you can decide to just not buy Gamma World, or its optional additional (not "collectible!") booster packs. ... By the way, does anyone else here listen to any of the WotC podcasts? Every time the topic of boosters are brought up in a podacst pertaining to Gamma World, the WotC representative very clearly and specifically mentions that they are optional, and in no way required to play the game.
Yes, WotC has tried very hard to hide behind the 'optional' line when confronted with fans' misgivings (or outright nerdrage) over the CCG aspect. That's one reason why I'm so adamant about it. It's a lame, dismissive excuse, for ignoring any objection, not an answer. And WotC's own description of the game comes right out and calls the cards 'collectible,' so even they aren't so disengenous as to pretend they're not.
It is, in fact, an identical matter. It's not like you need the rulebook to tell you how to count bullets. A very simple house rule. "You may not use booster packs" /is/ also a house rule.
"That's optional" is not a meaningful response to a complaint about an RPG, because having a DM running a game makes everything optional. It is not a response at all, it is simply being snide and dismissive.
You can keep waving that banner, but I don't think you'll find many supporters. It's not snide or dismissive to try and offer solutions to a problem.
A solution or even a discussion of the 'problem,' wouldn't be so bad, but "it's optional" or "don't like it? don't use it" are not solutions, they are not constructive, they are denials of the 'problem.'
Say for instance someone /really/ likes Gamma World, would really like to play rather than DM, and isn't gauranteed to find a DM who is banning boosters. How is telling him the boosters are 'optional' going to help his gaming experience suck less when he's playing at a table full of booster decks stacked with rare cards that overwhelm what he draws from the DM's deck? It's not. And telling him no to play a game he's loved for decades isn't exactly constructive, either, is it? No. What are both of those responses? Dismissive.
The collectible cards exist; nothing short of a time machine can change that. People who hate collectible cards can either give the game a pass or look for a way to play without them.
There you go. You've just tried to exclude a fairly sizeable minority of RPG fans from the game.
I say let anyone who has a problem with the combination of CCG and RPG voice that objection. And, as far as we can with Gamma World, finding /real/ solutions to the issue would be a lot more helpful. I'd rather see someone with initial missgivings about the CCG aspect reasured and given some helpful imput than told not to even try the game.
Telling people in the latter camp that not only can they play without the boosters, but in fact the rules are built to accommodate that, is neither snide nor dismissive.
The rules cope with it, but they don't accomodate it, as balance is thrown off if everyone isn't persuing rare cards with the same agandon. (I know balance isn't a big priority in Gamma World, but it's still an RPG, not a competative CCG).
As for people in the former camp, those who aren't looking to play the game and just want to vent their spleens, well, telling them that the cards are optional may be a waste of breath, but it isn't hurting them.
I am running Gamma World on Game Day. I just playtested the Freesboro module, with some success, with a group of old-school GW fans, most of whom were not accepting of the CCG aspect. On Game Day, obviously, I won't be banning boosters - though I will be using a few other interpretations or house rules based on what I obsverved in the playtest. Banning boosters is a perfectly reasonable house rule normally, of course, but not on Game Day, where boosters are /required/. Going forward, I will be running Gamma World weekly at my FLGS, and may even start up a semi-regular campaign, since I do have a circle of Gamma Geeks who are anxious to play /any/ edition (though most would probably perfer 1st or 4th, they'd all play 7th if that's what I decide to run).
If I run GW for my fellow GW fans, I'll be able to use whatever variants I want. But, in organized play, when players may be buying booster packs from the very store where I'm running, it would hardly be fair to tell them the product they just bought can't be used in the game it's meant for. OTOH, after Game Day, I will almost certainly have some RPGers showing up, too, who will not be interested in buying boosters, and who would be very quickly put off if I don't find some way of rebalancing the game to accomodate both avid deck-building CCGers and deckless RPGers.
So, yes, the way WotC has chosen to fold CCG aspects into an RPG with Gamma World does present a very real challenge for GMs, and, no, dismissing that issue as 'optional' is not constructive, and serves only to stiffle any constructive discussion that might otherwise occur.
I would prefer WotC going the Living card route and leave behind the Collectible card route. I mean they've already essentially done it on the PC/360 with Duel of the Planeswalkers. To me this game seems like a better fit for that format than the CCG format.
Would you care to expand upon the "Living card" alternative?
Say for instance someone /really/ likes Gamma World, would really like to play rather than DM, and isn't gauranteed to find a DM who is banning boosters. How is telling him the boosters are 'optional' going to help his gaming experience suck less when he's playing at a table full of booster decks stacked with rare cards that overwhelm what he draws from the DM's deck? It's not. And telling him no to play a game he's loved for decades isn't exactly constructive, either, is it? No. What are both of those responses? Dismissive.
all of the cards are known, and I've now purchased a couple of boosters. There is nothing in the current set that is any more powerful than the cards included in the base set.
Furthermore, arguing that booster rares ARE more powerful than base set cards completely ignores the reason that CCGs frustrate many in the first place. "He with the most money wins". That's the fundamental annoyance of CCGs. It's annoying because it means that if I only buy a deck and a few boosters, I can't be competitive against someone who sinks $200 into a deck. Does this annoyance translate to GW? I can't see how it does. Everyone putting together decks are on the same team. So what? You are not competitive against another party member?
Now let's make the incorrect presumption that I have the Very Ultra Rare booster card "all attacks deal 4[W]". Johnny sitting next to me has to draw from the GM trash. Poor scrub. How is Johnny's game going to be fundamentally worse than mine? I am going to be doing more damage than Johnny. But I'll also be doing more damage than origins not primarily anchored in damage dealing. I will be getting more kills than johnny, but XP is still handed out evenly. I'll still be taking the same turns as johnny. Moving the same number of squares. etc. In this scenario Johnny's game doesn't change directly at all, and only indirectly changes because I am killing monsters faster than everyone else (which in reality isn't the case).
The bottom line is that if you are insisting players are going to hate this... you have to explain WHY, more than just "because it's collectible". You still have not illustrated precisely where one player's game experience will be drastically worse without a deck than another player's game experience who has a deck stacked with rares.
Would you care to expand upon the "Living card" alternative?
The fact that you don't understand what a Living Card game is kind of points to the concern that you don't understand what is going on in Gamma World.
A Living card game plays exactly like a CCG. The difference is that unlike a CCG, there is no collectible aspect. When an expansion is released, the $10-15 set includes every card in the expansion. Furthermore, the cards are "pooled together", in that each player doesn't need to buy the base set, and each player doesn't need to buy each expansion. It is a pool of evenly distributed cards useable by both players and skill takes the stage, not bank roll. Poker is the ultimate LCG. Everything needed to play comes in your standard 52 card deck.
Now what Gamma World is, without boosters, is essentially a Living Card game. Everything you need to play (sans dice.. sigh) is in the box. You can play an entire campaign, and likely every expansion, without buying a single booster. What my suggestion is, is that instead of releasing "Atom cards" in booster packs, WotC releases an "Atom card expansion". This way if players wanted to they could go out and buy the $10 (or whatever) expansion and load up their decks from an equal footing. The GM could as well.
My guess is had WotC done that, there wouldn't be..... well, ok.. there'd still be complaints, but you wouldn't here any of these age old "players without the money to spend on boosters will have a miserable time" arguments that typically come up with CCGs (which btw is largely a falacy as well). However, WotC went the CCG route so it is what it is.
But the bottom line here is that a player with Boosters doesn't have a significant advantage over participation as a user without boosters, and if nobody showed up to a game with booster decks the game is still very much playable 100% according to the printed rules. So all of your fears are allayed. Of course I still imagine you clinging to your assessment that by not buying boosters players are not abiding by the game and are playing some non-sanctioned house rule variant, and that players who do buy boosters will have twenty times more the game experience than the peasants who can't afford them. Which is a shame, because it really is quite a smart game and the cards add to the enjoyment. It's the convenience of power cards from 4E combined with the hilarity of a random power table rolled every encounter. How could someone not love that?
Say for instance someone /really/ likes Gamma World, would really like to play rather than DM, and isn't gauranteed to find a DM who is banning boosters. How is telling him the boosters are 'optional' going to help his gaming experience suck less when he's playing at a table full of booster decks stacked with rare cards that overwhelm what he draws from the DM's deck? It's not. And telling him no to play a game he's loved for decades isn't exactly constructive, either, is it? No. What are both of those responses? Dismissive.
all of the cards are known, and I've now purchased a couple of boosters. There is nothing in the current set that is any more powerful than the cards included in the base set.
'The Patch,' the DM deck heals your bloodied value. 'The Patch II,' a common, heals your bloodied value + 2d6. That's strictly more powerful. And, it's just a common. Nothing in the DM Alpha deck does the 10d10 damage of an overcharged Gamma Eye.
Furthermore, arguing that booster rares ARE more powerful than base set cards completely ignores the reason that CCGs frustrate many in the first place. "He with the most money wins". That's the fundamental annoyance of CCGs. It's annoying because it means that if I only buy a deck and a few boosters, I can't be competitive against someone who sinks $200 into a deck. Does this annoyance translate to GW? I can't see how it does. Everyone putting together decks are on the same team. So what? You are not competitive against another party member?
Actually, that's exactly the point. CCGs are competative, part of the point is coming up with the best deck possible. RPGs are cooperative, but, they are also about highlighting each individual PCs contribution - 'spotlight time' it's sometimes called. 'Game Balance' is thus an important part of any RPG (though different games prioritize it differently, and it's never been the top priority in Gamma World). What, in CCGs, is a feature, is a glaring weakness when done in an RPG.
Would you care to expand upon the "Living card" alternative?
The fact that you don't understand what a Living Card game is kind of points to the concern that you don't understand what is going on in Gamma World.
A Living card game plays exactly like a CCG. The difference is that unlike a CCG, there is no collectible aspect. When an expansion is released, the $10-15 set includes every card in the expansion. [/qutoe]That would be ideal, yes. Complete expansion decks rather than blind/random boosters would be an entirely superior distribution model for an RPG suplement that uses a card mechanic.
Furthermore, the cards are "pooled together", in that each player doesn't need to buy the base set, and each player doesn't need to buy each expansion. It is a pool of evenly distributed cards useable by both players and skill takes the stage, not bank roll.
Nod. As a DM, I'd almost certainly buy each expansion deck, anyway.
'The Patch,' the DM deck heals your bloodied value. 'The Patch II,' a common, heals your bloodied value + 2d6. That's strictly more powerful. And, it's just a common. Nothing in the DM Alpha deck does the 10d10 damage of an overcharged Gamma Eye.
Gamma Eye is 10d10 overcharged, and if you miss the overcharge you do no damage and take your bloodied value in radiation damage.. Sounds about right to me. Further, it can only be used on one target and as an Alpha is "tapped" for the encounter. It's a one shot with a pretty drastic downside. As for "The Patch" comapred to "The Patch II".. of course it's better. It's an upgrade. There are better and worse cards comparatively in the GM set. Like wise there are also some comparable healing cards in the GM set and even better overcharges.
Furthermore, arguing that booster rares ARE more powerful than base set cards completely ignores the reason that CCGs frustrate many in the first place. "He with the most money wins". That's the fundamental annoyance of CCGs. It's annoying because it means that if I only buy a deck and a few boosters, I can't be competitive against someone who sinks $200 into a deck. Does this annoyance translate to GW? I can't see how it does. Everyone putting together decks are on the same team. So what? You are not competitive against another party member?
Actually, that's exactly the point. CCGs are competative, part of the point is coming up with the best deck possible. RPGs are cooperative, but, they are also about highlighting each individual PCs contribution - 'spotlight time' it's sometimes called. 'Game Balance' is thus an important part of any RPG (though different games prioritize it differently, and it's never been the top priority in Gamma World). What, in CCGs, is a feature, is a glaring weakness when done in an RPG.
but umm... they are still contributing. so they are going to feel lousy that they are not contributing enough now? Petty?
The bottom line here is that the boosters are in fact optional and nothing in the rules states expressly that the players need a deck to play (which of course they don't). If someone is going to be soured on their gaming experience because one player did 25% more damage than they did because of their deck of cards, well... I'm not sure if that's a player I'm really interested in playing to begin with. It's about cooperation, and just like the player lucking out and finding that +10 sword in the chest behind the bookshelf, everylittle bit helps us make it through the adventure.
A solution or even a discussion of the 'problem,' wouldn't be so bad, but "it's optional" or "don't like it? don't use it" are not solutions, they are not constructive, they are denials of the 'problem.'
Say for instance someone /really/ likes Gamma World, would really like to play rather than DM, and isn't gauranteed to find a DM who is banning boosters. How is telling him the boosters are 'optional' going to help his gaming experience suck less when he's playing at a table full of booster decks stacked with rare cards that overwhelm what he draws from the DM's deck? It's not. And telling him no to play a game he's loved for decades isn't exactly constructive, either, is it? No. What are both of those responses? Dismissive.
"Rare cards that overwhelm what he draws from the DM's deck" is a massive overstatement of the difference between the cards in the starter set and the collectible set. Drawing from the GM's deck is not going to make anyone's gaming experience "suck." I'm speaking in part from my own experience here; so far I've run one adventure over a couple nights. Some players had collectible cards and some didn't. There was no noticeable power disparity over the adventure, and certainly no fun imbalance.
Even if the collectible cards were so overpowering as you imagine, I don't think people's ability to enjoy games with uneven resources is as fragile as you think. Especially in a cooperative, light-hearted game with random character generation. In fact, given the cooperative nature of the game, at many tables I expect the players who are collecting will be happy to lend their extra cards to the players who aren't. This isn't a head-to-head tournament we're talking about.
There you go. You've just tried to exclude a fairly sizeable minority of RPG fans from the game. I say let anyone who has a problem with the combination of CCG and RPG voice that objection. And, as far as we can with Gamma World, finding /real/ solutions to the issue would be a lot more helpful. I'd rather see someone with initial missgivings about the CCG aspect reasured and given some helpful imput than told not to even try the game.
No one's telling anyone not to try the game. Some people are trying to tell people who are apprehensive about the collectible aspect that they can play without it, and you're trying to undermine that by being alarmist.
The rules cope with it, but they don't accomodate it, as balance is thrown off if everyone isn't persuing rare cards with the same agandon.
False, and ridiculous.
I am running Gamma World on Game Day. I just playtested the Freesboro module, with some success, with a group of old-school GW fans, most of whom were not accepting of the CCG aspect. On Game Day, obviously, I won't be banning boosters - though I will be using a few other interpretations or house rules based on what I obsverved in the playtest.
Let me just interject that using houserules on Game Day strikes me as a terrible idea, but whatever.
Banning boosters is a perfectly reasonable house rule normally, of course, but not on Game Day, where boosters are /required/. Going forward, I will be running Gamma World weekly at my FLGS, and may even start up a semi-regular campaign, since I do have a circle of Gamma Geeks who are anxious to play /any/ edition (though most would probably perfer 1st or 4th, they'd all play 7th if that's what I decide to run).
If I run GW for my fellow GW fans, I'll be able to use whatever variants I want. But, in organized play, when players may be buying booster packs from the very store where I'm running, it would hardly be fair to tell them the product they just bought can't be used in the game it's meant for. OTOH, after Game Day, I will almost certainly have some RPGers showing up, too, who will not be interested in buying boosters, and who would be very quickly put off if I don't find some way of rebalancing the game to accomodate both avid deck-building CCGers and deckless RPGers.
So, yes, the way WotC has chosen to fold CCG aspects into an RPG with Gamma World does present a very real challenge for GMs, and, no, dismissing that issue as 'optional' is not constructive, and serves only to stiffle any constructive discussion that might otherwise occur.
It's only a challenge in groups that actually suffer from this as-yet theoretical, imagined friction between the deck-builders and the deckless, a concept largely founded on an exaggeration of the imbalance between the two. If an actual group ends up suffering from it, solutions are going to be predicated on the personalities involved; there's not going to be a one-size-fits-all answer. Although letting the deckless print out their own cards and putting them in sleeves might solve many of these cases when they eventually actually manifest.
As for "The Patch" comapred to "The Patch II".. of course it's better. It's an upgrade. There are better and worse cards comparatively in the GM set. Like wise there are also some comparable healing cards in the GM set and even better overcharges.
I honestly don't know what you think you're talking about. You said the booster set cards weren't better than the DM set cards. I gave you specific examples that were. Yes, it's an upgrade. A lot of the GM set cards are very obviously inferior just by their names, you have 'Unstable Vibroblade,' 'Dim Photonic Spear,' 'Cracked Ray Gun,' 'Leaky Fusion Rifle,' 'Unreliable Jet Pack' and 'Erratic Riflehound.' Then, in the boosters you have the superior versions.
'Game Balance' is thus an important part of any RPG. What, in CCGs, is a feature, is a glaring weakness when done in an RPG.
but umm... they are still contributing. so they are going to feel lousy that they are not contributing enough now? Petty?
OK, so you don't grasp the concept of game balance, so you can't see why having more powerful stuff available to some players than to others would be an issue.
The bottom line here is that the boosters are in fact optional and nothing in the rules states expressly that the players need a deck to play (which of course they don't).
I never said they weren't, it just a meaningless distinction in an RPG, since any rule could be overriden by the GM.
Since any rule can be altered in an RPG, discussions of the merits of various rules can be quite helpful. But, those discussions can't happen if the issues that prompt them are dismissed out of hand.
No one's telling anyone not to try the game. Some people are trying to tell people who are apprehensive about the collectible aspect that they can play without it, and you're trying to undermine that by being alarmist.
Not at all. When you dismiss the concerns of someone who is worried about the CCG aspect, you are, in effect, advising them to abandon the game. If you address those concerns, you may alay their fears.
Although letting the deckless print out their own cards and putting them in sleeves might solve many of these cases when they eventually actually manifest.
Thank you, that's the first constructive sentence I've heard from you in this entire discussion. I'm not sure how WotC would feel about such a forray into copyright violation, but I'm sure there might be other possible solutions along the same line. Ultimately cards are content, like the pages of a rulebook. So, using dice for randomization purposes and the cards as a reference, for instance, would allow 1 card (or a card list?) to serve the whole table. Another example of a variation to cope with the balance aspect might be to have a communal player decks, rather than each player building their own (those bringing cards would have to find some suitable method to track ownership, of course).
Not at all. When you dismiss the concerns of someone who is worried about the CCG aspect, you are, in effect, advising them to abandon the game. If you address those concerns, you may alay their fears.
You can compare "informing people of the option to not use the collectible cards" to "dismissing thier concerns" until you're blue in the face, and apparently you intend to, but it won't become any more true. Although it is somewhat amusing watching you pretend to be offended for these imaginary wounded parties.
The "don't use the cards" solution won't satisfy everyone, and I haven't seen anyone claim that it would, but coming from the position that it couldn't conceivably satisfy anyone and therefore it was somehow immoral to bring it up is just bizarre.
Thank you, that's the first constructive sentence I've heard from you in this entire discussion.
I'm sorry I waited until now to give you a solution for your previously unvoiced theoretical problem, but if that's all you were looking for you could have stopped reading at post 16 of this thread. Better that than getting snippy with people who didn't know about your specific concern for the crime of providing information to other people that wasn't helpful to you.
You can compare "informing people of the option to not use the collectible cards" to "dismissing thier concerns" until you're blue in the face, and apparently you intend to, but it won't become any more true.
It doesn't /need/ to become anymore true. But, yes, when someone pops up in a discussion I'm having and dismisses legitimate concerns with a meaningless assertion, I'll call him on it.
