Re: Gamma World Booster Cardsword_geekOctober 13 2010, 11:56:29 UTC
OK, so here's the thing I don't get -- and maybe it's just me, or the group I play with, or our GM -- but if you want a new monster, or a mutation, or a setting, or whatever...why not just make it up yourself? I mean, those cards must have, what, all of 50 words on them, and some stats? Why would you pay for that when you could make up something equivalent, and have it be unique to your game? I get that officially-sanctioned products have a higher guarantee of being "balanced" within the game system, but if it becomes obvious that you've botched some of the stats, why not just change it on the fly?
I got the same feeling listening to some people complain that some monster in an official setting was "overpowered in the new edition." OK, so? Change it back, then. RPGs aren't a competition; there's no winners or losers. They're about the players having fun, right? So if you think a change to the rules makes it much more likely that your players will get slaughtered out of the gate, what's stopping you from changing it? It's not like WotC sends representatives around to watch people play in their homes, do they? (I haven't played a WotC product in years, so I don't know.)
Maybe it's just that I've spent too long with home-brewed systems and settings, but I don't think so. When I was 15 years old and GMing my first "Star Frontiers" game for my friends (and if we're getting a new edition of Gamma World, how about bringing back Star Frontiers too, just for the fun of it?), I made an original story with original monsters and bad guys. Sure, I borrowed heavily from the setting that already existed, but that's what it's there for; I wasn't enslaved by it. I always thought that was how it was done.
Re: Gamma World Booster Cardsps238principalOctober 13 2010, 22:40:43 UTC
If we ever get a Gamma World campaign started again, I'd lobby for using newer rules for combat/characters but keep the old setting. I like settlements small and on the brink, irradiated cities with mutant horrors and robots guarding old vaults, and the "old world" being more like our own than some cyberpunk future with so much unrecognizable features that it kind of makes the setting just seem like another planet instead of the one we live on.
I got the same feeling listening to some people complain that some monster in an official setting was "overpowered in the new edition." OK, so? Change it back, then. RPGs aren't a competition; there's no winners or losers. They're about the players having fun, right? So if you think a change to the rules makes it much more likely that your players will get slaughtered out of the gate, what's stopping you from changing it? It's not like WotC sends representatives around to watch people play in their homes, do they? (I haven't played a WotC product in years, so I don't know.)
Maybe it's just that I've spent too long with home-brewed systems and settings, but I don't think so. When I was 15 years old and GMing my first "Star Frontiers" game for my friends (and if we're getting a new edition of Gamma World, how about bringing back Star Frontiers too, just for the fun of it?), I made an original story with original monsters and bad guys. Sure, I borrowed heavily from the setting that already existed, but that's what it's there for; I wasn't enslaved by it. I always thought that was how it was done.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment