TheRPGSite

All I know about Savage Worlds is its basic task resolution and its Bennies. A number of the available settings for it interest me - Deadlands, Realms of Cthulhu, Solomon Kane, possibly Rippers - but I'm still not sure if I'll enjoy the system.

So, could you tell me something more about the rules, what you like or don't like about them and why? With regard to crunch and fiddliness how does it compare to what would be my system of choice for similar settings, Cinematic Unisystem?

I was also wondering if the rules as contained in Savage Worlds of Solomon Kane would be sufficient to play any of the settings that officially require the core rulebook.

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;579524All I know about Savage Worlds is its basic task resolution and its Bennies. A number of the available settings for it interest me - Deadlands, Realms of Cthulhu, Solomon Kane, possibly Rippers - but I'm still not sure if I'll enjoy the system.

So, could you tell me something more about the rules, what you like or don't like about them and why? With regard to crunch and fiddliness how does it compare to what would be my system of choice for similar settings, Cinematic Unisystem?

I was also wondering if the rules as contained in Savage Worlds of Solomon Kane would be sufficient to play any of the settings that officially require the core rulebook.

I can't speak for the settings that you mentioned above, but I used a Pulp system from Triple Ace, the Daring Tales of Adventure books, and it worked well for me.  Actually, I used it to introduce the kids to RPGs, and the Triple Ace free PDF for the Daring Tales suite worked out great.  Something about Nazis and jetpacks helped them think of Indiana Jones, so I didn't have to work hard at setting the scene.

Seems that Savage Worlds works well in a heroic over-the-top pulp style adventure.  I'm not sure how well it'd work as a gritty, realistic type of adventure, but if you limit the bennies and the extra die in rolls that would emphasize realism.

The Test Drive rules plus Solomon Kane would be enough to handle most settings, if you just didn't want to spend $10 on the core rules.

I'm a huge Savage Worlds guy, having used it to run fantasy, supers, two Deadlands campaigns and Solomon Kane. In fact, I was a big Cinematic Unisystem fan before Savage Worlds.

The overpowered Dexterity isn't an issue like it is in CineUni, and Life Points are ditched in favor of Wounds. I use minis, but lots of folks have ran the game happily without them. I find I actually enjoy using minis in SW (I used to HATE them).

I do hate Power Points. Tracking Power Points (which are not used in Solomon Kane and a few other settings) just feels out of place with how everything else seems to work.

Most of our sessions move quickly, with a couple of combats/action scenes plus ample roleplaying in about a four hour window.

There's this saying that Savage Worlds characters all look alike after a while, and I disagree with that, but I did some character progressions on my blog that you can judge for yourself: http://mostunreadblogever.blogspot.com/p/savage-worlds-characters-are-all-same.html

Personally, I feel like there's ample room to differentiate characters without a ton of book keeping, which is one of the things I love about it. Also, it's incredibly easy to run the "PC with Hirelings" kinda game. My Solomon Kane campaign was for a single player, using NPCs that he controlled as his front line (he was a non-combat spellcaster, with the NPCs being his character's sister who was a fencer, a samurai sworn to protect him and his mentor/the family servant).

Quote from: flyerfan1991;579529I can't speak for the settings that you mentioned above, but I used a Pulp system from Triple Ace, the Daring Tales of Adventure books, and it worked well for me.  Actually, I used it to introduce the kids to RPGs, and the Triple Ace free PDF for the Daring Tales suite worked out great.  Something about Nazis and jetpacks helped them think of Indiana Jones, so I didn't have to work hard at setting the scene.

Seems that Savage Worlds works well in a heroic over-the-top pulp style adventure.  I'm not sure how well it'd work as a gritty, realistic type of adventure, but if you limit the bennies and the extra die in rolls that would emphasize realism.

Realms of Cthulhu, as well as Interface Zero and the free Crime City download by Pinnacle make adjustments to the system to make combat harsher (both physically and, in the case of Realms, mentally).

Thanks Tommy, I had that concern about SW. But even though your blog does a fine job showcasing how everyone /can/ be different, is that sort of specialization encouraged by the rules? It's been a while, but my recolection is that it was punatively expensive to raise high stats and become a one trick pony, so it's easier just to pick the low hanging fruit and become the same SW character as everyone else.
 
I don't know the system, so this is a question not a challenge.

It baffles me that the "all characters are identical" complaint is a thing. At the very least characters are going to be distinguished by their hindrances, and a number of Edges can only be picked up during chargen without explicit GM approval.

Only played/run (mostly run) about 10 sessions of it, but I think its a good system. Some people I've played with enjoyed the out-of-combat part of the game (quite rules light) but not the more crunchy combat system, although I think if we'd done it longer they would have gotten more used to it. Others have varied between loving the gritty combat and tactics and wanting back their bloated hit point totals; I'm less in love with the combat system after getting eaten the last time I played it.

Do you like Minis in your RPG play?

Do you like big battles being featured regularly with lots of enemies and allies on the table?

Are you cool with the game working better at low levels than high level play?

If so, SW is great.

SW is great. The Explorer edition is fantastic (get e delux as it has the vehical rules).

Its best at "stuff you get in comics". The rules are very easy to grasp, after 2games of it at a con I was able to write an entire Mod for running Strontium Dog.

It handles Mass combat (well squad size combat) really well but that doesn't mean it can only handle Battles although there is a tendancy to focus on that element.

I have a couple of rules complaints. The wild die d6 is obviously more impactful on very low skill say those with a d4 check. Exploding d4s feel like they are doing something funny with math (on a d4 you have a 6.25% chance of rolling 9 or more which is a raise). Also movement in combat pisses me off and I have houseruled a 'tactical movement' rule to prevent characters moving their whole movement past other charcters who can't act. An AoO rule would work as well but I went for a 1 inch per initivative. ONly kicks in when combat gets intense so its a bit like bullet time :)


Solid system, fast and flexible. Shane is a really good bloke and I like the entire crew at Pinnacle.

I'm a fairly rules-lite kind of GM. As a  point of reference, I enjoy stuff like Cinematic Unisystem, GenreDiversion i, Barbarians of Lemuria, CoC and the lighter Fudge variants (definitely not Fate). I haven't looked at it in detail but OpenQuest also looks like something I'd be comfortable with. I haven't given Two-Fisted Tales a try but that looks like a fine go-to system for pulp. Classic Unisystem I'll streamline a bit by picking for example the optional static damage and armor and ditching Endurance.

So how crunchy would you people say combat is compared to these? Is there a lot of bean counting involved, lots of rules to keep track of?

Also, I'd like to know from people who really don't like the system what their gripes are with it.

(As I'm not so keen on doing conversions or a  lot of rules tinkering I'd prefer to use the games as they are. Otherwise I'd just convert any setting I like and not worry if I'd enjoy the system.)

I'm a fairly rules-lite kind of GM. As a  point of reference, I enjoy  stuff like Cinematic Unisystem, GenreDiversion i, Barbarians of Lemuria,  CoC and the lighter Fudge variants (definitely not Fate). I haven't  looked at it in detail but OpenQuest also looks like something I'd be  comfortable with. I haven't given Two-Fisted Tales a try but that looks  like a fine go-to system for pulp. Classic Unisystem I'll streamline a  bit by picking for example the optional static damage and armor and  ditching Endurance.

So how crunchy would you people say combat is compared to these? Is  there a lot of bean counting involved, lots of rules to keep track of?

Also, I'd like to know from people who really don't like the system what their gripes are with it.

Quote from: Spinachcat;579612Do you like Minis in your RPG play?

We don't use minis, only the occasional marker to indicate relative positions in a location.

Quote from: Spinachcat;579612Do you like big battles being featured regularly with lots of enemies and allies on the table?

If combat situations involving lots of combatants play out sufficiently smoothly, I'd certainly make use of that. What exactly makes big battles so easy to run with SW?

Quote from: Spinachcat;579612Are you cool with the game working better at low levels than high level play?

This seems contradictory with claims that SW is suitable for pulp or even supers. Could you elaborate a bit on this?

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;579535(...)I'm a huge Savage Worlds guy, having  used it to run fantasy, supers, two Deadlands campaigns and Solomon  Kane. In fact, I was a big Cinematic Unisystem fan before Savage Worlds.

What made you change that opinion?

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;579535The overpowered Dexterity isn't an issue like it is in CineUni

What difference between the systems causes that?

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;579535(...)I do hate Power Points. Tracking Power Points (which are not used in  Solomon Kane and a few other settings) just feels out of place with how  everything else seems to work.(...)

What are these Power Points used for?


As I'm not so keen on doing conversions or a  lot of rules tinkering  I'd prefer to use the games as they are. Otherwise I'd just convert any  setting I like and not worry if I'd enjoy the system.

QuoteOriginally Posted by HombreLoboDomesticado
 
Do you like Minis in your RPG play?

We don't use minis, only the occasional marker to indicate relative positions in a location.

You don't need to use Minis but the game lends itself well to skirmish level play and there are templates for such like explosive ranges, vehical maneuvers etc that work best with minis.

QuoteOriginally Posted by HombreLoboDomesticado  
Do you like big battles being featured regularly with lots of enemies and allies on the table?

If combat situations involving lots of combatants play out sufficiently smoothly, I'd certainly make use of that. What exactly makes big battles so easy to run with SW?

There are very few states to track. So little bookkeeping.

QuoteOriginally Posted by HombreLoboDomesticado
Are you cool with the game working better at low levels than high level play?

This seems contradictory with claims that SW is suitable for pulp or even supers. Could you elaborate a bit on this?

You don't build up hit points , though you can increase toughness and add armour. Basically you can kill an experienced guy as easily as you kill a low level guy... roughly...

QuoteOriginally Posted by HombreLoboDomesticado
(...)I do hate Power Points. Tracking Power Points (which are not used in Solomon Kane and a few other settings) just feels out of place with how everything else seems to work.(...)

What are these Power Points used for?

Power points are just the battery for running powers. And powers can be magic, psionics, superpowers whatever. You have a ppol of points and you spend them to use the powers. Once you add them in you end up tracking something and really its the only think you need to track in the whole game because there are so few other resources to monitor.

I don't mind it and think it works fine but I haven't used it for a Supers game so I haven't had multiple characaters tracking and using multiple powers nor have I had to run the bad guys doing that.

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;579524So, could you tell me something more about the rules, what you like or don't like about them and why?

Friends of mine really dig the system, so I play it a fair bit. I consider it a serviceable, but not great system. I think it's popular because it's a comfortable medium for many folks between easy to run light system and heavier system with a bit more character detail.

I don't like it in part because I really don't like the damage system. Folks playing D&D will tell you how intensely they hate spells like hold person or effects that stun your PC because they rob you of the ability to act. Savage Worlds standard damage condition is shaken, which is in essence similar to being stunned in D&D. You can buy off shaken with bennies... but bennies are your ability to "be cool", and I find it very un-fun that my ability to impact the game is being robbed to take care of the shaken condition.

The reason this is so vexing relates to point number two...

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;579604It baffles me that the "all characters are identical" complaint is a thing. At the very least characters are going to be distinguished by their hindrances, and a number of Edges can only be picked up during chargen without explicit GM approval.

I totally get why it's a thing. Yes, edges and hindrances do help differentiate a character. But skills matter less than they should, because of a) the wild die and b)modifiers.

Savage Worlds loves using -2 as a modifier. And if you stack just to modifiers, that's a whopping -4. If you consider for a second that most skills are going to be d6 or d8, that's huge.

The net effect is that when things get rough in the game, you are relying more on dice exploding (and spending bennies to reroll so you can try to get them to explode) than you are your skill. I understand the excitement of amazing rolls, but I think SW is geared a bit too much to rely on the amazing success than the skills of the characters.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;579643The net effect is that when things get rough in the game, you are relying more on dice exploding (and spending bennies to reroll so you can try to get them to explode) than you are your skill. I understand the excitement of amazing rolls, but I think SW is geared a bit too much to rely on the amazing success than the skills of the characters.

I'm not sure I agree that you're relying on the dice exploding, but I do agree there's a little less granularity on skill uses than other systems. But when we play Savage Worlds we're looking for a game that isn't bogged down in such things, so we're OK with.

The same goes for the stunned state in a combat. While you do lose the ability to affect the combat immediately, you can still do other things (move at half speed, etc.). I feel like Bennies should flow like water. The players should be striving to earn them at all times and the GM should be handing them out like candy.

The game suggests a lower number of bennies in a gritty game, but as much as I like Savage Worlds, it's not where I look if I want a gritty game of any kind.

I also like the deck of cards initiative system in that certain cards and Edge combos can create excitement in a phase of the game that can seem like a chore in most every other RPG system.

Savage worlds works great in my experience. It is quite easy to play but still has enough rules for different kinds of situations. It is excellent for over the top spy stuff (like james bond), super heroes, pulp, crime, swashbuckling, and i found it worked pretty well for fantasy too. It is general though so if you want to play something very specific with it, like star wars, you will need to make some customizations (though the system is well suited for).

The skills are somewhat broad and there are not too many, but that hasnt been an issue for our group at all (if you like having lots of skills like you have in GURPS, this may not be the best game for you).

Some people have an issue with the way the exploding dice work (because the chance of rolling a four on a d4 is greater than the chance of rolling an eight on a d8 for example), and there are countless breakdowns of the math online should this be a concern for you.

I dont have the delux edition yet, so just going by my old explorers edition.

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;579598Thanks Tommy, I had that concern about SW. But even though your blog does a fine job showcasing how everyone /can/ be different, is that sort of specialization encouraged by the rules? It's been a while, but my recolection is that it was punatively expensive to raise high stats and become a one trick pony, so it's easier just to pick the low hanging fruit and become the same SW character as everyone else.
 
I don't know the system, so this is a question not a challenge.

You can only raise one of your five Attributes once per rank, and those in turn govern the cost of Skills. In my example Archer, I stopped taking the Attribute advances and spent that on Skills and Edges because he didn't really need higher Attributes.

It's not a game where you're spending XP and the costs are scaling upwards once you get past certain scores (like the aforementioned Cinematic Unisystem).

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;579635I'm a fairly rules-lite kind of GM. As a  point of reference, I enjoy  stuff like Cinematic Unisystem, GenreDiversion i, Barbarians of Lemuria,  CoC and the lighter Fudge variants (definitely not Fate). I haven't  looked at it in detail but OpenQuest also looks like something I'd be  comfortable with. I haven't given Two-Fisted Tales a try but that looks  like a fine go-to system for pulp. Classic Unisystem I'll streamline a  bit by picking for example the optional static damage and armor and  ditching Endurance.

So how crunchy would you people say combat is compared to these? Is  there a lot of bean counting involved, lots of rules to keep track of?

Also, I'd like to know from people who really don't like the system what their gripes are with it.



We don't use minis, only the occasional marker to indicate relative positions in a location.


If combat situations involving lots of combatants play out sufficiently smoothly, I'd certainly make use of that. What exactly makes big battles so easy to run with SW?


This seems contradictory with claims that SW is suitable for pulp or even supers. Could you elaborate a bit on this?


What made you change that opinion?


What difference between the systems causes that?


What are these Power Points used for?


As I'm not so keen on doing conversions or a  lot of rules tinkering  I'd prefer to use the games as they are. Otherwise I'd just convert any  setting I like and not worry if I'd enjoy the system.

The reason I like using minis is because of how easy it makes it to track everything. Wild Cards get three Wounds, so you just mark their figures with something to show the Wounds. Super easy to do even if you have 40 combatants out there. Even if you're just using minis or markers for relative position, you can mark those.

As for CineUni: It was never anything about SW that made me go "I'll never play that again"...but it went from being my Go-To game to SW being it, because we just have more fun with it, there's less book keeping with it, there's more material available for it, which in turns makes it super easy to mod if I choose, and so on.

That said, the magic system in the Buffy Magic Box supplement is still one of my favorite Magic systems ever.

Re: Dexterity. Dexterity is used for attack and defense in CineUni. It is the most powerful stat in the game, period. Savage Worlds does rely less on Attributes than CineUni does, removing some of the One Stat To Rule Them All.

As for running things out of the box...the rulebook isn't really meant to be ran straight out of the box, that's why it's so cheap. But the rulebook plus setting book or setting book with rule (like Solomon Kane) absolutely can be.

Quote from: jibbajibba;579642Power points are just the battery for running powers. And powers can be magic, psionics, superpowers whatever. You have a ppol of points and you spend them to use the powers. Once you add them in you end up tracking something and really its the only think you need to track in the whole game because there are so few other resources to monitor.

I don't mind it and think it works fine but I haven't used it for a Supers game so I haven't had multiple characaters tracking and using multiple powers nor have I had to run the bad guys doing that.

The supers rules ditch Power Points in that sense. I love the Supers rules. I want to someday make a Buffyesque setting using them.

Not a lot to add here.

It's a game of larger-than-life heroes kicking ass.

Because they're larger than life (Wild Cards, with bennies), they are significantly more competent than the masses (Extras), thanks to the Wild Die; and they can shrug off wounds that can kill or cripple lesser men, by spending bennies for a soak.

Even the wonky exploding dice system, which tends to favor lower skills (e.g. someone with 1d4 on a skill has a 25% probability of acing, not accounting for the Wild Die because I suck at Bayesian stats; as opposed to less than 10% for someone with 1d12) is kind of in-genre, with unskilled characters either failing miserably or extraordinarily lucking it out. Gimmicky but fun.

Card-based initiative is more fun that it has a right to be. Just wait until someone gets a Joker and you'll see what I mean.

Supports miniatures if you're into them, but I've never used them and had no problem.

My gripe with the system is that combat feels harmless at times, unless you're throwing hordes of Extras and/or a band of Wild Cards at them. It's not really the sort of game in which a random goblin with a knife can get the drop on Hruthgar The Mighty, Barbarian Warlord of the Cold Waste and kill him with a lucky stab to the vitals (then again, neither is D&D after a certain level). Certain pulp tropes, like surrendering to armed foes who get the drop on you, make no sense because PCs have a decent chance of taking on a gunman heads-on, even if unarmed, and winning, even if the gunman is a Wild Card.

Also, Powers are a bit bland and you should play fast and loose with them; make up new ones, reskin existing ones, imagine the hell out of it. Or use the Super Powers system (Necessary Evil and/or Super Powers Companion) which is kick-ass for a certain kind of game (mystery men are a breeze, X-Men or Titans easy enough, Avengers is a bit tricky, Justice League would be a pain).

I had a pretty good run with SW, which used to be my go-to system until fairly recently. I still think it's a great design, just not what I'm looking for these days. But I heartily recommend for its fun gimmicks, minimally demanding prep and book-keeping, fast yet customizable character generation, cheap and portable core rulebook and abundant support both in-house and third party. Both groups I game with loved it.

And if you're going to pick up one setting, it's The Day After Ragnarok. Seriously. This is so cool everyone should be playing it. There's also a Hero System version, and I think a Wild Talents version is in the works, though it should be a breeze to convert it to anything else like Two-Fisted Tales, Unisystem, GURPS or even TSR-era D&D.

Our first foray into SW was an all around thumbs-down. It seemed that in combat we were either shaken (and useless) or spending bennies to be unshaken. It was frustrating that round after round several players just couldn't do anything.

That was our try-out session. Deciding to give it another go, we house ruled most of the shaken rules into oblivion, then it was much more fun.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;579643I totally get why it's a thing. Yes, edges and hindrances do help differentiate a character. But skills matter less than they should, because of a) the wild die and b)modifiers.
 
Savage Worlds loves using -2 as a modifier. And if you stack just to modifiers, that's a whopping -4. If you consider for a second that most skills are going to be d6 or d8, that's huge.
 
The net effect is that when things get rough in the game, you are relying more on dice exploding (and spending bennies to reroll so you can try to get them to explode) than you are your skill. I understand the excitement of amazing rolls, but I think SW is geared a bit too much to rely on the amazing success than the skills of the characters.

I agree there's some truth in both of these things (what I've quoted here and your comments on Shaken, which I'll agree can be annoying).
A character with d6 or d8 skill attempting a TN 8 task is going to be relying on Aceing/rolling up to succeed, and the penalties are a bit harsh.
 
I don't agree with the 'most of time its d6 or d8' though. I expect every character is going to have a few skills that are completely untrained (d4-2, and the -2 applies to the wild dice as well which is bad) and perhaps one or two that are cranked up past the attribute level or boosted by an Edge - in my last group (doing Realms of Cthulhu) we had the detective with assorted investigation skills (and an Edge giving him a +2 on that), the scholarly lady with d10 Smarts and Jack of All Trades (who was completely untrained in Fighting), and my 'Face' character with a Persuade of d10+4 (Attractive, Charismatic), although everything else on him was between d4-d8.
 
I suppose there are some incentives to spreading your points around more evenly, but its not mandatory. Possible a game which is heavily focussed on fighting everyone will make that their focus area and end up more the same.

Quote from: The Butcher;579656Even the wonky exploding dice system, which tends to favor lower skills (e.g. someone with 1d4 on a skill has a 25% probability of acing, not accounting for the Wild Die because I suck at Bayesian stats; as opposed to less than 10% for someone with 1d12) is kind of in-genre, with unskilled characters either failing miserably or extraordinarily lucking it out. Gimmicky but fun.
.

Remember though its not how many times you explode the die its the total number you get to. On that basis the maths seems to show that d4's don't beat D6's or d8s

Like I said 6.25% of getting a 9 on a d4 but 11.11% of getting a 9 or better on a d6 and 12.5% (double a d4) of getting a 9 or better on a d8.

The numbers do get odd but not quite as odd as you think.

Quote from: jibbajibba;579702Remember though its not how many times you explode the die its the total number you get to. On that basis the maths seems to show that d4's don't beat D6's or d8s

Yeah, this particular chestnut's been rehashed to death.  People get knotted up about acing and miss the fact that it's completely irrelevant to the actual pass/fail test.

Quote from: jibbajibba;579702Remember though its not how many times you explode the die its the total number you get to. On that basis the maths seems to show that d4's don't beat D6's or d8s

Like I said 6.25% of getting a 9 on a d4 but 11.11% of getting a 9 or better on a d6 and 12.5% (double a d4) of getting a 9 or better on a d8.

The numbers do get odd but not quite as odd as you think.

If you go back and re-read that sentence you quoted, you'll notice that I never said that smaller dice succeed more often.

They do explode (ace, in SW terms) more often.

Which means that less skilled PCs do fail more often than skilled ones, but when they succeed, they tend to ace, leading to the d4 Fighting guy punching out someone twice his size, or such. Which makes the game wilder and zanier, which can be fun at times. That was my point.

But yeah, "low skill succeeds more often in SW" is a common line of argument, which happens to be bullshit. I'm well acquainted with the SW probability curves, and I'll provide a link when I have the time.

Savage Worlds has a pretty simple task resolution system that seems (as far as I can tell) to have been streamlined with the newest edition.

The only worlds for it that I'm familiar with at all are Sundered Skies, Necessary Evil, and Weird War 2. I also played in a homebrewed setting created by Sean Patrick Fannon at a con once. That game session made me dismiss the entire game for a few years (didn't care for the referee/gm's style). Anyway, I'm unfamiliar with the games you listed.

Settings all have their own additions and subtractions from the main rules, however, all the ones I've looked at have very minimal changes. Usually just additional Edges and Hindrances and races that make sense for that setting.

Overall, I enjoy it. Once you get used to the rules, it moves along pretty quickly, but it can be pretty deadly too. I, and everyone I play with, constantly forget to use our bennies. It's the first RPG I ever played using miniatures, and I think they are mostly necessary for the combat portions. I've never really felt that way about any other game other than 4th ed. DnD.

However, I think it is far less (needlessly) complicated than 4th ed. And a hell of a lot more fun to play.

Also, I've been making a Savage Worlds Macross setting, off and on for a while now.

Quote from: daniel_ream;579725Yeah, this particular chestnut's been rehashed to death.  People get knotted up about acing and miss the fact that it's completely irrelevant to the actual pass/fail test.

The one corner case where it matters is where you have a target number (e.g. parry) of 6. You actually have a better chance of rolling a 6+ on an exploding d4 than a d6. The expected value of the d6 is still higher.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;579535I use minis, but lots of folks have ran the game happily without them. I find I actually enjoy using minis in SW (I used to HATE them).

I do hate Power Points. Tracking Power Points (which are not used in Solomon Kane and a few other settings) just feels out of place with how everything else seems to work.

I used to hate mini's too, didn't like 'em until Savage Worlds.

Do you think that the system used for ammo could be used to substitute for Power Points?

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;579744The one corner case where it matters is where you have a target number (e.g. parry) of 6. You actually have a better chance of rolling a 6+ on an exploding d4 than a d6.

By a whopping 3%, yes.

Seriously, this is "OMG BOTCHES GO UP WITH INCREASING DICE POOLS" all over again.

Quote from: daniel_ream;579749By a whopping 3%, yes.

Seriously, this is "OMG BOTCHES GO UP WITH INCREASING DICE POOLS" all over again.

Hey dude, I admitted it was a corner case and not really part of what I am concerned about, but I don't think you advance your case by:
1) Saying it's just 3%, where even 0% (i.e., exact same chance) would be a problem,
2) Comparing it to a seriously craptastic design decision in Storyteller which really makes this little hiccup pale by comparison.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;5797991) Saying it's just 3%, where even 0% (i.e., exact same chance) would be a problem,

I disagree that it's a problem, in that it simply isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference at a real gaming table.  By comparison to the real problem of "can we get everybody together on the same night more often than once a fiscal quarter", no.

Quote2) Comparing it to a seriously craptastic design decision in Storyteller which really makes this little hiccup pale by comparison.

Where for one specific target number and dice pool combination, the chance of botching goes up a whopping ten percentage points. OMG TEH SKY IZ FALLNG

This is all very informative, thanks. I don't really have a problem with the decreasing chance of exploding dice with increasing stat levels.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;579653(...)The skills are somewhat broad and there are not too many, but that hasnt been an issue for our group at all (if you like having lots of skills like you have in GURPS, this may not be the best game for you).

For pulpy, cinematic or comicky games a small number of broad skills seems appropriate most of the time. Cinematic Unisystem, BoL and 2FT also have it.

For Call of Cthulhu it wouldn't be so fitting, at least IMHO.

Quote from: The Butcher;579656(...) My gripe with the system is that combat feels harmless at times, unless you're throwing hordes of Extras and/or a band of Wild Cards at them. (...) Certain pulp tropes, like surrendering to armed foes who get the drop on you, make no sense because PCs have a decent chance of taking on a gunman heads-on, even if unarmed, and winning, even if the gunman is a Wild Card.

This could be a problem, once the players realize they're virtually invincible they might always go for the full-on confrontation instead of choosing a more sneaky or subtle approach.

Quote from: The Butcher;579656I had a pretty good run with SW, which used to be my go-to system until fairly recently. I still think it's a great design, just not what I'm looking for these days. But I heartily recommend for its fun gimmicks, minimally demanding prep and book-keeping, fast yet customizable character generation, cheap and portable core rulebook and abundant support both in-house and third party. Both groups I game with loved it.

I'm pretty much convinced by now that I'll at least pick up the corebook Explorer's edition.

Quote from: The Butcher;579656And if you're going to pick up one setting, it's The Day After Ragnarok. Seriously. This is so cool everyone should be playing it.

Hm, I did read into this but for some reason it doesn't particularly appeal to me.

Quote from: languagegeek;579662Our first foray into SW was an all around thumbs-down. It seemed that in combat we were either shaken (and useless) or spending bennies to be unshaken. It was frustrating that round after round several players just couldn't do anything.

That was our try-out session. Deciding to give it another go, we house ruled most of the shaken rules into oblivion, then it was much more fun.

A couple of people have mentioned something along these lines so far. I'll have to see how it turns out for my group. If it bothers us I'll get back to you about your house rulings.

Quote from: everloss;579745I used to hate mini's too, didn't like 'em until Savage Worlds.

Do you think that the system used for ammo could be used to substitute for Power Points?

...I may have to try that out.

Just to be clear, this is the version you wanna get: http://www.studio2publishing.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=25_75_129&products_id=3614

The Deluxe Explorer's Edition is the same price as the original Explorer's Edition, and with way more stuff jammed into it.

A couple of other things that are gripes/things people complain about that I've seen:
*Stats not affecting skills (except via cost reduction or Edge prerequisites). I can see some benefits to this - you can make a character who's the 'Ancient Master' with d4 Agility and d12 Fighting, say - but some players didn't like this. The first houserule the players proposed was of course to roll [Stat+Skill], Cortex style, but I opposed this on the grounds that doing everything with one dice was important to combat speed - as well as making stats too cheap.
Eventually we compromised on a rule where a d4 stat gave a -1 skill modifier, whereas a d10 or d12 stat gave a +1.

*all the non-wild-card monsters being dropped with 1 Wound. Initially I tried just making big monsters Wild Cards, but eventually I started just giving them multiple Wounds (instead of higher Toughness) and having them become shaken at half their Wounds.  I wasn't that concerned with big monsters being "up, down, or off the table" since the PCs weren't generally fighting a lot of them at once.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;579865A couple of other things that are gripes/things people complain about that I've seen:
*Stats not affecting skills (except via cost reduction or Edge prerequisites).(...)
*all the non-wild-card monsters being dropped with 1 Wound.(...)  eventually I started just giving them multiple Wounds (instead of higher  Toughness) and having them become shaken at half their  Wounds.(...)

I doubt these will be an issue for my group. Good idea for fixing monsters being too weak, should it pose a problem. I'll keep that in mind.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;579856Just to be clear, this is the version you wanna get: http://www.studio2publishing.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=25_75_129&products_id=3614

The Deluxe Explorer's Edition is the same price as the original Explorer's Edition, and with way more stuff jammed into it.

Yes, that's the one I'm going for.

Solomon Kane and Deadlands look fun. I'd probably use Deadlands as a weird west toolkit rather than using the "canon". Solomon Kane seems like it could easily be used to run a game in a setting based on the Colonial Gothic sourcebooks.

Any reason why SW is particularly suitable for a Cthulhu game? After this thread I'm not so sure about Realms of Cthulhu anymore. What in particular sets the experience apart from a classic Call of Cthulhu game?

Any other SW settings people here are fond of?

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;579871I doubt these will be an issue for my group. Good idea for fixing monsters being too weak, should it pose a problem. I'll keep that in mind.


Yes, that's the one I'm going for.

Solomon Kane and Deadlands look fun. I'd probably use Deadlands as a weird west toolkit rather than using the "canon". Solomon Kane seems like it could easily be used to run a game in a setting based on the Colonial Gothic sourcebooks.

Any reason why SW is particularly suitable for a Cthulhu game? After this thread I'm not so sure about Realms of Cthulhu anymore. What in particular sets the experience apart from a classic Call of Cthulhu game?

Any other SW settings people here are fond of?

I did a Mod I liked and its easy to do so I would recommend pickin a setting you really like that there is no system for and just seeing how it fits good way to get round the rules as well.
There are loads of free mods on the Pinnacle forums.

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;579871I doubt these will be an issue for my group. Good idea for fixing monsters being too weak, should it pose a problem. I'll keep that in mind.


Yes, that's the one I'm going for.

Solomon Kane and Deadlands look fun. I'd probably use Deadlands as a weird west toolkit rather than using the "canon". Solomon Kane seems like it could easily be used to run a game in a setting based on the Colonial Gothic sourcebooks.

Any reason why SW is particularly suitable for a Cthulhu game? After this thread I'm not so sure about Realms of Cthulhu anymore. What in particular sets the experience apart from a classic Call of Cthulhu game?

Any other SW settings people here are fond of?

I love SK and Deadlands (probably my favorite setting ever).

I've had a blast running Necessary Evil.

I wanna run Hellfrost so friggin' bad, too.

I dig the Suzerain stuff (particularly Caladon Falls, but Suzerain is a reality hopping multiverse) but, disclaimer, I am on Savage Mojo's payroll.

I've never played Call of Cthulhu...but the BRP system does nothing for me, while I enjoy Savage Worlds...pretty much my reason for taking Realms over Call. Your mileage my vary on that.

Savage Worlds is a great action based system that is definitely FFF.  You can use sketch maps instead of miniatures quite happily, it scales well to handle loads of sidekicks and mooks etc etc

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;579744The one corner case where it matters is where you have a target number (e.g. parry) of 6. You actually have a better chance of rolling a 6+ on an exploding d4 than a d6. The expected value of the d6 is still higher.

Well, you have a better chance of rolling exactly 6.  For people who try to cite this oddity of maths as anything other than a corner case, you can always hit them with some numbers.

For example, looking at the chance of getting a Raise against Parry 6 (i.e. 10+) for more damage, a d4 has (1/4 * 1/4 * 3/4) only a 4.7% chance, whereas the mighty d6 has (1/6 * 3/6) a relatively mighty 8.3%.

So overall, the d6 is still a better option for real men, although the 2d4 combo for weak characters (old man with staff) does offer some surisingly decent firepower with all the Acing that goes on.

SW just plain works. I've gotten to play it quite a bit now, and that's basically my conclusion. But the bennies must flow like water. If the GM is stingy about awarding bennies to the player(make up an excuse if you have to; it's no fun being hosed because you're just not the loudest person at the table), then it becomes more deadly and difficult than it's really meant to be(by default, and in most settings, anyway).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;579604It baffles me that the "all characters are identical" complaint is a thing.

It's also a myth, as proven by this: http://mostunreadblogever.blogspot.com/p/savage-worlds-characters-are-all-same.html

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;579535I use minis, but lots of folks have ran the game happily without them.

I generally don't use them, and it works great.

QuoteI do hate Power Points. Tracking Power Points (which are not used in Solomon Kane and a few other settings) just feels out of place with how everything else seems to work.

Savage Worlds Deluxe has optional rules for power point free casting

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;579744The one corner case where it matters is where you have a target number (e.g. parry) of 6. You actually have a better chance of rolling a 6+ on an exploding d4 than a d6. The expected value of the d6 is still higher.

In that case, you have a better chance of rolling exactly a six on a d4, by about 1.8%, but you have an equally large change of getting a critical failure on the d4, and a much lower chance of getting a raise. Since raises are important, you're STILL better off with the d6. And the margin is less than the error rate generated by most tumbled dice.

So it's absolutely not worth thinking about.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;579865*Stats not affecting skills (except via cost reduction or Edge prerequisites). I can see some benefits to this - you can make a character who's the 'Ancient Master' with d4 Agility and d12 Fighting, say - but some players didn't like this. The first houserule the players proposed was of course to roll [Stat+Skill], Cortex style, but I opposed this on the grounds that doing everything with one dice was important to combat speed - as well as making stats too cheap.
Eventually we compromised on a rule where a d4 stat gave a -1 skill modifier, whereas a d10 or d12 stat gave a +1.

That's what Edges, and Edge Prerequisites, are for.

Quote*all the non-wild-card monsters being dropped with 1 Wound. Initially I tried just making big monsters Wild Cards, but eventually I started just giving them multiple Wounds (instead of higher Toughness) and having them become shaken at half their Wounds.  I wasn't that concerned with big monsters being "up, down, or off the table" since the PCs weren't generally fighting a lot of them at once.

It's actually better to leave the wounds at 3 and increase toughness or add edges like Hardy or Hard to Kill, etc. Adding wound levels is how Savage Worlds worked in the first printing, and it really really really bogged the game down. High toughness isn't a problem if you're Playing Smart and not just saying "I hit it with my sword" over and over

I have run a ton of Savage Worlds as a GM ever since before the first book was released (I had the beta doc, I don't remember how I got it).

Its a game you need to actually play to understand; reading the book, it doesn't read as clear as play makes it (Deluxe is better in this regard). The game was developed in actual play, and alot of the design decisions were "it just works" in actual play, and that's not always clear when reading it.

As a result, this causes alot of people who haven't had much if any experience with the system to go apeshit as soon as they read it and try to start hacking it and houseruling it without understanding what they're doing. They end up inadvertently bloating or breaking the game, come to the conclusion the game sucks, and then go on the internet to yell about it.

So there's alot of misinformation about the game as a result. Really, the best thing to do is just play it. It just works. It's quick to play, combats move lightning fast, it can handle any action the players want to attempt, it makes even lesser foes dangerous, particularly in large numbers. It explicitly rewards smart play and clever tactics and will make uncreative "I hit it with my sword" players of high rank ineffectual compared to clever low rank PCs. PCs of different ranks can adventure together without any serious power disparity issues.

Alot of people will claim it does "pulp" games out of the box. This isn't really true without some setting rules. This is, again, a case of "read the rules, haven't played the game"; out of the box, the game is fairly lethal (even with bennies), far more than you'd expect from a "pulp" game. However, there are several pulp supplements available to get that feel via setting rules. The "pulp" label comes more from the presentation of the book than the actual game play.

The Core Rules are just that: core rules. They're basically an SRD. Very few games will be run with just the core rules. The game is explicit about this: the core rules plus a setting is what is needed. The setting will have Setting Rules to evoke the aesthetic of that setting. Savage Worlds Deluxe has some example Setting Rules to use as a model for you own (or to use wholesale, including the aforementioned "No Power Points" spell casting).

For settings, most of them are really good, but I like Hellfrost. It has almost a Greyhawk kind of feel (in fact, some folks on the TAG forums have inserted Castle Greyhawk into the setting). It's a dark fantasy setting with the feel of a Norse epic. The world is well fleshed out with tons of locations, rumors, organizations, and people. It's a great setting for a sandbox.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;581631That's what Edges, and Edge Prerequisites, are for.

I know - I wouldn't have done this except that I was trying to make the players happy.

QuoteIt's actually better to leave the wounds at 3 and increase toughness or add edges like Hardy or Hard to Kill, etc. Adding wound levels is how Savage Worlds worked in the first printing, and it really really really bogged the game down. High toughness isn't a problem if you're Playing Smart and not just saying "I hit it with my sword" over and over

Oh, I know that you do it with clever tactics, but eh.
I don't run mass-combats with thirty ogres enough that I caused a huge problem, although meddling with it is more complicated than it looks at first glance (since you also need to account for wound penalties and monsters becoming shaken too easily despite more health levels).

I've heard repeatedly that original SW had multiple wound levels, but as far as I've been able to determine it hasn't ever worked that way. FWIW, I asked that question here -

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=22818

And then again here -

http://www.peginc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36429

Quote from: Doctor Jest;581629Savage Worlds Deluxe has optional rules for power point free casting

Yep, and I doubt if I ever use Power Points again.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;581628It's also a myth, as proven by this: http://mostunreadblogever.blogspot.com/p/savage-worlds-characters-are-all-same.html

Which is why I wrote that...=)

Although, I apparently now need to add a disclaimer "Warning: If you and everyone at your table take the same advancement options, your characters may still look identical".

Which is kinda like how if your players all took fighters with similar feats in 3E, they'd all be the same.

I find that Savage Worlds works best for characters when they don't try to be "everymen" or try to be good at a bunch of stuff. You can really shine when you create a concept and remain devoted to it.

Creating James Bond is a little out of SW's wheelhouse. Creating the A-Team? Right up its alley.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;581632It explicitly rewards smart play and clever tactics and will make uncreative "I hit it with my sword" players of high rank ineffectual compared to clever low rank PCs.

Have a few examples of this?

Hopefully people will forgive me for not liking Savage Worlds.

I found the system to be too cumbersome and fiddly with the wound system, exploding dice and those horrid 'bennies'.

I am impressed with the art in the books though. It's presented well.

Just did not enjoy playing the system.

I would be willing to give it another chance though.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;581632I have run a ton of Savage Worlds as a GM ever since before the first book was released (I had the beta doc, I don't remember how I got it).

I've been casting around for a way to introduce Savage Worlds to my group, with the caveat that I don't want to invest a huge amount of time into a campaign if they don't bite.

Is there a published adventure or one-shot that you would recommend for showing off the system?  Ideally it should showcase how SW handles most common adventure gaming scenarios.

Tommy, feel free to chime in here as well.

OK, I'm going to go on a major purchasing binge and order three books for Solomon Kane (corebook, Foes of Solomon Kane & Path of Kane) plus the two corebooks for Deadlands Reloaded.

Before I check out I'd like your opinions on whether I need to add the Savage Worlds Deluxe rulebook or can make do with the core rules as presented in Savage World of Solomon Kane as I am really not looking for a generic system.

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;581725OK, I'm going to go on a major purchasing binge and order three books for Solomon Kane (corebook, Foes of Solomon Kane & Path of Kane) plus the two corebooks for Deadlands Reloaded.

Before I check out I'd like your opinions on whether I need to add the Savage Worlds Deluxe rulebook or can make do with the core rules as presented in Savage World of Solomon Kane as I am really not looking for a generic system.

A brief look at the Solomon Kane rules makes me think you're fine. The only issue I see there being problems with is that Solomon Kane doesn't use Power Points and Deadlands does (for some of the Backgrounds)...so if those powers aren't in the Test Drive rules, there may be small problems.

Quote from: daniel_ream;581672I've been casting around for a way to introduce Savage Worlds to my group, with the caveat that I don't want to invest a huge amount of time into a campaign if they don't bite.

Is there a published adventure or one-shot that you would recommend for showing off the system?  Ideally it should showcase how SW handles most common adventure gaming scenarios.

Tommy, feel free to chime in here as well.

Hm. Depends kinda on what your group likes.

I mean, I used Deadlands One Sheets to sell my friends on it, but we were already Deadlands fans. It just snowballed from there.

http://www.peginc.com/shop/genre-supplement-pulp/ <~~~~~the Eye of Kilquato is a decent pulp adventure, free, and uses the chase rules in addition to combat-type stuff. And there's several free One Sheets available if Pulp's not your thing.

The rules system of Solomon Kane is a squite bit modified version of the SWEX rules, so i'm not if you can use it for DLR.

Quote from: Phantom Black;581783The rules system of Solomon Kane is a squite bit modified version of the SWEX rules, so i'm not if you can use it for DLR.

Drop the "Righteous Fury" rule, and aside from the Power Points thing I mentioned, they should be fine. In any place where the rules contradict each other, use Deadlands.

The Test Drive (http://www.peginc.com/freebies/SWTestDriveTheWildHunt.pdf) should also largely suffice.

Quote from: Kaz;581662Which is kinda like how if your players all took fighters with similar feats in 3E, they'd all be the same.

I find that Savage Worlds works best for characters when they don't try to be "everymen" or try to be good at a bunch of stuff. You can really shine when you create a concept and remain devoted to it.

Creating James Bond is a little out of SW's wheelhouse. Creating the A-Team? Right up its alley.

Actually, I disagree with you quite a bit. Savage Worlds does either one very well. A Jack of All Trades can be a very effective character. This is helped quite a bit by the fact that even a d4 in something can be effective, and small bonuses of just +1 or +2 are very meaningful.

A single edge that gives a +2 bonus to a skill can be a game-changer for your character where that skill is concerned.

This is especially true since there is no cap on advancement.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;581660Yep, and I doubt if I ever use Power Points again.

Agreed.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;581785Drop the "Righteous Fury" rule, and aside from the Power Points thing I mentioned, they should be fine. In any place where the rules contradict each other, use Deadlands.

The Test Drive (http://www.peginc.com/freebies/SWTestDriveTheWildHunt.pdf) should also largely suffice.

The issue is without the core, you're missing alot of powers rules and descriptions, since Solomon Kane doesn't use those powers, and Deadlands doesn't reprint all of them.

Test drive is missing some important core rules.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;581922The issue is without the core, you're missing alot of powers rules and descriptions, since Solomon Kane doesn't use those powers, and Deadlands doesn't reprint all of them.

Test drive is missing some important core rules.

Yeah, actually doing a quick side by side comparison, a few biggies like Burst are missing from both the Test Drive and Solomon Kane.

Quote from: Phantom Black;581783The rules system of Solomon Kane is a squite bit modified version of the SWEX rules, so i'm not if you can use it for DLR.

Technically, Solomon Kane is a slightly modified version of Savage Worlds Revised Edition (the edition before SWEX). IIRC the main differences are the use of bennies for XP and the injury table - I think that Kane has the SWEX weapon damage rules rather than the Revised ones.

Apparently what happened is it just took forever to get the Kane book approved by the license holders, and work had been done on SWEX by then.

I placed the order and will see about SW Deluxe. If I need only a few of the core rules I probably won't have to get the actual book. Which, at 300+ pages, hardly seems like the relatively rules-light game everybody claims it is. I do hope I won't be disappointed but I found a SW to CineUni conversion somewhere on the web that I'll use in the worst case.

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;582410I placed the order and will see about SW Deluxe. If I need only a few of the core rules I probably won't have to get the actual book. Which, at 300+ pages, hardly seems like the relatively rules-light game everybody claims it is. I do hope I won't be disappointed but I found a SW to CineUni conversion somewhere on the web that I'll use in the worst case.

The SW Deluxe core rules are 192 pages at 6" x 9", not over 300. Savage World of Solomon Kane is over 300, yes, but that combines rules, setting book, monster book and about fifty or so mini-adventures which form a linked campaign.

Quote from: Grymbok;582417The SW Deluxe core rules are 192 pages at 6" x 9", not over 300. Savage World of Solomon Kane is over 300, yes, but that combines rules, setting book, monster book and about fifty or so mini-adventures which form a linked campaign.

:o I must have gotten some numbers mixed up there. Well, that's a relief.

And a lot of that 192 is sample adventures, optional setting rules, designer's notes sidebars and the like.

I'm reading Solomon Kane and so far it's pretty cool, but it says on pp. 53-54 under Range  that one inch equals 2 yards in the real world. But then it says that  to know the real world range of a weapon I have to multiply the ranges  by 2.5... To add to my confusion the resulting number is multiplied by 2  to get the real world range in yards...

The text in SW Deluxe is identical:

QuoteRanges are listed  in inches so that you can use a ruler to move, shoot, and fight on the  table-top with miniatures.
Each inch is equal to 2 yards in the real world, so that 5" is really 10 yards, or 30 feet.
Weapon  ranges are "effective" ranges for the table-top. If you need to know the  real world range of a weapon (for battles that don't take place on the  table-top, for instance), multiply each range bracket by 2.5. A tank  round with a Long range of 300, for example, has a "real world" Long  range of 750", or 1500 yards.

Furthermore on page 70 of Solomon Kane it says:

QuoteMovement, weapon ranges, and the like are listed in inches to help when playing with miniatures. In the "real world" each inch is equal to 2 yards.

And similarly, on page 64 of SW Deluxe:

QuoteBecause the game assumes you are using terrain or a battle-mat and standard 28mm miniatures, movement and weapon ranges are listed in inches. If you need to translate that to regular distance, each inch is equal to 2 yards.

Can someone clarify this confusing couple of paragraphs for me?  Basically, what I want to know is how to calculate real world weapons  ranges from the listed stats. Do I multiply by 2 or by 5 (i.e. 2 x 2.5)? :confused:

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;594306I'm reading Solomon Kane and so far it's pretty cool, but it says on pp. 53-54 under Range  that one inch equals 2 yards in the real world. But then it says that  to know the real world range of a weapon I have to multiply the ranges  by 2.5... To add to my confusion the resulting number is multiplied by 2  to get the real world range in yards...

Multiplying by 2 gives the effective range in yards. This distance is supposed to be the farthest that an averagely-trained soldier using that weapon is supposed to be able to hit a man-sized target consistently, and is thus the number used on the tabletop. Beyond this range, you can consider the odds of hitting a target are remote enough to not model on the tabletop

What the text in Deluxe is saying is that if you really need to know what the maximum (not effective) "real world" range is, multiply by 2.5 instead. This can be useful (I suppose) if you're fighting battles that aren't taking place on the tabletop and need to know precisely how far away someone has to be before that Howitzer can no longer be lobbing shells in their vicinity.

It's easy enough just to use the multiple by 2 rule if no one at your table cares about the difference between absolute and effective range. I always just multiply by 2, myself, and it's never been a problem.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;581628It's also a myth, as proven by this: http://mostunreadblogever.blogspot.com/p/savage-worlds-characters-are-all-same.html

It's a wonderful discussion but I really don't understand the wizard.  Wizard's have a ton of options for unique powers and I see none of them.  I mean I could understand that nobody can do everything, but no healing magic, no invisibility, no teleport, no quickness.  It seems odd not to play to these strengths.

Or did I miss something?

Quote from: Votan;594484It's a wonderful discussion but I really don't understand the wizard.  Wizard's have a ton of options for unique powers and I see none of them.  I mean I could understand that nobody can do everything, but no healing magic, no invisibility, no teleport, no quickness.  It seems odd not to play to these strengths.

Or did I miss something?

As I comment on the final advances, Mr. Wizard was the one I was the least pleased with, because I took my eye off the concept.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;594312(...)What the text in Deluxe is saying is that if you really need to know what the maximum (not effective) "real world" range is, multiply by 2.5 instead. This can be useful (I suppose) if you're fighting battles that aren't taking place on the tabletop and need to know precisely how far away someone has to be before that Howitzer can no longer be lobbing shells in their vicinity.

It's easy enough just to use the multiple by 2 rule if no one at your table cares about the difference between absolute and effective range. I always just multiply by 2, myself, and it's never been a problem.

The confusing part for me was that the example in the text I quoted has the range multiplied by 2 x 2.5, not by 2.5 instead of 2, which is what you are suggesting and would make much more sense.

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;594507The confusing part for me was that the example in the text I quoted has the range multiplied by 2 x 2.5, not by 2.5 instead of 2, which is what you are suggesting and would make much more sense.

Maybe I misspoke... The absolute range is 2.5x longer than the effective range. the absolute range is "how far can the projectile travel" whereas the effective range is "how far could I reasonably shoot and expect to hit anything".

Really, though, you can just use effective range and be fine forever with the standard x2 calculation, I've been playing Savage Worlds for almost a decade now and have never had to bother with anything but the standard effective range. I'm honestly not sure why they even bothered with adding the "real world" range as they call it. I can't really think of more than one or two cases where it would matter at all. I have to think it was put in to placate gun bunnies who balked at the ranges given not being "realistic" or something.

So my advice is just ignore that very small part of the rules. Inches x 2 = yards is very very likely all you'll ever need. So don't sweat it. Just double the inches and use that. It works fine.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;594486As I comment on the final advances, Mr. Wizard was the one I was the least pleased with, because I took my eye off the concept.

Good point.

That being said, the way you did the other 4 characters was really, really useful for understanding how SW characters advance and differentiate themselves.  There does seem to be a massive trade-off between versitility and being really good at what you want to do.

The sniper is just scary and the leader is quite good at feeling like a leader.

Quote from: Votan;594571Good point.

That being said, the way you did the other 4 characters was really, really useful for understanding how SW characters advance and differentiate themselves.  There does seem to be a massive trade-off between versitility and being really good at what you want to do.

It's not massive no, because of how the competence curve works in Savage Worlds. Obviously a specialized character will always be better at their specialty, but there isn't a necessity to specialize in order to be good at something, either. I think Tommy specialized deliberately to point out how different he could make the characters, something that would be harder with characters with a broader focus.

Ultimately, since there is no cap on advancement, you don't need to top out where Tommy topped his character's out at, either, so you could have a gentler specialization curve, or switch specializations after a certain point, etc. there is no absolute limit on advancement. And Savage Worlds is a great system if you want a generalist character and a generalist wouldn't be at any great disadvantage amongst a team of specialists. It also supports specialization for those who truly want to be the very best.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;594312What the text in Deluxe is saying is that if you really need to know what the maximum (not effective) "real world" range is, multiply by 2.5 instead.

Actually, what the rules are saying is: if a weapon has a long range band of 36" then it has a maximum range of 90". If you need to use 'real world' measures then these are 72 yards and 180 yards respectively.

The two multiplier are not mutually exclusive.

Quote from: dbm;594613Actually, what the rules are saying is: if a weapon has a long range band of 36" then it has a maximum range of 90". If you need to use 'real world' measures then these are 72 yards and 180 yards respectively.

The two multiplier are not mutually exclusive.

No, they are mutually exclusive. You use one set of ranges or the other, not both.

Basically, it's like this: since the "real world" maximums are generally too big to fit on a tabletop, the ranges are, in general, divided by 2.5 for effective range as a standardized constant to give a tabletop effective range. The conceit is this is the weapon's effective range in a skirmish level combat situation.

If you aren't playing on a tabletop and for some reason having real world maximum ranges is important to you, you can multiply each of the range bands by 2.5" to get maximums.

You would only use one of these scales, not both. you wouldn't use both 72 yards and 180 yards. You'd use 72 yards unless you are not playing on a tabletop AND you care about real world ranges enough for it to matter.

The biggest use for this I can see is converting a real world weapon to savage worlds yourself, you can divide its real world maximum range by 2.5 to calculate tabletop effective range.

My point is, it works fine to just use the tabletop effective ranges even if you aren't running on the tabletop. It works just fine, and makes for one set of mechanics. Only if someone was a real stickler for real world ranges would I think someone would care about the real world maximums. The rule can easily be ignored.

Quote from: dbm;594613Actually, what the rules are saying is: if a weapon has a long range band of 36" then it has a maximum range of 90". If you need to use 'real world' measures then these are 72 yards and 180 yards respectively.

The two multiplier are not mutually exclusive.

That was also what I was getting from the way it's phrased in the books and hence my confusion. The factors being mutually exclusive would make much more sense. I think the text could definitely do with some clarifying rephrasing.

Doctor Jest, I understand perfectly what you are saying. My confusion merely arose from the way it is explained in the books.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;594620No, they are mutually exclusive. You use one set of ranges or the other, not both.

The rules are very clear:

Quote from: Deluxe Edition Rules p49A tank round with a Long range of 300, for example, has a "real world" Long range of 750", or 1500 yards.

300 * 2.5 = 750
750 * 2 = 1500

QED

Quote from: Doctor Jest;594590It's not massive no, because of how the competence curve works in Savage Worlds. Obviously a specialized character will always be better at their specialty, but there isn't a necessity to specialize in order to be good at something, either. I think Tommy specialized deliberately to point out how different he could make the characters, something that would be harder with characters with a broader focus.

Ultimately, since there is no cap on advancement, you don't need to top out where Tommy topped his character's out at, either, so you could have a gentler specialization curve, or switch specializations after a certain point, etc. there is no absolute limit on advancement. And Savage Worlds is a great system if you want a generalist character and a generalist wouldn't be at any great disadvantage amongst a team of specialists. It also supports specialization for those who truly want to be the very best.

Yeah, Doctor Jest is pretty spot on here. I could have gone on indefinitely, but opted not to. And I did, especially with the two melee fighters, try to overspecialize to prove a point.

I also did a similar example with a pair of Deadlands-based knife throwers (thanks to an odd search result that showed up in my blog stats):

http://mostunreadblogever.blogspot.com/2011/05/savage-worlds-characters-deadlands.html

Quote from: Votan;594571Good point.

That being said, the way you did the other 4 characters was really, really useful for understanding how SW characters advance and differentiate themselves.  There does seem to be a massive trade-off between versitility and being really good at what you want to do.

The sniper is just scary and the leader is quite good at feeling like a leader.

Especially with the Savage Worlds Deluxe rules change of Wild Cards being affected by Leadership Edges.

Incidentally, I've had someone tell me they've used my Fearless Leader in play and had a blast with him.

Quote from: dbm;594669The rules are very clear:

Which misses the point.

Note where in my post I said they're multiplied by 2.5" not 2.5 yards.

The mutually exclusive bit is you will either use inches x2 OR inchesx2x2.5 but never both, as they are two different scales.

Also each range band gets the 2.5 multiplier when using that scale, not just long range.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;594735Which misses the point.

Note where in my post I said they're multiplied by 2.5" not 2.5 yards.

The mutually exclusive bit is you will either use inches x2 OR inchesx2x2.5 but never both, as they are two different scales.

Also each range band gets the 2.5 multiplier when using that scale, not just long range.

Ah, so you *did* mean inches x 2 OR inches x 2 x 2.5 ? A factor of 2.5 is pretty substantial, though. I dunno, it somehow seems weird.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;594735Which misses the point.

Note where in my post I said they're multiplied by 2.5" not 2.5 yards.

I didn't put any units in my post, I simply showed how the rules as written produce the numbers in the example they give. Both match, so the rules are clear.

• The x2 factor is used for converting from table inches to 'real world yards'.
• The x2.5 factor is used for converting from effective range to theoretical maximum range.

Can't be much clearer than that.

Quote from: dbm;594914I didn't put any units in my post,

But I did.

QuoteI simply showed how the rules as written produce the numbers in the example they give. Both match, so the rules are clear.

And that hasn't been in dispute. I'm sill not sure what point you're trying to make.

Quote

• The x2 factor is used for converting from table inches to 'real world yards'.
• The x2.5 factor is used for converting from effective range to theoretical maximum range.

Can't be much clearer than that.

No. Both determine real world yards.

Tabletop effective range scale: inches x 2 = yards
Non-tabletop "real world" range scale: inches x 2.5" x 2 = yards

You use one scale or the other, but you would not use both in the same combat.

Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;594909Ah, so you *did* mean inches x 2 OR inches x 2 x 2.5 ? A factor of 2.5 is pretty substantial, though. I dunno, it somehow seems weird.

It is weird. Which is why I recommend just ignoring it and using the inches x 2 = yards and ignoring the other. You don't lose anything. I really think it was just put in to placate enthusiasts who wanted to run non-tabletop games with "realistic" ranges. You can safely ignore it.

The text is somewhat confusing because both ranges in yards are referred to as "real world" ranges. Also, elsewhere in the books they only mention the x2.

I somehow got the impression that what they meant to say was:

range in inches x 2 = effective range in yards
range in inches x 2.5 = "real world" range in yards

because that seems to make more sense, but would of course contradict the example they use later on. Anyway, I'll just stick with the x 2 as suggested.

Or you could ask the man himself:

(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e235/dan_martland/8F7FA98C-DC02-40C6-A6A1-F32070CE5EBF-11654-00000991AC4049FB.jpg)

Like I said, the rules are quite clear.

I played it. It was fast and fun, but not furious enough for me.

Interestingly, the system came out of the designers being frustrated with the broken ORE system in Godlike. I can empathize with that.

Quote from: dbm;595260Like I said, the rules are quite clear.

The rules don't actually say that, so no, obviously it's not quite clear.

For example, if I'm shooting an an enemy with my M2 Browning 50 Cal (50"/100"/200"), my range bands in yards are:

"Effective Table Top": Short: 100 yards, Medium 200 yards, Long 400 yards
"Real World": Short; 250 yards, 500 yards, 1000 yards

The enemy is 250 yards away. If we're using BOTH scales above, as you say the rules are quite clear on, what's my range penalty? If it's perfectly clear, there should be no ambiguity on that, but using both scales rather than using them as mutually exclusive complications and obscures gameplay.

Rather, like I said, using the "real world" range going to be a weird edge case for most of us that we probably won't have to worry about.

Quote from: TristramEvans;595273I played it. It was fast and fun, but not furious enough for me.

Meaning, what exactly?

QuoteInterestingly, the system came out of the designers being frustrated with the broken ORE system in Godlike. I can empathize with that.

That's not exactly true.

Being frustrated with Godlike lead to them playing a WWII game with Great Rail Wars, which already existed. That event was one of a series of things that happened over the course of several days and the following weeks that led Shane Hensley into Looking more closely at Great Rail Wars which led to him designing Savage Worlds.

Quote from: Doctor Jest;595301Meaning, what exactly?

Exactly.

Quote from: TristramEvans;595303Exactly.

Ah-ha. Clever.

Quote from: TristramEvans;595273I played it. It was fast and fun, but not furious enough for me.

Interestingly, the system came out of the designers being frustrated with the broken ORE system in Godlike. I can empathize with that.

surely you mean Deadlands?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;595354surely you mean Deadlands?

No, oddly enough, Deadlands itself wasn't the reason.  They were playing Godlike, and it couldn't handle large enough groups of people fast enough, so that's why Hensley started looking at Great Rail Wars (which is a Deadlands skirmish wargame) and hacking it to do WWII better.

There was no need to create Savage Worlds to do Deadlands better, if you wanted small party action, you used Deadlands, if you wanted skirmish-level you used Great Rail Wars.

IIRC, though, the first published iteration of GRW as a kind-of RPG itself was Rippers! a Victorian Steampunk monster hunting game that had nothing to do specifically with either Deadlands or Godlike.  :D  That was the proto-Savage Worlds.

Quote from: CRKrueger;595445No, oddly enough, Deadlands itself wasn't the reason.  They were playing Godlike, and it couldn't handle large enough groups of people fast enough, so that's why Hensley started looking at Great Rail Wars (which is a Deadlands skirmish wargame) and hacking it to do WWII better.

No, you are BOTH right. Actually, Deadlands was in fact a big part of the reason.

In addition to their problems with Godlike, a game of Deadlands with 11 players where combat was running slow compared to a different GRW game the previous night was one of the factors that lead to Savage Worlds as well. In fact, it was that Deadlands game that directly lead to Shane pitching the idea of a system that would ultimately become Savage Worlds. The Godlike game had planted the seed of frustration in him, but Deadlands itself hammered it home.

Other factors included their previous frustrations with converting Weird Wars to d20, and their previous idea from 1999 to make a full RPG system out of Great Rail Wars that was shelved when the d20 OGL came out, as well as Shane's crisis in trying to decide where to go with the company at the time.

It wasn't any one of these things, but rather the culmination of them that lead to Savage Worlds.

You can read about the circumstances that led to the creation of Savage Worlds here:

http://www.peginc.com/freebies/SWcore/MakingofSW.pdf

"My next stop was the Bloomington/Normal, IL, area for a game of GRW and then Deadlands with my good
friends Dave Ross and Aaron Isaac. I also got to meet and get to know the extremely talented Dr. Rob Lusk.

During the day, we had about eight people playing Great Rail Wars with probably a thousand points a
piece. Eight strangers, hundreds of figures, vehicles, boats, monsters, and the game lasted about three hours.
Phenomenal. It had been a while since I’d played GRW, and I’d forgotten how much I missed it.

That night we went to Dr. Rob’s house for an  awesome game of Deadlands. It was great fun, but we
had a gang of about 11 player characters, so combat was a little slow. Not bad, but certainly nothing like I’d
experienced the night before.

After the game, Dave, Rob and I sat up and talked for hours about this new idea. About a system that was
fast and easy. Would anyone care? Was there a market for it?"