   Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 08:04:52 -0500
   From: Craig Huber <cshuber@primenet.com>
Subject: Re: [gworld] New GW site: Impressions of GW over time...

James wrote:
>
> Hello Folks,
>
> I've finally found the time to put up my Gamma World site.
> Its a fairly talky site, with articles based on a lot of the things we've
> discussed here.  The tilte, the Art of Gamma World Appreciation
> just about says it all. The URL is
>
> http://www.jpb-s.demon.co.uk/f_gw.htm
>
> Please let me know of any problems, typos or if you have any tips
> regarding Web design, but be gentle because I'm still
> new at the game (my other web site is very basic).
>  I already know  with Netscape 1 the pictures
> come out funny. I'll see what I can do about it.
>
> You will notice there is a section for what other people think
> of Gamma World. Please feel free to add your views. I'd
> be particularly keen to hear from people who have been
> with GW from the very begining and would love to have
> an article how the game changed (tone more than
> mechanics) in its various incarnations.
>
> Regards,
>
> --- James ---

An article on how the game has changed, huh?  That would be a major
undertaking: there were so many aspects that could be analyzed.  As you
mention, the tone changed constantly, and with variations in the
setting, mechanics, artwork, layout, modules...

(My comments, for what they are worth)

To tell the truth, I liked each incarnation for a different reason:

+ First Edition had a gritty feel that I liked, the black and white look
with the hex grid for a back cover, basic typewritten layout: that's the
feel I've always tried to bring to the campaign.

+ Second Edition went a long ways towards making the game actually
_playable_.  The mechanics were better defined and presented, and the
game had a gleaming sci-fi feel: which has since been done to death in
cyber-punk.  A glaring omission in my opinion, given the "cyber-chrome"
tactic, were the lack of rules for cybernetic enhancements.  If GW had
went that direction in 1983, where would TSR be today?

+ Third Edition was the most frustrating for me.  More rules for mutated
animal genotypes, ratings for mutation potency: _by mutation_ , effects
of various types of damage, optional skills and talents, even some
rudimentary cybernetics guidelines in GW10-Epsilon Cyborgs... and the
color bar system from Marvel Superheroes. Ouch.  The game had the
superheroic feel, too: great art, glitzy layout, less concern for
scientific validity.  Much of what I had always wanted to see: all mixed
up, nearly inextricably, with the color bars.  Oh well.

+ Fourth Edition made the transition from super-science back to
weird-science: of all the logos, I liked this one best (with the
entwined eyeball plant: they should have kept the metallic letters,
though.)  Somewhat grittier feel to the art and layout, which I also
liked.  Great detail for mutated animal and plant genotypes, and the
return to more traditional task resolution mechanics was nice.  However,
a change I personally liked less was the introduction of D&D's
class/level system, and profession-based skills (or
profession-restricted, depending upon your viewpoint).

*****

So, you ask: what would he like to see, if none of the above really fits
the bill?

Gritty science fiction, with the edge of weirdness.  Kind of a
Post-Holocaust cyberpunk, but with a far more positive outlook for the
future.  Most cyberpunk scenarios are set in a society still spiralling
_downward_: GW should be working it's way _upward_ from the bottom.
Characters are operating in a world with HOPE.

Professions are fine, but allow characters to develop skills, with
skills in their area of expertise being easier to develop than most.

Levels: if you must.

Redefine mutations with potency, prowess/skill, and onset stage
(infancy, puberty, or menopause).  The more powerful mutations can thus
be defined as only becoming active later in life, but are available for
subconscious use (dormant) if needed by the GM...

Psionics!  No, _not_ mental mutations, psionics.  Spell casters for a
future age... seeking masters to teach new disciplines... less powerful,
but far more flexible...

In the same vein, Martial Artists.  That would be one type of knowledge
that people would hold on to, I think you'd have to admit.

Well defined cybernetics.  Not just implants and prosthetics, but player
character androids, robots, and computer AIs.

Even more mutated animal and plant genotypes, well defined.

*****

Anyway, enough ranting.  It felt good to get it off my chest, though.


Craig Huber

(Gamer For Life: Elves and Mutants Welcome.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 06:59:38 -0500
   From: Craig Huber <cshuber@primenet.com>
Subject: Re: [gworld] 4th Edition General questions

Motatumbo@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 97-05-23 20:02:25 EDT, you write:
>
> > One of the most annoying concepts to the 4th edition is hit points in
> > >general.
>
> The whole hit point system for GW doesnt really bother me. First, I use
> criticals and fumbles in combat which can really shorten the lifespan of any
> creature quickly.
> Second, let the players think they're hit point machine. Not many things are
> more enjoyable than watching a PC's face crease over with worry as you
> quickly slice away their "hit point machine".
> Matt

Actually, I prefer the extensive number of hit points: it allows tiny,
basically non-lethal attacks to be defined as such without looking
silly.  A house cat doing 1-4 per scratch doesn't look that bad given
humans with 40-50 hits.  Compare this to AD&D at first level.

The problem as I see it lies in the weapon damage ranges given.  I'd
immediately double the majority of them, and add a damage multiplier for
exceptional attack rolls and surprise attacks.  Maybe roll damage twice
for such attacks.

I also used a critical hit system during my last campaign (realize, this
was under GW, SECOND edition: it's been hard to find players...)

Any hit which did more than 1/5 of the character's _remaining_ hit
points would force a CON or MS check (depending upon the type of
attack).  Hence, even the nice little kitty cat could be dangerous to a
character limping along at 10 hit points.  Criticals would stun, cause
bleeding, etc.: almost never kill the character outright, but perhaps
make them wish it had.

Craig

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 01:56:14 -0400 (EDT)
   From: RCrichton@aol.com
Subject: Re: [gworld] Terminology

In a message dated 97-05-28 13:39:02 EDT, you write:

> There once was a Dragon article (I think it was in Dragon) that had a small
>  dictionary of Gamma World terms that the characters and populace use.
I believe this was around issue #122 (somewhere in the 120s or 130s). Sorry I
can't be more helpful, but my Dragons are packed.
-Bob
