TheRPGSite

The Kickstarter is up (http://bit.ly/SWADE_KS)

I am a big fan of this game and I really like how new editions are incremental and how the company releases free pdf conversion doc for older editions so you do not have to get the newer books.

Personally, I am just excited to get the book in a newer format.

Since I didn't know about it, I wasn't looking forward. I will take a look, however. I think the last version was perfectly suitable. What about the new version excites you (other than the format, as you mention)?

I'm $150 looking forward to it.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1060487Since I didn't know about it, I wasn't looking forward. I will take a look, however. I think the last version was perfectly suitable. What about the new version excites you (other than the format, as you mention)?

The standout feature for me is the new Support and Test system that really open up a lot of creative shenanigans in a way that is mechanically easy to grok (most of this stuff was doable before but a tad clunkier and a tad less effective to the point that just attacking again is what many people did). Much of the other changes seems to stem from that and that change seemed to be inspired from the changes to the shaken rules mid-last edition (Spirit roll = not shaken vs Spirit roll = not shaken but no action, you need a raise to have actions that turn).

So part of that change is some new unified conditions that powers also lean on. Vulnerable (allies get +2 to actions against them), Distracted (foe has a -2 on trait rolls), and Stunned (super duper shaken). This adds some bite back into these conditions and the "Tricks and Test" rules as a whole, which became less useful with the shaken nerf.

New chase rules are always appreciated. This was one of the weaker rules of the game, so much so that I do not run these without house-rules. I can't fault the game too much for them though since very few other games even make an attempt at the concept in a way that is generalizable.

I heard rumors that the Mass Battle rules are getting updates.

Oh and some people might be interesting in the Quick Encounter rules (for both combats and other challenges) and an abstracted wealth system (for those players/GMs that just can't stand counting gold coins).

Still, I am most excited for pretty art and having a hardback core rulebook. Everything else is just gravy for me.

Deadlands is my ultimate White Whale game.

I own a shameful number of books across the Classic, D20, and Reloaded lines and have never played once.  Not even once.  The one game I was supposed to run fell apart, too.  

So I'm $25 "PDF Kit" excited, especially as my best chances of playing will be online anyway.  The next edition of Deadlands will use the new Savage Worlds rules.  I will be ready to read and never play the next edition, too.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1060496New chase rules are always appreciated.

Ars Magica was once known in certain circles for scrapping the combat system in every new edition and creating a new one.  Are the Savage Worlds Chase rules following in those footsteps?

And, yeah, I was never a fan of the SWD Chase rules.  Too little persistent state.  They were great for dogfights, but not so much for races to a point or attempting to escape the opposition, where things like how close you are to the destination or how far from your pursuer are kind of important.  I much preferred the previous version's Chase rules.

Quote from: nDervish;1060585Ars Magica was once known in certain circles for scrapping the combat system in every new edition and creating a new one.  Are the Savage Worlds Chase rules following in those footsteps?

Haha Yes. It's a running joke now that they have to completely change the chase rules with each edition.

Which I think it's good that they aren't satisfied with their weakest subsystem.

I'm not very motivated to get it.  The existing version works well enough, and is cheap enough for most players to buy.  I don't think any of the things they are changing are so in need of change that I'm willing to shell out the money.

I am a player in SWs games and will pick this one up when it is released (any word on changes that will be appearing in this edition?).

Quote from: carpocratian;1060597I'm not very motivated to get it.  The existing version works well enough, and is cheap enough for most players to buy.  I don't think any of the things they are changing are so in need of change that I'm willing to shell out the money.

Well you will get a free conversion guide anyways.

One of the kickstarter rewards is an Evernight pdf, which was made for the 1st edition of Savage Worlds and it will still work with the current 4th/5th(depending on how you counting) edition being released now.

I think this is mainly to show how the essentials of the game have not changed all that much.

Quote from: tenbones;1060490I'm $150 looking forward to it.

Can I ask what made you decide on that level?

I ask because, while not a 1%-er, I'm an established DINK-household with two well compensated executives with no expensive hobbies. Given how few RPGs I buy in a year and Kickstarters I support, and could probably drop $150 on each, but I'm not going to because that means I'm not differentiating between the low and high ends (in terms of giving me things I want, or being companies I want to foster, etc.). Is there anything about the company or the bennies of the $150 level that make it worth that to you?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1060637Can I ask what made you decide on that level?

I ask because, while not a 1%-er, I'm an established DINK-household with two well compensated executives with no expensive hobbies. Given how few RPGs I buy in a year and Kickstarters I support, and could probably drop $150 on each, but I'm not going to because that means I'm not differentiating between the low and high ends (in terms of giving me things I want, or being companies I want to foster, etc.). Is there anything about the company or the bennies of the $150 level that make it worth that to you?

1) Money isn't really the issue for me.

2) I'm a big believer in supporting things I like and utilize. I've been in the RPG-sphere longer than any endeavor I currently pursue. So make something good for me. I will pony up the funds. Savage Worlds is a known quantity for me. I know exactly what I'm getting. It's not really a crap-shoot. Savage Worlds has been very good to me and my group. $150 good? Easily

3) I'm a GM. So I plan on running SW long-term as one of my core systems. Since that is the case running SW will likely eat up most of a given year with long-term campaigning. so $150 for literally years worth of entertainment is a relative pittance. Any other gaming expenditures will either support SW, or be my one-offs (FFG's Star Wars, Talsorians's Witcher off the top of my head). Or simply be some impulse buy which wouldn't go over $50. The $150 mark is pretty much everything I want plus goodies. It's an easy buy.

I'm likely going to drop more on the settings that support it (IZ3, Deadlands, Rifts, and their core setting splats). Anything else is just gravy.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1060604I am a player in SWs games and will pick this one up when it is released (any word on changes that will be appearing in this edition?).

Like you, I'll be looking to pick up a book and probably GM screen down the line. The Kickstarter is just too pricey, especially with PEG's shipping costs, and I'm not a fan of what I've read about the changes to the social system. Hopefully the final product will be better than what's been teased.

There's a list of some things that are being changed but not details on how those changes will be implemented on the Kickstarter page. Some of the highlights include new Chase rules, the addition of new conditions beyond Shaken, new multi-action rules, an expansion on how characters can help each other with tasks, and combining tricks and tests of will.

Quote from: Brand55;1060652I'm not a fan of what I've read about the changes to the social system.

Is this about how they are dropping charisma as a stat?

I personally like the idea of how the Support system and quick encounters will allow for more mechanics in social situations, which I have a lot of players that are hesitant to interject in conversations without some sort of mechanical reason. When the normal party face is trying to get everyone else to talk to support his roll, that leads to more engagement.

I tend to just wing social interactions, but man my players love to roll dice.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1060653Is this about how they are dropping charisma as a stat?

I personally like the idea of how the Support system and quick encounters will allow for more mechanics in social situations, which I have a lot of players that are hesitant to interject in conversations without some sort of mechanical reason. When the normal party face is trying to get everyone else to talk to support his roll, that leads to more engagement.

I tend to just wing social interactions, but man my players love to roll dice.

Dropping 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.

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.

Quote from: S'mon;1060937I 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.

A big part of Savage Worlds GMing is being able to roll with the massive rolls. Anything can happen, so when it does you need to be able to go with it. Else, the explosive math is just there to mess with the players.

I suspect your GM was Fudging. Which is extra egregious in Savage Worlds because the GM gets reroll tokens, which should take the place of any actual fudging. Then you are suppose to know your mod to the roll against a TN of 4 unless it is an opposed roll, and even then you are suppose to know what you rolled against.

But more horrifying is this reminded me of a fantasy zombie apocalypse we did in 5e and uh, let me tell you, classes do not suddenly make that any better.

But I do remember plenty of Pathfinder Fighters of mine that dominated both in combat and out of combat simply because he was better optimized. So far, I am having trouble doing that in Savage Worlds as well.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1060934Nope.

I wouldn't expect someone who makes and sells a competing game to be looking forward to another RPG coming out.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1060951I suspect your GM was Fudging. Which is extra egregious in Savage Worlds because the GM gets reroll tokens, which should take the place of any actual fudging.

He used the tokens to stop the wild card biker boss dying when shot at. He just ignored my persuasion rolls, said the biker couldn't be persuaded, at least not by an Attractive female!

Quote from: S'mon;1060963He used the tokens to stop the wild card biker boss dying when shot at. He just ignored my persuasion rolls, said the biker couldn't be persuaded, at least not by an Attractive female!

I think it's fair to say someone can't be persuaded about something. (Like no roll is going to convince Mr. Content-with-Life to kill himself)

But if someone could persuade them, then anyone should be able to with a high enough roll.

I also believe the new Attractive is removing the caveat about having to "find them attractive". Handsome men tend to do better in interviews than uglier men even if the interviewer is a heterosexual male.

I've thrown "X check -20" at players before. It's basically "No" but if they rolled high enough something interesting would happen.

The big problem is that you had a bad GM, S'mon, not that the game didn't work right. A lot of people simply don't understand the way persuasion works in Savage Worlds. It's designed to change the disposition of a target, so you were perfectly within your rights to try and persuade the biker boss. The GM could have waived your Very Attractive bonus if he felt it didn't apply in that situation (such as if the target wasn't attracted to women or if your character was all covered in zombie gore and filth), and depending on the situation there easily could have been a penalty to your roll. But what you were trying to do was perfectly fair.

If the new Attractive Edge hand-waves it so it always applies, I guarantee that will get house-ruled heavily. It flies in the face of all logic. Just think about it for a moment. You could have some race of globular slime people in a sci-fi campaign, and to them a given slime person might be gorgeous. But to a human? Or think fantasy settings. No matter how pretty your elf, I bet there are a lot of dwarves that do not give a damn. It just doesn't make any sense.

Quote from: Brand55;1060973If the new Attractive Edge hand-waves it so it always applies, I guarantee that will get house-ruled heavily. It flies in the face of all logic. Just think about it for a moment. You could have some race of globular slime people in a sci-fi campaign, and to them a given slime person might be gorgeous. But to a human? Or think fantasy settings. No matter how pretty your elf, I bet there are a lot of dwarves that do not give a damn. It just doesn't make any sense.

That would normally be the Outsider hindrance, which should have the opposite effect as attractive.

There is also always GM difficulty mods, which captures edge cases like that. "Ignoring it" should be a conscious choice on the GM's part not something edge itself assumes happens.

There's lots of fun-looking settings so I was excited about SW before playing it. Afterwards not so much. I found it finicky, not fast, not furious, did not like Shaken, Wound levels, the Wild Die and Bennies.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1060975That would normally be the Outsider hindrance, which should have the opposite effect as attractive.

There is also always GM difficulty mods, which captures edge cases like that. "Ignoring it" should be a conscious choice on the GM's part not something edge itself assumes happens.

No. The Outsider Hindrance is an actual penalty to rolls because of a number of factors, which could include racism or lack of knowledge. And you're looking at it wrong. Depending on what setting we're talking about, these aren't edge cases; they're the norm. In many fantasy settings I've read, most dwarves think all elves basically look alike and vice versa. The same goes for a lot of other races. Then you get into sci-fi where you see a lot of similar situations. I grew up reading Star Wars, and it was prevalent there as well. What you're talking about, with attractive humans having an advantage, really only applies to real world human-only situations. If anything I could see it being a setting rule, not the baseline. Savage Worlds is supposed to be a generic toolkit covering a lot of genres, so its rules should cover the broadest base possible.

Quote from: Brand55;1060981Savage Worlds is supposed to be a generic toolkit covering a lot of genres, so its rules should cover the broadest base possible.

I'll stop arguing about what mechanics might be. Since we do not actually know the things we are arguing about.

Savage Worlds isn't a toolkit. It's a generic system that is then built on by either a GM or a setting book. The developers do not believe their game is a toolkit and do not recommend heavily fiddling or house-ruling it. You are free too of course, but they strongly encourage just trying out the rules before you fiddle and need to deal with the successive knock-on effects across the system. They sell their system as something to build on, not as a toolkit. It's this design philosophy that actually got me into their system in first place. I wanted to play something where the GM didn't have to be a good rules developer for the game to go well.

Quote from: 3rik;1060978There's lots of fun-looking settings so I was excited about SW before playing it. Afterwards not so much. I found it finicky, not fast, not furious, did not like Shaken, Wound levels, the Wild Die and Bennies.

Shaken rules have been changed and that is what inspired the new edition to address the knock-on effects from the newer shaken rules.

Wild Card mechanics (Wound levels, Wild Die, and Bennies) are kind of a critical abstraction and if that doesn't jive with you, then the game just isn't your thing.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1060985I'll stop arguing about what mechanics might be. Since we do not actually know the things we are arguing about.

Savage Worlds isn't a toolkit. It's a generic system that is then built on by either a GM or a setting book. The developers do not believe their game is a toolkit and do not recommend heavily fiddling or house-ruling it. You are free too of course, but they strongly encourage just trying out the rules before you fiddle and need to deal with the successive knock-on effects across the system. They sell their system as something to build on, not as a toolkit. It's this design philosophy that actually got me into their system in first place. I wanted to play something where the GM didn't have to be a good rules developer for the game to go well.

Sure. As I said from the beginning, I'm hoping the final results are good. I just didn't like the implications of some changes I saw mentioned. My big concern is and has from the beginning been balance between the Edges.

I think we're in agreement, just using different terminology. I absolutely agree that SW is a generic system and the designers suggest playing it first; I've seen that plenty of times on the forums. But they've also said to do what works for your table, and when I called it a toolkit I meant in the sense that if you're not running a given setting or building your own you have decisions to make. Which ABs are available, if any? Are Weird Edges allowed? Optional setting rules? Weapons, and which eras? In that sense it's a toolkit. I wasn't trying to say that it gave you three different ways of resolving a social conflict. Sorry if that was unclear.

Quote from: S'mon;1060963He used the tokens to stop the wild card biker boss dying when shot at. He just ignored my persuasion rolls, said the biker couldn't be persuaded, at least not by an Attractive female!

Bad GM is bad.

Using the Bennie to make a Soak is legit (it also irritates me because this brings up the whole Bennie-economy which goes against my gaming nature to *have* such things - but ultimately it's a tiny cross I bear). But the *point* having Attractive and the bonuses they confer - including in the new rules - is for those things to matter in play.

I'm playing the same concept right now - a good looking scoundrel-type that fights dirty, but can't really stand-and-bang in a *very* combat-heavy campaign. I'm proving to be *very* useful doing Tricks and stuff that my more offensive party members can capitalize on. I feel way more useful than a D&D Thief both in and out of combat. In fact - I AM that Thief (literally - I have the Thief and Assassin Edge). But I'm able to Persuade my ass off - because that Attractive Bonus is a very nice bonus and my GM recognizes that "Attractive" is nebulous but transferable to any and all NPC's to some degree.

In other words these things do and should transcend the mere bonus. If the GM isn't doing that - then that is where you'll run into problems. This is true of all games tho. How many Cha-based character-classes in D&D pull off their schtick non-stop out combat? Right... it's there simply to be a stat-derivative for other things. Not that SW doesn't do that too - but it's far less overt, but every bit as useful and powerful providing your GM gives it its proper due.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1060967I think it's fair to say someone can't be persuaded about something. (Like no roll is going to convince Mr. Content-with-Life to kill himself)

But if someone could persuade them, then anyone should be able to with a high enough roll.

I also believe the new Attractive is removing the caveat about having to "find them attractive". Handsome men tend to do better in interviews than uglier men even if the interviewer is a heterosexual male.

I've thrown "X check -20" at players before. It's basically "No" but if they rolled high enough something interesting would happen.

Exactly. The GM is the one that has to adjudicate the fact that you are, indeed Attractive - that has plenty of room for gameplay beyond just sexual attraction. That's why Persuasion is powerful used in the right players hands with the right GM. It doesn't mean you have to dumb down your NPC's but it also doesn't mean you need to nullify the fact that the PC in question has powerful Persuasion skills.

Understanding that gap between those facts is where some really complex and interesting RP sleeps, ready to be awakened and surprise everyone with the outcomes.

Outsider Hindrance is pretty clear given its widespread use throughout the various settings - it can be a universal and it can be very specific. The GM should set that up ahead of time.

For instance there are examples of races that clearly do not like another race/individual due to their factional allegiances and those people are given the Outsider Hindrance *specifically* for that faction - like certain D-Bees in Savage Rifts.

I think there are some objective standards of beauty - and though I don't think Attractive has to work literally on everyone, but I'd be willing to bet that those it doesn't work on might be Outsiders explicit to those cultures. /shrug.

So the stretch goals lately:

The "Ace" Jumpstarts / demo settings are now a "daily unlock."  I'm left to assume that they don't mean every day.

The $240k unlock bonus was watching someone who plays Deadlands play the new Savage Worlds game.   It appears to be East Texas University with the new rules.

Their text "The SavingThrowShow crew behind #WildCardsRPG will take you to the sleepy town of Pinebox, TX, in the 1980s to show off the new Savage Worlds Adventure Edition rules in this special episode!"

My interpretation:  "You get to watch someone else play the game in a cross-promotional extravaganza!"

Another setting at $250k, though.  That looks kind of interesting.

Quote from: MrAndrewJThe $240k unlock bonus was watching someone who plays Deadlands play the new Savage Worlds game.   It appears to be East Texas University with the new rules.

Their text "The SavingThrowShow crew behind #WildCardsRPG will take you to the sleepy town of Pinebox, TX, in the 1980s to show off the new Savage Worlds Adventure Edition rules in this special episode!"

Maybe, maybe not. Pinebox was a Savage Worlds setting via several adventures years before ETU was ever released, so they could just be doing a horror one-shot set in Pinebox that doesn't have anything to do with playing students at the university. Speaking of which, I really hope they eventually come out with an ETU continuation. I know there was some talk about releasing a supplement or new game dealing with non-students or those who've already graduated, but sadly I haven't heard anything else since just after the Kickstarter finished.

I really dont like my money subsidizing nitwits playing the game on YouTube. I'm in for $200 but I want to cancel my order in protest. I'd rather that money go to something for the product.

I'm guessing ETU because of the title.  The full text of it reads:

Quote from: Savage Worlds Adventure Edition Kickstarter Stretch Goal($240K) WildCards Livestream of ETU: Undeclared!
The SavingThrowShow crew behind #WildCardsRPG will take you to the sleepy town of Pinebox, TX, in the 1980s to show off the new Savage Worlds Adventure Edition rules in this special episode!

New rules. Old favorites. Still Savage!

That's still a weird stretch goal.  "You get to watch someone else play."

Quote from: MrAndrewJ;1061086I'm guessing ETU because of the title.  The full text of it reads:



That's still a weird stretch goal.  "You get to watch someone else play."

The jump starts aren't doing anything for me either.

The real stretch goals are interesting so far.

Gotcha. Yeah, that makes sense then. Though since the game will be set in the 80s it does raise the question of whether the game will be set after the name change to ETU or earlier when the university was still known as Southeast Texas Institute. I think a throwback, historical SETI game could be fun.

And I have to agree, the jump starts aren't a huge draw for me, either. The one game I really want to know more about is Deadlands: Dark Age and I don't think they've said anything more on that. I don't see myself buying a new edition of DL when I've got a complete run of Reloaded, but Dark Age will almost certainly be a must-buy for me.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061087The jump starts aren't doing anything for me either.

There's some fuzzy language suggesting the jumpstarts will include rules updates for those lines.  If that's the case then the Interface Zero jumpstart has my attention.

I want, but my bills are eating everything.  So I will see it when it drops at my local game store.  I rather like the system.

I was thinking "maybe" but when they say they're redoing the art, and use this as an example?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2974[/ATTACH]

Bad choice.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1060990Shaken rules have been changed and that is what inspired the new edition to address the knock-on effects from the newer shaken rules.

Wild Card mechanics (Wound levels, Wild Die, and Bennies) are kind of a critical abstraction and if that doesn't jive with you, then the game just isn't your thing.

It mentions narrative elements. Are these just the Bennies or is there something else? I'm somewhat familiar with old SW, so I just want to know what is added or changed, because I've come to see "narrative" as a dirty word and don't want to see too much of it.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1061118It mentions narrative elements. Are these just the Bennies or is there something else? I'm somewhat familiar with old SW, so I just want to know what is added or changed, because I've come to see "narrative" as a dirty word and don't want to see too much of it.

Some people use Savage Worlds for more theater of the mind and social heavy campaigns. Things like quick encounters and the support system are suppose to give that kind of thing more mechanics to work with. I also expect dramatic tasks and social conflict rules will get a touch up in addition to the chase rules rewrite.

Quote from: Brand55;1061089...The one game I really want to know more about is Deadlands: Dark Age and I don't think they've said anything more on that. I don't see myself buying a new edition of DL when I've got a complete run of Reloaded, but Dark Age will almost certainly be a must-buy for me.

 Update Number 6 talks a bit more about it  (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/545820095/savage-worlds-adventure-edition/posts/2320451)

I'm 'Mr Savage Worlds' at our local club, have used it for home game campaigns, and seek it out as my game of choice at Cons. And I'm categorically *not* paying 50 bucks plus shipping for a game that I bought the last edition for 10. And 25 for a pdf is easily into taking the piss territory so I'll stick with what I've got thanks. Particularly as the stretch goals are of absolutely no interest either. All of the best SW settings are 3rd Party IMO; apart from Rippers I've never bought, played or run anything Pinnacle have produced themselves.

Quote from: Derabar;1061173I'm 'Mr Savage Worlds' at our local club, have used it for home game campaigns, and seek it out as my game of choice at Cons. And I'm categorically *not* paying 50 bucks plus shipping for a game that I bought the last edition for 10. And 25 for a pdf is easily into taking the piss territory so I'll stick with what I've got thanks. Particularly as the stretch goals are of absolutely no interest either. All of the best SW settings are 3rd Party IMO; apart from Rippers I've never bought, played or run anything Pinnacle have produced themselves.

   Probably best to wait for the $10 PDF to show up on DTRPG, then. You'll miss out on the stretch goals, but it sounds like you don't care about that.

   This is one of those Kickstarters where you're paying a premium for early access and extra goodies, not getting a break on the retail pricing.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1061118It mentions narrative elements. Are these just the Bennies or is there something else? I'm somewhat familiar with old SW, so I just want to know what is added or changed, because I've come to see "narrative" as a dirty word and don't want to see too much of it.

   I think it's the broadening of the Test and Support mechanics to 'if you can come up with a justification for it that everyone finds reasonable, you can roll any skill' for them.

I'm in for a 150 bucks myself, and excited as hell about it. The changes to the rules happening are basically stuff I've been houseruling for years now...so it's nice to see it being done in an official format... I'm really curious to see how it's going to shake up a lot of the edges too.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1061207I think it's the broadening of the Test and Support mechanics to 'if you can come up with a justification for it that everyone finds reasonable, you can roll any skill' for them.

That doesn't seem narrative to me; it just feels like a flexible resolution system as long as the characters are still using their abilities to make changes in the world rather than players acting outside of their characters to make changes in the game world.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1061220That doesn't seem narrative to me; it just feels like a flexible resolution system as long as the characters are still using their abilities to make changes in the world rather than players acting outside of their characters to make changes in the game world.

PEG's understanding of narrative mechanics isn't the same as everyone else. The part where you make mechanical rulings based on the fiction (Can I support my friends persuasion with repair?) is about as narrative as PEG gets. Bennies aren't even a normal meta currency. They are basically luck and your wildcard has them not the player. GM's get bennies so that's as meta as that currency gets.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1060480The Kickstarter is up (http://bit.ly/SWADE_KS)

I am a big fan of this game and I really like how new editions are incremental and how the company releases free pdf conversion doc for older editions so you do not have to get the newer books.

Personally, I am just excited to get the book in a newer format.

Is this the RPG where the GM always says "yes"? I thought there was no where left for the rules to go as written.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1061234Is this the RPG where the GM always says "yes"? I thought there was no where left for the rules to go as written.

I'm going to say 'no', because I don't know what you are talking about.

I'm a fan of Savage Worlds, so I definitely backed this. I would like more of their existing products, especially the Companion book PDF's as stretch goals, but the Ultimate option is still a good deal for me even without stretch goals.

Quote from: Dragonblade;1061276I'm a fan of Savage Worlds, so I definitely backed this. I would like more of their existing products, especially the Companion book PDF's as stretch goals, but the Ultimate option is still a good deal for me even without stretch goals.

Shane said yesterday that PDFs of older products will be going up as mini-stretch goals.

Is there a place where us non-backers can find what the suggested rules changes are?  I'm curious, but as I stated above, I have no money (nor a credit card to pledge on KS) to actually back this.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1061310Is there a place where us non-backers can find what the suggested rules changes are?  I'm curious, but as I stated above, I have no money (nor a credit card to pledge on KS) to actually back this.

The campaign page summarizes them, peginc.com has gone into details on several in the past month's weekly updates, and this Tuesday will see the release of a free Halloween adventure showing off the new chase rules.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1061310Is there a place where us non-backers can find what the suggested rules changes are?  I'm curious, but as I stated above, I have no money (nor a credit card to pledge on KS) to actually back this.

The conversion guide will be released for free to current owners, which will include all the rules changes.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061316The conversion guide will be released for free to current owners, which will include all the rules changes.

and a lot of the 3rd party settings will be putting their quickstarts out as part of the KS too. So that's great news.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1061234Is this the RPG where the GM always says "yes"? I thought there was no where left for the rules to go as written.

What are you referring to?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061316The conversion guide will be released for free to current owners, which will include all the rules changes.

So I have to wait?  Aw man...  :D  Is cool.  Thank you.

Quote from: tenbones;1061360and a lot of the 3rd party settings will be putting their quickstarts out as part of the KS too. So that's great news.

If I were to support one company on KS it would Pinnacle, they've proven to know how to make their products on time with minimal issues.  Sadly, I don't have a credit card, and as much as I would like to support at the Digital level, being Canadian the exchange rate would be a bit of a killer as well.  Cuz I'd like to see some of these quickstarts.

Quote from: S'mon;1060937I 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.

OK, your GM sucked. At least in this particular scenario, I don't know about in general.

So, do you happen to want a system that protects you from that:D?

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1061234Is this the RPG where the GM always says "yes"? I thought there was no where left for the rules to go as written.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1061273I'm going to say 'no', because I don't know what you are talking about.

Quote from: carpocratian;1061390What are you referring to?

My best guess is that he's talking about something like Burning Wheel, and somehow mistaking it for Savage Worlds. The contrast is amusing, indeed:).
Shawn, let me just state that part of the Savage Worlds GM's job is to say "no", and this is in the rules;).

Quote from: AsenRG;1061480OK, your GM sucked. At least in this particular scenario, I don't know about in general.

So, do you happen to want a system that protects you from that:D?

Hmm. The guy was not obviously the Worst GM Ever though I did eventually quit the game, but that was over his rule that if player was not present the PC LITERALLY CEASED TO EXIST until their return. So e.g. our driver would vanish and we would have no memory of the character! He certainly taught me some GM techniques to avoid.

I do think class based systems can give some protection vs mediocre GMing. I did really like Savage Worlds as long as we were not in combat though - the zombie combat sucked but the skill/task system is very nice.

Quote from: S'mon;1061689Hmm. The guy was not obviously the Worst GM Ever though I did eventually quit the game, but that was over his rule that if player was not present the PC LITERALLY CEASED TO EXIST until their return. So e.g. our driver would vanish and we would have no memory of the character! He certainly taught me some GM techniques to avoid.

I do think class based systems can give some protection vs mediocre GMing. I did really like Savage Worlds as long as we were not in combat though - the zombie combat sucked but the skill/task system is very nice.

I try to avoid saying the GM sucked. I much rather look at it from a rules angle. He wasn't following the rules/His interpretations weren't in line with what a reasonable assumption would be. No system can prevent bad results from ignoring parts of it.

Breaking the rules doesn't make him a Bad GM, he could have done the same thing by giving you a ridiculous penalty and the other character a huge bonus simply because he prefers that player. That's a flaw in the rules, but it is an admitted flaw that the GM difficulty mods are there to handle edge cases and it's where "GM call" decides whether or not something is fun. The reasoning behind these calls like "I prefer that player" can be the result of being a bad GM, but something like, "I think this is fair" doesn't display that. At worst, it might show the GM has a poor understanding of fair and needs a much heavier system to guide him.

This is exactly why I don't make rules modifications to most systems until I've really given it a good run-through. I try to play them RAW as possible. Experience can carry you the rest of the way if there is something not covered.

I also try to use as many of the sub-systems as possible when running something new. Chase rules, melee/ranged combat, vehicle combat, social skill challenges and any permutations they have outlined. It's pretty clear what the Attractive Edge is supposed to mean with its mechanical underpinnings - so playing the ball where it lands is the best way to figure out if it hits the sweet-spot in actual play.

I don't let the narrative fluff fool me.

Quote from: S'mon;1061689Hmm. The guy was not obviously the Worst GM Ever though I did eventually quit the game, but that was over his rule that if player was not present the PC LITERALLY CEASED TO EXIST until their return. So e.g. our driver would vanish and we would have no memory of the character! He certainly taught me some GM techniques to avoid.

Yeah, sure seems like he wasn't a role model...at least where roleplaying was concerned, I have no idea about his other qualities:).

QuoteI do think class based systems can give some protection vs mediocre GMing. I did really like Savage Worlds as long as we were not in combat though - the zombie combat sucked but the skill/task system is very nice.

What happened to the whole "you don't need rules that protect you from the GM", though? I thought it was a kind of mantra on this site:D?
After all, any protection from the GM's power is necessarily also a restriction of said power:).

Also, as pointed out already, no system gives you anything* when it's not followed. Which is what he was doing, by your own description. So, no, class systems would have been unlikely to fare any better;).

*That's an "even were we to agree with this idea regarding class systems". Which I don't, for the record:p.

Quote from: tenbones;1061695This is exactly why I don't make rules modifications to most systems until I've really given it a good run-through. I try to play them RAW as possible. Experience can carry you the rest of the way if there is something not covered.

I also try to use as many of the sub-systems as possible when running something new. Chase rules, melee/ranged combat, vehicle combat, social skill challenges and any permutations they have outlined. It's pretty clear what the Attractive Edge is supposed to mean with its mechanical underpinnings - so playing the ball where it lands is the best way to figure out if it hits the sweet-spot in actual play.

I don't let the narrative fluff fool me.

That's more or less where I sit, too, but with the important addition "unless I can't be bothered to decipher what the author(s) had in mind". Cue the choir of complaints about Exalted 3e's crafting subsystem;).

A new batch of stretch goals was posted today. Of note to me, printing the new mini-settings and a brand new adventure deck.

I find SW to be nearly playable, and somewhat more playable than GURPs.  It's like almost the ideal generic RPG.  It almost became my goto rpg, except for all of the silly stuff that drives me absolutely crazy. I'm interested.

For those still wondering about the new stuff, Game Geeks posted a review on YouTube last night and Kurt went over a bunch of the changes, including some that hadn't received a lot of coverage. On the narrative front, apparently bennies can be used for narrative editing like Fate Points now. I'll have to look at the rule in the finished book but that's probably one I'll ignore or heavily restrict.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7iT1d26kUE&t=0s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7iT1d26kUE&t=0s)

Quote from: Madprofessor;1063762I find SW to be nearly playable, and somewhat more playable than GURPs.  It's like almost the ideal generic RPG.  It almost became my goto rpg, except for all of the silly stuff that drives me absolutely crazy. I'm interested.

Same here (almost the best generic game.) What is your goto rpg?

Quote from: Madprofessor;1063762I find SW to be nearly playable, and somewhat more playable than GURPs.  It's like almost the ideal generic RPG.  It almost became my goto rpg, except for all of the silly stuff that drives me absolutely crazy. I'm interested.

Savage Worlds is my go-to RPG because it attempts at being the ideal generic RPG not because it succeeds.

Savage Worlds is inherently a compromised game because it tries to cover as many things as possible with the least amount of complexity. I haven't really found a game as rules dense (rules-for-things/complexity). Savage Worlds also tries to be a fun game, which is part of the reason behind the "silly stuff".

I do believe in a Platonic ideal of RPGs, Savage Worlds will never get there, but I'm glad the Devs didn't give up the pursuit. The modern tend of RPGs is that "we don't need rules for things" and well that doesn't strike me as good design.

Quote from: Brand55;1063766On the narrative front, apparently bennies can be used for narrative editing like Fate Points now.

Well, shit.

When this popped up again this morning I misread the title as Salvage World. Kinda bummed now, I thought it might be some new Post Apocalypse game.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1063918Well, shit.

With GM approval. So just say no in your games.

PEG found out that a lot of FATE players who want something a bit crunchier/grounded also buy their game.

Yeah it sounds like an option. One that will probably never hit my table.

Quote from: tenbones;1063934Yeah it sounds like an option. One that will probably never hit my table.

It's something that I've already been doing in my Savage Worlds games, ported over from Fate almost by accident. Though in either case, I set the constraints and there's a shot-clock of sorts. Spend the point to keep moving forward, you don't get to declare that you're spending the point and then spend all kinds of time trying to retcon some magical outcome.

The result has been that only a small subset of players go this route at all.

Also in at $150. Ran Deadlands and just a bit of Savage Worlds until Savage Rifts, which is a fun front-loaded game that the players enjoy and it is fun to run.

I don't think anything could make me interested in any edition of Savage Worlds.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1064810I don't think anything could make me interested in any edition of Savage Worlds.

Any particular reason or do you just write the RPGs that you want to play?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1064810I don't think anything could make me interested in any edition of Savage Worlds.

   Why didn't you say this while the Kickstarter was active? It might have been able to shake loose another pledge or two. ;)

Quote from: RPGPundit;1064810I don't think anything could make me interested in any edition of Savage Worlds.

I'd be interested in seeing a Savage Worlds version of Dark Albion. And Arrows of Indra too for that matter.

Quote from: tenbones;1064868I'd be interested in seeing a Savage Worlds version of Dark Albion. And Arrows of Indra too for that matter.

Same.

I can't get my group to look at new systems anymore. But an OSR Savage Worlds attempt would gander some attention. My friends tend to buy the physical book of any setting crunch they want to use for their campaign.

I contend a LOT of OSR material would do very well in Savage Worlds.

It's money laying there on the table.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1064836Any particular reason or do you just write the RPGs that you want to play?

No, I play lots of RPGs I didn't write.

I just never liked the game for some reason. I think it's way over-hyped.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1065597No, I play lots of RPGs I didn't write.

I just never liked the game for some reason. I think it's way over-hyped.

I get real excited for it because it has good (but not perfect) rules for things while running fast and being easy to GM (in-part because it has rules for things).

But it's also a game with dice, cards, and chips with little use of the d20 and very little in the way of resource management (no HP).

If you don't care about "having rules for things", then all the gimmicks, abstract mechanics, and insert-your-own-flavor options are completely unjustified.

Yeah. It's definitely not perfect. But it's the best system for me that is scalable to work very well for the most genres. I still believe you can create a system that emphasizes a genre-specific RPG extremely well. But they become insular in that way. You'd never want to use that system for anything else. I think D&D and it's derivatives largely falls into that category. Sure there's d20 Star Wars, Mutants and Masterminds - but there are systems dedicated to those genres that do them *better*.

Pound for pound - Savage Worlds does a *lot* of these genres very well because the core mechanics are cohesive enough that you can abstract anything you want from gritty grimdark stuff, to titanic god-mode supers fighting Kaiju while doing orbital bombardment from capital scale ships in orbit. Sure there is a little loss of fidelity - but not much. There is some mild math weirdness, but nothing compared to modern D&D and its current conceits.

I can actually *run* a Savage Worlds campaign that would cover 1st-lvl through 30th-lvl play that no sane D&D GM would ever want to do, and do it organically.

Good luck slogging through D&D5 post-15th lvl...

Quote from: tenbones;1065639Yeah. It's definitely not perfect. But it's the best system for me that is scalable to work very well for the most genres. I still believe you can create a system that emphasizes a genre-specific RPG extremely well. But they become insular in that way. You'd never want to use that system for anything else. I think D&D and it's derivatives largely falls into that category. Sure there's d20 Star Wars, Mutants and Masterminds - but there are systems dedicated to those genres that do them *better*.

Pound for pound - Savage Worlds does a *lot* of these genres very well because the core mechanics are cohesive enough that you can abstract anything you want from gritty grimdark stuff, to titanic god-mode supers fighting Kaiju while doing orbital bombardment from capital scale ships in orbit. Sure there is a little loss of fidelity - but not much. There is some mild math weirdness, but nothing compared to modern D&D and its current conceits.

I can actually *run* a Savage Worlds campaign that would cover 1st-lvl through 30th-lvl play that no sane D&D GM would ever want to do, and do it organically.

Good luck slogging through D&D5 post-15th lvl...

All true.
And you're right that it's one of the best systems to use for many OSR games. After all, much like them, SW is inspired by pulps in the first place...Fast, fun and furious - reminds you of anything:D?
It's no accident that Lankhmar and Solomon Kane were among the first properties for Savage Worlds;).