AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
Which version of Gamma World used the variant of the Marvel Super Heroes rules? The colored tables and such that resolved practically everything in a single roll with a table look-up?
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Gamma World d20
- Thread starter DMH
- Start date
I don't blame you for defending GWd20. I've been playing GW since it was Metamorphosis Alpha back in the 70's and have every edition of GW and MA printed since. I gotta admit, when I first looked at the GWd20 Player's Handbook I was dissapointed. My first reaction was "Oh, no! That's not Gamma World". Once I let myself let go of my preconceptions and looked at what actually was there I did warm up to it. The later books in the series have all been pretty good. I use them as resources for my current d20 Modern PA game (which I call Gamma World even though I'm using a lot of homebrew).
I also agree with everyone recommending Darwin's World. I use that one as a game resource too. It's an excellent product.
--- Hacksaw
I also agree with everyone recommending Darwin's World. I use that one as a game resource too. It's an excellent product.
--- Hacksaw
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
The D20 prototype being the Alternity rules version?DMH said:
[edit] Forget it, could have answered this just by rereading the first post.
But that leads to a different question. I have heard that Alternity is a D20 prototype, with the Gamma World 5th being the Alternity version, and now hearing that Gamma World 4th is another D20 prototype. Makes me wonder how similar 4th and 5th were, rules wise, and which version is closer to the D20 we know today.
Any comments from those who know?
Also, isn't Omega World considered an incarnation of Gamma World at all? Maybe 5.5th?
Last edited:
VorpalBunny
Explorer
DMH said:
2nd edition is goofy? I own all the editions of GW, and to me 4th seems no less "goofy" than 2nd - game mechanics don't affect a game's flavor, IMO. As for lethality, 1st/2nd rules allow for just as much lethality as 4th - don't be fooled by the HD=CON mechanic.
The lack of setting information and "tweaking" hints was a sign of the times I think, but didn't make the game any less enjoyable or playable. I managed to run a campaign for *years* based solely on that little black and white booklet.
Eric Anondson said:
The rules of the 4th ed would make a lot more sense to a d20 player than Alternity. I know Alternity like th eback of my hand and I have still to discover what it is about that engine that is supposidly like d20.
Yes and no. If you look at the whole series- Metamorphosis Alpha, GW1, GW2, GW3, GW4, MA to Omega, GW5, OW, MA3 and GW6, Omega World is 8th.
VorpalBunny said:
There was some goofy elements in 4th ed, but the first chapter stated how to include or exclude them and I very much did the latter.
Kanegrundar
Explorer
My big beef with GW is the current writers. In both the D20 and Alternity editions they told us that certain elements like mutant animals and plants didn't fit their vision of how GW should be. How about just presenting a GW toolkit with all the various elements and let the players pick and choose the feel of the setting? I've played GW through various incarnations with all sorts of GM's and no two played it the same way. Don't give me a set setting. Give me the parts and I'll put them together as a whole. Too bad the current writers didn't see things that way. That's way I'll use a couple pieces from GWPHB and let the rest rot.
Kane
Kane
Well, they do have animals even the mechanics are identical to mutant humans (which is stupid, IMNSHO), but they were told by WoTC that plants were in no way to be player races. So you can blame some dingus at WOTC instead of WW for that fumble.
Sadly, if this didn't have the name GW on it, it would have been recieved much better.
Sadly, if this didn't have the name GW on it, it would have been recieved much better.
Kanegrundar
Explorer
I don't think it would have been received that much better. The mechanics in spots are clunky. It's alright, but not great. Although I agree that the reviews would have been more favorable without the GW name attached to it.
Kane
Kane
