I find it decent. I got it because of the settings. I've run it once, but never played it. It seemed easy enough. I'd like to play it, but no one around here runs it.

SW doesn't need gridded maps.

Quote from: Cole;416626This has kept my repertoire RPG's that I GM largely in the 'dated' category.

Naw... 'dated' is for milk and eggs... games and toys are alive as long as someone wants to play with them.

Savage Worlds is kind of on my 'stink list' because of all the RPGnet suckwads who squee on and on about it... but I've played it and it's functional and... OK... just over-hyped by its fanboys. It's not that fast, not that furious.
I think I'll stick with BRP for my baseline RPG needs.

Quote from: Phantom Black;416637SW doesn't need gridded maps.

This is true, although I've run adventures both with and without grids and figures.

Quote from: Benoist;416609I see all these cool books coming out for Savage Worlds, and I'm seriously tempted. I have the Savage World of Solomon Kane. I had to. Huge fan. Problem is... I really have a hard time getting into the rules. They bore me to tears!

Is something wrong with me?

No. Savage Worlds is a game like Storyteller where the setting and the chutzpah of the books is very compelling and the rules are written by Hamlet Typing Monkeys.

There is nothing wrong with the people who pick up the book and say "the feel of the writing in this book makes me want to play a game!" and then play the game. There is also nothing wrong with the people who pick up the book and say "these rules are godawful. Sometimes having a worse die makes your chance of success increase!" and then put it down again. Both are perfectly reasonable responses to the books.

We'd all like to have a game with compelling writing and compelling rules, but the fact is that such a thing can't even exist for everyone. Different people find different things compelling. So mostly we end up with compelling settings with patchy rules or nicely tuned systems with flat settings. Games like Mouseguard are pretty rare, and even then tend to have a rather narrow appeal.

-Frank

Quote from: Simlasa;416653Savage Worlds is kind of on my 'stink list' because of all the RPGnet suckwads who squee on and on about it... but I've played it and it's functional and... OK... just over-hyped by its fanboys. It's not that fast, not that furious.

I would agree that the over-hype was a significant factor for making me avoid the game, that said I do think it is functional as a ruleset.

It is probably at its best when used for games that often have combat involving a lot of NPCs, and indeed I know people who have used it as a wargames ruleset. Outside of those circumstances I don't really find it faster than any other system (although to be fair, my play experience is limited to a dozen sessions).

Quote from: Benoist;416609I see all these cool books coming out for Savage Worlds, and I'm seriously tempted. I have the Savage World of Solomon Kane. I had to. Huge fan. Problem is... I really have a hard time getting into the rules. They bore me to tears!

Is something wrong with me?

I think most good rules are boring. It's what you do with them that is fun. I'd gp as far as saying that if the rules too interesting and fun they can become a distraction as playing the rules becomes an end in itself.

Now that doesn't mean all are equal or play the same. Is there something specific about Savage Worlds that turns you off? Lack of character differentiation? The explict distinction between Wildcards and Extras? Something else?

As an aside, if one of you guys ever does do a short MRQ2 conversion of Soloman Kane, is there any chance you'd send me a copy? I'd love to play or run it.

In our group we all read through SW and thought it had promise and many of the world/setting books really are cool.  But in play we never found the cool.  It all felt horribly wonky all the time.  We basically found out that in combat anyway you are better off to do the most difficult stunts possible because generally unless the dice explodes you aren't going to be hurting anyone anyway.  So rack up as many modifiers as you can and hope they explode.  If not either way your missing.  Now there is, at times, a certain fun in doing wonky stuff.  But when wonky stuff becomes the norm it looses it's charm.  

The other big problem is that despite it's seeming simplicity there is actually a lot to keep track of and remember when you have a more advanced character full of feats all with their individual mini-rules.  It's much the same problem we found with D&D at later levels.  You forget most of the stuff you can do and only focus on a couple things.  That or relentless page flipping before every action and a lot of 'ah crap I forgot I could....'

Despite SW's goals at being fast pulpy fun.  It's basically just D&D stream lined a little bit.

Quote from: Benoist;416609I see all these cool books coming out for Savage Worlds, and I'm seriously tempted. I have the Savage World of Solomon Kane. I had to. Huge fan. Problem is... I really have a hard time getting into the rules. They bore me to tears!

Is something wrong with me?

I doubt it.  I'm sitting on the same fence as you, just looking in the opposite direction: I really want to like Savage Worlds, but I've found obstacles.  As of right now I've over-read the material but only played a few skirmishes and "practice" non-combat encounters, but I'm hoping to run a full adventure with the guys next weekend.

I think the basic book is really poorly written, badly organized, suffers from something of an identity crisis and finishes looking like a somewhat incomplete game.  I suppose that's offset somewhat by the reasonable pricetag.  I didn't really "get" SW until I acknowledged two things:

The SWEX (basic book) isn't a generic RPG to me.  It's more like a genre-neutral action/adventure RPG.  A subtle but important difference.

It looks a lot better attached to a solid genre or setting.  The couple settings I've read and enjoyed filled in the holes and made SW more like a complete game, with actual gear/treasure, encounter tables, and fixes or total disregard to the kludgey point-based Powers system.

I also find the basic resolution/exploding die mechanic a bit strange.  The dice seem very unpredictable, or at least the probabilities of success have entered a domain outside of what I can crunch on the fly.  I noticed that even during our brief previews, I found myself wanting to make more rulings and only asking for dice rolls during times of stress/danger.  That could be, arguably, a positive side effect of not trusting the dice.  I'd be curious if the SW veterans have had similar experiences.

I found my actual play experience to be both bland and wonky.  Just not what I'm looking for.

As for the books themselves, what little I've looked through either bored me or made me roll my eyes (similar to the effect Burning Wheel had on me - I don't like rules with "Xtreme Attitude!!!" or whatever).

I think that Solomon Kane is a fucking great adaptation and the tweaking of the SW system seems just about perfect for S&S type gaming. That said, I have a system I like for that already.

I played a couple games of Savage Worlds with GrimJesta as GM.  It was also my fiance Meredith's first RPG since she dabbled with D&D in high school.

I didn't think it was a bad system at all.  It didn't knock my socks off, but I wouldn't refuse playing another game using it.

Meredith picked up on the mechanics fairly quickly, so I'd say it's fairly newb-friendly, too.

Quote from: Benoist;416609Is something wrong with me?

No. I think they're average. Just average. Nothing special. I get the sense from reading and having played an early edition a bit that a) combat will start to revolve around the same maneuvers over and over again and that b) the characters will tend to have a certain mechanical sameness to them.

I will say I have been curious to get the pirates book and try it out again, this time with different folks, to see if my impressions have changed...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;416723I get the sense from reading and having played an early edition a bit that a) combat will start to revolve around the same maneuvers over and over again and that b) the characters will tend to have a certain mechanical sameness to them.

a) Uhm, this only happened to me with any D&D edition or ANY d20 game, where you always get to rush up to the enemy and spam them with your best attack, never changing the way you do it. With Savage Worlds you've got aimed shots, tricks, taunts and what have you, and that's both from gaming experiences i had with both systems.

b) Certain mechanical sameness to them? Uhm, no, not really. You can have two warrior characters with totally different abilities, skills and edges.