Can you guys post the “deck construction” rules here?
I glanced over them and they seem almost alienatingly stringent - like essentially the challenge is to play a different game using the same cards.
Not necessarily opposed - but this is certainly far and away from “lemme dust off some old tricksy gadget decks and give this a go”…
Simply cannot find the thread where we sign up for a faction at the Saturday event…?
Also @Lapp, will it not be possible to attend the regular Doomtown side-tournaments if you participate in the rpg event? Do we need to sign up at some place or pay in advance for any of the stuff?
I’m no David Lapp, much to the detriment of my playing skill, but hope the below helps while he’s asleep!
It’s buried in the orginal post at the top of the thread, but there will be a bunch of Doomtown tournament side tournaments running alongisde the RPG stuff. As noted there, the main RPG event starts at 11am, followed by previews of the “Showstopper” and “A Fight They’ll Never Forget” adventures at 3pm. As the Doomtown side events are rapid fire three round events, those who want to do one RPG events plus some card gaming on Saturday should be able to mix and match, or do 100% RPG events/100 Doomtown Reloaded events that day.
Afraid I couldn’t dig up a specific RPG sign up page, but a few people left Facebook comments here expressing interest in specific tables: Redirecting....
@jordan_caldwell Here are the rules for the Danish challenge! They’re pretty tight as you point out, freshens things up but does indeed make it more like a different game. 
Sure there will be classic games and standard Reloaded matches at Friday’s social, the more the merrier.
The rules for competing are the following:
Your deck must contain at least 12 cards with the gadget keyword.
Dudes without a gadget or the gadget keyword cannot be chosen to participate in a posse (they can still be called out :D)
Dudes without a gadget or the gadget keyword have -1 influence (minimum 0).
You score 1 point for winning a match IF you have more gadgets on the table than your opponent by the end of the game.
Thanks @Harlath. @Benni, I believe @scottw is tracking RPG sign ups at this point. It is 4 tables of 4 so we’re just marking faction preference. There are 2 slots each for EW, 108, LD, MCC and 4 each Sloane and Fourth Ring with more available if we exceed 16.
The gadget challenge is a longstanding tradition initiated by Whizzwang and I to have some gadget matchups before the main events.
@jordan_caldwell Yeah the rules are pretty tight - mostly to be certain what constitutes a gadget deck but also because its entirely possible to win games without using or sporting any gadgets in your deck (slide or just big studs, kidnappin’ and siye).
Hence some pretty strict rules for thw competition.
The danish posse will bring prizes for the overall winner and the dude which have most gadgets in play at the end of a game 
Remember its all good and fun and I guess most people will be a bit tipsy and thus prone to play gadgets better!
RPG sign-up thread over here: Doomtown worlds rpg sign ups.
Gadget throw-down might not have the old version’s eccentric charm now that gadgets are a competitive deck type, but will still be good fun and something different. 
Gadgets, good Sir, have always been competitive!
I remember the great QUATERMAN decks ruling the eastern hemisphere - and forcefields and flamethrowers being used with utmost effect!
The youth were just not ready for it!
Grumble, grumble, grumble…
Respectfully, I see that you are trying to hold the following objective:
Strategize for Winning by Actively utilizing Gadgets
My critique is that the proposed 4 Rules meet this objective while simultaneously introducing other parameters that limit creativity (which, ironically, seems to be the purpose of the format). Looking at each one:
1) Your deck must contain at least 12 cards with the gadget keyword.
This seems fair, but by itself wouldn’t preclude archetypes that “splashed” gadgets (or simply “filled out” hearts) for the sole purpose of meeting this requirement. Hence I can see the need to include more than one rule…
2) Dudes without a gadget or the gadget keyword cannot be chosen to participate in a posse (they can still be called out :D)
3) Dudes without a gadget or the gadget keyword have -1 influence (minimum 0).
These rules heavily skew incentive to include cards like Prof. Aloysius, Yagn’s Exoskeleton, the various Gadget dudes (Quarterman, Postatron, Wretched), and cards that tutor Gadgets like Maggie Harris and Technological Exhibition. And while these are all very “gadget-ey” cards, by consequence all other “gadget-ey” cards are categorically disincentivized by virtue of having limited interactivity with these two rules, which incidentally limits creativity.
A second point is this creates a new dynamic within the rules that changes two of the fundamental aspects of the game: Game Clock (or “relying on influence to stay in the game”) and Chess (or “using callouts / shootouts to move opposing dudes”).
4) You score 1 point for winning a match IF you have more gadgets on the table than your opponent by the end of the game.
This rule (especially backed by #2 and #3) favors Straight-flush in Hearts structure above all others.
…
In conclusion, this is anything but a casual affair, because the liklihood that a gadget deck can hold it’s own in a conventional game of DTR has a skewed bearing on whether or not it could hold it’s own in this format - almost like two different games.
One question: Do you have to keep using the same deck between games?
Cheers!
Just for fun, and for the sake of dosing negative feedback with positive feedback, consider an alternate format that had a “Gadget Presence” double-rule:
1) “Bullets bounce of Gadgetry to strike down Lesser Men!”
Actual Text: A Dude without a Gadget must be chosen as a casualty before a Dude with a Gadget who is present in the same posse.
2) “Lesser Men cower before the Might of Mad Science!”
Actual Text: Dudes without Gadgets do not contribute their Influence towards the Control of Deeds if there is an opposing Dude with a Gadget present at the same location.
…
(Dunno is this exacerbates or softens my own critique but there ya go!..)
That’ll teach me to make up rules on the fly
Thank you for the thoughts you have @jordan_caldwell! Ill try to go through what I think about it after having thought a bit myself. Let me know if I get something wrong or I am missing something.
While it is true that the two rules #2 and #3 incentivises Aloysius, I have a hard time seeing how it incentivises Yagns, Qman etc. any more than any other gadget - except that Qman, The wretched and Posty are dudes and not merely gadgets which gives a possibility to strike 2 birds with 1 stone so to say as they are dudes.
I do not agree with the logic saying that other gadget cards are being disincentivised because that 3 gadget dudes are both a dude and a gadget. They still need inventing and still have a cost. Any other gadget gives the same benefit to wearer of the gadget.
However:
About rule #4 - well yes maybe, but I am not sure that its a better idea to run a SF gadget deck over a 3X16 gadget deck just because of that rule. And I am not against giving SF builds a slight boost in this matchup.
Yes. As a ‘different’ form of casual affair it is the intention to make people utilize gadgets and deckbuilding with gadgets in a different way than they would normally build a gadget deck. I think that is a good thing for this event.
Nope - I see nothing wrong with using different decks between rounds, however changing factions would go against the spirit of the competition 
I like your ideas - and the more I look at rule #2 and 3 I had the less I like them. Your #1 however hurts a lot of card interactions as well as problematising the use of sidekicks (both the gadget kind and Marty). I like the second one but also have some issues of only working when your opponent is present - so…
To amend the rules and incorporate some of your ideas, Id suggest this:
Cheerio,
Suzy309
For the sake of argument and excitement for the format!:
An opinion I have is that once you have a clear Objective (such as “Strategize for Winning by Actively utilizing Gadgets”), the best way to go about implementing rules that meet your Objective is to avoid Subtraction and maximize Strategic Multiplication.
For example, “must include X objects” is a Subtractive rule, as is “certain objects are -X” or “certain objects cannot participate.”
Strategic Multiplicative rules are much harder to create, but if done correctly, have an opportunity to be elegant in both their simplicity and impact on how people play the game. A good Strategic Multiplication rule changes how people employ Tactics to meet Objectives by not offering hard limits or inflexible exclusions, but instead by introducing obstacles that can be worked around, or advantages that may be exploited, all within a shifting set of conditions.
Anyhow, I feel the point has been made. I will personally play by any set of rules, but by the same token, can easily nerd out about format structure on an internet forum where we talk about card games…
As for the difference between “casual” and “non-casual,” I mark the difference depending on how the answer to the following question falls out: “Do I have to build a new deck to participate competitively?”
Cheers!
Lol @jordan_caldwell, you’re making it awfully hard to create a fun and casual call-out on a Friday night… it’s a fun little grudge battle between 2 players, that @Suzy309 is kind enough to invite the rest of us to participate in.
I’ll definitely make a thematic deck of some kind and see if it can fly… or shoot
TCaR for use Worlds weekend arrived safely . We will officially be proxy free!
You mean: fly or vaporize!
Building a deck now for this gadget exhibition
Will also have a few other regular decks on me for the social!