How compatible should Gamma World be with Dungeons and Dragons?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I think D&D basics could allow Gamma World with the appropriate mutation rules, but I don't know that the level/class focus and the other emergent behavior from the foundational rules actively supports the feel of Gamma World.

Hasn't leveling been part of every version of Gamma World to date? Arguably it shouldn't be -- it could probably be best-served by a game that has no leveling or improving at all, beyond just gearing up -- but it's not a new issue.

 

[Reynard]

Hasn't leveling been part of every version of Gamma World to date? Arguably it shouldn't be -- it could probably be best-served by a game that has no leveling or improving at all, beyond just gearing up -- but it's not a new issue.

The key is that mutations have been largely independent of the leveling mechanics, at least from a developmental balancing perspective. Sure, you get an extra d6 disintegration damage per level, but it started out at 20d6.

 

[TheDelphian]

I would prefer it be compatible and I know that can easily done.

Wild and wahoo is easy in most any game just a matter of attitude more than anything and it doesn't need to a strive to be as balanced as 5e may try to be.

I think it is better that way to get more people playing. Selling a whole new game system is often a stopping or stumbling point for a new game. People are often more willing to try it if 80-90% of the rules are ones they know.

 

[MacDhomnuill]

No, it's just an existing framework that a huge modern audience already understands. Swapping in GW-appropriate content into that framework is baby steps toward leading them toward other (WotC-owned) games.

That said, I don't think this system would work for a modern Top Secret or Boot Hill. I don't know enough about Star Frontiers to know if that would work.

But you could definitely make a Gamma World out of 5E pretty easily.

Starfrontiers was percentile roll and skill based. After zebulons guide was published it used a task resolution system much closer to marvel sups than anything dnd related. Only real DND ism to make it to SF was hit points.

I really liked the Gamma World 4th edition, seemed like a good compromise and its pedigre (written by Richard Baker, Tim Beach, Zeb Cook, and Eric Haddock) It is common consensus that it is what Zeb Cook intended a D&D second edition to be.

 

[overgeeked]

Starfrontiers was percentile roll and skill based. After zebulons guide was published it used a task resolution system much closer to marvel sups than anything dnd related. Only real DND ism to make it to SF was hit points.

I really liked the Gamma World 4th edition, seemed like a good compromise and its pedigre (written by Richard Baker, Tim Beach, Zeb Cook, and Eric Haddock) It is common consensus that it is what Zeb Cook intended a D&D second edition to be.

Zeb also said as much in the recent 2E GenCon video.

 

[MacDhomnuill]

Zeb also said as much in the recent 2E GenCon video.

I hadn't seen that, guess the group think is right every so often!

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Starfrontiers was percentile roll and skill based. After zebulons guide was published it used a task resolution system much closer to marvel sups than anything dnd related. Only real DND ism to make it to SF was hit points.

After this many years and being essentially unknown to most of the modern player base, I suspect if WotC brought it back (and they won't), they would probably just build it on a 5E chassis as well, to make the on-ramp for new players as easy as possible. (And hey, it worked for Starfinder, so why not?)

 

[aramis erak]

After this many years and being essentially unknown to most of the modern player base, I suspect if WotC brought it back (and they won't), they would probably just build it on a 5E chassis as well, to make the on-ramp for new players as easy as possible. (And hey, it worked for Starfinder, so why not?)

For the same reason they didn't at the time: the D&D chassis isn't great for Sci-Fi. And I say this as someone who playtested Traveller T20... and contributed to it... and is proud of it... but it did some violence to the core of D&D 3.x.

Gamma World is loopy level silly - on par with Star Wars and Thundarr... and that kind of silly works in pulpish far post holocaust...

But SFAD and SFKH were not aimed to be silly. At least, not until Zebulon's Guide. Sure, enough tweaks and 5E can be pushed to it, but the system of a new class power every level except the feat ones... that doesn't feel right for Sci-Fi. (and I'm glad Wyvern didn't use that model for SG-1 above level 5.) SFAD allowed increasing what you wanted, not what had been preordained by your initial (often uninformed) choice of class. The aliens in SFAD are all plausible, if extremely unlikely: the Vrusk of need must have both endo and exoskeleton to function, and the Dralasites push credulity a bit far, but the loving tribute to them in The Orville is a reminder that they make for great story fuel, well enough to accept the unlikeliness as "It only needs to succeed once..."

Gamma World's best option in rework would indeed be just a new PHB with different races and classes, but otherwise 5e...
... but SFAD done that way would be something totally unlike its former selves.

 

[Reynard]

For the same reason they didn't at the time: the D&D chassis isn't great for Sci-Fi.

I don't understand this attitude, which yoiu see fairly common. I think it is based around the idea that sci-fi and classes don't go together, but I don't buy that either. 5E works just as well for sci-fi as it does fantasy -- which is to say, it works okay if you do what 5E is good at (ie low stakes action adventure).

 

[Alzrius]

I don't understand this attitude, which yoiu see fairly common. I think it is based around the idea that sci-fi and classes don't go together, but I don't buy that either. 5E works just as well for sci-fi as it does fantasy -- which is to say, it works okay if you do what 5E is good at (ie low stakes action adventure).

This is an interesting point, and one that I think speaks to the changing nature of character classes themselves over time.

When classes had less of what we now call "class abilities," I think they worked in a much broader range of applications in terms of what function they were able to serve. While you still have divides between who has more hit points, more combat ability, and the major issue of whether or not you can use magic, there's a lot of space within those distinctions. Your fighter can still function as a scholarly character, a wise political leader, a (mundane) doctor, etc.

If you start adding a lot of special abilities that are related directly to fighting, however, that potential breadth is narrowed. All the more so since there's likely to be multiple other classes (or at least sub-classes) dedicated specifically to each of those other roles.

It's essentially a question of specialization at the mechanical level, I think. To extend that idea, the more mechanical "heft" (for lack of a better term) you give to character classes, the more they tend to become a certain specific thing, and the less they can fulfill other roles.