How come no one is discussing Gamma World?
Siberys
Adventurer
I personally found the lack of setting details to be a feature, not a bug. They give you enough basic information to use as a foundation, but the rest is up to you. IME, GW is best done as a 'post-apocalypse hometown gaming' setting, and I had a blast writing up my local area as a radioactive, alien-infested jungle. There's even a free article on the Wizards site about doing it. Great fun.
The players love the little easter eggs I drop in to the setting to remind them they're HERE, where we're playing, only 151 years into a seriously messed up future.
The players love the little easter eggs I drop in to the setting to remind them they're HERE, where we're playing, only 151 years into a seriously messed up future.
invokethehojo
First Post
I agree, I became soured on 4e a year ago and sold all my stuff, but the things that bothered me about 4e aren't an issue with gamma world, maybe because the game isn't so serious. The rules are easily adapted to almost anything you want, including leaving out the cards, so I don't have to worry about the rules getting in the way of my fun (ie lots of discussion on minutia). Also, the game actually encourages description, so I'm more involved with what my character is like/doing. Plus, it is just begging you to make up your own origins, however they aren't so complex that this is a big problem, just more of an exercise in fun.
Ycore Rixle
First Post
What interests me about Gamma World is its format. It seems to me that the hybrid box-in-a-game format is where WOTC wants to go. However, I don't particularly care for the silly tone of the game, especially when one of the things that annoyed me about 4e was that 4e didn't take its game world seriously. The fact that the GW cards don't have art on them is annoying. It just doesn't seem to me like a serious game, so I don't feel like putting in serious time discussing it or playing it. Those are just my opinions, of course, and they're only based on reading about it - I have not played it.
Dungeoneer
First Post
I posted my group's experiences running a 'three shot' GW game on the 4e forums. Got a grand total of zero responses (I know, holy wall o'text, Batman). But the short version is: we ran it and really enjoyed the loose, freewheeling style of gameplay it inspired both in front of and behind the DM screen.
WizarDru
Adventurer
Most interesting to me was the fact the member of my group who most finds 4E to be unsatisfying, so far, is also the single biggest fan of the new Gamma World. In part because of the chaotic nature of it and perhaps partly because he can accept the system much more outside of the D&D context.
Wednesday Boy
The Nerd WhoFell to Earth
I would have liked there to be more setting details because I've never played in any GW games before and to help spark my imagination. I always prefer to take the creative ideas that the developers had and adapt them to my campaign needs than to try to develop things entirely on my own.
I created this post to make some guesses on the design intentions for the Novice Encounter powers. Feel free to comment!
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/300040-novice-powers-really-wills.html
I can TOTALLY see that.
At this point, I haven't picked up the latest iteration of Gamma World for a variety of reasons. One of the primary reasons is- paradoxically, considering my personal take on 4Ed*- that it is not more compatible with the game from which its mechanics sprung. In the 3.X era, one of the driving forces behind my purchases was interchangeability, the portability of feats, spells, etc., and ESPECIALLY races. When I found out that GW's PC generation was a bit different from 4Ed's, that reduced modularity reduced my desire to buy the product.
Its probably a cool SFRPG, but my group isn't exactly keen on such games, even though I am. So whatever reduces my ability to poach from one game (in a given system) for use in another reduces my likelihood in buying it.
* I think its a decent FRPG, but it isn't D&D to me.
Dungeoneer
First Post
Of course, monsters are supposedly interchangable between the two games. Which means the characters are supposed to be at the same power level. Which means you could theoretically have a guy at your table drawing Gamma Tech cards for his Hypercognitive Yeti right alongside your Ranger, Swordmage and Cleric.
It could be a fun experiment!
My apologies- I wasn't clear: I'll never run 4Ed or 4Ed-derived FRPGs, so my only interest in GW would be as:
So monsters don't matter to me, non-compatible races, classes or feats don't appeal, etc.
Hmmmmmm...
Does GW have a Psionics system?
- A player/GM Of GW itself...but I already have lots of SFRPGs I like, and too few players.
- A player of 4Ed yanking things from GW to use in the FRPG.
So monsters don't matter to me, non-compatible races, classes or feats don't appeal, etc.
Hmmmmmm...
Does GW have a Psionics system?
Similar Threads
