Consequently, I loved "The Ares Section" of Dragon, whose articles, even when they weren't of immediate use to me (like the articles on, say, Universe). Among my favorites, though, were the Gamma World articles by John M. Maxstadt, which I often did use in my games. A good example is "Of Grizzly Bears and Chimpanzees," which appeared in issue #89 (September 1984). As its name suggests, the article is devoted to detailing the unique abilities of animals, in this case as stock for mutated animal PCs. Maxstadt provides some basic statistics for a dozen different animal types -- bears, big cats, herbivorous animals, primates, snakes, and birds. These statistics include things like general size, their ability to vocalize and grasp/carry items, in addition to more obvious game stats like armor class and movement rates. The idea behind the article is to rationalize the abilities of mutated animals both from a game mechanical and a logical perspective, thereby making them more attractive to play and easier for the referee to accommodate.
Looking back on the article now, what's fascinating is how simple it really is in the end. There are a couple of pages of game stats, presented as Monster Manual-like entries, followed by a couple of pages of explanation of what the stats mean and how they interact with other aspects of the Gamma World rules. That's probably why I found them so easy to use. At the same time, they carry with them an implicit vision of Gamma World, one that's a bit more limited than the wide open "wahoo!" style usually associated with the game. Maxstadt, for example, doesn't provide stats for insects or amphibians, so the referee is either left to his own devices in coming up with his own or else disallowing such mutated animal types, as Maxstadt apparently did. Now, there's nothing wrong with such a limitation and indeed there's definitely a case to be made for it, but, somehow, the idea of playing Gamma World with any limitations seems to go against its fundamental grain and, were I ever to run a campaign again, I'd probably not use this article's system or else come up with additional stats for other types of animals.
Mutated animals were always a bit tough for me. Should I assume they’re somewhat anthropomorphic, ie - walking upright, fingers & opposable thumbs, etc? Or are they simply animals with human intelligence, unless the player gets lucky and rolls a mutation that would allow such? It seems like many of the “NPC” animals are such (badders, hoops, the chickens from Famine in Fargo, etc).
ReplyDeleteAlso - should say a turtle automatically get a carapace, or does that need to be rolled? Heightened Strength for a bear? Etc, etc, etc.
Anyway, it was never clear to me. I was somehow unaware of this article (in my defense, it’s been decades since I perused issue #89 of Dragon), but it seems super-relevant and useful.
Some time ago, I began listing something like 40 common animals and describing the assumed form and basic mutations they would have. I gave-up on the project, not only because it was daunting, with possibly little return, but also because I was unsure if what I was doing was even in the spirit of the game?
This was something I always liked and still like about Gamma World, at least the 1980 edition. Mutated Animals were mutated animals. “Players electing to play mutated animal characters should first select a basic animal stock, keeping in mind the relative advantages and strengths of that particular species… Determination of whether the mutated animal character is capable of speech, the use of paws/hooves/fins as hands, and so forth, should be made as logically and reasonably as possible before the start of the game…”
DeleteIt’s up to the table and ultimately the GM. I’d say a carapace is definitely one of the “relative advantages and strengths” of playing a turtle.
Right on, I guess (like many 1st gen RPG’s) a lot of leeway is handed to the referee. Which I’m cool with, it just seems maybe a bit too arbitrary on one hand: “okay, you’re a grizzly bear so jack that Strength up!”, and/or too limiting: “sorry, bears can’t talk or manipulate tools or technological devices…”
DeleteI reckon it’s just part of the game, but it surely caused me (as a ref) to advise against them as PC’s.
I think it’s one of those areas where a little more guidance would have been nice.
The limitations might be more suited for running Doom on the Warden or other Metamorphosis Alpha adventures.
ReplyDeleteThere may have been an assumption (with the original game) that you use your characters stats and mutations to determine just what kind of animal you were.
ReplyDelete@James: I too loved Maxstadt's articles, and remember this one fondly...I had read it multiple times even before I got my first GW set, and was trying to figure out how to integrate it into my AD&D game, using the limited GW instructions in the DMG. When I *did* finally get a copy of GW (2nd edition), I used this system for mutant animal characters...as with many such Dragon articles, it helped bring structure to the game which (I think) was desirable to most gamers Back In The Day. We certainly disliked a ton of "wa-hoo" at our tables...we wanted RULES and INSTRUCTIONS as they would help us head off disputes that arose.
[and as a side note, I think this points out (yet again) one of the major disconnects between the so-called "OSR" and true, "old edition" gaming. No one wanted "light" games when *I* was growing up!]
"No one wanted "light" games when *I* was growing up!" - I've thought a lot about this over the years, and I haven't come to a satisfactory answer. I started in '81-82, and we played what we had: Moldvay Expert, Red Box Basic, the MMI and FF, someone brought in the DMG and I devoured it. I think I subscribed to Dragon about '82 or so and let it lapse about '87 or '88. It was all grist for the mill. We all lived far from the major cons, knew nothing of the TSR drama, I had been initiated into the game by a second cousin who had old copies of THE Dragon (remember that?) and who taught me to play using Holmes D&D, a hardback PHB, and the Rogue's Gallery (I distinctly remember these open on that old concrete picnic table at the lake that fateful summer). It honestly never occurred to me to wonder about mixing up these various versions of what were actually different games. I suppose I had read EGG's tirades about AD&D being sacrosanct and different, but it just seemed so distant from our table. So in this case, the way we played was quintessential originalist, "rulings not rules" - I know, I was usually the DM. It made no sense that there were no Elven druids or rangers, so we had them, that sort of thing.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, despite the obvious and flagrant contradictions, we did crave official rules, we were all TSR fanboys (or considered ourselves to be), and revered EGG (I know I did, and when decades later, and many years wiser, I got to meet him and have some conversations with him, it was great and still a memory I cherish, warts and all). I somehow worried about adjudicating something at the table that went "against the rules" and I always paid attention to those Q&A sections in Polyhedron that offered rules clarifications and so on. That this was in open tension (even outright rejection) with how we actually managed to play the game somehow went right over my - I think the collective our - head. I know that at the time, I *thought* I wanted rules heavy, and would have died on that hill, but we always played very rules light.
If you had asked me at the time (my 13-year-old self, say), "Do you just play how you want, the rules be damned?" I would have been horrified at the thought. If you'd then asked me to explain how surprise and initiative worked according to the DMG, I not only wouldn't have been able to explain it - I wouldn't have known what you were talking about; and I read the DMG, I still read it, it's an endlessly fascinating, frustrating text. After all, surprise is determined by both sides rolling 1d6, highest roll wins, and then you move on, right? Initiative, same thing, move on. Dex modification and so on? Please. What about elven rangers - or even "elf" as a race (in the PHB, which we used) not a class (in B/X, BECMI, which we also used)? I think I would have said, "We care about rules in the strictest sense, but we decide which rules we're going to use." That is, we were sticklers for rules at the table, but not within any particular system. Put another way, the game at our table was clear and rules-based, and everyone knew I was going to apply them evenly and clearly - but those rules were an amalgam (a critic would say a hash) of various gaming systems that fit the way we wanted to play and the worlds we wanted to inhabit.
All these years later, that's the best I can come up with.
Great post on this article! It brought back instantly a long forgotten memory. I now vividly recall receiving this issue in the mail one afternoon (as a teenaged subscriber) and being thrilled to see this article about Gamma World included. I loved the game and also loved Planet of the Apes. So teenaged me instantly assumed, from its title, that this article would include game stats for Planet of the Apes characters. But, my sky high enthusiasm was immediately deflated as a realized in a matter of seconds that this article actually enumerated game stats for real, living animals.
ReplyDeleteGiving me some strong Palladium TMNT/After the Bomb vibes, both of which I would recommend for this exact kind of content. Janky system but lots of early TTRPG charm imo, and still very much playable and ESPECIALLY hackable.
ReplyDelete