That's a bit dishonest.   I do basically like SW, but I get the impression that a lot of others don't.  Anyone got any axes of this sort to grind?

One thing that's a bit problematic for me is what I call a 'tipping point'.  Basically where your target number and your dice size intersect, really weird things seem to happen.  So a Parry of 7 feels better than a Parry of 8 when attacked by a d8. In the former case it hits about as expected. In the latter, since an 8 result on a d8 isn't possible, you actually always face a 9-15+ instead.

Net result is, if you do get hurt it's more likely to crit (and hurt like hell).

It's almost enough to make me go system shopping, but not quite.

I don't like that damage in a "action genre" RPG is often miss a turn.

I don't like the use of cards for one mechanic in the whole game.

I think the extra d6 from being a Wild Card is weird and kind of arbitrary (I prefer being able to add your Attribute dice if your a Wild Card as it also deals with my last criticism).

I find the Advantage and Skill lists to be wonky, often too specific and unbalanced.

I don' like the level of detachment between Attributes and Skills.

@Skywalker

Shhh...  You must not speak ill of the clunky intitiative mechanic... they are watching.

I am not afraid of anyone who brings cards to a dice fight

I find the detailing of minor skills (what 4rries called the CraPPer skills - Craft, Profession, Perform) to be not really detailed enough for what I want. Also spellcasters don't seem to get enough spells to really detail what they can do out of combat.

Not a fan of giving big monsters only 1 wound either.

I don't like the whole "shaken" thing. Really don't like.

I have no particular ax to grind against the *game*. Haven't read it. I've read descriptions of it, particularly those by people trying to prove that Savage Worlds is the Greatest Thing Ever... and everything they named as stuff they like about the game is stuff I don't like.

I do not want a game that exploits meta-elements. I include in that the way different die types are used to represent skill/ability improvements. Also, the wild die.

I do not want a game that uses more than one tool, like both dice and cards. And I'm not very fond of using cards at all.

I'm not very interested in skill systems. I abandoned GURPS because I got tired of skill systems. I abandoned AD&D because the proficiency/non-proficiency system is a skill system. If I really felt desperate for a skill system game, I'd go back to The Fantasy Trip or maybe, if hard-pressed, some form of BRP.

But I suppose I *do* have an ax to grind against Savage Worlds fans. For a good long time, Savage Worlds was the game of choice for people who wanted to proselytize. Everything was "Savage Worlds this" and "Savages Worlds that". Fortunately, that seems to have died down; I think it's been replaced by Apocalypse World/Dungeon World. Anytime someone tries hard to sell me on something, I automatically hate it.

I like it. It's a good system for certain types of games.

I like it for simplicity. My only gripe is that I don't like using more than one type of die in a game.

I don't like Savage Worlds because I heard that it is favourable towards miniatures.

I don't care for the wonky die problem in the OP, and the cards for initiative. Other than that, it's ok.

I LOVE how they laid out the book, with summary pages for each chapter right there. Makes the game very easy to learn.

I agree with every negative thing in this thread, and also hate that powers/advantages from the different settings aren't cross-compatible. For example, the supers campaign "Necessary Evil" powers won't work for other settings without being unbalanced. A d12 in Necessary Evil is different than a d12 in a hard-boiled detective setting.

Some may say that the fact that it's not GURPS is a feature an not a bug, but I don't see the point of a shared system if nothing fits together between settings.

Quote from: Monster Manuel;665953Some may say that the fact that it's not GURPS is a feature an not a bug, but I don't see the point of a shared system if nothing fits together between settings.

Huh?

I have quite liked reading the system over.  But I can definitely sympathize with the wonky damage mechanic.  

The part about setting specificity isn't that bothersome to me; I've long learned trying to make every book in a game's library work together will always find a problem somewhere, somehow . . .

Quote from: Monster Manuel;665953Some may say that the fact that it's not GURPS is a feature an not a bug, but I don't see the point of a shared system if nothing fits together between settings.

Quote from: Ronin;665954Huh?

I think he's referring back to the "d12 in one setting is different than a d12 in another" feature. GURPS tries to rate skills, advantages and powers in a way that allows them to be compared, so that you can mix features from more than one source; SW doesn't follow that rule, and the result is a problem when mixing some settings.

Or he might be alluding to my GURPS reference, but I was just mentioning that as an example of skill systems I've played and given up on.