I think that ultimately the value judgement is fairly subjective... it will differ from person to person depending on what value each individual person subjectively attributes to the different facets of D&D over the years. Because, that imbalance between the fighter and the wizard, the various aspects that you are attributing as the defining factors of D&D, were never the defining factors of D&D to me. They were the unfortunate aspects of the game that I kept trying to kill with house rules. 4e, to me, is D&D that I don't need to house rule. It has everything I liked from earlier editions, and none of the things I hated. It is just a better version of the game. Which, I understand and fully accept, is a subjective value judgement in and of itself.
I'm glad you disagree. You make valid points. It is true that 4E requires very little house rules. The funny thing is that why many people didn't switch to 4E. The prefer Pathfinder and its cross breed between saga and 3.5. The main problem with 4e is the loss of granularity by the removal of multi-class dipping. I think you agree with me that it was the most interesting aspect of the 3.5 system. That's the fundamental change that I my eyes make 4E such a different game from its predecessor. I hadn't made the connexion to a return to 2e. But It makes sense. Thanks for bringing that up.
The complaint that I do have, though, is that you have to earn a level at your current XP requirements. In 2nd Ed., when you took lower-levels as a high-level character (which wasn't called multi-classing back then), you earned those levels at low-level XP rates: 1000 XP for 1st, ect. The result was that you could work your way back up pretty damned quickly. However, in that system, numerical class abilities didn't stack, so you didn't earn new HPs and such until your new class was equal to your old class. It was more like switching careers than 3e multi-classing. Anyway, I can see the XP rates being grounds for complaint.
I mean, I certainly understand where you are coming from, and I respect your points. I am not saying they are not valid. But I think that ultimately the value judgement is fairly subjective... it will differ from person to person depending on what value each individual person subjectively attributes to the different facets of D&D over the years. Because, that imbalance between the fighter and the wizard, the various aspects that you are attributing as the defining factors of D&D, were never the defining factors of D&D to me. They were the unfortunate aspects of the game that I kept trying to kill with house rules. 4e, to me, is D&D that I don't need to house rule. It has everything I liked from earlier editions, and none of the things I hated. It is just a better version of the game. Which, I understand and fully accept, is a subjective value judgement in and of itself.
I'm glad you disagree. You make valid points. It is true that 4E requires very little house rules. The funny thing is that why many people didn't switch to 4E. The prefer Pathfinder and its cross breed between saga and 3.5. The main problem with 4e is the loss of granularity by the removal of multi-class dipping. I think you agree with me that it was the most interesting aspect of the 3.5 system. That's the fundamental change that I my eyes make 4E such a different game from its predecessor. I hadn't made the connexion to a return to 2e. But It makes sense. Thanks for bringing that up.
Meh. I am ambivalent (and I mean that in the proper sense of the word, as in I swing from love to hate, not as apathetic) about multiclassing in 3e. I mean, it works HORRIBLY in 3e D&D. It is a source of horrible imbalance. On the other hand, I like the way it works in Star Wars Saga and d20 Modern (though it can sometimes lead to imbalance there too). Ultimately, while I love Saga, and prefer to use it for sci-fi games, I don't mind losing that multiclassing in the case of a D&D style heroic fantasy RPG. Perhaps that is because I grew up playing 2e, and 2e did not offer that sort of multiclassing. Actually, I find 4e to be a nice middle ground between the multiclassing of 2e and the multiclassing of 3e. You either choose to hybrid at level 1, and play what would have looked like a Fighter/Wizard on a 2e character sheet, or you take a multiclass feat, and then multiclass power swap feats, and end up with a result that is roughly analogous with 3e multiclassing. I have yet to really develop a fantasy character concept that I could not build via 4e multiclassing systems...
But to each their own. There is nothing empirically wrong with any game system. I just happen to dislike Pathfinder, and really enjoy 4e. That, however, doesn't say anything about anything, except in regards to my personal tastes.
How exactly does it work? Do the random packs supplement information in the books, or do you genuinely not have access to some abilities because they don't come in your random pack?
The powers are on the cards. Some cards come with the boxed set, but you woun't have access to all the powers in the game unless you collect all of the cards; which are distributed through factory randomized boosters.
The contents of all the cards are already on-line. So, if you just want the various mutations and artifacts they represent, they're basically 'free.' You just come up with an alternative randomization method - which you, of course, could tune to fit your GMing style.
I think the cards as a randomization mechanism are intriguing. There are some ways you could go with it that might work well. I'd've prefered to see complete decks, of course, but I'll settle for downloading a complete list, instead. :shrug:
I'd hate to see true randomness come in to D&D as well, but it does occur to me that their powers are conveniently printed in the form of card-like rectangles.
I don't think powers are too likely to go to the CCG paradigm. Magic items, OTOH, were recently put on a common/uncommon/rare scale. Sounds like they'd be a prime candidate for putting on cards.
I do not understand that perspective. If you're a 15th-level fighter and you take a level of wizard you gain the wizard's stat bonuses, and you gain first-level spells. If you're vaguely clever about it, those spells can be extremely useful. Identify pays for itself pretty quickly, and you can use it in the evening after you take your armour off. Saying that you get nothing useful doesn't seem accurate to me. The complaint seems to be that you don't automatically get 15th-level wizard powers to go with your 15th-level fighter abilities, which seems completely fair to me. In exchange for earning a level's worth of XP, you get a level.
The complaint that I do have, though, is that you have to earn a level at your current XP requirements. In 2nd Ed., when you took lower-levels as a high-level character (which wasn't called multi-classing back then), you earned those levels at low-level XP rates: 1000 XP for 1st, ect. The result was that you could work your way back up pretty damned quickly. However, in that system, numerical class abilities didn't stack, so you didn't earn new HPs and such until your new class was equal to your old class. It was more like switching careers than 3e multi-classing. Anyway, I can see the XP rates being grounds for complaint.
One of the most significant problems is the issue with caster level differing from character level. Look at all of the combat oriented spells. Doing 1d4+1 dam from a magic missile, or 1d4 dam from burning hands, or 1d8+1 from shocking grasp is horrible for a 16th level character. And don't forget that spell durations also key off of caster level. You couldn't even have a mage armor spell to protect yourself while you slept because it would only last for one hour.
Meh. I am ambivalent (and I mean that in the proper sense of the word, as in I swing from love to hate, not as apathetic) about multiclassing in 3e. I mean, it works HORRIBLY in 3e D&D. It is a source of horrible imbalance.
If I may, I think that the vast bloat of classes, especially prestige classes, is the source of that imbalance because not only did they get progressively more and more powerful as they were published--power creep par exellance--but there were ever more combinations and recombinations available. The sheer volume broke a perfectly reasonable multi-classing system, in my view, along with, as I said, the tendency to fully ignore the XP penalties because they weren't "fun" (and here "fun" means "contributes to my power gaming"). They did make a dumb-arse mistake* when they (a) added prestige classes by the bucket-load, and (b) failed to keep them from creeping up in power, which all indicates (c) a general tendency to not think about scaling nearly enough, which is a real problem with 3e. I still think the core mechanic is sound, though. As you say, it works beautifully in Modern and Saga, and I think that's because the classes were designed with it in mind to a much greater degree, or it might just be that there are fewer classes to recombine, ultimately. I don't think the 3e designers realised just what multi-classing was going to mean, in the end.
One of the most significant problems is the issue with caster level differing from character level. Look at all of the combat oriented spells. Doing 1d4+1 dam from a magic missile, or 1d4 dam from burning hands, or 1d8+1 from shocking grasp is horrible for a 16th level character. And don't forget that spell durations also key off of caster level. You couldn't even have a mage armor spell to protect yourself while you slept because it would only last for one hour.
1st level spells for a 15th level character is also fine,
if your character does ANYTHING besides fight 24/7.
Heck, even my 1st level mages hate the combat spells you get at 1st level, of course they are weak sauce for someone over 7th... but the utility of them 1st & 2nd level spells is a godsend for a high level fighter or thief... Grease, MMouth, UnseenServant, and Featherfall have saved my thiefs behind countless times
Unless you remove a Wizard's daily spell allotment he will dominate and, if you work hard enough, can dominate starting within level 5 in Core.
Multiclassing has nothing to do with the power ceiling of 3.x but it can bring archetypes other than straight-up Wizard, Psion or Cleric towards that power ceiling. In the old 339 tiers discussion I think tiers 1 and 2 were both straight spellcaster, possibly with a single prestige class at level 10 or 15, and multiclassing was only used to bring what would be tier 4 to tier 3 and such.
So, if you actually look at it, the "vast overpoweredness" of multiclassing actually just made certain things viable, not even powerful.
(Also, for note, all things from 339 were, obviously, always subject to your particular game rules and availability of certain aspects, but the vast power of Wizard20 could not even be defeated through a reasonable RAI in a Core-only game; it doesn't require some obscene RAW to win. (Plus, obscene RAW is for theoretical optimization only, anyway.))
Personally, I really just wish people would grow up and get over the obsession that all the classes have to be "equal." They're not. They're different. Pick your fantasy and get on with it. Do you want to play Superman or Batman? Batman's not even close to being as powerful, but he might very well be more fun.
Okay, that brings up an pet peeve of mine. So what if the wizard "dominates"? Seriously so what? If I decide I want to play a wizard, it's because I want vast, cosmic powers. If I decided I want to play a warrior, it's because I want face-to-face fights. If I decide I want to be a rogue, it's because I want to sneak and backstab. They're different fantasies with different requirements.
Personally, I really just wish people would grow up and get over the obsession that all the classes have to be "equal." They're not. They're different. Pick your fantasy and get on with it. Do you want to play Superman or Batman? Batman's not even close to being as powerful, but he might very well be more fun.
Well its not age related at all. To give some perpective not all people play RPGs for the same reasons or in the same way. To each is own. Balance is not an new concept. Its actualy very old. GURPS with its point system has been doing that for years. You have that in Phoenix. The end result of 4E is a mechanicaly induced equal level of enjoyement of the game for all players around the table. Now why is that bad?
My favorite «broken» Magic-User....LOL
I didn't mean to imply that it was about age, or even maturity, actually. "Grow up" is an English expression, I guess. I don't know how I'd translate it into French (not that my French is all that good).
My point is that "balance" seems to mostly be used as a polite euphemism for "jealousy," the horrifying possibility that someone at the table can do more damage per round. I ask again, what does it matter if someone else does more damage if you are having fun playing your character? I played wizards for years in D&D. The sheer, wacky, F/X budget of it appealed to me, but I eventually realised that I don't actually enjoy it all that much. I really like fighters and rogues. The "power" level is lower, but that doesn't matter because I personally happen to enjoy playing them a lot more.
We have strived for a general sense of balance in Phoenix, but I've always done it with the knowledge that "perfect" balance is neither possible nor actually desirable. If "perfect" balance is when all characters have numerical identical profiles within combat, then I'm just not interested. I want a genuine variety of abilities for my RPG. That's how I designed Pheonix. There are powers in that game that are pretty much impossible to stack up against other powers on a quantitative level. How does an optic blast mathematically compare to the ability to read data off of a computer telepathically? I have no idea, but I know that they're both useful and fun to play, and that's the important part.
Since 2nd Ed., we've been bleeding all the wackiness out of D&D, and I say that as an olde timey gamer. It was a much more fluid experience once upon a time. There's a happy medium between solid rules and room to be creative, but I feel like Wizards has gone past my personal comfort zone. It's very subjective, I know, but that's where I stand.
As for Dr. Strange, the great challenge of D&D and other rpgs is to give characters the fun of playing someone like Dr. Strange without making the game a foregone conclusion, but I do think that that's the goal.
We did an edited (shortened version) of the level 1 scenario included in the book - six encounters instead of eight. We had only four characters so I toned down the encounters. We almost ended the game in TPK. The last encounter is far too strong. In the end two characters died, one was unconscious and the fourth at 5hps when the last Bot died.
Whats news:
-No Healing Surges : Instead characters regain all their HPs every short rest. It makes the game more dangerous for characters during encounters. Second wind is a minor action instead of a standard action. That helps during combat. The reverse side is that there are no action points.
-No Classes : All characters are of two origines. Today we played with an Android-Felinoid, a Radioactive-Giant, a Empath-Plant and Hawkoid-Electrokinetic. The game is limited at 10 levels. Character level is applied to various aspect of the character at 1:1 rather level/2.
-No Feats : Characters gain a series of traits and powers from their two aspects as they progress.
-Skills : There are only ten skills. Each characted gets a trained bonus in one skill per origin and one random trained skills. All other skills are at ability bonus+level.
-Generic melee and ranged weapons : GMs are left with the job of adjucating how much damage each weapon does from a generic list.
-No alignments.
Collectible Cards:
-I don't plan to buy boosters. The box comes with enough cards (and 1 booster) to play for a long time. There is really no need for players to create their own decks. I continue to think allowing players to buy random cards in a RPG is wrong. GMs should actualy forbide players to construct their own decks. Even with the construction restrictions its very easy to see how players would only use a very limited set of Alpha Powers and Omega Techs that key in perfectly with their character concept. It would defeat the purpose of the game.
Replay Value:
-We don't see how one could run a campaign. The constant change of Alpha powers and the lost Omega techs makes it very difficult for GMs to qualibrate encounters. Some homebrew rules needed. We will certainly play again when in need of a wacky one afternoon game - We plan to play again probably during Christmas holidays and on April Fools day. The quality of the adventure will make all the difference with such a barebones and random oriented RPG system.
Buying Advice:
Only buy this game if your group has a sense good of humour. There are plenty of roleplay opportunities. The player who played the Empath-Plant had us laughing all afternoon.
Shesheyan
The end result of 4E is a mechanicaly induced equal level of enjoyement of the game for all players around the table. Now why is that bad?
no, not 'all players'
I'm sure you meant 'all players of combat characters'
(I'm not going to get into it more than that)