This writeup by Age of Ravens on Mutant: Year Zero piqued my interest. (http://ageofravens.blogspot.ca/2017/03/mutant-year-zero-rpgs-i-love.html) Particularly all the mechanics and play around the Ark. There's a Let's Play thread on here where someone praises the hell out of this game as well. There's a free preview on Drivethru (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/137280/Mutant-Year-Zero-FREE-Preview) that I'll download and never read unless someone gives me a reason to do so.
Anyone played this sucker? Thoughts? Will it scratch that GW itch?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1134[/ATTACH]
It's a beautiful book, with nice resources (cards, dice, maps, etc) in it's overall package. It feels classy to touch with it's matt cover and good quality paper. The illustrations are outstanding in capturing the atmosphere. It's easy to read, without the verbosity of some game books, and few groups would have difficulty grasping the game quickly, I think.
The system is a simple dice pool system with '6' being the target, but is made more complicated by rolling a pool made up of three different colours - each representing Attributes, Skills and Equipment. I'm not sure I'm really keen on this, but the notion is that if you roll '1's - which have convenient symbols on the official dice something bad happens accordingly. They aren't as bad as Star Wars narrative dice, as you can get by with normal D6s (of varying colour) but I'd have preferred the simpler take on this dice pool system used in Tales of the Loop myself.
Character generation is familiar in feel to the recent crop of Apocalypse World games, insofar that you get to choose a variety of statements from archetypes in order to flesh them out a bit, for characterisation, motivation, etc. Each character is a mutant - the actual mutation effects being determined by drawing from a deck of cards, and you don't have full control on when they will impact either. You can also draw from a Threat and Artefact deck during the course of play which, along with a map actually makes it easy for a GM to pick up and play.
There is a fair amount of competition these days for post-apocalyptic gaming, with a lot of titles to choose from. This remains a good choice though, and is well supported.
I have read the book but haven't played it yet. Form what I can tell It's a solid rpg rules wise and l like the mechanics. If you like post apocalyptic/fallout it's a good choice.
I looked at it, but couldn't find a reason why it would replace Gamma World (1e or D&D 4e versions) or Waste World. If I didn't have those games, perhaps Mutant: Year Zero would have caught my attention more.
Quote from: Voros;974478Anyone played this sucker? Thoughts? Will it scratch that GW itch?
It depends on the way you see GW. I find Mutant Year Zero to be far more harsh and unforgiving. To make it short, the world and the rules are about entropy. The rules make sure that your gear and your body will slowly, but surely, decay. The more powerful your mutant gets, the more he degenerates.
It works very well in play but it's not the kinda of atmosphere I look for in my games though.
To risk an odd comparison with books, if Gamma World is Hiero's Journey, Mutant Year Zero is closer to Roadside picnic
Quote from: Spinachcat;974510I looked at it, but couldn't find a reason why it would replace Gamma World (1e or D&D 4e versions) or Waste World. If I didn't have those games, perhaps Mutant: Year Zero would have caught my attention more.
Mutant Year Zero's tone is very different... It's a lot less gonzo. And the setting takes itself pretty seriously. That's not to say you couldn't play a serious Gamma World game of course - but in general.
As for the game itself, it's pretty good. I like the vibe... Your characters have to leave the ark not just to get supplies but tensions are rising inside. So there's a nice bit of political intrigue already set up.
The mechanics are pretty decent. My only real complaint is the metaplot (I don't want to give out any spoilers). Not that it's not interesting but you characters are always influenced by it (even if they don't know it). To be honest, I'd dump it myself and let the characters be free to roam, and create their own agendas.
Another thing is that the world is very dangerous. I mean, that as your characters go out and explore they will get exposed to toxins ad this will eventually kill them. There is no cure... However, this can lead to gaining more mutant powers, etc.
Quote from: The Exploited.;974524Mutant Year Zero's tone is very different... It's a lot less gonzo. And the setting takes itself pretty seriously.
Have you seen the Genelab Alpha spinoff?!
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1137[/ATTACH]
What bothers me enough to give it a pass is that everyone is a mutant.
I'm not sure that's the post apocalypse game I want.
Nothing wrong with that per se. Cup of tea innit.
Pretty good game. Mix of old-school hex crawl and PbtA, in a well realized setting and beautiful book. The problem for us are the mutations. Since you gain them randomly you may end up with useless stuff for your role, or obfuscating other players roles.
@Trippy Hippy, that's an optional supplement. The corebook felt pretty non-gonzo for us, as Exploited says. There is also a robots/machines only supplement, if I ain't mistaken.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;974529Have you seen the Genelab Alpha spinoff?!
There are some elements that appear a little gonzo but that is not the game's tone.
The main game is full of fairly gonzo mutations. Your character may look almost indistinguishable from a normal human... or may look barely human at all. Hell, you might even have wings and fly (or hover at least). Despite some of these seemingly gonzo trappings you're not running around doing wacky things. Really you're grubbing around in the dirt for survival, fending off vicious predators (human or otherwise), becoming increasingly sick, and all the while your home is facing pretty dire times. The most gonzo element, the use of your wild mutations, gives you short term benefits but long term problems. It's a grim tone overall.
Genlab Alpha is a standalone game (set in the same world though) and looks a bit like The Wind in the Willows with Parka jackets, hiking boots, hunting rifles, and handguns on the surface. However, you live in a pretty scary compound and in small societies with very rigid, and unforgiving, social structures. Test those social structures too much and your friends and family will turn on you. They might just bully you a bit but, if you're unlucky, they're going to try and tear you apart. Literally. Also, the innate abilities that come from being an uplifted member of your species work against you like Mutations do in the standard game. In the short term you can gain a benefit from them but you risk becoming feral, and losing control, in the long term. Then there's all the robots around the place that will try to kill you if they spot you. It's more like Watership Down meets The Road, with ocassional shades of the original Terminator movie.
I've just got the Alpha version of the Mechatron game, which covers robots, and it looks a little gonzo too. I've only skimmed it but I think the average player group will end up looking something like C3PO, R2D2, and Wall-E. No doubt it'll play in a much grimmer fashion than that would suggest! I expect physical corrosion and software corruption to play a part.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;974529Have you seen the Genelab Alpha spinoff?!
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1137[/ATTACH]
I have! But I held off buying it, to be honest... As I'm not all that into the mutant animal concepts. I bought quite a number of their other (mini) supplements which I really like. Even if you never played the game as intended they have some great ideas to mine from. I'm really looking forward to the robot supplement.
Although, at the moment if I was going to play a Post Apoc game I'd probably go with Other Dust. I really like it... Has a dark tone as well in case you've not seen it. :)
Quote from: kobayashi;974519To risk an odd comparison with books, if Gamma World is Hiero's Journey, Mutant Year Zero is closer to Roadside picnic
Sold and sold.
Other Dust looks good too.
I'm running the Genlab Alpha campaign now and... it reads better than it plays.
(some relevant(?) digression coming up....)
Mechanically speaking the system is pretty light and simple and whiffy. Expect characters to fail. A lot. PC, NPC, doesn't matter. When you -do- get hit, expect to either live just fine or explode; healing is pretty easy. Domination/Rank is made out to be this big thing, but expect to figure out what that means for your group yourself. There's a power that will let your (Seer) PCs kill anyone, anywhere, anyhow, so don't get attached to any NPCs. The campaign is really short and linear, but can play a -lot- longer than it looks (my mistake, I admit, was in thinking "oh, we can wrap this up in 12-18 sessions", which put time pressures on me). Gear/Artifacts -can- break, but tend not to.
The Power Gamer of the group made a frightening build off of an Elder Seer Ape, with lots of Domination and Scrying. He used his high Rank to get Scavengers and Hunters in his tribe to give him armor and weapons; nothing -too- fancy as they could mass make the stuff he wanted through their -own- powers. His first advancement was that "auto-kill" power. I don't begrudge a power-gamer for investing time in learning the rules, even if its to better exploit them (in an honest manner!), but I have found the game to be progressively "unfun" as a GM for reasons I don't fully understand. Some I blame on myself, but not all of it.
It -is- a fun read though! And I've thrown in all sorts of side stories about earlier experiments before the war ("wait, there's a Crow tribe?!?!"), psychic warrior experiments ("so -that's- where the Role powers come from!"), and a greater emphasis on "lieutenant" NPCs for the PCs to face in small doses ("it's the Observer DA-D33!"). Still though, I think it needed another round of proofing ("why is the Bear leader's helicopter in Badger lands?") and playtesting.
I wrote a review of the game here:
https://www.rpggeek.com/thread/1740376/radioactive-stone-soup
It's not as detailed as the Age of Ravens one, but it compares it a lot to other games you might know. Hope it is useful.
Thanks! Much appreciated.
I hear the tone is quite dark. is this true?
Apparently so.
Quote from: Biscuitician;974534What bothers me enough to give it a pass is that everyone is a mutant.
I'm not sure that's the post apocalypse game I want.
Nothing wrong with that per se. Cup of tea innit.
I don't want to give away any spoilers or argue at all, but there IS a faction in Mutant Year Zero that is not mutated that you can use as pure strain humans, or the equivalent.
One of my hardcore Fantasy Only! players thumbed through my Mutant Year Zero and Gen Lab Alpha core books and was instantly wanting to play. And the robot as character book is next in line.
Quote from: Biscuitician;975385I hear the tone is quite dark. is this true?
Yes! Pretty dark alright...
Quote from: bat;975953I don't want to give away any spoilers or argue at all, but there IS a faction in Mutant Year Zero that is not mutated that you can use as pure strain humans, or the equivalent.
I heard a sourcebook for pure humans would come out. Is that what you mean? If not, please, tell us more!
Quote from: Itachi;975972I heard a sourcebook for pure humans would come out. Is that what you mean? If not, please, tell us more!
I believe it is coming after the robot book which will be out in November (tentatively).
I really don't want to spoil the setting for any players. But there is a group detailed in the core book that are NPCs but are basically (although not revealed as) non-mutant humans. One could easily tailor them to be PSHs.
Quote from: bat;975984I believe it is coming after the robot book which will be out in November (tentatively).
I really don't want to spoil the setting for any players. But there is a group detailed in the core book that are NPCs but are basically (although not revealed as) non-mutant humans. One could easily tailor them to be PSHs.
Oh sure, now I got it. But then you basically lose the whole Ark premise and everything, which I consider half the fun of the game. A more straight tweak should be simply ignoring mutant powers and metaplot and stating everyone in the ark is human.
I think a sneaky thing to do would be to make this a low power Warhammer 40k type game. Take the faction with no mutants, convert them to a PC choice and make the mutants followers of either various or a single Ruinous Power. Run with the Ark, make it gritty, and make the Rot into Warpstone.
Maybe Nurgle wants to make a plague world and there are plenty of pure humans to corrupt...just don't tell the players that. Don't tell them there are 40k elements, but let them know the radiation is scary and warps things.
I thought the community building mechanics were brilliant. I really didn't like the idea of a playable Slave class.
Quote from: Tetsubo;976388I thought the community building mechanics were brilliant. I really didn't like the idea of a playable Slave class.
I take it no player is
forced to play a Slave?
Quote from: Tetsubo;976388I thought the community building mechanics were brilliant. I really didn't like the idea of a playable Slave class.
What bothered you about this? It is also an optional career in Barbarians of Lemuria. All are optional.
I also didn't see the point of the slave class. I can't come up with reasonable reasons for a boss having his/her slave going out on an expedition. It feels tacked.
Quote from: bat;976458What bothered you about this? It is also an optional career in Barbarians of Lemuria. All are optional.
A slave implies an owner. Which can mean one of two things: 1) Another player owns the slave PC or 2) The party is making sure the slave doesn't escape on behalf of the owner back at the Ark. Both of these are morally repugnant situations. That slavery exists isn't the issue. That the player characters are complicit in it's continuation is. But from a purely survival standpoint taking a slave into the field makes zero sense. You aren't going to arm a slave. An armed slave isn't a slave for very long. Why wouldn't you take a trained adventurer over a laborer? Makes no sense. So I find it morally repugnant that the player's settlement is engaging in the institution of slavery and from a mission standpoint it makes no sense. I would never use the class. And any GM that had slavery in the PC settlement wouldn't have me as a player.
Quote from: Tetsubo;976640...But from a purely survival standpoint taking a slave into the field makes zero sense. You aren't going to arm a slave. An armed slave isn't a slave for very long. Why wouldn't you take a trained adventurer over a laborer? Makes no sense...
Because some people prefer survival (even as a slave) versus death by starvation or at the hands of exile. Isn't this the basis for slavery, at its heart? If people do not want to be slaves, they won't be (granted, they may be dead, beaten, or exiled into worse conditions, or even worse). Armed slaves can be disarmed, or killed if necessary. People are very clever at controlling those who would be controlled.
I'm not trying to sound like an ass, and I understand where you are coming from on a moral level, but people suck. I also get that you don't want it in your game, but the situation makes perfect, if repugnant, sense to me.
Quote from: Itachi;976485I also didn't see the point of the slave class. I can't come up with reasonable reasons for a boss having his/her slave going out on an expedition. It feels tacked.
I think it's an interesting idea... But more for GM plots.
I think playing as a slave would be an interesting start to a game. The satisfaction of tearing your 'owner's' spine out like the predator would be brilliant. And a good plot device to make the players out as heroes by trying to liberate an oppressive ark, etc.
But playing it as a constant character with just following orders from another player (without the possibility to ever be free) would be very dull.
Slavery, as a concept though, in a Post Apocalyptic setting makes a lot of sense even if it is very distasteful.
Quote from: Tetsubo;976640A slave implies an owner. Which can mean one of two things: 1) Another player owns the slave PC or 2) The party is making sure the slave doesn't escape on behalf of the owner back at the Ark. Both of these are morally repugnant situations. That slavery exists isn't the issue. That the player characters are complicit in it's continuation is. But from a purely survival standpoint taking a slave into the field makes zero sense. You aren't going to arm a slave. An armed slave isn't a slave for very long. Why wouldn't you take a trained adventurer over a laborer? Makes no sense. So I find it morally repugnant that the player's settlement is engaging in the institution of slavery and from a mission standpoint it makes no sense. I would never use the class. And any GM that had slavery in the PC settlement wouldn't have me as a player.
So if the player's settlement just executes traitors, spies and captured enemies that isn't morally repugnant to you? I understand that slavery is wrong, owning humans is not the best choice, but if society collapsed tomorrow we'd all have to be making some serious choices and morals and ethics would often take a back seat to seeing another day. An Ark needs resources to try to survive. If you catch a spy or a thief it is a serious matter that threatens the entire group. Enslaving those who would bring down the entire group is not as bad as eating them for jeopardizing supplies and security. Although cannibalism does send out a strong message to other would-be betrayers.
I do not think that in a survival type game that allows this option that you are betraying your own morals or ethics. it is a game. We all know that slavery is bad and should not be practiced in society. We also all know if civilization collapses it will be back on day one because there are people out there that just do not care.
(I am not making this a political statement or trying to justify slavery in any way, I am pointing out that in a survival situation you will do things against your normal moral code and I do not think that in this case you are a rotten person for exploring this option. You are a rotten person if you feel it is a good option in or out of a game.)
It bothers me on a more simple level. See, the game is implicitly about a cooperative adventuring party that cycles phases between life in the Ark and expeditions out in the wastes. So it assumes a degree of constant cooperation from the start, and all the classes are conductive to this, as they complement each other in their abilities and capacities. Having a slave character simply breaks this mold, specially if you have another playing the "Boss" in the same group. The ending result is this schizo situation where the group is supposed to cooperate but now there is a boss and it's slave struggling in the team, whose dynamics are disruptive to the established framework.
Contrast this with, say, Apocalypse World where the default mode of play assumes each player has it's own agenda and plot against each other from the start. Eventually the group may cooperate for survival against external threats, but intra-party conflict is there by default. You may have a player as the tyranical Holder oppresing the group, an Hocus rebelling against him, and a self-interested Operator working for who pays best. And they may join forces to fight the neighbouring cannibals. All this gels perfectly because it's the indended mode of play from the start and the game's framework support this.
That's the difference, IMHO.
And that is a logical and we'll thought out reply. In that case I would just nix those roles, which is actually what I will do with PC choices but show as NPCs to point out how vile it is.
Weirdly, the other game I know that has slave and owner classes is Sagas of the Icelanders and it doesn't bother me as much there. Perhaps the historical context and the fact the game is about social expectations gives the relation a subtlety that more overt fantasy games lack. Don't know.
Quote from: bat;976663So if the player's settlement just executes traitors, spies and captured enemies that isn't morally repugnant to you? I understand that slavery is wrong, owning humans is not the best choice, but if society collapsed tomorrow we'd all have to be making some serious choices and morals and ethics would often take a back seat to seeing another day. An Ark needs resources to try to survive. If you catch a spy or a thief it is a serious matter that threatens the entire group. Enslaving those who would bring down the entire group is not as bad as eating them for jeopardizing supplies and security. Although cannibalism does send out a strong message to other would-be betrayers.
I do not think that in a survival type game that allows this option that you are betraying your own morals or ethics. it is a game. We all know that slavery is bad and should not be practiced in society. We also all know if civilization collapses it will be back on day one because there are people out there that just do not care.
(I am not making this a political statement or trying to justify slavery in any way, I am pointing out that in a survival situation you will do things against your normal moral code and I do not think that in this case you are a rotten person for exploring this option. You are a rotten person if you feel it is a good option in or out of a game.)
If I were to do things against my moral code to survive, I have no moral code and do not deserve to survive. Humans function best when we cooperate. I do not advocate execution. I would advocate for exile.
Tetsubo, would it bother you as much if it was a historical Greek or Roman game?
Quote from: Tetsubo;976812If I were to do things against my moral code to survive, I have no moral code and do not deserve to survive. Humans function best when we cooperate. I do not advocate execution. I would advocate for exile.
So instead of swift execution you advocate a slow death. If you don't need to see the bad situation then it doesn't bother your conscience.
Quote from: Voros;974478This writeup by Age of Ravens on Mutant: Year Zero piqued my interest. (http://ageofravens.blogspot.ca/2017/03/mutant-year-zero-rpgs-i-love.html) Particularly all the mechanics and play around the Ark. There's a Let's Play thread on here where someone praises the hell out of this game as well. There's a free preview on Drivethru (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/137280/Mutant-Year-Zero-FREE-Preview) that I'll download and never read unless someone gives me a reason to do so.
Anyone played this sucker? Thoughts? Will it scratch that GW itch?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1134[/ATTACH]
My first rpg I GMed with GW 1E. I've been running MY0 for months now and it scratches the itch.
The PCs have to explore the Zone (ruins) which goes like you expect. Life in the Ark is challenging though. Lots of Bosses struggling to get on top and crisis after crisis popping up.
We did have one PC die and come back as a slave. A Boss in the Ark owned him when the PC ran out of water and sold himself to survive. He was allowed to explore with the other PCs as the risk out in the Zone was great and he was a good investment and brought artifacts back to the Boss. The other PCs worked to buy off his debt and free him. Slavery was hard for the PCs to accept, but it did help the Ark, especially after the Boss built a Slave Market when they were out in the Zone. It boosted food production and created a slave militia from captured NPC marauders. The PCs struggled with darkness of slavery that in some ways benefited the Ark and the captured NPCs (who had a job and food and water rather than being executed).
Very intense. With the PCs encouragement, the slaves just revolted and killed the main Boss who owned slaves and burned down the Slave Market. Now, the PCs have to help forge a new way of life in the Ark.
Basically, while the PCs are out in the Zone trying to keep the Ark supplied and looking for Eden, things go south in the Ark. When the PCs get back, they sort out the latest challenge.
The game basically runs itself, the PCs are slowly rotting away, and even as the Ark grows the political situation gets more complicated. The dice system runs well and the rewards are good enough to keep the mutants going even as their mutations slowly injure them.
Quote from: dysjunct;975360I wrote a review of the game here:
https://www.rpggeek.com/thread/1740376/radioactive-stone-soup
It's not as detailed as the Age of Ravens one, but it compares it a lot to other games you might know. Hope it is useful.
thanks for the review it was very helpful. I think I'm going to pick this up!
Quote from: bat;976866So instead of swift execution you advocate a slow death. If you don't need to see the bad situation then it doesn't bother your conscience.
Whereas I see it as giving the condemned a change at survival that execution does not.
Quote from: Itachi;976813Tetsubo, would it bother you as much if it was a historical Greek or Roman game?
Yes. I understand that the Greek and Roman cultures were build upon slavery. But if the character I am playing is being required to restrain a slave from escaping I want no part of that. I would not play a slave owner and I will not aid and abet them. There are things that fall outside of 'fun' for me in a game, this is one of them.
That's fair. ;)