If this product is any indication, we may look forward to an excellent line of quirky, innovative, thoroughly enjoyable Gamma World products from Sword and Sorcery Studios in the months ahead. Now is a good time to be alive.
Post originally by Patrick Riley at 2003-12-05 09:19:37
Converted from Phorums BB System
If "this is not a perfect product" how can it get a perfect score for style and near-perefect for substance? What score DO you give for perfect products? 11?
You might have given up on Usenet because of "unnecessarily negative discussion" but unnecessary positive discusion is just as bad.
Post originally by Buzz at 2003-12-05 11:49:19
Converted from Phorums BB System
"Yeah, this is not a perfect product; but then, anyone who's been reading Charles Ryan's Bullet Points column on the Wizards of the Coast website knows just how extensive the compiled errata for the D20 Modern rulebook will be."
www.otherniceman.net has compiled errata for d20 Modern and its length isn't particularly notable (8 pages of 12-point full-width type in plain text). It's actually far less than the first printing of the 3.0 PHB had. I don't really see much of a comparison between the (quite obviously) substandard editing of GW and the "industry-standard" editing of d20M. The former is far worse than average, the latter about average.
I also agree with the other RPGnetter who thought your scores didn't quite match your review. Your good and bad points seem about 50/50, which would suggest a Substance rating of 3 at best, IMHO.
Anyway, I guess I already reviewed the game, so I won't again. I will say that Ken Hite seems to basically share the proliferating poor opinion of GWd20, though:
http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarti cle&artid=88
I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that Bruce & Co. do a better job with Adventure d20 and Trinity d20.
Post originally by jwlandry at 2003-12-05 12:26:36
Converted from Phorums BB System
I read this as an apologia, not really a review. It's clear that it's written because the reviewer likes GWd20 and feels like it hasn't gotten a fair shake at rpg.net
There's nothing wrong with that, but give me something to go on here. There is very little specificity in this review - it's mostly general and wishy-washy.
If you are going to write an apologia, you should be very specific and very comprehensive, especially after Buzz's long review.
Post originally by Dan Buterbaugh at 2003-12-05 12:47:15
Converted from Phorums BB System
It's a decently done apocalyptic setting, but it isn't Gamma World. They just slapped the name on to sell a couple extra copies. It has none of the properties that made Gamma World great, and one of it's authors even says he avoided the old editions so that they wouldn't mess up his work (see big GW d20 bash thread).
I bought it, read it, and sold it.
Post originally by Buzz at 2003-12-05 14:08:33
Converted from Phorums BB System
I don't think so. It's not the roasting that I gave the book, but he definitely seems less than impressed.
"...not without some small trouble."
"Similar restrictions apply to mutations (of which there are very few..."
"...decent nanotech, mediocre psi rules, and rudimentary cybertech somewhat make up for the lack..."
"All the writing... is pretty good, although the editing (by the usually more reliable Ellen Kiley) is patchy."
"Unfortunately, these rules are only half finished..."
"This whole section... needs to be finished, and then moved to a GM's Guide."
"The resulting space might even have made room for mutant squirrels." (I.e., he, like many others, misses the zany fun of previous editions.)
Ultimately, I think that the truth may lie somewhere between opinions like mine and those of the current reviewer, i.e., while neither supremely sucky nor exceptional, GWd20 is at best mediocre.
Linear Mode
