Quote from: Brand55;1060654Dropping Charisma is fine, but then they've gone and heavily nerfed at least some of the formerly Charisma-boosting Edges. At last report, taking both Attractive and Very Attractive would only give you a measly +2 to Persuasion rolls. That's pathetic. It's much weaker than the old version, especially when you consider that it does nothing for you if someone doesn't find you attractive. Charismatic is far, far better, and so we're getting into D&D Feat territory where some Edges are just outright much better than others. That's not good.

I believe the caveat of "must find you attractive" is being dropped and regulated to the "GM difficulty mods".

The bonuses got cut down because Persuasion is useful in combat now with the Support system. You could spend all combat basically cheer-leading your allies to make them fight or cast spells better (GM willing/aka-has-final-say-what's-allowed-depending-on-tone-and-genre).  
You could also use it in the Test system (which replaces Tricks and Test of wills) now (GM willing).

So persuasion is both useful out of combat and in combat so the persuasion boosting edges were nerfed and Attractive itself was nerfed to a specific skill.

I am tempted to kickstart.  I hesitate only because two very good reliable companies were pretty late with delivery (reaper and CMON) after being a year out from the kickstart date.   I have lots of SW stuff, have played it a couple times and have to say it plays smoother and much more dynamically than it "reads".

Quote from: Rhedyn;1060660I believe the caveat of "must find you attractive" is being dropped and regulated to the "GM difficulty mods".

The bonuses got cut down because Persuasion is useful in combat now with the Support system. You could spend all combat basically cheer-leading your allies to make them fight or cast spells better (GM willing/aka-has-final-say-what's-allowed-depending-on-tone-and-genre).  
You could also use it in the Test system (which replaces Tricks and Test of wills) now (GM willing).

So persuasion is both useful out of combat and in combat so the persuasion boosting edges were nerfed and Attractive itself was nerfed to a specific skill.

Except going by what was said in a few weeks ago in the podcast, Charismatic is much better than Attractive. So why take Attractive? And there are lots of skill-boosting Edges out there that give a lot more than +1 to a single skill. That's the problem. And if you nerf all those Edges and just tell everyone to rely on friends helping out, then you've shifted the balance of the game so as to screw over specialists and make it really hard on small groups.

I've always found the math wonky, the wounds system to be too simplistic. Tenbones and others, what do you like about SW? Am I being too picky?

Quote from: trechriron;1060678I've always found the math wonky, the wounds system to be too simplistic. Tenbones and others, what do you like about SW? Am I being too picky?

The attraction for me certainly isn't the math (though there is a math guy in our group and I think he has some insights which I will pick his brain for and report back). I like the feel of the game. I also find it is one of the few miniatures oriented RPGs that I don't mind. Most games, when the miniatures come out, I lose interest. But with Savage Worlds, for whatever reason, it just feels right and it doesn't have the same impact as minies in 3E or something. One thing to keep in mind about Savage Worlds is it is intended for things like Pulp. So it isn't about perfect simulation of reality and people who are at the table already are willing to suspend disbelief for genre anyways. But overall, just in terms of how the mechanics feel in play, I think they operate just fine. Most of the complaints are things that people notice after the game. But during I can't say I've ever really observed anything about the mechanics or rolls resulting from them that leapt out at me as jarring. The wounds are moderately simplistic (honestly I don't think Savage worlds is that light by present day standards, I'd put it more  as the light end of rules medium). I think they do a good job for the style of gaming Savage Worlds is meant to be.

EDIT: The math wiz has an excel document on the math (happy to send by email if you PM).

Quote from: trechriron;1060678I've always found the math wonky, the wounds system to be too simplistic. Tenbones and others, what do you like about SW? Am I being too picky?

The math *is* a little wonky - specifically between d6 and d8. It's *almost* better to stick to d6 and rely on the strength of exploding dice than go to d8. But it's not that big of a deal. Once you go to d10, you're on definitel solid mathematical ground for the badass you are, for possessing a d10 in a trait.

What I like about Wounds
It's very kinetic. Combined with the Parry/Toughness rules, the general combat-tempo is fast and deadly. Low-level fighting (around d6 and d8 with similar parrying) gives you a good back-and-forth momentum that simply feels right. And it scales really well.

When it comes to Wounds specifically. I find it to be kind of deadly. Which for me is a good thing. It makes me and my players think tactically about avoiding taking Wounds because those penalties add up and it becomes less of a deathspiral than a deathcliff. I feel that once you get to Veteren+ rank which is the sweet spot range of D&D adventuring - 8-12th level, SW *really* is just getting warmed up. I think the sweet spot holds far longer and you can get into crazy levels of play that simply just becomes a stroke-inducing affair in D&D.

THE ISSUE is... the Shaken Rules in conjunction with Wounds

So in my experience people end up saving their Bennies for combat because inevitably you're going to take that meaty hit and you're going to need that Soak. With the NEW Shaken Rules... things will/have definitely changed. I think the issue I'm currently having is I'm *playing* not GMing... and our GM is too tight on Bennies. So everyone hordes them (cept me). Is it really an issue? Not really. But yet... it kinda is.

I'll put it this way. The amount of weirdness I feel about Bennies and the Shaken Rule is pittance to what I feel about the weirdness of d20. It's probably the *only* thing in SW that I waffle on... but it's a very minor thing comparatively.

Quote from: Brand55;1060675Except going by what was said in a few weeks ago in the podcast, Charismatic is much better than Attractive. So why take Attractive? And there are lots of skill-boosting Edges out there that give a lot more than +1 to a single skill. That's the problem. And if you nerf all those Edges and just tell everyone to rely on friends helping out, then you've shifted the balance of the game so as to screw over specialists and make it really hard on small groups.

I vaguely remember Charismatic being a reroll, but that doesn't specify what situations and requires a d8 in spirit if left unchanged.
Also +2 to a roll with just a d6 persuasion reduces your standard fail chance to 1/36. Meanwhile, rerolling one die reduces the fail chance to 1/8th. Both cuts it down to 1/216.
Attractive is vastly more useful but eats up background edges.

Quote from: trechriron;1060678I've always found the math wonky, the wounds system to be too simplistic. Tenbones and others, what do you like about SW? Am I being too picky?

I like that Savage Worlds can be played as a very traditional RPG and that it has rules for things while being fairly quick and simple about it. If my desire was just quicker combat, other systems are faster. If my desire was really mechanically detailed characters with crazy powers and builds, other systems are deeper. Savage Worlds appeals to me because of how it optimizes both those desires together.

I enjoy the wonkyness of the math and the wound system because it makes encounters feel dangerous much easier in comparison to my experiences with D&D, which makes Savage Worlds an ideal game for me to GM. In practice, as a player you just avoid wounds in Savage Worlds if you can help it at all. Which I like it that my players play smarter and are more concerned about positioning than if their big numbers can protect them from "unfair GM bigger numbers" (more of an issue is 3.X)

I've been looking around the RPG industry a bit since basically switching to Savage Worlds from D&D/Pathfinder. I've dug into GURPS, Fudge, all the editions of D&D, Fate, OSR books, Fate, Single Setting systems, and even diceless games like Nobilis and Chuubo. Savage Worlds is still my favorite RPG and I think that is because I am slightly biased towards action heavy campaigns and I have no particular love for HP (I actually rather dislike keeping track of HP).

For Wounds being too simplistic...

I suppose it depends on the following - in Savage Worlds a -1 per Wound penalty has very large impact on an evenly matched fight.  The abstraction and description has a much higher value than in D&D - where it's representative of 25% of your HP with commensurate penalties to your performance.

D&D HP - of course while numerically more granular, doesn't have such death-spiral effects. It generally takes longer, especially at higher levels, to wade through those HP, where you're operating at maximum performance until you hit zero. It feels less risky. Sure you can add those deathspiral effects if you want, but due to the sheer size of HP at later levels, the tempo of combat is not the same.

I find I like SW better. I find it more consistent with the FFF concept.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1060690I vaguely remember Charismatic being a reroll, but that doesn't specify what situations and requires a d8 in spirit if left unchanged.
Also +2 to a roll with just a d6 persuasion reduces your standard fail chance to 1/36. Meanwhile, rerolling one die reduces the fail chance to 1/8th. Both cuts it down to 1/216.
Attractive is vastly more useful but eats up background edges

Attractive only gives +1, not +2. You're comparing 2 Edges against 1. I'll take a re-roll over a single +1 any day, especially with the frequent need to get raises.

In any case, this is why I originally said I was hoping the final product dealt with these issues, because they're trying to fix something that isn't broken in the first place and that can throw a lot of other things off.

Quote from: Brand55;1060712Attractive only gives +1, not +2. You're comparing 2 Edges against 1. I'll take a re-roll over a single +1 any day, especially with the frequent need to get raises.

In any case, this is why I originally said I was hoping the final product dealt with these issues, because they're trying to fix something that isn't broken in the first place and that can throw a lot of other things off.

For how much better the +2 is, I would hope that it requires 2 background edges.

To put it in perspective, just a +1 reduces your fail rate with a d6 as a Wildcard to 1/9 and attractive does not require a d8 spirit, while charismatic reduces the chance to 1/8 but stacks with attractive (for a 1/27 chance, all three edges turn it into a 1/216 chance)*

*given assumption of how charismatic will work

Quote from: Rhedyn;1060717For how much better the +2 is, I would hope that it requires 2 background edges.

Except it's not. In a modern world setting, Attractive will apply to around 50% of the people you meet. In fantasy or sci-fi settings, the percentage is likely to be much lower. And re-roll abilities are far more important for people with high skill levels, so actual face characters will get far more out of Charismatic unless a very strict limit is put on how often it can be used. But more importantly, and the thing I've been stressing all along, take Attractive and compare it to Woodsman. Or Thief, or Investigator, or any other similar Edge. It falls way, way short of the other skill Edges now, and many of those will be useful in combat now, too. So unless all of those are getting hit with the nerf bat as well, which causes repercussions elsewhere, then in Attractive you've an Edge that is vastly weaker than its ilk. For example, if Bob takes Edge A and gets a +1 bonus to 1 skill and Tom takes Edge B and gets +2 to 3 skills, something isn't adding up.

I like what I'm reading and I backed it at Ultimate. I did GM SW in the past and enjoyed it but my overly-analytical brain always fucks up my enjoyment. I'm going to explore this for publishing as well...

Quote from: trechriron;1060734I like what I'm reading and I backed it at Ultimate. I did GM SW in the past and enjoyed it but my overly-analytical brain always fucks up my enjoyment. I'm going to explore this for publishing as well...

I know it's become my group's favorite system, and it's the first game since D&D when I first started playing years ago that every person at the table has bought a rules book. I'm really hoping PEG eventually comes out with a cheaper core book for that reason, as selling people on buying in on a $10 softcover was incredibly easy. I know it'll have to be a bit more expensive, but even $15-20  is a lot easier to swallow than $40.

And for what it's worth, a lot of what you might have issues with has probably been tackled in some form or fashion already by people online. Don't like the Wound system? There are alternatives out there, and you can always come up with your own if you prefer HP. That's why I'm confident that even if I end up disliking some of the changes in the new edition, I'll be able to sort through the bits I like and adjust accordingly if some things don't fit my table. Savage Worlds is great for that.

Nope.

Quote from: Brand55;1060727Except it's not. In a modern world setting, Attractive will apply to around 50% of the people you meet. In fantasy or sci-fi settings, the percentage is likely to be much lower.

I had a 'Face' PC with Very Attractive Edge in a zombie apocalypse War of the Dead game. Obviously I didn't expect it to apply vs the zombies ("*yum!*") but I was really annoyed when the GM completely ignored it vs the biker gang boss too! I think this was because negotiating with the bikers successfully was against the intended railroad of the campaign. I think I got some super high rolls too.

But then after I had to leave the game early that night (due to riots across London) the GM then allowed another player to intimidate the bikers into leaving, which was actually a lot more against the intended railroad than my attempt to ally with them. Also his PC was a combat monster with no Face abilities, so he got to dominate in combat AND in diplomacy.

The irony was that the GM had told us to make normal people for the game. Everyone else made a normal person (mine was a Texan female oil company executive, others made police, entertainer etc) - his was an SAS special forces combat wombat. The experience really reminded me how much more robust class-based RPG systems are.