So the Savage Worlds sci-fi companion beta has dropped. It's about half of the total PDF, but I thought it was worth sharing. I haven't read it yet, but I plan on perusing today and I'll drop some thoughts.
Table of Contents
(https://i.imgur.com/3nn6yhJ.png)
Random Art/races
(https://i.imgur.com/tzgeg1o.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/bHUywCT.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/fORaAqj.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Sc4VTO4.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/VChwpDm.png)
New Hindrances
Some are pretty cool - Ex-Drone (survivor of being part of a Hive-Mind), FTL Sickness among some obvious Sci-fi trope classics like Low-G, Zero-G Sickness etc.
New Edges
Some real interesting ones here. Ammo Counter - halves the ammo used when using high-rof weapons. Gravitic Acclimation/Atmospheric Acclimation - both different Edges that allow you to manage different environmental conditions (specific - not all of them). Rocket Jock - Ignores multi-action penalty for Boating, Driving or Piloting checks! There are about a dozen or more others.
LOTS of GEAR based on different Technological Development levels. Weapons, Armor, equipment, modifications, tons of stuff.
The beta is supposed to be half of the final document, it's clocking it right now at 65-pages. It's pretty dense for 65-pages, but you can see the missing info based on the headers in the TOC. If anyone has questions based on the TOC, ask away.
I'll post my thoughts later.
This looks extremely interesting, pretty curious to see how much of this could mix and match with the other Companions...
Looks like they took some of the races from The Last Parsec and added them to the companion. This will be interesting to see. I am surprised they only have it half done. Usually they have the .pdfs ready to go by the time the Kickstarter is done.
The sci fi companion is slated to be larger than the previous companions, and will require commensurately longer development time. I'm highly skeptical that 65 pages represents "half" of the final book.
Quote from: Corolinth on April 24, 2024, 11:13:27 AMThe sci fi companion is slated to be larger than the previous companions, and will require commensurately longer development time. I'm highly skeptical that 65 pages represents "half" of the final book.
I still think it looks good so far and I will buy it when its done and ready for sale.
They have Jell-O people from the planet Cosby.
Quote from: NotFromAroundHere on April 24, 2024, 10:37:01 AMThis looks extremely interesting, pretty curious to see how much of this could mix and match with the other Companions...
It is 100% compatible with all the other Companions (which should be no surprise). All of the Savage Worlds subsystems are meant to be dropped into play as needed.
Yeah I'm salivating at this. I can see a lot of potential legwork already done for converting their favorite crunchier RPG to Savage Worlds, or better, creating a SW version of their favorite IP.
First and foremost - WH40k where you're actually playing Space Marines, could *easily* be done using the Sci-Fi Companion and dropping in elements from Savage Rifts. One could *easily* create a more tactical and kinetic skirmish mission-based game or fullblown 40k campaign with a little bit of time.
The final book is going to clock in (according to Pinnacle) over *300-pages*. I don't think I read that wrong. That's *fucking huge* for a Savage Worlds book.
It looks like the beta is a tiny bit. Last Parsec is naturally designed to fold into the Companion (they have a small section for it). But they're going hard on other Sci-fi tropes I'm sure you'll all recognize...
(https://i.imgur.com/uozo6Bx.png)
They have a free Walkers preview. (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/471514/SWADE-Science-Fiction-Companion-Walker-Preview?affiliate_id=43237)
Aliens vs. Starship Troopers...
(https://i.imgur.com/QLwQW54.png)
The Companions are designed to go hog on all the tropes we want and let us go wild with them. Should be really interesting.
Quote from: Corolinth on April 24, 2024, 03:26:14 PMThey have Jell-O people from the planet Cosby.
If they offer you something to drink, just don't accept.
Quote from: tenbones on April 24, 2024, 05:33:37 PMQuote from: NotFromAroundHere on April 24, 2024, 10:37:01 AMThis looks extremely interesting, pretty curious to see how much of this could mix and match with the other Companions...
It is 100% compatible with all the other Companions (which should be no surprise). All of the Savage Worlds subsystems are meant to be dropped into play as needed.
Yeah I'm salivating at this. I can see a lot of potential legwork already done for converting their favorite crunchier RPG to Savage Worlds, or better, creating a SW version of their favorite IP.
First and foremost - WH40k where you're actually playing Space Marines, could *easily* be done using the Sci-Fi Companion and dropping in elements from Savage Rifts. One could *easily* create a more tactical and kinetic skirmish mission-based game or fullblown 40k campaign with a little bit of time.
I will be interested to see what they have regarding creating walkers. Didnt feel the rules in the original companion were clear or full enough to really do anything.
Looks great, but for somebody who bit on SWD and bought all the Last Parsec and the SWD companion I'm not 'upgrading'. This is the bane of any otherwise good line from a great company, SWD had lots of great products and there not enough juice for the squeeze of SWADE.
I would like to see a deeper take on the post apoc side of their Sci fi (I wonder if they keep it more muted since they have Savage Rifts (which to me is not post apoc...it gonzo sci fantasy)) and just flat out rip off a setting like fallout. They had Darwin's world which as sort of a split between Fallout and Rifts. I would love to see a FO take on SW. Though that is a touch lazy as FO is extremely easy to convert to SW on the fly and now that ip if it gets loose from modiphius is going to cost.
Quote from: nedleeds on April 24, 2024, 10:09:30 PMLooks great, but for somebody who bit on SWD and bought all the Last Parsec and the SWD companion I'm not 'upgrading'. This is the bane of any otherwise good line from a great company, SWD had lots of great products and there not enough juice for the squeeze of SWADE.
Well given that SWADE Edition was their real chance to update the system (and we can definitely argue the pros/cons of SWADE vs. Deluxe edition) I personally find a lot of stuff from Deluxe was sacrificed unnecessarily to bring *everything* under the banner of SWADE.
BUT...
I'll say SWADE is *fantastically* modular and it allows for backwards shoe-horning of those older versions of sub-systems with relatively little effort under the guise of "Setting Rules". For example, I *very* much prefer the Trappings rules of Deluxe over SWADE, but there is nothing preventing me from using them in SWADE games either.
I feel you on the Last Parsec, but I also feel that the Companions only *enhance* the Deluxe settings material, they don't necessarily replace them. After all they're supposed to be Genre content fit for all settings within the Genre. And yes they do give some nods to Last Parsec, it's definitely not a "Last Parsec" with a different name. In fact, if you're playing Last Parsec, you could look at this Companion as a massive content enhancer for your own stuff, or material to drop right in and deepen and widen your established game.
Depends how much tinkering you like to do. SW is a system made for tinkerers and worldbuilders that want to hit the ground running. Once you understand the basic task resolution and balancing modifiers you can literally do almost anything you want - especially with the Companions now in play.
The REAL thing I'm waiting to see, and I'm kind of seeing it now, is people like YOU and ME and *everyone here* taking the SW rules and making our own settings and putting them out there for publication.
Quote from: oggsmash on April 25, 2024, 09:59:26 AMI would like to see a deeper take on the post apoc side of their Sci fi (I wonder if they keep it more muted since they have Savage Rifts (which to me is not post apoc...it gonzo sci fantasy)) and just flat out rip off a setting like fallout. They had Darwin's world which as sort of a split between Fallout and Rifts. I would love to see a FO take on SW. Though that is a touch lazy as FO is extremely easy to convert to SW on the fly and now that ip if it gets loose from modiphius is going to cost.
There are like three Post-Apocalyptic settings in the Deluxe era that could use a SWADE update. Broken Earth, Deadlands Hell on Earth, and Darwins World SWADE Ediiton.
There are several fan-made Savage Worlds Fallout documents out there from Deluxe editions.
Deluxe Edition material
https://i.4pcdn.org/tg/1447209076852.pdf
https://savagefallout.blogspot.com/?m=0
SWADE Fallout
https://steeldraco.wordpress.com/2018/10/23/savage-fallout-final-version/
http://gunrocksgamingrules.pbworks.com/w/page/112537060/Savage%20Fallout
From Guardsilent
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1aM0WnYvqUh64dK8OMqUkzfdDlNaCxQra
With rules from Savage Rifts as a guideline for gear and weapons/armor - you could *easily* recreate any flavor of Fallout you want. (I plan on making my own Fallout campaign - I'll likely pick up the Modiphius version just for conversion material).
What I have been working on and waiting on the Sci-Fi Companion for to see if they have more vehicle rules, is a Autoduel/Mad Max setting which I'm going to build from the ground up. All glory to the almighty exhaust-belching fury of the V-8, shiny and chrome brothers!
Yeah I have the Modiphius version for just that reason. I agree Rifts SWADE makes conversion a literal on the fly endeavor. I do not care for Modiphius's game system at all, but their production quality of books is always impressive.
Yeah I'm with you on Modiphius. While I detest their system, their books are solid source material for Savage Worlds conversion.
The 2d20 system falls utterly flat for me, for whatever reason it just fails to click in a good way for me and I can't precisely pinpoint why. SW feels better to me as a system to such a degree that I'd rather do something like Fallout hacked into SW than try to play a Modiphius book custom-written for the setting. I'll grant that Modiphius has top-notch art and overall presentation, but that's all just icing on the cake. A snazzy book doesn't make up for middling mechanics.
Yeah it is really strange to me people with the money for IP and good artists seemed to have lost the account numbers when it came time to hire a game designer for a system.
Quote from: oggsmash on April 27, 2024, 09:47:27 AMYeah it is really strange to me people with the money for IP and good artists seemed to have lost the account numbers when it came time to hire a game designer for a system.
My experience with RPGs based on licensed IPs is that, unless the IP itself is fairly moribund (ex. WEG licensed the Star Wars IP in 1987) the main concern isn't actually to create a good game, it's to cash in on a hot IP.
Good art is more valuable than good rules because fans of the IP will often pick up things like a slick-looking book with no intention of ever actually playing the game.
Paying for good game design is just an unneeded expense when that's your goal.
By contrast, doing a game based on a moribund IP is generally going to be a labor of love because the designer wants to play in a setting they're personally a fan of and so will care more about the rules properly reflecting the setting.
It's not a hard-and-fast rule, but it is a good guideline I've found.
I generally agree with all of you.
SW is a toolkit system for GM's that really like to be hand's on. Or for GM's that like doing fast and dirty just wanting to get into the mix with little mechanical overhead.
But defacto, SW has a history for being one of the best and easiest systems to convert to. One thing feeds the other. So if your favorite IP is out there and you wanna riff on it, or rip it whole-cloth for your table, Savage Worlds is an easy choice to do it with. With the Companion book series almost done, you literally can do very reliable games in any genre and sub-genre with just a little bit of effort - which is effectively ubiquitous to Savage Worlds GM's that enjoy the system.
Insofar that buying a licensed product for the purposes of conversion is an option, of course it depends on your disposable income (which is always a factor in this hobby of casual collectors that collect as often as they play), and of course the quality of the licensed book itself.
I'm a details guy when it comes to setting up my homebrews and conversions. So I'm always looking for something I might miss, especially when I might be a relatively casual fan of an IP - but i'm interested in diving in. Anything that's going to give me a leg up for the purposes of a conversion, providing its a good resource, is always invaluable for someone like me that is generally very busy.
Fallout is something I've played through up to Fallout 4, I still consider myself fairly knowledgeable about the setting, but I'm not a mega-deep into the lore. I could do a conversion fairly easily without the Modiphius edition, but I'm kinda interested to see what they got inside. I doubt I'd buy the book, but I'd probably be up for the PDF. I've seen enough in-depth reviews of their 2d20 system to know I'd *never* run a Modiphius game, but not gonna lie - they got a lot of licenses that I am very interested in.
Savage Worlds is hongry to devour them and convert them.
I really like the 2d20 Conan game and I like the lighter John Carter version as well. The 2d20 system doesn't seem right to me for Star Trek when I tried it. The Dishonored game and Home World were phoned in and Dune is an abomination.
In the same vein, I love Deadlands. Some of the settings for SWADE are good, some meh, and some are just trash. All just my opinion of course.
2d20 and SWADE are two different animals for two different kinds of play. I don't think any system will ever be my universal game and I wish that they would quit trying. Trying to make an "any setting" game makes everything taste like gas station sandwiches.
Good mechanics can be adapted though. I point to Neon Blood as a really good example of the OSR type d20 being adapted well. Those that play OSR games will be very comfortable with the rules but will definitely see how the mechanics they are familiar with have been altered to work with the game.
tenbones, I have some of the Modiphius Fallout books and I don't think that's the best way to go. Lookn at the Nukapedia website instead. Somewhere out there you can find a digital copy of the Vault Tech notes and the Fallout Bible. The Modiphius books are very light on the Interplay/Black Isle/Obsidian lore and very heavy on the Bethesda take on the setting.
Any signs of woke dogshit ruining yet anywhere product??
We do not have the final product yet.
Savage Worlds has generally been pretty good about Woke shit. Their only real hubub was Deadlands Confederacy retcon which caused people that don't really play Deadlands to freak out.
The Retcon was that the Confederacy actually loses and falls in 1871. People got their panties in a knot because at the time the Woke mind-virus was peaking and everyone assumed it was Pinnacle caving in.
According to the Pinnacle - it has to do with their revamp to their entire product line where they're merging their Weird Wars line and Deadlands. Their upcoming setting Weird Wars: Dark Ages has their villain (the main villain in Deadlands) cause an event that "ripples through time" which effects their other lines in subtle ways.
I found it... interesting... from a couple of points. 1) they didn't fundamentally change anything about Deadlands (other than the mechanics to bring them in line with SWADE 2) For people losing their shit about the Confederacy, they seem to forget that the Deadlands Confederacy lasted longer than the actual real Confederacy but want to insist this was a Woke move. I don't see it that way, personally. You can still play with all the old Edges/Hindrances.
Other than that* Pinnacle is pretty non-political.
* I don't consider this political at all, it's a narrative shift due to their pivot in designing their other products to bring them in-line with one another. Just bad timing. They'd been talking about this event for a long time before the Woke virus went wild. I take the publisher at their word. If they inserted Woke bullshit into their products, I'd immediately stop buying them. But as in all things - I'm open for everyone, including Pinnacle, to do something stupid. So far, so good.
Quote from: tenbones on May 01, 2024, 10:46:15 AMWe do not have the final product yet.
Savage Worlds has generally been pretty good about Woke shit. Their only real hubub was Deadlands Confederacy retcon which caused people that don't really play Deadlands to freak out.
I think it was a stupid move to try to appease the people who don't even play the game. Doesn't matter to me. Because of it I just won't play Deadlands.
There's also the art censorship. I don't like SWADE so I wasn't there to see the Rifts Kickstarter kerfuffle, but I was active on PEG's forums when they caved to the woke agitators over the previous Science Fiction Companion's cover. Apparently, carrying around a book with a picture of a fully-clothed woman is akin to waving around hardcore pornography, so we can't have that.
Oh they definitely nerfed Red's wardrobe. They even made her uglier in her face. I think some of these troglodytes just hate beauty and goodness.
Quote from: oggsmash on May 02, 2024, 10:02:40 AMOh they definitely nerfed Red's wardrobe. They even made her uglier in her face. I think some of these troglodytes just hate beauty and goodness.
It's a trend that has infected all of gaming, sadly.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/JEg563dNIUw/maxresdefault.jpg)
Quote from: GhostNinja on May 01, 2024, 11:28:02 AMQuote from: tenbones on May 01, 2024, 10:46:15 AMWe do not have the final product yet.
Savage Worlds has generally been pretty good about Woke shit. Their only real hubub was Deadlands Confederacy retcon which caused people that don't really play Deadlands to freak out.
I think it was a stupid move to try to appease the people who don't even play the game. Doesn't matter to me. Because of it I just won't play Deadlands.
But that's just it - I take Shane at his word. The "retcon" didn't happen to appease anyone other than it made in-canon sense once they started tying Weird Wars to Deadlands.
I mean, the whole premise of the Confederacy in the original Deadlands was that they won Gettysburg because their dead rose from the ground and turned the tide of the battle for them.
The problem is the optics of people (including me) that engage in culture-war discussions assuming bad intentions from everyone. I know I took a long look at the situation, as someone heavily invested in Savage Worlds, because I *do* vote with my dollar. Just like I still own most of the full runs of Basic through 3e D&D, and World of Darkness through New World of Darkness which rest on my shelves - once the Woke Virus hit, I don't give those companies any of my money. I'm prepared to do that with Pinnacle too should the time come.
But at the same time - I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt with some basic logic. I'm perfectly fine with Shane's explanation (as well as the other Deadland's writers) who walked into this situation without taking a single step. The Situation(tm) came to them while they were in the process of doing a full redesign of their entire line of products. Not the other way around.
If people wanna be reactionary and presume the worst - then thats up to them but it's putting a different set of interests in front of the hobby itself. I'm not even saying it's not currently justified, but I want to give credit to everyone that we have reasonable bullshit-detectors. At some point we're here for gaming. I'm not looking to fight where there is no fight to be had.
Quote from: Brand55 on May 01, 2024, 02:37:19 PMThere's also the art censorship. I don't like SWADE so I wasn't there to see the Rifts Kickstarter kerfuffle, but I was active on PEG's forums when they caved to the woke agitators over the previous Science Fiction Companion's cover. Apparently, carrying around a book with a picture of a fully-clothed woman is akin to waving around hardcore pornography, so we can't have that.
This might be true. I actually didn't notice. To be honest - I've always thought that Savage World's art was meh. I don't demand eye-candy in all my books, but I want good art. If I can't get it, I'll ignore it, since I'm there for game-content.
I'd prefer big-titties and ass in my Fantasy books over my sci-fi, but that's just me. I'd take a badass motherfucker in power-armor on my sci-fi cover over a Deja Thoris inspired babe because of my tastes in sci-fi. Though I'm not going to dismiss her either. The usual rules apply.
I honestly don't know if they "caved" on the art. While it would be concern if they did (and said so - if they did let us know), it's not a dealbreaker for me since I've found the *vast* majority of their art forgettable in the first place. There are always exceptions to the general rule, but this is just my experience with their books.
Quote from: tenbones on May 02, 2024, 11:10:24 AMQuote from: Brand55 on May 01, 2024, 02:37:19 PMThere's also the art censorship. I don't like SWADE so I wasn't there to see the Rifts Kickstarter kerfuffle, but I was active on PEG's forums when they caved to the woke agitators over the previous Science Fiction Companion's cover. Apparently, carrying around a book with a picture of a fully-clothed woman is akin to waving around hardcore pornography, so we can't have that.
This might be true. I actually didn't notice. To be honest - I've always thought that Savage World's art was meh. I don't demand eye-candy in all my books, but I want good art. If I can't get it, I'll ignore it, since I'm there for game-content.
I'd prefer big-titties and ass in my Fantasy books over my sci-fi, but that's just me. I'd take a badass motherfucker in power-armor on my sci-fi cover over a Deja Thoris inspired babe because of my tastes in sci-fi. Though I'm not going to dismiss her either. The usual rules apply.
I honestly don't know if they "caved" on the art. While it would be concern if they did (and said so - if they did let us know), it's not a dealbreaker for me since I've found the *vast* majority of their art forgettable in the first place. There are always exceptions to the general rule, but this is just my experience with their books.
If you look at their iconic figure "Red", her wardrobe is drastically different in covers or anywhere she appears in the books now. Her face even looks different, as I said they nerfed her all around.
Quote from: oggsmash on May 02, 2024, 11:38:20 AMIf you look at their iconic figure "Red", her wardrobe is drastically different in covers or anywhere she appears in the books now. Her face even looks different, as I said they nerfed her all around.
Sure. I'm game. Let's put this to the test and see where we land! BRB!
Quote from: tenbones on May 02, 2024, 11:10:24 AMI honestly don't know if they "caved" on the art. While it would be concern if they did (and said so - if they did let us know), it's not a dealbreaker for me since I've found the *vast* majority of their art forgettable in the first place. There are always exceptions to the general rule, but this is just my experience with their books.
The old forums are long gone, so there's no thread to link to. But it went something like this:
1. SFC is announced and numerous people, including me, pre-order. The first look shows the cover where a female commander stands on the deck of her ship watching a battle. Her left hand is raised and her fist clenched. If you've got the previous SFC, you know the scene.
2. A few people post on the forums bitching about the fact you can see her (fully-clothed) ass since the point of view is from behind. Others say it's fine and we don't see any issue. The whiners complain that such sexualized covers make it embarrassing to carry Savage Worlds products out in public, and they specifically focus on the Companion books and compare them to pornography.
3. PEG caves. The SFC's release is pushed back so the cover can be "fixed"--now Red stands calmly with her hands clasped behind her over her backside, and her pants have been altered to look more loose and shapeless.
This is the only sign of the original cover I could find online: http://realmsofchirak.blogspot.com/2014/06/savage-worlds-science-fiction-companion.html (http://realmsofchirak.blogspot.com/2014/06/savage-worlds-science-fiction-companion.html). I believe the preview cover had a smaller logo or was zoomed out such that Red's body was in profile like in the released cover; you could see her from her head down to about her knees.
A very similar thing happened with the Savage Rifts Kickstarter a few years ago. One of the covers was a less-explicit homage to an original Rifts cover. A handful of people complained in the Kickstarter comments, and even though the majority of the people who commented thought the image was fine, PEG again sided with the woke complainers and had the image censored further to appease them.
Compare the old Fantasy companion to the new one. Pretty stark difference. Even on the cover of the SWADE book, her facial features are hardened a bit and almost masculinized to a degree compared with how she was usually depicted. Now possibly there is a different artist...but the clothing has changed quite a bit.
Okay from the top - I've never *really* looked at the Savage Worlds art before strictly, unless something caught my eye that was very cool. For the most part my feelings have always been their art is middling and sufficient to "meh" with a few exceptions that would make me double-take.
So the whole "Red got Ugly" thing. Honestly, I never knew she was an "iconic" character until they mentioned her in SWADE and as someone that has a thing for redheads (I married one) you'd think I'd notice. When it comes to Red, and most of the images in SW, not really. But naturally, I *did* notice the character on the cover of the original Fantasy Companion - which as I understand it is Red. Let's ALL keep in mind, these are generic rule books, they're not for a specific setting, so many of these images are contextual (usually) to the respective sections/genre they're writing about.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ru21ydh.png) and (https://i.imgur.com/lYqjR7L.png)
Now... I went through the whole Deluxe edition of the Fantasy Companion. There is not a lot of female art in the book, and the ones that do exist, may/may not be Red, but none of them were "sexy" by my standards.
(https://i.imgur.com/YZYhB5S.png) (https://i.imgur.com/wYvLiNb.png)
They're pretty basic "fantasy" art. MEH. So Lets take a look at the other Deluxe edition books.
This is the cover of the Sci-fi Companion.
(https://i.imgur.com/VScbV1T.png)
Nothing really to write home about. That's pretty much *IT* from the Deluxe Editions. That's all we got for Red. If I'm mistaken, please let me know, I went through the Deluxe and SWADE Core rules and Companions. Yes, there are semi-sexy pics in those books of a few women, but nothing racy. I'll provide pics. But when it comes to Red, to my knowledge this is the entirety of her appearances in the Deluxe books.
So we're clear - we're basing this on Red getting uglier from her proto-depictions before she was labeled "iconic" in the later SWADE editions from 14+ years ago.
Here is Red on the cover of the SWADE Fantasy Companion
(https://i.imgur.com/VybWHts.png)
Not sexy. But very fantasy. Let's move on.
This is Red as she is depicted in the Fantasy Companion.
(https://i.imgur.com/jY8pv1u.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/rhM2tHL.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/56q2axG.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/M4v43FW.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/laeKsmJ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/2z2tO1e.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Dbkgnrs.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/w5KpqRR.png)
Not sexy. But very fantasy. To the point that she is less attractive - sure. But there is an important point to be made. They're all drawn by the same artist (I think) or at least in the same style. Because in the book there *are* feminine pictures of women (if you find them sexy - okay, I don't).
(https://i.imgur.com/n5Ja5LH.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/bBPJ4Y7.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Nz1n8S0.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/tv2gHoQ.png)
The point being that other artists are drawing their women differently than the ones used for Red. Why? No idea. But Pinnacle doesn't seem to be making that distinction based on anything in particular other than the artist they use for Red draws her consistently like an adventurer - not a sexpot. So I think there is something to be said about that. Is it *caving in*? Let's dig a little deeper.
SWADE Core. Here is Red looking like a Laura Croft-type adventurer.
(https://i.imgur.com/EioNrpK.png)
In the book she appears a few times, usually with her male partner.
(https://i.imgur.com/WOPp09v.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/zXrpBkd.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/sswoY9j.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/obZikBr.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/V9v1QiX.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/M1EdLTX.png)
Or running solo...
(https://i.imgur.com/tRRh0H6.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/1Zmue5j.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/H3XbEuY.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/6PuAluU.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ofdXn6a.png)
UGH. This one is egregious.
Savage Worlds Superheroes Companion SWADE edition cover
(https://i.imgur.com/mkBqTu9.png)
Interior Red pieces
(https://i.imgur.com/CemLEgz.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/MS68nYL.png)
But also inside are pics like these:
(https://i.imgur.com/FSZuLx4.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ifxkuD0.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/fhzsE3K.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/3v370dS.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/yYkTUO4.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/qk0HGHE.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/cq4viVq.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/7jAMrC6.png)
Are there unattractive female art? Yes. Are they meant to be unattractive - some of them for sure. Others? It's just not good art.
I think this is where I land on it. Did Red "become" more unattractive? Yes, but it was because of the artist. She is being consistently portrayed as an "adventurer" sort... But the point that she has been de-emphasized as feminine seems pretty apparent to me.
That said - if they were completely woke, this would be more consistent throughout the books and they simply aren't. There aren't that many pieces of art with Red in them and there are much more feminine pieces of other characters that otherwise "balance it out".
Ultimately, after going through these all, I find myself thinking their art is more mediocre than I thought. But while Red has several pieces I find atrocious, I feel it's more to do with the consistent use of a specific artist than any real design choice by Pinnacle.
I could be wrong, but I'd need someone at Pinnacle to come say it. Maybe that's happened?
Quote from: Brand55 on May 02, 2024, 12:45:37 PM3. PEG caves. The SFC's release is pushed back so the cover can be "fixed"--now Red stands calmly with her hands clasped behind her over her backside, and her pants have been altered to look more loose and shapeless.
This is the only sign of the original cover I could find online: http://realmsofchirak.blogspot.com/2014/06/savage-worlds-science-fiction-companion.html (http://realmsofchirak.blogspot.com/2014/06/savage-worlds-science-fiction-companion.html). I believe the preview cover had a smaller logo or was zoomed out such that Red's body was in profile like in the released cover; you could see her from her head down to about her knees.
LOL wow. You're right. Well it's not enough for me to ditch SWADE over. But yeah that sucks. I don't think either cover is particularly good. But they should not have given in on principle.
Quote from: tenbones on May 02, 2024, 11:01:18 AMIf people wanna be reactionary and presume the worst - then thats up to them but it's putting a different set of interests in front of the hobby itself. I'm not even saying it's not currently not justified, but I want to give credit to everyone that we have reasonable bullshit-detectors. At some point we're here for gaming. I'm not looking to fight where there is no fight to be had.
I wish everyone here would read and understand these lines.
I am not arguing they went to the woke insanity. I am just saying they nerfed Red. No argument about having very mediocre art for a good while now. I thought the old art was a bit more pulpish (though also mediocre) and liked it a bit more. I like their stuff and buy it still. The nerf is still a thing though.
Quote from: tenbones on May 02, 2024, 11:01:18 AMQuote from: GhostNinja on May 01, 2024, 11:28:02 AMQuote from: tenbones on May 01, 2024, 10:46:15 AMWe do not have the final product yet.
Savage Worlds has generally been pretty good about Woke shit. Their only real hubub was Deadlands Confederacy retcon which caused people that don't really play Deadlands to freak out.
I think it was a stupid move to try to appease the people who don't even play the game. Doesn't matter to me. Because of it I just won't play Deadlands.
But that's just it - I take Shane at his word. The "retcon" didn't happen to appease anyone other than it made in-canon sense once they started tying Weird Wars to Deadlands.
I mean, the whole premise of the Confederacy in the original Deadlands was that they won Gettysburg because their dead rose from the ground and turned the tide of the battle for them.
The problem is the optics of people (including me) that engage in culture-war discussions assuming bad intentions from everyone. I know I took a long look at the situation, as someone heavily invested in Savage Worlds, because I *do* vote with my dollar. Just like I still own most of the full runs of Basic through 3e D&D, and World of Darkness through New World of Darkness which rest on my shelves - once the Woke Virus hit, I don't give those companies any of my money. I'm prepared to do that with Pinnacle too should the time come.
But at the same time - I'm willing to give people the benefit of the doubt with some basic logic. I'm perfectly fine with Shane's explanation (as well as the other Deadland's writers) who walked into this situation without taking a single step. The Situation(tm) came to them while they were in the process of doing a full redesign of their entire line of products. Not the other way around.
If people wanna be reactionary and presume the worst - then thats up to them but it's putting a different set of interests in front of the hobby itself. I'm not even saying it's not currently justified, but I want to give credit to everyone that we have reasonable bullshit-detectors. At some point we're here for gaming. I'm not looking to fight where there is no fight to be had.
Well, I was gaming in Blacksburg when Shane was running
Fun & Games (mid '90s) and, based on the limited interactions I had with him back then, I'm not as inclined to take this explanation at face value. In fact, I would say that the inclusion of the Confederacy in Deadlands originally had a tone of... defiance? Now, I never knew him well, so I don't feel qualified to make declarative statements or speculate as to motivations, but considering how strongly he was attached to the idea back then, his setting changes stink of finger moistening and testing the wind direction more than some kind of planned narrative culmination. I can't really blame him much, because no one wants to see everything they've worked for torn down because the world has gone cancel culture. But, frankly, not everyone has the courage to stand up to the mob. So his rationale for the setting change is... questionable (nah, actually, it's just bullshit). Doesn't really change anything, but I'd have respected it more if he had been honest about it...
Don't know him. Don't pretend to. But while it's definitely intriguing, nothing on this remotely rises to my notions of bad-intentions towards *anything* I care about in terms of my purchases.
I take your opinion for what it is. If I believed Shane was an idealogue - he sure as hell could do more. Protect his brand? Sure, I'm willing to believe that and fully understand it. Woke? No. At least not yet. YMMV of course.
Quote from: oggsmash on May 02, 2024, 03:26:16 PMI am not arguing they went to the woke insanity. I am just saying they nerfed Red.
It definitely seems that way based on the art.
But the artist from the original books had an entirely different style. But it does seem a definite de-emphasis on her femininity.
On Deadlands, I'm skeptical. PEG is a small company. Their ability to weather the storm is limited. It was a "bend, don't break" situation. To the degree that they did cave to the woke mob, they retconned the setting with pulp time travel fuckery that the setting already had a precedent for with Stone. The result is that the Cold Civil War and the Great Rail War are both over, and the Reckoners are weaker as a result. Shane didn't disrespect his fans or his setting. I'm sure the woke cancel mobs weren't the only reason for the change, the claim that they made the change to harmonize product lines is true, but it's not the whole truth. Yes, they did make the change because of cancel culture pressure. It was definitely a factor.
As for the art, and specifically nerfing Red, I think I remember seeing a picture of Shane's wife on the PEG website, and her hair looking a bit reddish. The other two longest-running PEG employees are another husband-wife team. I'm inclined to think the art wasn't woke pressure, it was wife pressure.
It brings up an interesting question - are any of you boycotting Savage Worlds over this? Not judging, just curious.
Frankly, I'm late to the Deadlands thing, I came into it during the Deluxe edition, and it was my introduction to the Savage Worlds system. While I didn't hang around in Deadlands long, the system struck me more than the setting. But what I noticed immediately of course was that even in the proto-Woke era of 2010 (or whenever it was around then when I first played) that the fact the Confederacy was a thing, was very interesting to me. Not a lot of RPG's out there used the Confederacy as a vehicle for gaming. I've read Shane is a history-buff with educational degrees in it, his narrative for the Confederacy hanging on in game as long as it did was "okay whatever" to me. I questioned a lot of those narratives internally because I'm a world-building "details guy" and I felt (and still do) that the settings for most of the Savage Worlds games are "loosey-goosey" intentionally to justify the elements within it.
This brings me the entire notion of why I thought the Confederacy element was interesting - I certainly wouldn't have ignored it, but I'd have leaned into it harder. In hindsight, my version would probably have been much darker as I tend to be a little misanthropic in my views of people (but not always) in gaming narrative, because it makes for good gaming conflict.
I don't get that vibe from Shane's writing. Mind you, I'm not projecting motives, I'm just speculating on what I think I know. Never met the guy, only watched some interviews and videos of his. Seems like a nice family man. Which is another element to all this. Pinnacle games are at worst PG-13 in tone despite all the supernatural stuff, they don't get into detail. Which is kind of the point - it gives you as a GM the ability to tone up/down the volume on the elements you want to emphasize. Personally I like that.
I rely more on third-party content to give me more detailed settings - Beasts and Barbarians for instance is a pretty epic knockoff of Hyborea in the best way.
It always felt like the Confederacy in Deadlands was a very (then at the time) PG-13 narrative that kept things interesting for the setting without getting bogged down in details. I mean c'mon they summed up the entirety of the Civil War in a page and-a-half. They reframed the entirety of the Confederacy in 5-paragraphs for the new conceits of Deadlands. This isn't *supposed* to be historically accurate. It's supposed to be a justification so we can play with it without needing a degree in 19th Century American History.
It's tongue-in-cheek-history to match a tongue-in-cheek setting. But it leaves you wide open to dial it up as you see fit. They *do* nod at societal norms and give justifications on how they're different in Deadlands. I disagree with all of them in terms of realism - but I do that with 99% of all RPG's as written - D&D wouldn't remotely look as its presented if all its elements were true either.
The real issue of course is slavery. And Pinnacle did their disclaimer on how to handle it - it's not for *emotionally mature gamers*. It's for those that are historically ignorant and/or less emotionally developed that get reactionary to the idea of slavery because they're conditioned to. Pinnacles disclaimer/explanation isn't a bad one, narratively it works, I think like much of the "history" in Deadlands, it serves to justify the setting.
Much like in Crimson Skies, the justification of having widespread zeppelin and air-piracy as the primary theme of the game required balkanizing America into multiple nations to impede interstate commerce by road. Who cares about the details! It's time to dogfight in the skies above New York City, in blimps and P51's!
Same is true of Deadlands.
That the woke mob would *immediately* attack Pinnacle for the simple fact they pushed a narrative that allowed the Confederacy to exist in the game is a foregone conclusion. I don't sweat Pinnacle one bit for how they handled it. They're a family operation that makes tabletop games with a small dedicated following, not a gigantic corporation hellbent on converting you to their Marxist ideology.
Is it a bad look they made changes to assuage the mob? Yeah. Could it have been worse? Most definitely. But did they sell out to them? No. They tossed a piece of meat on the ground to let the jackals eat, and they kept moving. Nothing about their games or settings are political in that manner. Do any of you really feel that way about them? I'm genuinely curious.
Edit: I should also add, I don't care what people's political or religious beliefs are at my table - just don't be an asshole. But I'm also not interested in purchasing propaganda masquerading as something else. Which is the dividing line for me. Playing a game is *not* the same as having a discussion about politics, which is not the same as me passing judgement on your value as a person. But like all things where I make discernment - bad ideas lowers your stock in my marketplace, and you're free to double-down and drop that price just like you're free to let them go and raise that value.
I am not. I casually noticed the thing with red a few years ago while looking at older books and had no idea if it was driven through taste or pressure. This day and age I do assume pressure. I think SW and pinnacle is about as good as I am going to get from the industry as a whole regarding their positions on social insanity. They could lose me...but it generally takes some overt and hostile comments directly for that to happen (games workshop...) so I am still in. I like their stuff.
Quote from: tenbones on May 03, 2024, 10:45:35 AMIt brings up an interesting question - are any of you boycotting Savage Worlds over this? Not judging, just curious.
No. It irked me at the time, but I've quashed it. As you say, PEG is a small family-run gaming studio trying to stay in business not a big megacorp trying to push a Marxist agenda. They got bullied by the woke mob and did what they felt that had to do at the time.
As I outlined in my previous post, the story change they made was faithful to the Deadlands world. Marty went back in time by accident and while he's trying to get back home, he has to help his dad get together with his mom. When he returns to 1985, Biff Tannen is a totally different guy because of stuff that happened due to Marty's presence. That kind of plot is definitely "in-theme" for Deadlands. They've had goofy time travel plots before with two Stones, and I think they did it with Hellstromme, too. Also, Doc Brown is a valid Deadlands character. I'm willing to die on that hill.
I think at the time, Shane was trying to do an alternate Earth thing. Other games had similar things going on. Rifts had a weird political rearrangement of North America. Shadowrun had the Great Ghost Dance, and now you've got UCAS, CalFree, and Denver with some Amerindian territory somewhere in all of that, because the magic came back and they reclaimed their land from the White Man. Shane's idea for Deadlands is not too different from Shadowrun, except it happens at Gettysburg rather than the end of the Mayan calendar. The Confederacy surviving was his answer to, "Well how would this play out if zombies suddenly appeared at Gettysburg?" It wasn't a Confederate victory, rather the Union and the Confederacy had to join together to fight the zombies. Then there's a Cold War after that because both governments were more concerned with keeping a lid on the whole zombies thing to prevent a panic.
As time goes by, that gets cumbersome. Hell on Earth is hard, because what actually happens during WW1 and WW2 if the Confederacy is still around? How do those wars play out if the USA isn't unified to come across the Atlantic and throw down? What if the Union and the Confederacy are on opposite sides? There start to be way too many variables. Hell on Earth waves that away by being so far in the future from those wars that it doesn't really matter and you can just make shit up. But when you read Hell on Earth, you have that at the back of your mind. "Is this really what would have happened?" It kinda nags you.
It's believable that Shane really did sit down and work on Weird Wars and think to himself, "This should be in the Deadlands timeline. This fits and should be part of Deadlands." Then the next thing he thought was, "I can't actually figure this out. I have to rewrite the Deadlands timeline to wrap up the Civil War." That's a perfectly plausible scenario.
Then there's the social aspect. 150 years later, the Confederacy is a pretty uncomfortable thing for your typical normie American. I don't want to condemn my fellow Americans who weren't around back then and weren't responsible for what happened, and just happened to have been born south of the Mason-Dixon. There were more things going on than just slavery, but it was a big deal, it had been a big deal for decades leading up to that, it was at the heart and center of that war, so yes, hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers absolutely gave their lives to end slavery. If you look at the stuff Shane has worked on, it's not hard to figure out what this guy thinks of America. He's done western stuff, he's done colonial era Revolutionary War stuff, he's done Civil War era stuff, he's done WW era stuff. I think it's pretty clear this guy thinks the Good Guys won the war in the real timeline, and the Confederacy surviving in Deadlands was never anything more than, "What if Gettysburg got interrupted by zombies?" Meanwhile, the entire game takes place west of the Mississippi where slavery pretty much didn't exist. The Confederacy is still around, but the game isn't about that, the game is about being cowboys out west and having weird monsters show up. Really, the only thing the Confederacy is for in Deadlands is to drive a long-term war which sows fear and chaos and strengthens the Reckoners. Within the Deadlands setting, it is an objectively Bad Thing that the Confederacy is still around, because one of the Reckoners is War. In the new timeline, the Union wins, and that is a Good Thing because War has lost a source of strength. Also, the Civil War is no longer causing Famine, Pestilence, and Death.
Basically, after 25 years of posses playing his game and fighting against his bad guys, Shane appeases the woke mob by rewriting the setting so that all those heroes have dealt a major blow to the Reckoners. I can live with that. Yes, he caved to pressure, but he respected his fans.
Not sure you could call it boycotting as I don't buy the new SW material for a variety of reasons. Deluxe is probably my go-to system these days, and I find SWADE to be annoying. It's a lot easier for me to house rule Deluxe into what I want it to be rather than try to fix SWADE. That's the biggest reason. But the art changes and Deadlands retcons just reinforce my decision that I don't need what PEG is selling these days.
Just as a reminder, as of Savage Worlds Adventure Edition, Red has a "player" and it's a little girl in a cancer ward.
That's one of the big reasons she doesn't dress as "sexy" anymore.
I for one don't have any issues with PEG marketing themselves as the family friendly rpg system either. They have always drawn the line at hard R content.
Edit: Gabe, who always plays the Terry Crews looking character is a little boy in the same ward and the GM is a volunteer at the hospital.
Edit 2: PEG's products are written by people that have kids and often jobs outside of the industry. Savage Worlds is literally made for the working adult with a family.
It puts them in a distinct category that's different from all the childless weirdos who make things like FATE, Powered by Apocalypse, 5th edition and every other darling game the Big Purple likes from week to week.
Quote from: Orphan81 on May 03, 2024, 04:12:16 PMJust as a reminder, as of Savage Worlds Adventure Edition, Red has a "player" and it's a little girl in a cancer ward.
That's one of the big reasons she doesn't dress as "sexy" anymore.
I for one don't have any issues with PEG marketing themselves as the family friendly rpg system either. They have always drawn the line at hard R content.
Edit: Gabe, who always plays the Terry Crews looking character is a little boy in the same ward and the GM is a volunteer at the hospital.
Edit 2: PEG's products are written by people that have kids and often jobs outside of the industry. Savage Worlds is literally made for the working adult with a family.
It puts them in a distinct category that's different from all the childless weirdos who make things like FATE, Powered by Apocalypse, 5th edition and every other darling game the Big Purple likes from week to week.
Is that in the core book or the mini settings guide somewhere? Because I didn't know that, or had forgotten, but now that you bring it up, this isn't the first time I've seen that tidbit about the kids in the cancer ward.
You bring up a very good point, though. A lot of the books give off the distinct vibe that Shane played Savage Worlds with his kids. I wouldn't be surprised if Clint had, either.
Quote from: tenbones on May 03, 2024, 10:45:35 AMIt brings up an interesting question - are any of you boycotting Savage Worlds over this? Not judging, just curious.
I haven't been impressed with the quality of Savage Worlds supplements, so I'm less and less inclined to buy more of them - but that has nothing to do with illustrations of Red or the Confederacy in Deadlands. I'm still enjoying the core system, and continuing to use it for games.
Regarding the Sci-Fi Companion - from the Table of Contents, it doesn't look like there is anything about hacking or cyberspace in there. I'm considering running a Murderbot game (based on the novels) using Savage Worlds, but my main trouble in doing so is the hacking, which is really important to the books.
Quote from: Corolinth on May 03, 2024, 01:58:18 PMShane's idea for Deadlands is not too different from Shadowrun, except it happens at Gettysburg rather than the end of the Mayan calendar. The Confederacy surviving was his answer to, "Well how would this play out if zombies suddenly appeared at Gettysburg?" It wasn't a Confederate victory, rather the Union and the Confederacy had to join together to fight the zombies. Then there's a Cold War after that because both governments were more concerned with keeping a lid on the whole zombies thing to prevent a panic.
Quote from: Corolinth on May 03, 2024, 01:58:18 PMBasically, after 25 years of posses playing his game and fighting against his bad guys, Shane appeases the woke mob by rewriting the setting so that all those heroes have dealt a major blow to the Reckoners. I can live with that. Yes, he caved to pressure, but he respected his fans.
I picked up the original Deadlands when it came out, and I investigated to play it, but eventually had too many problems with it. My issues were mostly with mechanics and implementation, but I also had some issues with the timeline.
The controversial part of the Deadlands Confederacy timeline is that Jefferson Davis outlawed slavery in 1864 - just a year after Gettysburg. That is more ridiculous than zombies. The whole purpose of the Civil War was to preserve slavery. It's written into most of the rebelling states' constitutions. If slavery was outlawed by decree of the Confederate president, then why would the states still rebel against the Union? It not only goes against slavery, it goes against state's rights.
The previous SFC had very simple hacking rules and, IIRC, said to check out Interface Zero for a more involved take on how to handle hacking. IZ's system is more complicated and fits that setting, but it may not translate well to other games.
I'd also look to see if you can get the free Daring Tales of the Sprawl rules from Triple Ace Games. Last I checked, you could still get it from their website's legacy games area. It has hacking rules that are a bit more in-depth than the SFC's but still easy to use.
Quote from: Brand55 on May 03, 2024, 05:23:23 PMThe previous SFC had very simple hacking rules and, IIRC, said to check out Interface Zero for a more involved take on how to handle hacking. IZ's system is more complicated and fits that setting, but it may not translate well to other games.
I'd also look to see if you can get the free Daring Tales of the Sprawl rules from Triple Ace Games. Last I checked, you could still get it from their website's legacy games area. It has hacking rules that are a bit more in-depth than the SFC's but still easy to use.
I wrote the Hacking rules for IZ 2.0 and they're definitely more geared towards that kind of setting. Lots of Augmented Reality style Hacking.
Quote from: Orphan81 on May 03, 2024, 07:53:38 PMQuote from: Brand55 on May 03, 2024, 05:23:23 PMThe previous SFC had very simple hacking rules and, IIRC, said to check out Interface Zero for a more involved take on how to handle hacking. IZ's system is more complicated and fits that setting, but it may not translate well to other games.
I'd also look to see if you can get the free Daring Tales of the Sprawl rules from Triple Ace Games. Last I checked, you could still get it from their website's legacy games area. It has hacking rules that are a bit more in-depth than the SFC's but still easy to use.
I wrote the Hacking rules for IZ 2.0 and they're definitely more geared towards that kind of setting. Lots of Augmented Reality style Hacking.
Oh that's cool. IZ 2.0 was what I used to run a sci-fi home brew game. I tinkered with it a bit to make it more flavored for space adventures. Even had one character specialized in hacking. Was a nice supplement.
Quote from: Corolinth on May 03, 2024, 04:44:10 PMIs that in the core book or the mini settings guide somewhere? Because I didn't know that, or had forgotten, but now that you bring it up, this isn't the first time I've seen that tidbit about the kids in the cancer ward.
It's in SWADE; to get it, you combine the marginal comments at the start of the book with the illustration at the very end, in the Index,
Quote from: Orphan81 on May 03, 2024, 07:53:38 PMQuote from: Brand55 on May 03, 2024, 05:23:23 PMThe previous SFC had very simple hacking rules and, IIRC, said to check out Interface Zero for a more involved take on how to handle hacking. IZ's system is more complicated and fits that setting, but it may not translate well to other games.
I'd also look to see if you can get the free Daring Tales of the Sprawl rules from Triple Ace Games. Last I checked, you could still get it from their website's legacy games area. It has hacking rules that are a bit more in-depth than the SFC's but still easy to use.
I wrote the Hacking rules for IZ 2.0 and they're definitely more geared towards that kind of setting. Lots of Augmented Reality style Hacking.
Thanks! I downloaded the "Daring Tales of the Sprawl" rules. Those use the mass combat rules, which feels too sloggy for my tastes - with several repeated rolls required to get any effect.
I read about the Interface Zero hacking here:
https://www.campaignmastery.com/blog/hacking-interface-zero-2-0/
That sounds good to me, with possible immediate effect from a single roll. That sounds good to me. There should be some variety of hacking maneuvers, I would think - like trying for immediate effect vs getting a more secure hold, as well as defensive maneuvers against hacking.
In the Murderbot novels, cybernetic Security Units (SecUnit) have potential to be excellent hackers combining human direction with fast computerized action. The action scenes almost always have hacking going on simultaneous to physical action - and the SecUnit can take both actions simultaneously.
Quote from: tenbones on May 03, 2024, 10:45:35 AMIt brings up an interesting question - are any of you boycotting Savage Worlds over this? Not judging, just curious.
Nah, I'm not boycotting SW or Deadlands over it. We've spoken previously about the fact that SW bounced off my home group
hard, so I'm not really buying it regardless. I just think it was a cowardly move to try and split the baby. Either fess up that you are changing the setting because you don't want to get canceled, or stick to your guns. But this whole, "No, really, guys! We didn't change because of fear and pressure. This was all.... planned! Yeah, that's it; that's the ticket!" is just disrespectful of fans' intelligence.
I will also note that, in the late 80s and early 90s, the whole "alternate history" stuff really took off. Harry Turtledove had a whole series of smash hit novels based on the "what if the Confederates won?" concept, and there wasn't the same Marxist intolerance of even hypothesizing something back then. So, in some ways Deadlands was a product of its time. I'm sure if Gary had never lost D&D, he'd be up against the wall today the same way that other TTRPG publishers are. I'd like to think he'd tell them to get bent, but I'm not so sure. You either die a hero or live to see yourself become the villain...
To be honest, SW's art has always been adequate at best, so it's tricky to tell if them making Red kinda fugly here and there was for social brownie points or just because they didn't hire a very good artist. When it comes to dressing women in a setting, I follow the 'good for the goose' rule: If they're gonna dress up a guy in a furry diaper and some boots and maybe a helmet with horns on it and zilch else, then chainmail bikinis are on the table. If men are dressed conservatively, women should be similar. It's not difficult.
Off the top of my head, I'd say the best SW art would have to go to either Totems of the Dead or Beasts & Barbarians. Strangely enough, they're both sword and sorcery games with black and white art. Even with them, though, there are some pieces which are just okay at best.
Also Low Life, of course, but then the art there is actually very key to the setting given how the artist is also the game's creator.
I'm assuming this image was included because it's fucking rad.
(https://i.imgur.com/jY8pv1u.png)
That whole volunteer GM'ing for two kids at the hospital did not land with me the way I think the people writing it wanted it to. I would view that situation with a very high degree of skepticism and cynicism IRL.
Quote from: jhkim on May 03, 2024, 04:51:06 PMThe controversial part of the Deadlands Confederacy timeline is that Jefferson Davis outlawed slavery in 1864 - just a year after Gettysburg. That is more ridiculous than zombies. The whole purpose of the Civil War was to preserve slavery. It's written into most of the rebelling states' constitutions. If slavery was outlawed by decree of the Confederate president, then why would the states still rebel against the Union? It not only goes against slavery, it goes against state's rights.
Except that it's not that ridiculous.
The Slave Trade Act of 1794, signed into law by George Washington, begins the abolition of slavery in the United States by prohibiting ships built or outfitted in US ports from participating in the slave trade. By 1807, importing slaves is a federal crime. By the 1830s, when Britain starts using the Royal Navy to stamp out the slave trade, the United States Navy is already carrying out those activities in the Caribbean.
The overwhelming majority of southerners did not own slaves. Do you really think the masses were going to fight to protect the wealthy elite's right to something the rest of them could never attain, unless there were other, additional causes for the war? It was mostly about slavery, but there were other factors.
In 1864, the Union has already passed the Emancipation Proclamation. The South's secession hampers the USA's ability to police the Caribbean. That means Britain would have to spend additional resources in that part of the world. In our timeline, the war is rapidly speeding to a conclusion, but in the Deadlands timeline the Civil War has stalled out and therefore the South's secession is successful. They now have to contend with the fact that they're heavily reliant on cotton exports to a Europe that is banning slavery. They've got the Union to the north where slaves had already been escaping to for decades. Secession means that Dred Scott v. Sandford and the Fugitive Slave Act no longer apply, and the Emancipation Simply puts the final nail in that coffin. Not only does the Confederacy have to worry about a slave uprising, but they can guarantee that any slave uprising will get some kind of assistance from Union troops. A slave uprising that they can't afford to quell because their economy is in shambles and Europe won't buy their goods. Simply put, the Confederacy can't survive as an independent nation unless they get on board with banning slavery. The wealthy aristocrats are just going to suck it up and deal with it, because the common citizen doesn't own slaves and probably wants the war to be over so they can go back to their lives.
Quote from: Orphan81 on May 03, 2024, 04:12:16 PMJust as a reminder, as of Savage Worlds Adventure Edition, Red has a "player" and it's a little girl in a cancer ward.
That's one of the big reasons she doesn't dress as "sexy" anymore.
I for one don't have any issues with PEG marketing themselves as the family friendly rpg system either. They have always drawn the line at hard R content.
Edit: Gabe, who always plays the Terry Crews looking character is a little boy in the same ward and the GM is a volunteer at the hospital.
Edit 2: PEG's products are written by people that have kids and often jobs outside of the industry. Savage Worlds is literally made for the working adult with a family.
It puts them in a distinct category that's different from all the childless weirdos who make things like FATE, Powered by Apocalypse, 5th edition and every other darling game the Big Purple likes from week to week.
Good to know. They've said the "family friendly" thing a number of times on livestreams. I don't need a game company pushing Hard-R material in a setting at me. I can do that myself just fine.
For me I prefer third-party settings (including my own) over Pinnacles, I'm in it for the rules supplements which I bend and tweak for my own uses.
Quote from: Corolinth on May 05, 2024, 10:39:34 AMQuote from: jhkim on May 03, 2024, 04:51:06 PMThe controversial part of the Deadlands Confederacy timeline is that Jefferson Davis outlawed slavery in 1864 - just a year after Gettysburg. That is more ridiculous than zombies. The whole purpose of the Civil War was to preserve slavery. It's written into most of the rebelling states' constitutions. If slavery was outlawed by decree of the Confederate president, then why would the states still rebel against the Union? It not only goes against slavery, it goes against state's rights.
Except that it's not that ridiculous.
...
The overwhelming majority of southerners did not own slaves. Do you really think the masses were going to fight to protect the wealthy elite's right to something the rest of them could never attain, unless there were other, additional causes for the war? It was mostly about slavery, but there were other factors.
Wars have almost always been fought for the good of the elites rather than the concerns of the common people - that has been true through to modern times, even in democracies. Poor white Southerners might not care about keeping slaves themselves, but they absolutely did not want free black people competing for their jobs, being sheriff or mayor, or marrying their daughters - so they cared a great deal about keeping black people enslaved.
What are these other reasons that you think the common Southerners were fighting for? President Davis' declaration tramples over at least the state's rights banner as well as slavery. What does that leave?
Quote from: Corolinth on May 05, 2024, 10:39:34 AMSimply put, the Confederacy can't survive as an independent nation unless they get on board with banning slavery. The wealthy aristocrats are just going to suck it up and deal with it, because the common citizen doesn't own slaves and probably wants the war to be over so they can go back to their lives.
Freeing slaves would have some tactical advantages with allies, but it makes no sense politically. Without the issue of slavery and state's rights to decide it, there is no compelling reason for the Confederate states to rebel.
Quote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 02:59:30 AMFreeing slaves would have some tactical advantages with allies, but it makes no sense politically. Without the issue of slavery and state's rights to decide it, there is no compelling reason for the Confederate states to rebel.
Sure there is: spite. After a few years of brutal warfare I could see both sides being reluctant or outright refusing to just hug it out and go back to being a united country, even if they also weren't in any hurry to go back to a hot war. "Those fuckers killed my dad/son/brother/neighbor/dog." would easily suffice to delay reunification by years. Just look at how long Ireland took to stop blowing each other up, and that wasn't even at the point of open warfare like the US had.
The only irk that I have with PEG is that they changed 'race' to 'ancestry' after the SWADE (which included 'race') was released. I asked them why they changed the term and I got the usual 'it's a problematic term' response.
Yeah I wasn't a fan of that either. But then I'm not married to the term "race" when it comes to gaming. It's like calling someone a retard>moron>imbecile>mongoloid>etc. We *know* what you mean with whatever new word.
Is it something I'm going to hold against them? Not really. But I do agree there is such thing as Death by a Thousand cuts. This is only cut 3 or 4 for me with them. And frankly I'm not going to a thousand.
So far, I'm okay.
Problematic is one of my favorite words. One need not even explain the problem, just use that word and the person listening then must scour their minds to determine the problem themselves. Best word ever.
The most charitable interpretation is that something like "ancestry" allows for a human raised by elves or something.
Which is one of those "nice on paper" ideas, but then you realize even that is stupid because that's something that didn't happen until Last Tuesday.
"Ancestry" makes little to no sense when it's referring to a species. Being human isn't our ancestry, it's our species. If you take a human and raise them with elves they don't suddenly get nightvision and pointy ears. I've never had any particular objection to changing "race" to "species", as that just seems more accurate to me. I get that it sounds more sci-fi than race does so may be jarring in a fantasy game, but it doesn't really bother me. Ancestry, on the other hand, is wildly inaccurate.
Quote from: Valatar on May 06, 2024, 02:28:09 PM"Ancestry" makes little to no sense when it's referring to a species. Being human isn't our ancestry, it's our species. If you take a human and raise them with elves they don't suddenly get nightvision and pointy ears. I've never had any particular objection to changing "race" to "species", as that just seems more accurate to me. I get that it sounds more sci-fi than race does so may be jarring in a fantasy game, but it doesn't really bother me. Ancestry, on the other hand, is wildly inaccurate.
In a generic game like GURPS or HERO or Savage Worlds, I don't think any of these makes sense generically across universes. Ancestry doesn't refer to who you were raised by - it refers more broadly to your line of descent. Ancestry is a little broader than race, since race implies that there is a viable group of such beings. For example, characters like Spock or Aragorn are defined by their ancestry, but they don't have a singular race that they represent.
Mechanically, I dislike how Savage Worlds enumerates racial abilities separately from character abilities, and forces all races to be zero cost. If I'm playing in a Star Trek game, then "Singh-type android" isn't a species, race, or ancestry - and it certainly isn't equivalent in cost to human. Likewise, Noldorin elves or ents aren't equal choices with humans or hobbits in Tolkien.
Terms like race, species, or ancestry should be part of the background that fits with the game-world, not part of the mechanics. Mechanics should have something like "template" and that template could represent any sort of common grouping of abilities together.
I like it because most of these rules are generic on purpose. In your setting you can make your races be whatever you need them to be, hence the customization rules.
Quote from: tenbones on May 06, 2024, 04:13:57 PMI like it because most of these rules are generic on purpose. In your setting you can make your races be whatever you need them to be, hence the customization rules.
I feel like it's less generic to have separate and redundant mechanics for "racial abilities" and "character abilities". For example, SWADE has "Size -1" as a racial trait and then has a separate listing for "Small" as a character trait. Worse, "Big" is a negative racial trait (Size +1) that works differently than the "Brawny" character Edge (Size +1).
To me, it makes more sense to have traits, then one can apply those traits equally whether they are because of race, cyberware, magic, superscience, etc.
Packages of traits could represent a species, a race, a cultural background, a membership (i.e. Order of Hermes or space marine), a profession/class, etc.
Quote from: Valatar on May 06, 2024, 02:28:09 PM"Ancestry" makes little to no sense when it's referring to a species. Being human isn't our ancestry, it's our species. If you take a human and raise them with elves they don't suddenly get nightvision and pointy ears. I've never had any particular objection to changing "race" to "species", as that just seems more accurate to me. I get that it sounds more sci-fi than race does so may be jarring in a fantasy game, but it doesn't really bother me. Ancestry, on the other hand, is wildly inaccurate.
Meanwhile, the dwarf's bonuses when fighting giants and their keen sense of natural and worked stone are due to their cultural upbringing and not dwarven biology. I don't have the time or the inclination to do a complete audit of various editions of D&D, let alone other fantasy RPGs. The point is, not all of those racial traits are genetic, some of them are cultural. We are not very good at drawing that distinction, either, because for the entire history of humans and our hominid ancestors, the majority of us have lived in racial monocultures.
Quote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 06:05:47 PMI feel like it's less generic to have separate and redundant mechanics for "racial abilities" and "character abilities". For example, SWADE has "Size -1" as a racial trait and then has a separate listing for "Small" as a character trait. Worse, "Big" is a negative racial trait (Size +1) that works differently than the "Brawny" character Edge (Size +1).
To me, it makes more sense to have traits, then one can apply those traits equally whether they are because of race, cyberware, magic, superscience, etc.
Packages of traits could represent a species, a race, a cultural background, a membership (i.e. Order of Hermes or space marine), a profession/class, etc.
But that *is* how it works.
Sometimes those descriptors are merely just that - a verbal description, but it uses an established mechanic to signify that. And remember, these only exist as distinctions that *matter* i.e. there is a mechanical benefit/drawback for this race or character ability.
For example - having "Big" is merely a description of size. Having the Brawny Edge means you're strong and jacked. Not everyone that's big is strong and large, that's cooked into what being Brawny means. Likewise Brawny doesn't overtly say you're BIG, its says you're "very large OR very fit" which is simulated by increasing your Size, Strength and Toughness by 1. It's not supposed to be "realistic", it's simply supposed to represent something about a character that makes them tough and strong above/beyond a normal representative of their race.
There is *nothing* preventing a Halfling from taking Brawny. It means that particular halfling is a tough son-of-bitch compared to whatever the baseline halfling is. Exceptions to this rule are things like certain Hindrances which 1) you get bonus starting points for and are voluntary 2) requires you pay them off if you wish to remove them, which might require an in-game narrative reason. Certain Hindrances might preclude you from purchasing certain Edges. For example you can't be Obese (Hindrance) and purchase the Brawny Edge.
If you want to create a race that is so ingrained with say... cyberware - nothing prevents you from saying a racial trait comes from inherent "cyberware", or "magical rituals" or even just societal conditioning to represent <X> which is ubiquitous to the entire race.
Example - you might rewrite in the JHKIM-world your halflings, to be rebalanced pointwise, they don't have the Luck trait, instead they culturally replace their teeth with steel-teeth which gives them the Bite trait, and institute a program of Spartan-like Agogi which gives them Toughness. This is the trade off from having that good-ol'fashioned happy-go-lucky Halflings, into being steel-mawed biting tough little bastards.
Packages of traits *do* represent these things you want. It just matters where you place them and how you define them.
What am I missing?
Quote from: Corolinth on May 06, 2024, 06:13:00 PMMeanwhile, the dwarf's bonuses when fighting giants and their keen sense of natural and worked stone are due to their cultural upbringing and not dwarven biology. I don't have the time or the inclination to do a complete audit of various editions of D&D, let alone other fantasy RPGs. The point is, not all of those racial traits are genetic, some of them are cultural. We are not very good at drawing that distinction, either, because for the entire history of humans and our hominid ancestors, the majority of us have lived in racial monocultures.
Yeah I didn't realize people didn't "get this" about Savage Worlds. Ancestry is representative of whatever tropes define your race and culture.
This is precisely why I've been saying for years that D&D is its own brand of fantasy. There is no specific thing about any of the traditional race of D&D that is 100% uniform across its settings. Which is why I perfectly understand your point about having to audit your races based on D&D's various takes on them.
Hence... Savage Worlds let's you quickly and consistently define the tropes you require for *your* setting.
Case in point. In my Savage Worlds Forgotten Realms all my races are +4 points and I define Lightfoot Halflings as:
Lightfoot HalflingsDextrous: Halflings are quick on their feet and spry even when they don't appear to be. They begin with d6 Agility.
Fun-Loving: Halflings are renowned for their ability to put people at ease and disarm them with their almost childish charm. Halflings begin with Persuasion at d6.
Light-Step: Halflings are naturally quiet when they move. Halflings begin with d6 Stealth and the skill cap is raised to d12+1.
Lucky Bastards: Halflings draw one additional Benny per game session. This may be combined with the Luck and Great Luck Edges.
Half-Pint: Halflings average only about 3'- 3'4" 'tall. This gives them a Size of –1 and subtracts 1 from their Toughness.
Laaaaiiid Back: Halflings are renowned for their easy-going nature. They know their place in the big picture and make no bones about it. Halflings have the Mild-Mannered Hindrance due to cultural mores and the pursuit of pleasure and pleasantry above all else (this may be bought off with an Advance).
Whereas my Strongheart Halflings have different traits -
Strongheart HalflingsDextrous: Strongheart Halflings are quick on their feet and spry even when they don't appear to be. They begin with d6 Agility.
Challenge Accepted: Strongheart Halflings enjoy physical challenges which are part of their everyday culture.. They start with a d6 Athletics skill.
Observant: Keen senses allow Strongheart halflings to catch details others might miss. They start with a d6 in Notice instead of a d4. This increases maximum Notice to d12+1.
Tall-Pint: Though Strongheart Halflings average only about 3'6"-4'tall. Like their cousins this gives them a Size of –1 and subtracts 1 from their Toughness.
True Allies: Strongheart Halflings are culturally driven to protect the Hin and those loyal to them. As such they rarely falter in their support of one another or those allies. Strongheart Halflings have a powerful sense of esprit de corps, and have the Loyal Hindrance.
Can Do Spirit!: Strongheart Halflings never give up when set to task. Whether the goal is a footrace against a horse, a drinking contest against a dwarf. Stronghearts are up to the task and will give it their all. This is not to be confused with being arrogant, it is in the nature of the Strongheart Halfling culture that anything worth doing is worth attaining for its own sake. They have the Elan Edge.
This might not be what some GM's want to do, but if you like doing hands on stuff, SW is wonderful at it. It excels at homebrewing or converting other material over very easily.
Quote from: tenbones on May 07, 2024, 10:33:21 AMQuote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 06:05:47 PMI feel like it's less generic to have separate and redundant mechanics for "racial abilities" and "character abilities". For example, SWADE has "Size -1" as a racial trait and then has a separate listing for "Small" as a character trait. Worse, "Big" is a negative racial trait (Size +1) that works differently than the "Brawny" character Edge (Size +1).
To me, it makes more sense to have traits, then one can apply those traits equally whether they are because of race, cyberware, magic, superscience, etc.
Packages of traits could represent a species, a race, a cultural background, a membership (i.e. Order of Hermes or space marine), a profession/class, etc.
But that *is* how it works.
Quote from: tenbones on May 07, 2024, 10:33:21 AMPackages of traits *do* represent these things you want. It just matters where you place them and how you define them.
What am I missing?
I'll get more specific. In SWADE, pages 18-20 have 46 traits specifically for races, and each companion book adds many more racial traits. Racial traits are special rules that only apply to races. If someone is eight and a half feet tall because of being a typical ogre (say), they'll have the racial trait and will refer to page 19 for the "Size+1" trait rules. Conversely, if someone is eight and a half feet tall from being a huge human, though, they don't use those rules - they instead use "Brawny" on page 38 to represent their greater size. Similarly, a non-human character could be fast because of their race and refer to the "Pace+2" race rule on page 19, or a human character could be "Fleet Footed" and use the rules on page 39 (that gives +2 Pace).
Each has a different cost listing, and different text. The traits sometimes have different mechanics. For example, a race can be "Big" for a -2 cost, but this trait can't apply to an individual character with gigantism.
It would be cleaner to not have pages of rules that are only used for races, but instead have general rules that can be used for those traits regardless of whether it is because of race, condition, magic, environment, etc.
Quote from: jhkim on May 07, 2024, 01:36:53 PMI'll get more specific. In SWADE, pages 18-20 have 46 traits specifically for races, and each companion book adds many more racial traits. Racial traits are special rules that only apply to races. If someone is eight and a half feet tall because of being a typical ogre (say), they'll have the racial trait and will refer to page 19 for the "Size+1" trait rules. Conversely, if someone is eight and a half feet tall from being a huge human, though, they don't use those rules - they instead use "Brawny" on page 38 to represent their greater size. Similarly, a non-human character could be fast because of their race and refer to the "Pace+2" race rule on page 19, or a human character could be "Fleet Footed" and use the rules on page 39 (that gives +2 Pace).
Racial traits are *not* for players to choose. They're for GM's to design their own custom races for their settings.
As such - if a player was playing a Baseline human and wanted to be 8' (specifically) tall, yes, technically speaking being Size 1 would reach 8'. But that doesn't mean *all* humans are 8'. It means you've just made some special snowflake that could be that tall if your GM allows it.
Again, I don't see the issue?
Quote from: jhkim on May 07, 2024, 01:36:53 PMEach has a different cost listing, and different text. The traits sometimes have different mechanics. For example, a race can be "Big" for a -2 cost, but this trait can't apply to an individual character with gigantism.
It would be cleaner to not have pages of rules that are only used for races, but instead have general rules that can be used for those traits regardless of whether it is because of race, condition, magic, environment, etc.
Well again, Racial traits are for game content creation, not for players per se. You absolutely could make a race that is "Big" and by big - you could make them Size 3, which is Hill-Stone Giant sized and *nothing* prevents you from also taking Brawny.
As I pointed out - there is no functional difference between a racial statbloc or any other. The traits they gave you are just a means to make a new race for play. How you want to rationalize those traits is, and should be, totally up to you as the GM
Conceptually, I like the split. A type of critter may be large or small compared to the base line, but a given critter of the type may be exceptionally small or large. A "giant" dwarf or a "diminutive" giant can be built as easily as an average dwarf and an average giant.
Quote from: Wisithir on May 07, 2024, 09:56:50 PMConceptually, I like the split. A type of critter may be large or small compared to the base line, but a given critter of the type may be exceptionally small or large. A "giant" dwarf or a "diminutive" giant can be built as easily as an average dwarf and an average giant.
Actually, that brings up another powerful point: these splits are coded by points so they work for making monsters too - which also have their own Traits. Further, if you wanted, you can give your races monster-trait and you'd immediately know what the point cost is.
After getting into Torg Eternity and then backing out of it because for everything in it I liked I hated something else and ended up needing all the old books to flesh out the huge gaps in the setting anyway, I'm looking at Savage Worlds as my "I want to play Torg, but with a different system" go to.
I'm guessing netrunning in Savage Worlds is now seen as an archaic game mechanic and no longer worth having in a game?
Quote from: Habitual Gamer on May 09, 2024, 09:00:18 AMAfter getting into Torg Eternity and then backing out of it because for everything in it I liked I hated something else and ended up needing all the old books to flesh out the huge gaps in the setting anyway, I'm looking at Savage Worlds as my "I want to play Torg, but with a different system" go to.
I'm guessing netrunning in Savage Worlds is now seen as an archaic game mechanic and no longer worth having in a game?
As someone that never played Torg, I've heard literally that same story for decades by Torg fans about how cool the setting was but how they disliked the mechanics. I've anecdotally noted that there are a *lot* of Torg players that have converted over to Savage Worlds to play it.
From what little I know about Torg, it seems very much thematically perfect for Savage Worlds whose rulesets allow for literally every genre trope imaginable to be mechanically represented... which brings us to...
Netrunning. The bane of all cyberpunk themed games. So without seeing if they're going to cover that kind of stuff in the Sci-fi Companion, I'm of two opinions.
1) Interface Zero 3.0 does a very very clean version of Netrunning which allows the netrunner to play alongside the other players in real time. While it's not as *sexy* as the VR alternate dimension Johnny Mnemonic fictional version we saw in CP2020... it completely makes it playable and clean. I'd further note that Cyberpunk Red moves in this direction now too.
2) If someone wanted to make a VR-style Netrunning subsystem for Savage Worlds, it *could* be done. You'd have emphasize the necessity of that kind of play, or resolve the In/Out problem, but it could totally be done. Would be an interesting design project.
Ah, Shadowrun. Where you may as well play three different games at three different times, because nobody's actions have anything to do with anyone else.
Except the street samurai who's protecting the meat.
I mean, netrunning is a cool concept, sort of, until you actually try to play it.
IF03.0 handles that pretty brilliantly. Instead of spending time *in* cyberspace, it's basically Augmented Reality happening in real time. So it's effectively like a spellcaster casting his magic to Remote operate a Drone, Hack a lock/other thing, so they're in the thick of the shit right alongside everyone else, operating round by round.
What I want is more robust vehicle combat. I have something I'm working on now, I'm planning on modifying more when the final Sci-Fi Companion drops (on the off-chance there is more useful stuff inside it).
Basically I want to make vehicles like characters whose vehicle stats are derived by the pilot's skill die, on top of the capped stats of the vehicle. This capping is necessary to denote quality of the vehicle in terms of performance in combat. And to further support modification rules for gearheads that like to trick out their rides.
Ideally this will allow me to scale things from dirtbikes to starships and get more granular with combat without sacrificing the speed and flow of the Savage Worlds system. If I stick the landing right, there should be very little gear-shifting (tee hee) between regular combat and my new high-octane vehicle combat.
Quote from: tenbones on May 09, 2024, 03:48:41 PMWhat I want is more robust vehicle combat.
I have never seen a system for vehicle combat in an RPG I liked. In the end, I end up using some type of minis game or hex-and-chit. I used Car Wars a lot over the years.
The only thing I like about Ancestry is it would let me talk about "the ABC's of character creation (Ancestry, Background, Class)."
I still went with Race (and an explanation that race has been the traditional gaming term for playable creature types since the begin which I continue to use for clarity because the playable options I do have make even something as broad as species inadequate).
Greetings!
So, WTF is wrong about the term RACE? Race has been used since forever, by D&D and everyone else, also forever. Who gives a shit about "species" and the cries of zoologists? Everyone KNOWS what is meant and informed by selecting their race in the game. Even otherwise noob players have an intuitive grasp of what selecting their character's race means.
So, who pushed to make this change in gaming? WHY? What was so needed to stop using a term everyone intuitively understands, and instead use more cloudy, murky terms that people are now mostly clueless about? Huge loss of efficiency and effective communication there, all for WHAT?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
You know who, and you know why.
Quote from: tenbones on May 09, 2024, 03:48:41 PMWhat I want is more robust vehicle combat. I have something I'm working on now, I'm planning on modifying more when the final Sci-Fi Companion drops (on the off-chance there is more useful stuff inside it).
Basically I want to make vehicles like characters whose vehicle stats are derived by the pilot's skill die, on top of the capped stats of the vehicle. This capping is necessary to denote quality of the vehicle in terms of performance in combat. And to further support modification rules for gearheads that like to trick out their rides.
Ideally this will allow me to scale things from dirtbikes to starships and get more granular with combat without sacrificing the speed and flow of the Savage Worlds system. If I stick the landing right, there should be very little gear-shifting (tee hee) between regular combat and my new high-octane vehicle combat.
I would love to see this.