C&C Gamma World

weasel fierce · Post by **weasel fierce** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:18 pm

This struck me earlier today, while reading some years old issues of Dragon.. have anyone done anything as far as a C&C based Gamma World game ? It could only rock..

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Thu Aug 10, 2006 10:46 pm

Yes, I'm still working on a complete conversion, though my unfinished notes are found through my signature. Some people want me to finish it. Heh.

magehammer · Post by **magehammer** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:27 am

Consider me some people.

_________________
If you are looking for something to read:
http://bit.ly/QOfso

Visit magehammer's Keep on the Weblands at http://magehammer.googlepages.com

weasel fierce · Post by **weasel fierce** » Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:52 am

oh heck yeah
I have an ancient copy of some Metamorphosis Alpha stuff lying around too. Wouldn't be an overly hard thing to convert, I'd wager

ChokeHazard · Post by **ChokeHazard** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 8:51 pm

Gamma World 4th edition was almost a template for D20, conversion should be relatively simple. Classes are already there, you don't have to deal with skills and feats. Heck, don't get me started, I gave up on GW D20 when S&S released that crapola a couple of years ago...

magehammer · Post by **magehammer** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 10:52 pm

Heck, I would even pay money to see it converted!!!

_________________
If you are looking for something to read:
http://bit.ly/QOfso

Visit magehammer's Keep on the Weblands at http://magehammer.googlepages.com

Veritas · Post by **Veritas** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 6:39 am

Gamma World is a great game and a C&C version of it would be awesome. The current "official" GW game is a joke. Darwin's World is a suitable alternative, but adapting the C&C game to that setting would be great. You'd have to give it a new name to sell it though.

Jonathan · Post by **Jonathan** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:56 pm

Why not a variant on the C&C name?

Cataclysms & Cryptic Alliances (or something)?

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:57 pm

I was thinking of calling my rendition: Freaks and Fragments, but I dunno.

magehammer · Post by **magehammer** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 9:23 pm

Hmmm....

How about Ruins and Radiation?

or

Ancients and Apocalypse

This is fun
_________________
If you are looking for something to read:
http://bit.ly/QOfso

Visit magehammer's Keep on the Weblands at http://magehammer.googlepages.com

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 10:08 pm

magehammer wrote:
Hmmm....

How about Ruins and Radiation?

I like that! It's catchy!

Moriarty the Red
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

Veritas · Post by **Veritas** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 11:09 pm

Rads and Ruins?

Post by **finarvyn** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:34 am

moriarty777 wrote:
I like that! It's catchy!

Moriarty the Red

I second the vote for "Ruins & Radiation". It is catchy!

Veritas · Post by **Veritas** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 2:02 am

Even though I shortened it in my above post, Ruins and Radiation is a good name.

magehammer · Post by **magehammer** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:55 am

Thanks, guys!! I just hope I can buy it and play it one day!!!!!

_________________
If you are looking for something to read:
http://bit.ly/QOfso

Visit magehammer's Keep on the Weblands at http://magehammer.googlepages.com

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:16 pm

One important question: how much like GW do you want R&R to be? I mean, essentially, do you want savign throws, or not?

Post by **finarvyn** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:12 am

My thought would be that C&C GW (or R&R) would not have to mirror GW in terms of mechanics, otherwise why not play GW instead.

The secret would be to capture the flavor of GW but using C&C rules. Hit point progression and other elements of C&C would probably need to be altered somewhat in order to capture the right feel, but I would assume that such changes would be pretty easy to do. The key would be to ask "what makes GW unique" and apply those elements to C&C (or R&R).

Off the top of my head:

* mutations (not GW without 'em!) and mutated critters

* some sort of mental defense (to go with the mutations)

* futuristic weapons

* technology "figure it out" charts

I'm sure there're quite a few I'm forgetting....

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:16 am

Ahh, yes, those are covered. Well, I haven't done a full C&C-style "tech chart" but don't imagine it to be too difficult.

One of the feels, for me, is that GW doesn't have saves. You're either affected, or not, based on pure ability rather than luck, really. For example, low intensity poisons aren't much of a threat to someone with a high Health, but a high intensity poison is downright lethal to anyone.

Veritas · Post by **Veritas** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:28 am

Re-reading the Health Hazards section of my 4th edition GW, I kinda like having no saves. I could, seriously, see pretty much every PC taking Con as a primary.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:38 am

One thing, in my version of the conversion, most every playable race has Con as Prime. One, its mostly because they have to, in order to have survived in the first place, and 2) because in my particular treatment of the game, race assigns a Prime.
If saves aren't wanted, its easy enough to deal with. If they are wanted, that's easy too. The major problem, really, is in the no-save thing, there's hardly any use of the SIEGE Engine... this is oth good (in that one wouldn't really have to ask TLG to use it) and bad (no association.)

Veritas · Post by **Veritas** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:11 am

Oh, well if that's the case, then you may as well just keep the SIEGE Engine and the saves. heh.
However, if saves weren't used, do you not have skills for each race that use the SIEGE mechanics? I saw the problem with diminishing the importance of the SIEGE engine when doing away with saves, but I figured there'd be skills there to "salvage" it.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:22 am

Races... not really. Classes, sort of, what little of them there are, assuming a straight 4E conversion. I'd prefer a classless approach, myself, more akin to earlier GW versions. Mutations use SIEGE to an extent.

There is a way to deal with SIEGE, and that is to have it function as the combat resolution method.

Veritas · Post by **Veritas** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:07 am

Yeah, I'm none too fond of the classes of 4e. I liked just being a Pure Strain Human, a Mutated Human, or a Mutated Animal, and that's it (or, well, Mutated Plant if you want to add them in too).

Korgoth · Post by **Korgoth** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:07 am

I like good ol' 1st edition myself!
_________________
"I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"

----------

"I didn't know there would be this much talking."

magehammer · Post by **magehammer** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:18 pm

Tough questions.

I guess at this point I am leaning toward some kiind of class system ala GW 4.0 becuase that would be the closest mirror to C&C that can be found in the GW universe (d20 GW just doesn't fit).

If going classless is the thing, then GW 2 is where I would like to see it go. 1st edition GW is an ugly monster mechanically IMHO.

Mutations are a must. Mutated Animals are a must. Pure Strain Humans are a must. I give or take plant PCs. I don't use them personally, but adding them in wouldn't affect me, I suppose.

As for saving throws, why not? I think they would fit right in with the hazards of the Post Apocalyptic settings.

I also think Con as a prime for everyone is a great idea as well.

Darwin's World is doing a lot of things right as well, but the d20 feat system underlying it gets on my nerves. I am a rules-light kind of GM.

There are some random thoughts.
_________________
If you are looking for something to read:
http://bit.ly/QOfso

Visit magehammer's Keep on the Weblands at http://magehammer.googlepages.com

Korgoth · Post by **Korgoth** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 7:07 pm

magehammer wrote:
If going classless is the thing, then GW 2 is where I would like to see it go. 1st edition GW is an ugly monster mechanically IMHO.

But 2 didn't have an advancement system! 1e had a perfectly serviceable one.
_________________
"I despise all weavers of the black arts. Speaking of which, can you pass the gravy?"

----------

"I didn't know there would be this much talking."

Veritas · Post by **Veritas** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:13 pm

I think having a "racial advancement system" would be good... you get your Con score in initial d6 for hit points (or perhaps vary it by race... PSH's d10, Mutated humans d8 and Mutated animals d6?), then for every level they gain they get another hit die to add to that as well as advancing BtH.

Saves are good... a poison, radiation or disease save using Con with the dosage level being the CR for it... that's just fine. Int, Wis and Cha saves vs various mental mutations... they can all work. Str and Dex vs their typical things.

magehammer · Post by **magehammer** » Sat Sep 30, 2006 9:46 pm

Yeah, racial advancement is good. The races could essentially take the place of classes with various special abilities.

I like the differing Hit die for each race because that goes along with the race as class idea.

I really like the idea of saves the more I think about it.

Excellent. This is fun.

_________________
If you are looking for something to read:
http://bit.ly/QOfso

Visit magehammer's Keep on the Weblands at http://magehammer.googlepages.com

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:04 am

Have fun writing it.

magehammer · Post by **magehammer** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 9:11 am

Hey, you already started it...

_________________
If you are looking for something to read:
http://bit.ly/QOfso

Visit magehammer's Keep on the Weblands at http://magehammer.googlepages.com