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.
OK thanks that makes more sense
Quote from: talysman;665956I 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.
Yeah, this is what I was trying to say. Sorry about the confusion.
I hate the weirdly complex and clunky sub-system for vehicle combat that seems to have wandered in from another game.
But other than that, it's a solid, fast game. I like how in firefights combatants can get "Pinned down" and you can "Cover" buddies, important factors in war and action movie fight scenes that few RPG combat systems do well.
Personally I thought I would hate the cards for initiative, too. It seemed like a forced-in thing from Deadlands.
But in practice I actually do like it for one reason: there's one of each card in the deck, and you don't shuffle til you get a joker.
So you get a more even distribution of random order, instead of similar results each turn.
As for the setting incompatibility, that cheesed me off too. I didn't learn about it until after I bought a bunch of pdf s...
I also chafe at some of their fans. Things like 'never use this system for D&D' just make me want to do it more.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;665910I 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.
An actually awesome skill mechanics is what's found in L5R 4E. The Mastery abilities associated with skill level break points are awesome and incentivizing to my PCs. Games with CraPPer skills can do well to look at what L5R 4E does.
Running Savage Worlds is on my to do list. It has been since Savage Worlds first came out, but in the end I always wimp out and using Fudge, Fate or D6 instead because I already know those systems and I don't actually enjoy learning new games.
It is a shame because Savage Worlds has got a great selection of cool campaign settings, something Fudge and D6 are a bit short on. And as much as I like Fate, it does come with a lot of baggage. No other game caused people to stress and worry about how it's really meant to be played than Fate.
Maybe I'll get to it this year. I already have some people express interest in a Savage Worlds Daring Tales from the Sprawl (cyberpunk) game, but it might not be till Fall.
Quote from: mcbobbo;665891That'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?
I don't have any axe to grind with Savage Worlds.
I just don't get the appeal. It seems to be this RPGnet-darling, or GURPS dX type game for people who'd like to play d20-but-not-really. I can't really explain why some people seem to like it so much. I guess I'm missing something. I do like the Solomon Kane RPG though.
Quote from: Benoist;666188I just don't get the appeal. It seems to be this RPGnet-darling, or GURPS dX type game for people who'd like to play d20-but-not-really. I can't really explain why some people seem to like it so much. I guess I'm missing something. I do like the Solomon Kane RPG though.
I think its biggest advantage is that there's a ton of support for pretty much ever genre, and its relatively simple.
If you want to run 'My Little Pony crossed with Vampires with Exalted' which seems to be 99% of games on TBP, your choices are pretty much Savage Worlds or GURPS.
My only real issue with it is the core maths is really, really bad, as in 'even worse than oWoD bad'.
I don't like bennies. Or action points of any type in any system actually.
I tend to agree with the 'downsides' of Savage Worlds mentioned in this thread, but I still have a helluva lot of fun playing/running/writing for it. Overall, the pros outweigh the cons for my gaming efforts.
Quote from: Tetsubo;666258I don't like bennies. Or action points of any type in any system actually.
Forgot about that. Add that to my list.
Quote from: jadrax;666202I think its biggest advantage is that there's a ton of support for pretty much ever genre, and its relatively simple.
If you want to run 'My Little Pony crossed with Vampires with Exalted' which seems to be 99% of games on TBP, your choices are pretty much Savage Worlds or GURPS.
My only real issue with it is the core maths is really, really bad, as in 'even worse than oWoD bad'.
I played with the core math a bit and its not that bad actually. I was looking for situations where worse was actualy better and they don't occur its just he growth curve isn't linear and its not all ways intuitive.
Generally SW is great for something that would work well in a comic book. Superheroes, Kelly's Heroes style war stories, Strontium Dog, Judge Dredd, Flash Gordon.
Don't work so well for stuff that would be better in a novel.
One of the best things is the Pinnacle guys themselves. Having hung round a few cons with Sean, Evil Mike, and a few of the other guys they are a really good bunch of people.
I don't like it because no one runs it for me, so I can't "try it out," without running it.
It's alright. Really dig the settings, and it does play fast (as advertised). Just characters feel the same, don't really like powers/magic. The math is wonky. Love Interface Zero cyberpunk setting!!
Quote from: Benoist;666188I don't have any axe to grind with Savage Worlds.
I just don't get the appeal.
I'm in the same boat. I just don't get why some people do like it. I tried it and just went, meh.
I actually really like Savage Worlds.
Learn one system, multiple settings to play is a huge bonus. I really like how the addition of the adventure cards and trading of them has made a cooperative mechanic that adds to the game. I like the way the game handles tactical combat. I love the chase rules. I like the Initiative mechanic, it tends to be faster than rolling and tallying to me.
I don't like the Shaken condition since it can really take you out of many combats (That's why Combat Reflexes is always on my must have edge list). I don't like the weird HP mechanic (essentially you have 4 HP = 1 Wound after you apply toughness/armor, making extras have HP = 4 and Wild Cards HP = 16). I don't like the weird bennie = extra HP mechanic with soaking. I don't like the Incapacitation rules.
Overall though, it runs a lot smoother combat than either DnD 3.x or Earthdawn, so I gotta give it that. I really like the Adventure Cards, they make things a lot more cooperative and I gotta emphasize that again. The bennie system is a tack on though. It simply allows the game to function properly. Realize at d12+d6 (the maximum for most, such as humans), the potential for failure is still 12.5% (3/12 failure +3/6 failure = 9/72 fail = .125). So even at the max, the chance for failure is still very high as long as difficulty is 4 (and even worse for high parries). Compare that to high powered DnD and PF characters that can only fail on a 1 (5% fail chance) and you'll see the difference.
But even though it has a lot of flaws, it still runs tactical combat the smoothest I have ever experienced thus far and character creation is about 15 minutes and even less for Game Master Characters. The real strength of SW is that game prep becomes very easy as long as you have a plot point campaign and savage tales with easy to create GMCs. And really that is a huge point in its favor (as a long time Earthdawn Game Master I can attest to this fact. Making an NPC in my game is standard of 5 minutes +5 per Circle, so a Fifth Circle character might be 30 minutes). Multiple PPCs and settings allow us to go from 50 Fathoms to Deadlands to Shaintar and all understand the basic system despite it being a different setting.
Quote from: jibbajibba;666330I was looking for situations where worse was actualy better and they don't occur its just he growth curve isn't linear and its not all ways intuitive.
You did not look very hard.
Chance of rolling a 6 on exploding d4 with wild Dice 32%
Chance of rolling a 6 on exploding d6 with wild Dice 31%
Chance of rolling a 8 on exploding d6 with wild Dice 25%
Chance of rolling a 8 on exploding d8 with wild Dice 25%
Chance of rolling a 10 on exploding d6 with wild Dice 18%
Chance of rolling a 10 on exploding d8 with wild Dice 18%
Chance of rolling a 12 on exploding d10 with wild Dice 12%
Chance of rolling a 12 on exploding d12 with wild Dice 11%
Quote from: jadrax;666369You did not look very hard.
Chance of rolling a 6 on exploding d4 with wild Dice 32%
Chance of rolling a 6 on exploding d6 with wild Dice 31%
Chance of rolling a 8 on exploding d6 with wild Dice 25%
Chance of rolling a 8 on exploding d8 with wild Dice 25%
Chance of rolling a 10 on exploding d6 with wild Dice 18%
Chance of rolling a 10 on exploding d8 with wild Dice 18%
Chance of rolling a 12 on exploding d10 with wild Dice 12%
Chance of rolling a 12 on exploding d12 with wild Dice 11%
Check your maths mate......
6+ on an exploding d4 is 0.25 x 0.5 = 12.5%
6+ on exploding d6 is 0.166666 = 16.5%
Thus chance of getting 6+ on d4+d6 = 29%
chance of getting 6+ on d6+d6 = 33%
I will let you do the rest.....
Quote from: jibbajibba;666373Check your maths mate......
6+ on an exploding d4 is 0.25 x 0.5 = 12.5%
6+ on exploding d6 is 0.166666 = 16.5%
Thus chance of getting 6+ on d4+d6 = 29%
chance of getting 6+ on d6+d6 = 33%
I will let you do the rest.....
He's counting the Wild Die in there too. I think that's what makes the math go hooey.
Quote from: jadrax;666202If you want to run 'My Little Pony crossed with Vampires with Exalted' which seems to be 99% of games on TBP, your choices are pretty much Savage Worlds or GURPS.
Haha, tru dat.
And while I'm a GURPS fan, I gotta say, SW is very rather smaller/lighter/simpler.
Quote from: CRKrueger;666376He's counting the Wild Die in there too. I think that's what makes the math go hooey.
Yeah me too that is the d6 part after the d4 :)
just sums not brain surgery.
Quote from: jibbajibba;666373Check your maths mate......
6+ on an exploding d4 is 0.25 x 0.5 = 12.5%
6+ on exploding d6 is 0.166666 = 16.5%
Thus chance of getting 6+ on d4+d6 = 29%
chance of getting 6+ on d6+d6 = 33%
I will let you do the rest.....
6+ on an exploding d4 is a roll of a 4 plus the roll of a 2+.
6+ on an exploding d4 is a 0.25 X 0.75...
I will let you do the rest.
Or in fact; Graphs (http://axiscity.hexamon.net/users/isomage/rpgmath/explode/)!
The maths do go a bit wonky in Savage Worlds, but it's not as bad as it may appear from looking at graphs (and certainly no worse than oWoD's Botch probabilities). Those graphs jadrax linked to do not include the Wild Die in the equation, by the way, but I am sure that in a graph that takes the Wild Die into account (http://www.daemonstorm.com/images/savage-worlds-cdf.png) the wonkiness will be equally apparent.
That said, this doesn't really bother me personally. I'm not a fanboy but I also don't *mind* it, as I enjoy some of the settings (Solomon Kane, Rippers) and can use the rulebook and supplements (Horror Companion) for adding and adjusting stuff if I want to.
I'm not sure if the card-based initiative will work for us. If it doesn't I'll just dump it and use some other method.
The miniature scale default stats are somewhat annoying.
Overall all the mentioned complaints are probably valid to some extent but they don't bother me as I don't expect SW to be anything that it isn't. I do think the system was somewhat hyped and overrated as a generically usable rules set.
I imagine it will take some effort for new players to grasp the mechanical effects of some of the edges and hindrances.
I like it when I want lots of fights and minis and I want a 'game' with lots of dice and cards and skirmishes. It took me a while to 'get' shaken, but when I did I recognised it from wargaming and was cool.
I don't like it when I want low powered gritty, or lots of scene chewing ham acting roleplaying, or when minis are the lst thing I want.
It's one of my top 3 go-to games. In fact, I've not gone to it enuff recently, and I read and loved Savage Mars last week..
Quote from: 1989;665951I don't like Savage Worlds because I heard that it is favourable towards miniatures.
You rolled well on the rumour table then.
Quote from: mcbobbo;666169I also chafe at some of their fans. Things like 'never use this system for D&D' just make me want to do it more.
Oh it's so good for an old skool dungeon romp.
I ran this for my grandkids some weeks back, they loved it. #2 is full on dungeon:
http://goo.gl/g17e9
http://goo.gl/mrAZo
[Only if you like SW, of course..]
I'm apathetic about Savage Worlds. When I tried it, I didn't hate it, but it didn't seem like anything special. Some things annoyed me (the mascot, the way the rules were written, et cetera), but not so much that I couldn't overlook them if I liked the rest of the game. I tried to like it, but the bottom line is that other games did a better job of giving my what I was looking for; Savage Worlds just didn't quite click, for me.
I cannot stand SW. It tends to devolve into a roll fest. Roll, miss. Roll, hit, do minimal damage. Roll, explode, kill a wildcard in 1 hit. Rinse, repeat. No thanks. I'll take hit points any time.
BUT, other than the above anecdote of wild luck, the dice rolling is a blast. And it's very easy to ignore the miniature-centric rules. Making characters is quick and easy. Though the ways attributes affect skills is horrible.
All told, the game sucks. But with a little TLC it just might be awesome.
Could be asked as "Why did I migrate from Savage Worlds to the greener pastures of D6, stopping by the wayside to nibble a little Fate and Fudge?"
What I liked and look for elsewhere: Benny like tokens to spend for re-rolls or additional bonuses to help when a roll is botched or just missed. I even liked the initiative, but do not feel the need to bring the cards along. Quick to run off the cuff. The exploding dice mechanic. The awesome community.
What chased me away: The seemingly darkening trend of all the settings aside from Slipstream. The one shot kill of a favorite PC or set of PCs. The exploding dice mechanic. The constant stream of must have books that I could not afford.
I generally like Savage Worlds as well, with some caveats.
- As many others have commented, I don't like the Shaken condition especially and some other features of damage.
- I'm not especially fond of exploding die rolls. The probabilities are wonky, but more importantly you just get too many improbable results. It seems like it is intended to make things feel more cinematic - but it feels more wacky than cinematic to me.
I'm fine with the card-based initiative, and I think other than those flaws the combat system works pretty well.
I played it for around 3 months fortnightly. I didn't like it because the combat system sucked, the game slowed to a crawl every time a fight started . It never felt very threatening, just incredibly tedious - in the end we would avoid combat just to avoid the boring time sink.
Outside of combat I thought the task resolution system worked fine, though. But the game seems to think of itself as a "fast, fun" combat-centric design, which is about opposite from my experience.
I never much cared for the system, and in the early edition at least I found the presentation really annoying.
Quote from: RPGPundit;666952I found the presentation really annoying.
Thank you. The clowns everywhere. barf
Quote from: RPGPundit;666952I never much cared for the system, and in the early edition at least I found the presentation really annoying.
I'm not familiar with earlier editions but I think the presentation of the most recent edition of the rulebook is OK. And Solomon Kane, which includes the rules, is presented really nicely.
Quote from: Kuroth;666953Thank you. The clowns everywhere. barf
AFAIK that fucking clown/jester avatar/logo is not as ubiquitous anymore in the books but they really need to burn that thing all together.
Played one campaign of Savage Worlds. It was fun. I mean the system itself was fun to use, so whatever criticisms I have a largely just based on the difference from what I want from an RPGs system vs the intentions of the designers & otherwise recommend it whole heartedly. Initiative system was one of my fav parts. Quick unobtrusive and easy to reference.
I found the game too 'whiffy' for my likes. The dice results are very random and unimaginarive combatants can soon find themselves in a revolving door of back and firths. Bennies were too 'gamey' basically just 'awesome' points. At least msh's karma points seemed to have some basis on the game's reality. Would have liked either a more comprehensive list of traits, or advice on players creating their own. Like the funky dice and appreciate any system that makes use of them but didn't feel there was enough distinction between characters. Minis definitely not needed anymore than in whfrp1e despite the rules as written assuming their use. We never used them and did no house-ruling.
I picked it up (1st ed.) because I greatly enjoyed a historical miniatures rules set (Fields of Honor) by the same author, but SW just didn't seem to offer much. There was too much attention to making basic "mechanics" baroque, too little to providing material that fleshed out a game. The lists of powers and equipment, for instance, were too rudimentary.
The (apparent) point-buy balancing seemed to be the main draw, but if I wanted that I'd go for the more flexible Champions. There just wasn't enough flavor -- a big draw of Fields of Honor -- apart from the system that was desperately clamoring for attention to its supposed cleverness at every turn.
If that's "fast and furious," then by comparison with what?
Quote from: jadrax;6663836+ on an exploding d4 is a roll of a 4 plus the roll of a 2+.
6+ on an exploding d4 is a 0.25 X 0.75...
I will let you do the rest.
Or in fact; Graphs (http://axiscity.hexamon.net/users/isomage/rpgmath/explode/)!
You are right , apologies and I was really smug about it... teach me to write here and do conference calls at the same time ...
Mea culpa maxima mea culpa.
Quote from: Phillip;667067The (apparent) point-buy balancing seemed to be the main draw, but if I wanted that I'd go for the more flexible Champions. There just wasn't enough flavor -- a big draw of Fields of Honor -- apart from the system that was desperately clamoring for attention to its supposed cleverness at every turn.
The main draw of Savage Worlds is that it is dirt simple to GM, especially making up NPCs on the fly.
The point buy is not particularly balanced with vast disproportions between Edges and Hindrances depending upon the genre.
Quote from: Old One Eye;667145The main draw of Savage Worlds is that it is dirt simple to GM, especially making up NPCs on the fly.
The point buy is not particularly balanced with vast disproportions between Edges and Hindrances depending upon the genre.
In a lot of ways, the best parts of Savage Worlds are similar to the best parts of the original Cortex rules -- the ones used for Serenity and BSG. I think that the simplicity to GM is a major point and one that can be really under appreciated. It's true that an adept GM can improvise in any system but there is a benefit to allowing a mediocre GM to still pull together an enjoyable system by minimizing the mechanical overhead and permitting focus on the story.
Quote from: jibbajibba;667128You are right , apologies and I was really smug about it... teach me to write here and do conference calls at the same time ...
Mea culpa maxima mea culpa.
No worries.