# Savage Worlds



## Eisenhiem (Jun 29, 2009)

So, I've been thumbing through some of a friend's Savage Worlds books and looking at buying my own.. starting down that massive tract. I've historically been our DM/GM/Narrator/Referee/Supreme Dictator for more or less everything we've done for the last... decade or so. 

Coming from a history of Rules heavy/immersive/holycrap sort of RPGs.. and a large range of complete homebrews (I have probably written several thousand pages of my own material, systems, supplements..gehhhh, etc) It's a bit weird to look over it and 1) be actually USING a published system for once and 2) One so.. apparently rules-light.. 

I'm still learning the system itself.. trying to wrap my head around everything and thus I have a couple questions.

1) What is the actual difference between the Savage Worlds corebook and the explorer edition?

2) SW seems to be relatively popular on the boards.. at least by way of passive mention. What tips, tricks, and advice might anyone have for playing it, building for it, or running it? 

3) Are there any problem areas/things it doesnt do very well/potential issues that I should be aware of before i discover them by accident?

4) Any fantastic stories, amazing experiences, etc with the system?

Also. My first post on here. Wewt!

I look forward to anything you might have to say.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 29, 2009)

1) The Explorer's Edition is the Core rules.  They are the most up to date version of them.

2) From the pinnacle web site, get the "Combat Survival Guide" one page pdf and print out copies for yourself and each of your players.  It gives vital tips on how to hit the opponents, and how to hurt the opponents once you hit them.

3) The arcane background based powers are bland until you or the players add "Trappings" to them.  Make this happen.  Don't just say "Bolt power" say "Stream of Unholy Acid" or something like that.

3b) When players make characters, they should be aware of what equipment they want to buy and carry, as well as what edges they want to have, first.  This is because monetary and encumbrance limits can be harsh (and they might be slightly mitigated with a high strength and/or some appropriate cash edges and/or just getting extra money with "hindrance points") and because some edges have prerequisites (usually having some attributes or skills at a certain level).  This will guide what attributes the character needs to get, what skills the character needs to get, what (other) edges the character needs to get, and how many hindrances the character needs to get.

In addition, buying up attributes can make it cheaper to get skills as they cost 2 for 1 when they go above their governing attribute.  Similarly, it is cheaper to have a skill bought at chargen than to buy it at d4 later on.

Note that while background edges tend to be bought at chargen early, a convincing story and a convinced GM can allow them to be taken later.  So you might want to make it clear to players how easy it will be to sell you on taking edges later, so they know in advance whether to buy it at chargen or whether they can wait and get it later.  This of course might vary by background edge.

3c) I have heard that it is possible to build a "persuasion/contacts" charisma-monster, so you might want to watch out for that.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 29, 2009)

Particle Man has a pretty good summary.

1) Errata, clarifications, and changes based upon player feedback.  They changed incapacitation, the knock-out blow table, and a lot of other small things that their players said were too clunky.  Also they changed melee damage into another weapon damage roll (one die strength plus one die weapon), rather than a modified strength roll.  This makes unarmed combat a lot less powerful.
Oh, and the Explorer Edition is missing all those sweet vehicle write-ups (Apache gunship, Hover Tank, etc.).

2) It's a gritty and dangerous system that encourages the use of real-world thought, tactics, and problem solving.  A lot of the problems encountered are better solved with words or a clever ploy than with violence (though violence is always an option).  If you or your players aren't up for that then my advice is to move on.
The rules assume miniatures (of some sort) on a battle map.  You can run it without a map but there are a *lot* of features that really suffer for the lack.
Game play is actually pretty smooth.  The rules are fairly simple and consistent with only a few ridiculous combinations (three background edges plus a social edge and a hindrance can give a Charisma of +10, which guarantees just about any Persuasion/Streetwise check ever).  However, these few combinations are remarkable for their rarity rather than their frequency.
For skillful characters, Agility and Smarts are the keys, with Spirit being useful.  For combat characters, Agility is key with Spirit and Vigor being highly useful; Strength is of limited utility for non-melee characters, while being useful (but not amazing) for melee combat characters.

To expand on 3) Savage Worlds is bad at making ....
Characters that aren't normal people.  The RAW character generation builds perfectly average people, made exceptional by a "heroic spark" (Wild Card) and their own character flaws (Hindrances).  For some groups and campaigns this is ideal.  For other groups or campaigns this is a serious weakness of the system.  What it does do, for all groups, is make it very difficult to play certain archetypes or characters progressing towards certain archetypes.

It's a fairly simple adjustment (more/fewer ability points / skill points; card-draw abilities and fixed skill points; etc.) to better fit the tastes of your group.


P.S. Encourage players to take the Hindrances that fit their characters.  If they're going to RP it anyway, they might as well get a Benny for doing so.  And you only get RP Bennies for your Hindrances or plot advancement, not for being a stupid PC that just got the party into a world of trouble (unless the brand of stupid was one of your character's Hindrances).


----------



## Qualidar (Jun 29, 2009)

Particle_Man said:


> 2) From the pinnacle web site, get the "Combat Survival Guide" one page pdf and print out copies for yourself and each of your players.  It gives vital tips on how to hit the opponents, and how to hurt the opponents once you hit them.




That's solid advice, right there.




ValhallaGH said:


> 2) It's a gritty and dangerous system....
> 
> To expand on 3) Savage Worlds is bad at making ....
> Characters that aren't normal people.  The RAW character generation builds perfectly average people, made exceptional by a "heroic spark" (Wild Card) and their own character flaws (Hindrances).  For some groups and campaigns this is ideal.  For other groups or campaigns this is a serious weakness of the system.  What it does do, for all groups, is make it very difficult to play certain archetypes or characters progressing towards certain archetypes.




Other than what I'm quoting, I agree with VGH.

But...I feel like VGH is talking about a completely different game than what I've played: for us, Savage Worlds is all about swashbuckling / pulp action. I've seen a character stand toe-to-toe in melee with a dragon and win. I've taken out T-rexes with one shot from a rifle. We swing on ropes and curtains. Fear our improvisation, time-traveling SkeleCogs! 

Granted, those were more advanced characters, but I don't think of it as "a gritty and dangerous system". But that might be the scale of perception. A high-level (legendary) character in SW is Zorro, or Conan, or Captain Jack Sparrow. He's not Superman, or a 15th level D&D character, or someone from Exalted. One of the campaigns I'm playing in is Necessary Evil, which is a supers game. I don't find the system a good match for that: we're "SuperVillains", but it really only makes what M&M would call street-level characters. I'm giving up a lot in my tribute to the Lizard. By the time I'm legendary I'll be able to afford my vision of what he should be, but in the meantime he's a bit lacking. 

So: not necessarily the best system for everything, but a great system for swashbuckling / pulp action, IMO. And apparently good for gritty and dangerous for ValhallaGH's group too. I look forward to using it for my WeirdWildWildWest game soon. 

Good luck!


----------



## coyote6 (Jun 29, 2009)

Qualidar said:


> But...I feel like VGH is talking about a completely different game than what I've played: for us, Savage Worlds is all about swashbuckling / pulp action. I've seen a character stand toe-to-toe in melee with a dragon and win. I've taken out T-rexes with one shot from a rifle. We swing on ropes and curtains. Fear our improvisation, time-traveling SkeleCogs!
> 
> Granted, those were more advanced characters, but I don't think of it as "a gritty and dangerous system".




I think he's talking about default starting characters; they're barely more capable & competent than the default Average Person. Compare them to sample stats for, say, soldiers or cops or the like, and (IIRC -- I've only played SW at cons and a couple of one-shots I've ran) starting characters seem kind of wimpy.

Of course, the PC advantage is that they're Wild Cards and get to roll that extra die, and get bennies. But strictly by the numbers, you aren't going to get Lara Croft/Indiana Jones/Han Solo/Jack Sparrow/etc. as starting characters. To me, that feels weird, that the pulp/action game doesn't let you start as a pulp/action hero. 

It's not hard to let the PCs start out better than rank Novices, though.

Edit: oh, and if you're stingy with bennies, I can see how it could be more gritty than a game where the bennies flow fast and furious; if you can't roll to soak the occasional big hit, it could get painful fast.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 29, 2009)

Good point.  Be generous with bennies.  

Also if you have a mixed party with some combat-wombats and some non-combat characters, remind the non-combat characters that they can use tricks, taunts, intimidates to give an advantage to their friends in combat (to the point of causing opponents to be Shaken, which is a BIG advantage if you to it just before your combat friend attacks the person).

Oh, if you use the Explorer's edition, remember p. 75 (the incapacitation table) and p. 101 (the fear effects table).

To the latter end, remind the players not to cheap out on Spirit/Guts.  Low Spirit could leave them shaken for a large part of the combat.  Low Guts could be really crappy if you scare them a lot.


----------



## Qualidar (Jun 30, 2009)

coyote6 said:


> I think he's talking about default starting characters; they're barely more capable & competent than the default Average Person. Compare them to sample stats for, say, soldiers or cops or the like, and (IIRC -- I've only played SW at cons and a couple of one-shots I've ran) starting characters seem kind of wimpy....




I feel starting SW characters are about on par with starting (non 4e) D&D characters: capable, but fragile. That's my baseline of normal, though. If you're used to something like M&M it's going to feel weak for sure.




coyote6 said:


> ...Edit: oh, and if you're stingy with bennies, I can see how it could be more gritty than a game where the bennies flow fast and furious; if you can't roll to soak the occasional big hit, it could get painful fast.




That's a good point. It might just be the GM styles. Our GMs usually give us bennies for fun and out-of-the box stunts, rather than charging for them, which encourages a pulpy feel.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 30, 2009)

Qualidar said:


> I feel starting SW characters are about on par with starting (non 4e) D&D characters: capable, but fragile. That's my baseline of normal, though. If you're used to something like M&M it's going to feel weak for sure.




Although M&M characters are pretty weak if they start at level 1 and have only 15 points to build their characters with.


----------



## Qualidar (Jun 30, 2009)

Particle_Man said:


> Although M&M characters are pretty weak if they start at level 1 and have only 15 points to build their characters with.




I'm having visions of an all-preschool supers group.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jun 30, 2009)

coyote6 said:


> I think he's talking about default starting characters; they're barely more capable & competent than the default Average Person.



That's correct, I was talking about 0 xp Novice characters.

My point is that it's difficult to really build a talented and capable beginner.
First example: I wanted to run a game where the player characters were low-experience special operators.  I started them at Seasoned because it seemed like the place to be.  I've since come to realize that to build a representative special operator you have to have _at least_ Veteran characters to have the combination of skill breadth, skill depth, ability scores, and edges that portray the training operators go through as well as allowing a bit of personal adjustment.  
Which is really annoying to me, since the Explorer Edition has a Novice adventure in the back where the combat NPCs (3 Wild Cards, 27 Extras) are all _at least_ 15 experience characters, and more if they don't actually have any hindrances (instead of simply not bothering to make them more useful).  And this is typical of the opponents faced in much of the game play of Savage Worlds.
I am well aware that NPCs don't have the same creation rules as PCs.  However, figuring them out by PC rules is a good way to get a feel for what sort of experience it takes to build certain archetypes.  I've found this useful in every game system I've ever messed with.

Second example: I was building up towards a Romance of the 3 Kingdoms game (actually based upon the Dynasty Warriors video games, but it's all fun).  I went to build representations of some of the big legends, as they would have been around the time of the Yellow Turban rebellion (generally seen as the beginning of the period).  I simply couldn't build some of them (Guan Yu, Xu Zhu) with the creation rules as the characters were simply too limited.  And unlike Lu Bu, they were supposed to be playable.
The historic figures I was trying to emulate in the game were simply too talented and awesome to be portrayed as PCs in the Savage Worlds system.  
And that's when I knew, with absolute certainty, that if I was going to mess with this system then I had to have character generation alternatives.

I've settled on two methods for me and my friends: more starting points (ability and/or skill), or random abilities.  
The starting points are based upon a) player character talent and ranges from 4 to 8 ability points; b) player character skill training prior to adventuring experience and ranges from 12 to 21 skill points.  I adjust and mix the numbers to get exactly the combination that suits the style of heroes I want in my game (untalented to human paragons, dilettante to highly trained but untested specialist).  Hindrances can be used to increase the points as normal.
For the random abilities, I've borrowed from the Deadlands system of card draws: 2 is d4, 3-8 is d6, 9-J is d8, Q-K is d10, A and Joker are d12.  Draw X and drop X-5 (usually 6 works fine, for some games I'd be willing to use 7 or even 8), assign as desired.  Yes, it is possible to have a character with d12 in all abilities while having another character, in the same party, with d4 in three abilities.  I'm cool with that and so are my players (generally).  For this option I go with flat skill points, using the scale mentioned earlier.


As to the Grittiness, I've found it's actually less dangerous than the original Deadlands system was, despite the uncertainty of using a benny (or chip) to soak wounds; and Deadlands is survivable asuming a) PCs aren't killing each other  (on purpose or accident), b) the really nasty things (vehicle collisions, monstrous assassins, servitors, etc) aren't cropping up very often.
That said, in Savage Worlds, any punk with a gun (or bow) can blow away even the most legendary of heroes.  And someone with a flamethrower is death to every man (and woman) born.  Which goes a very long way towards keeping the game feeling like most of the source material.

I hope that expansion helped clarify.


----------



## ragboy (Jun 30, 2009)

coyote6 said:


> Of course, the PC advantage is that they're Wild Cards and get to roll that extra die, and get bennies. But strictly by the numbers, you aren't going to get Lara Croft/Indiana Jones/Han Solo/Jack Sparrow/etc. as starting characters. To me, that feels weird, that the pulp/action game doesn't let you start as a pulp/action hero.




My experience with the game has been completely different. If you start your character at the Novice level, then you're a...novice... not sure what else to say about it. If you want to play a high-level campaign, then you play a game where you start your character at a higher rank. Fairly simple. 

The gameplay concept is completely different from an M&M or other d20/T20 based games. Encounters with mooks don't matter, and shouldn't. They go fast but maintain an element of danger. They sap your resources without killing you. The comment about anyone with a gun, flamethrower or bow able to kill anyone is inaccurate...or has been in my experience. Encounters with the big bad guys are memorable, difficult and require ingenuity to win rather than a doctorate degree in an arcane ruleset and access to the approved library/website/consultative expert. 

Characters are built on a concept rather than a stack of stats, shortcut equipment bonuses, and poorly defined archetypes. Magic retains an element of imagination, rather than a bullet list of effects ala a card game -- if your GM is running the game correctly -- if you just wanna say "I fire Magic Missile at the darkness" then yeah, your magic experience is going to suck. 

Character progression is constant and meaningful and doesn't take three different books of Powers and Stuff to accomplish. If you get a magical sword, it matters. Your character's abilities are not a spreadsheet of +/-; they are the only thing keeping you from doom. Bennies are your friend and the differentiator. The "big damn lucky hero" part of the game. 

So, essentially, you're not gaming for more bonuses (stuff, powers, rule breakers), you're gaming for the wild action, character development and story. I haven't seen a game that can keep all these things balanced and still deliver a meaningful gaming experience. 

And don't get me started about development. The rules get out of the way and let the GM build whatever he/she needs to deliver a meaningful gaming experience. Low cost, low time, fast and furious. 

That's my experience, anyway.


----------



## coyote6 (Jun 30, 2009)

ragboy said:


> My experience with the game has been completely different. If you start your character at the Novice level, then you're a...novice... not sure what else to say about it. If you want to play a high-level campaign, then you play a game where you start your character at a higher rank. Fairly simple.




Most of the fiction I'd want to use SW to emulate doesn't feature novice protagonists, so it sets off a bit of cognitive dissonance with me that the default starting PCs aren't of equivalent competence (and apparently ValhallaGH). That's just my personal reaction, though.

(FWIW, my experience with actual play of SW has been entirely one shots with pregens -- all of which were significantly better than Novice characters.)



ragboy said:


> The gameplay concept is completely different from an M&M or other d20/T20 based games. Encounters with mooks don't matter, and shouldn't. They go fast but maintain an element of danger. They sap your resources without killing you.




Sap what resources? Bennies?

I have to disagree with your comments, though, regarding M&M or True20. These things:



> Encounters with the big bad guys are memorable, difficult and require ingenuity to win rather than a doctorate degree in an arcane ruleset and access to the approved library/website/consultative expert.
> 
> Characters are built on a concept rather than a stack of stats, shortcut equipment bonuses, and poorly defined archetypes. [...]
> 
> ...




... don't apply to M&M, in my gaming experience, or True20, from what I've read. They may apply to D&D of various editions, but True20 and M&M are not D&D (any more than SW is, say, Deadlands or Brave New World or any of the other similar systems).

Don't get me wrong -- SW is awesome. I wouldn't have bought stuff for it (Deadlands, 50 Fathoms, and one other setting) if I didn't like it. It's one of the three or four game systems I'd really like to use for my next campaign, depending on what that campaign ends up being. I will probably house rule some bits, and I don't know if I'll dig it for extended campaigns; but for short games & one shots, it has been great fun. 

I played a SW game at DunDraCon this year where the 8 PCs were squad leaders in the Space Marines -- we were decked out in heavy armor, each commanding a squad of goons. It was a blast trying to maneuver to get shots on the heavily armored enemies, toss monofilament & plasma grenades at 'em, and otherwise try to avoid being completely obliterated. I'm not sure there's another system that would've handled it as well, just using the basic rules.


----------



## coyote6 (Jun 30, 2009)

Qualidar said:


> I'm having visions of an all-preschool supers group.




FWIW, the same DunDraCon with the SW Space Marines also featured an M&M game where the PCs ended up regressed to preschool age PL1 versions (remember Nanny from X-Factor, way back in the day?). That was . . . interesting.


----------



## Eisenhiem (Jun 30, 2009)

Thanks for the replies!

The more I look at the system, the more I decide I definitely need to take advantage of the larger-scale battles you can pull off - especially as that is something I haven't gotten the chance to really play with to any satisfaction in the other games I've run.

Not to jump in or take sides in any sort of debate, but I will say:



coyote6 said:


> Most of the fiction I'd want to use SW to emulate doesn't feature novice protagonists, so it sets off a bit of cognitive dissonance with me that the default starting PCs aren't of equivalent competence (and apparently ValhallaGH). That's just my personal reaction, though.
> 
> (FWIW, my experience with actual play of SW has been entirely one shots with pregens -- all of which were significantly better than Novice characters.)




I personally have never played any game (Alternity, D&D [of any edition], d20, Cyberpunk2020..and so on) that had the characters start at a level equal to the protagonists of fiction.. But I always sort of thought that was the point.. to *become* heroic.. rather than start at Awesome and work your way to ..well. More Awesome.

Actually. I will take that back. The Riddle of Steel did that very well.. but TROS, while beloved.. is a game with a sharp learning curve in combat. Amazing system, but it actually relies on the players to learn to fight well as much as the characters - which is odd, as players dont have to learn intimate knowledge of how to smith in order to do so in-game, nor the intricacies of medicine or esoteric theory in order to perform first aid or ritual magic. 

BUT.. back to SW.

I'm debating what I want to do for my first run. I'm thinking about making a short-run zombie-survival campaign over a handful of sessions/adventures. Seems like just the sort of thing low-powered characters and mob combat would shine at. 

I also really want, at some point, to attempt to redo one of my favorite campaigns I've ever run - a Warhammer 40K RPG based on the Inquisitor wargame rules. Oddly enough, they are vaguely similar to the way SW runs (which is unsurprising since, as I'm reading, SW was based on another miniatures wargame?)

I will say, one thing I am really liking is that it is so adaptable.. the idea that I can run campaigns I never would have thought about before simply because I didnt want to jimmie rig rules for..say.. a 1930s gangster setting, etc. for the sake of a mini-campaign, etc. 

Are there any resources floating around out there aside from what's on their site? SRDs or maybe something the equivelant of the Netbook of Feats in d20? I'm noticing the plethora of edges and hinderances in each book..and how they all vary from setting to setting. Not a bad thing, but it would be nice to have a reference for the whole list. 

Just thoughts.. 

I'm used to a more .. not robust..but.. detailed..system.. So it will be interesting to see how well this goes. I love what I'm reading so far though.


----------



## coyote6 (Jul 1, 2009)

Eisenhiem said:


> I personally have never played any game (Alternity, D&D [of any edition], d20, Cyberpunk2020..and so on) that had the characters start at a level equal to the protagonists of fiction.. But I always sort of thought that was the point.. to *become* heroic.. rather than start at Awesome and work your way to ..well. More Awesome.




I can think of several -- M&M, GURPS, FATE/Spirit of the Century, Twilight: 2000, Traveller -- all can let you start out roughly equal to at least some fictional heroes (some are more badass than others, of course). In those systems, you can at least always build a starting character that's equal to or better than, say, the average NPC soldier or cop. 

In Deadlands Reloaded, the Gunman NPC type has more attribute points than a starting PC; the officer soldier and the "LAPD" (Guardian Angels) are both beyond starting PCs. Those all seem like viable starting PC types to me for a high-action game -- gunman, Cavalry Lt., ex-cop. Even the "typical pirate" in 50 Fathoms looks to be equal to a starting PC, roughly. In a piratey game, I'd expect PCs to be better than the mook pirates.

Like I said, it's just not what I expected. Fortunately, it's easy to fix.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 1, 2009)

Eisenhiem said:


> Are there any resources floating around out there aside from what's on their site?




Savage Heroes


----------



## GlassJaw (Jul 1, 2009)

Eisenhiem said:


> I'm debating what I want to do for my first run. I'm thinking about making a short-run zombie-survival campaign over a handful of sessions/adventures. Seems like just the sort of thing low-powered characters and mob combat would shine at.
> 
> Very cool.  If you do, check out a product called Zombie Run.
> 
> ...


----------



## baulderstone (Jul 2, 2009)

coyote6 said:


> I can think of several -- M&M, GURPS, FATE/Spirit of the Century, Twilight: 2000, Traveller -- all can let you start out roughly equal to at least some fictional heroes (some are more badass than others, of course). In those systems, you can at least always build a starting character that's equal to or better than, say, the average NPC soldier or cop.
> 
> In Deadlands Reloaded, the Gunman NPC type has more attribute points than a starting PC; the officer soldier and the "LAPD" (Guardian Angels) are both beyond starting PCs. Those all seem like viable starting PC types to me for a high-action game -- gunman, Cavalry Lt., ex-cop. Even the "typical pirate" in 50 Fathoms looks to be equal to a starting PC, roughly. In a piratey game, I'd expect PCs to be better than the mook pirates.
> 
> Like I said, it's just not what I expected. Fortunately, it's easy to fix.




But, that really isn't true at all. The Gunman and typical pirate are extras. That Wild Die makes a big difference for PC's. Think of it this way: when you are generating a character, before you have even spent one point on attributes, you already have a free d6 in every single one of them due to your Wild Die. If you only buy a d4 in Vigor, you are already tougher than the Gunman, who rolls just a d6, without a Wild Die. Once you have spent all 5 of your points to raise attributes, the extra is left in the dust. 

Then you you factor in bennies. Player have their own private supply. The GM probably won't spend any on a lowly mook. The Gunman will also go down after taking only one wound. The PC takes 4 wounds to put down. And even then the might stay up if they get a raise on the incapacitation roll, althought that is a long-shot.

In a one-on-one battle the Novice PC will take down the gunman almost every time. 

I'll concede that characters don't start out as powerful as some of the more powerful pulp characters out there, but the game encourages starting characters at a higher rank if that fits the feel of the campaign. It's much better than the alternative, which would be a system which didn't allow you to play novice characters at all.

I think some people have a different view of pulps than I do, too. I remember them as having heroes that were tough, but still frequently took a beating, and frequently suffering temporary defeats and getting captured when out-numbered, but managing to prevail in the end. A lot of people seem to feel that pulp is all-about invincible heroes who never fail at anything.


----------



## Morpheus (Jul 2, 2009)

One of the nice things about SW from the GM's perspective is the use of NPCs. the PCs can use allies (extras-not Wild Cards) and run them themselves-less work for the GM. Running combat is less time-consuming as there is less to keep track of for the NPCs as there are only two conditions to keep track of-Shaken or Incapacitated (and Incapacitated takes the NPC out the game). A combat that would probably take an hour or so in d20 will only take 10-20 minutes in SW. This allows more to get accomplished during a session...


----------



## Pepster (Jul 3, 2009)

I'll just build on what others have said.

1) The Explorer's Edition doesn't have the fantasy races, but those are now covered in the new Fantasy Companion.

2) Keep in mind that the Shaken condition is binary; in other words, it's either on or off. The Shaken/Wound system seems to confuse a lot of people. Also, when opponents have ganged up on an opponent, even Shaken opponents give a gang-up bonus. I found out at Origins this past weekend I was doing it wrong.

3) Most of the complaints I've heard are that SW doesn't do Supers well, though I have also heard of ongoing Necessary Evil campaigns.

4) How about having the creator run a late night horror game for you? It was simply awesome.

Pepster


----------



## Tommy Brownell (Jul 3, 2009)

Pepster said:


> 3) Most of the complaints I've heard are that SW doesn't do Supers well, though I have also heard of ongoing Necessary Evil campaigns.




I have GMed a Necessary Evil game for a few months now, and the characters who have been around since the beginning are JUST on the cusp of Veteran right now.

The biggest issue we've hit is that, compared to past supers games, the powers just aren't as flexible (on the fly stunts, etc)...the game itself has been TREMENDOUS, however, with much enjoyment by all...but I don't see it being quite good enough of a fit to become our new default supers game...in fact, I'm thinking about pulling a big switcheroo at the end of the Plot Point campaign and converting it to Marvel SAGA (our favorite supers system) since I kinda want to play SAGA again, just divorced from the Marvel setting.


----------



## baulderstone (Jul 3, 2009)

Pepster said:


> I'll just build on what others have said.
> 
> 1) The Explorer's Edition doesn't have the fantasy races, but those are now covered in the new Fantasy Companion.




You can also get the fantasy races in the free pdf, Wizards & Warriors, along with related Edges.


----------



## TheNovaLord (Jul 4, 2009)

daring Tales of Adventure does pulp very welll......its adds a few things to the SW rule sets to make the PC more potent and fit in with the 1930 pulp feel. 

such as everyone gtes an extra benny for each combat, some wounds heal automatically after combat, PC capture/surrender is a good option (and nice plot device), poeple have external contacts they can call on (think Mummy where O connor always find a pilot he needs)

works very well


----------



## Qualidar (Jul 5, 2009)

Pepster said:


> 3) Most of the complaints I've heard are that SW doesn't do Supers well, though I have also heard of ongoing Necessary Evil campaigns.




My criticism that it doesn't do supers well comes from me playing in a great Necessary Evil game! It's honestly not that it's particularly bad at it, it's just that compared to M&M it's not nearly as good. This hasn't stopped our Necessary Evil game from being one of the best I've played, though. It's a LOT of fun.

I think it's just a matter of expectation (forgive me if I typed this earlier): "Super-Villain" conjures up a certain level of power, and in reality you start out more like the power of a henchmen. If that were clear up front it would have been better. And though it's perhaps not the best _supers_ game, it's still a great game, so please don't read too much into my criticism.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 12, 2009)

I've played in Savage World games a few times here and there. Generally it does what it advertises, its fast and furious. I also consider it a pretty gritty system, its easy to get messed up very quickly once you run out of bennies.

Things it does well:

1) Quick character creation
2) Quick combat running
3) Very smooth power progression
4) Handles improvising decently well.
5) Bennies are fun!

Things I'm okay with.
1) Removing your attributes from your actual abilities. For the most part, in SW your abilities don't do much, they just determine the cost of skills and the like. I used to absolutely hate that, but I am warming up to it bit by bit.

Things I don't like.
1) The over reliance of bennies. I don't feel that bennies are a small power supplement to a fight, I feel they are one of the critical factors. A player with a few bennies will do far better than a player who doesn't have any.
2) Creatures seem too tough. I often feel if I'm not doing a stunt or a called shot I can't hurt a lot of what I have fought in the past. That said, called shots seem too good in many cases.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 12, 2009)

The highest praise I can give SW is this:

A short while ago, I was due to run a game in an hour and I needed to stat up a diverse set of enemies (humanoids, giant crustaceans, alien monsters, dinosaurs) so I gritted my teeth and hoped I'd finish most of them in time...

...and then fifteen minutes later, I was done. Blew my mind.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 13, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> Things I'm okay with.
> 1) Removing your attributes from your actual abilities. For the most part, in SW your abilities don't do much, they just determine the cost of skills and the like. I used to absolutely hate that, but I am warming up to it bit by bit.




Well Spirit is needed to recover from being shaken, and Vigor is needed to make wound checks.  So those are pretty important.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 13, 2009)

Your abilities do quite a lot in SW, particularly in combat.

Strength - Melee weapon damage, and determines what kinds of ranged weapons you can use

Vigor - Roll Vigor when soaking wounds. (a big deal)

Spirit - Roll Spirit to recover from being Shaken (also a big deal)

Smarts - Smarts Tricks, which can give an enemy -2 defense or Shake them

Agility - Agility Tricks, which work the same way

It may seem like Smarts/Agility don't come up that much unless you're using Tricks, but remember that Tricks are opposed by the opponent's Agility or Smarts, so a low Smarts/Agility leaves you vulnerable to a canny foe.

One of the "frustrating" things about Savage Worlds character generation is how darn important ALL of the stats are - a player that stacks most of their points in one or two stats will have a fairly hard go of it. Helps keep the munchkins in check a little


----------



## Thanee (Jul 13, 2009)

Abilities definitely do something, but I also feel they are not doing enough when it comes to skills (only determining the cost of the skills to some degree).

We use a house rule, that you do not get a d6, but your corresponding ability die as a wild die when making any skill roll. Despite initial worries, that it might be a bit much, it works very well and definitely underlines the value of all the abilities.

We also use a house rule for initiative, that you make an agility or smarts roll (your choice) at the start of a round to determine how many cards you can draw (one plus one extra for a success and every raise on that roll); you can keep one and give back the others.

I like both, since they make ability scores more "present", and also initiative is a little less _completely_ random.

Of course, YMMV, as usual. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Qualidar (Jul 13, 2009)

Thanee said:


> We use a house rule, that you do not get a d6, but your corresponding ability die as a wild die when making any skill roll. Despite initial worries, that it might be a bit much, it works very well and definitely underlines the value of all the abilities.




You're sort of screwing yourself out of the exploding die that way, aren't you?


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 13, 2009)

Thanee, the slight disassociation between skills and abilities is intentional - a high Agility makes it easier to quickly increase fighting, but it's still possible to build a perfectly competant character who uses a few Agility skills without actually training up Agility that high.

By more tightly coupling abilities to skills, you're unnecessarily restricting the available "character space" and substantially messing with some of the Legendary tier Edges that give you the ability to do some of the things.

Also, initiative is many things, but a crap shoot it's not - Quick, Level Headed, Improved Level Headed, and a power I'm forgetting at the moment can substantially alter your fortunes. Initiative is just random enough to keep players on their toes and excited about the next round being dealt. 

For those reading the thread who haven't played SW yet, the take-home message is this: SW works great as written, and doesn't require extensive house ruling. Really! 

When I first saw the system I immediately started thinking of house rules to "fix" things, but after playing the game for the better part of a year, I see that it's a fairly robust design that doesn't really need house rules unless you want something genre-specific (high noon duels for a western, superhero strength to toss people, etc).


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 14, 2009)

Kunimatyu said:


> Thanee, the slight disassociation between skills and abilities is intentional - a high Agility makes it easier to quickly increase fighting, but it's still possible to build a perfectly competant character who uses a few Agility skills without actually training up Agility that high.




For example, the Knight in Shining Armor, the puts ability points into Strength and a little Vigor, takes the feats to both afford and be able to wear plate w/o encumbrance problems, and then ends up with Agility d4, but Ride and Fighting d10 each.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 14, 2009)

Particle_Man said:


> For example, the Knight in Shining Armor, the puts ability points into Strength and a little Vigor, takes the feats to both afford and be able to wear plate w/o encumbrance problems, and then ends up with Agility d4, but Ride and Fighting d10 each.




Ride d10 seems excessive (d6 to d8 is usually enough), but it's a perfectly viable concept. It gets iffy when you have 3+ agility skills, but it's otherwise fine.

Strength really should not be underestimated due to its connection with encumbrance, weapon dice, and ranged weapons.

Your weapon die cannot exceed your Strength dice, so if you try to use a greatsword as a Str d4 character, you'll be rocking the d4+d4, same as a dagger 

Furthermore, because ranged weapons have Str minimums, a Str d4 guy can't use a bow effectively, as it requires a d6 Strength.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 14, 2009)

Kunimatyu said:


> Ride d10 seems excessive (d6 to d8 is usually enough), but it's a perfectly viable concept. It gets iffy when you have 3+ agility skills, but it's otherwise fine.




I was thinking of the rule that a mounted combatant using the *lower* of Fighting and Meelee when using a meelee weapon.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 14, 2009)

Qualidar said:


> You're sort of screwing yourself out of the exploding die that way, aren't you?




Yes and no. The average of a higher die is still higher, even with a lower chance to explode.




Kunimatyu said:


> Thanee, the slight disassociation between skills and abilities is intentional - a high Agility makes it easier to quickly increase fighting, but it's still possible to build a perfectly competant character who uses a few Agility skills without actually training up Agility that high.




Yes, I'm aware that it is intentional, but that doesn't mean, that it is what everyone wants. 

I, for example, do not want someone with a low Agility to be as competent a fighter as someone with a high Agility. You still can become a good fighter, just not _that_ good. That requires talent as well as training. Not just one of the two.

Also I want someone with a high Agility to be good at anything, that works off Agility, even without extensive training. This is not covered at all by the basic rules.



> For those reading the thread who haven't played SW yet, the take-home message is this: SW works great as written, and doesn't require extensive house ruling. Really!




I agree with that, definitely. You do not _need_ house rules for the system to work (and I don't think I said that anywhere, either).

It's just that I like some things better, when they work a little different. 



> By more tightly coupling abilities to skills, you're unnecessarily restricting the available "character space" and substantially messing with some of the Legendary tier Edges that give you the ability to do some of the things.




Yes, it does restrict some "concepts" (but also opens up others, so in the end, there is not restriction of available "character space"; at least not really), and that is fully intentional.



> When I first saw the system I immediately started thinking of house rules to "fix" things, but after playing the game for the better part of a year, I see that it's a fairly robust design that doesn't really need house rules unless you want something genre-specific (high noon duels for a western, superhero strength to toss people, etc).




...or just a slightly different feel.



Particle_Man said:


> For example, the Knight in Shining Armor, the puts ability points into Strength and a little Vigor, takes the feats to both afford and be able to wear plate w/o encumbrance problems, and then ends up with Agility d4, but Ride and Fighting d10 each.




Yep, for example, such a character should not be able to compete (on the same high level; he certainly would be able to compete in total) with a lightly-armored fighter with Agility d8 and Fighting d10. He trades one advantage (better protection) for another (weaker maneuverability, which also affects fighting).


Anyways... to repeat: I'm not saying the system does not work without such changes, but that I like the system better the way it works with such changes. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Qualidar (Jul 14, 2009)

Thanee said:


> Yes and no. The average of a higher die is still higher, even with a lower chance to explode.




Even when you factor in that they can continue to explode?


----------



## Thanee (Jul 14, 2009)

Yep.

For example, a d10 has an average of 5.5 and a 10% chance to explode, which results in another d10 to be added to the total, and another 10% of 10% chance to explode, and so on (an infinite series).

So the actual average is 5.5 + 10% x 5.5 + 1% x 5.5 + 0.1% x 5.5 + ...

In total...

5.5 + 0.55 = 6.05 + 0.055 = 6.105 + 0.0055 = 6.1105 + ...

As you can see here already, the series will result in 6.11...1105 (with an infinite number of 1s where those '...' are).

So for practical purposes, the actual average of the d10 with exploding is below 6.12 (much closer to 6.11 already).

The average of a d12 is 6.5; so even without exploding, that is more than the d10 with exploding.


It's the same for the other dice.

d4 -> average 2.5

2.5 + 25% x 2.5 + 25% x 25% x 2.5 + ...

2.5 + 0.625 = 3.125 + 0.15625 = 3.28125 + 0.0390625 = 3.3203125 + 0.009765625 = 3.330078125 + ...

As you see, when looking at the intermediate sums (after the '='), the amount added to the total (which represents the added total of continuously rolling 4s, which just becomes highly improbable eventually, and thus only adds a very small amount to the actual average) gets smaller and smaller and eventually becomes so insignificant, that the running total doesn't really get any bigger (practically).

A d6 without exploding already has an average of 3.5, and with exploding it will be above 4, the d4 never reaches that (not even the 3.5 in fact).


The thing that is a bit misleading, the fact that a d4 has a much higher chance to explode (25%) as opposed to a d10 (10%), just to look at a more extreme example, is counteracted by multiplying it with the smaller average (2.5 as opposed to 5.5). The actual amount added isn't _that_ different for any dice type (0.625 for the d4 in the first step as opposed to 0.55 for the d10, for example, so the actual change (since both dice types get the exploding 'bonus') is in the vincinity of ~0.1 between those... even fewer, when you actually look at the difference between d4 and d6, or d6 and d8, etc).

The full 1-point-shift in average (2.5 > 3.5 > 4.5 > 5.5 > 6.5) for going to the next higher dice type is always a much bigger change.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 14, 2009)

Good catch on the Riding, Particle_Man.

Thanee's right with the math - higher dice are better, even if Acing goes down a little bit.

I'm still not on board with those House Rules - I don't want Agility to directly help Fighting, for example, but that's why they're house rules and not core rules. 

I particularly like the Tricks and Tests of Will (Taunt, Intimidate) in the system - it's very refreshing to have stunts and psychology mechanically integrated into combat, instead of as a minor add-on.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 15, 2009)

Kunimatyu said:


> I'm still not on board with those House Rules...




You absolutely do not need to either. 

But someone might have the same likes and dislikes, which is mostly why I posted it. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Qualidar (Jul 15, 2009)

Thanee said:


> Yep....(math stuff)




Eeek! You've sold me.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 15, 2009)

If we are talking house rules a few of my favourites:

1) For easy and fast advancement, everyone gets 5 xp just for showing up for a session, but bennies don't turn into xp.

2) If a player doesn't want to make a character, just give him Mr. d6.  He has a d6 in all stats.  Mr. d6 is still a wild card (so gets a wild die, and can take 3 wounds).  He collects xp but can't spend it until he actually makes his character.  He has no hindrances or edges at chargen but can get them when he actually makes his character.  You wouldn't believe how far some of my casual players can go just using Mr. d6.

3) If you don't remember to give out bennies, just have a player remind you to give a benny to all players for every hour (or whatever interval you like) of play.  Believe me, they will remind you.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 15, 2009)

Particle_Man said:


> 1) ...but bennies don't turn into xp.




Yeah, that's something I also do. I really dislike the thought of bennies being turned into xp, because that leads to benny-hoarding, and that is pretty much the opposite of what they are for.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Qualidar (Jul 15, 2009)

Thanee said:


> Yeah, that's something I also do. I really dislike the thought of bennies being turned into xp, because that leads to benny-hoarding, and that is pretty much the opposite of what they are for.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




I thought they got rid of that in the latest edition of the rules anyway. No?


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 15, 2009)

I think so, but there are older liscenced games that still had it. 

Oh, another option I heard of.  Saved bennies don't turn into xp but spent bennies do.


----------



## oldboy (Jul 15, 2009)

I just had a quick question about SW. I've been reading the books, but have yet to actually play it.

Me and my group play D&D since it's the only thing we're familiar with. But I'm curious about Savage Worlds as a Sword and Sorcery style system. Something with the feel and flavor of Leiber's Lankhmar. Plus, I love the idea of a rules light system with dangerous combat that emphasizes cunning over stats. Would SW be a good system to use for this?


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 15, 2009)

Savage Worlds in fact perfect for that, and handles "cinematic" combat far better than its d20 counterparts. 

I'm running a swords-and-sorcery world in a prehistoric setting heavily flavored by the Cthulhu Mythos, and it's a ton of fun. We've decided that due to the time period, it's a little more like "club and sorcery", though.

The only thing I recommend is that you think about the flavor of your magic system before starting,  tweak the Arcane Backgrounds appropriately, and make sure your players add trappings to their powers.

Savage Worlds' magic system is incredibly flexible, but it's designed to be slightly modified for the campaign setting and the caster (a fire mage versus a psychic government assassin, for instance).


----------



## oldboy (Jul 15, 2009)

I'm all about extremes with magic. I love the low magic style with it being dangerous and misunderstood. I was hoping to include something similar to WFRP's Tzeentch's Curse to emulate the deformities caused by black magic in Leiber's world. However, I also love Eberron-esque magic as technology in some of my campaigns. So I'm glad to hear the system can cover both.  Are there any good supplements that deal with different types of magic systems in SW?


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 15, 2009)

oldboy said:


> I'm all about extremes with magic. I love the low magic style with it being dangerous and misunderstood. I was hoping to include something similar to WFRP's Tzeentch's Curse to emulate the deformities caused by black magic in Leiber's world. However, I also love Eberron-esque magic as technology in some of my campaigns. So I'm glad to hear the system can cover both.  Are there any good supplements that deal with different types of magic systems in SW?




The basic rules cover sorcery and magic-as-tech, no supplements needed.

The about-to-be-released Fantasy Companion discusses alternate magic systems and adds new Powers and Trappings.

The core rules don't have anything like the curse, but it would be very easy to port it over to Savage Worlds. Most magic types have Something Bad Happen when you roll a one on your spellcasting die - yours could be the curse?


----------



## GlassJaw (Jul 15, 2009)

Kunimatyu said:


> I'm running a swords-and-sorcery world in a prehistoric setting heavily flavored by the Cthulhu Mythos, and it's a ton of fun. We've decided that due to the time period, it's a little more like "club and sorcery", though.




Not to derail the thread too much, but that sounds _wicked _cool.  I like your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.  

Can you give a quick overview of the world and how you've tweaked the SW magic system?


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 15, 2009)

GlassJaw said:


> Not to derail the thread too much, but that sounds _wicked _cool.  I like your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
> 
> Can you give a quick overview of the world and how you've tweaked the SW magic system?




Sure - if you want more than this, I'll fork the thread.

*The World*: The Old Ones rule over primitive humanity. There are rare Bronze Age weapons (usually connected to one of the Old Ones) but most of humanity lives in squalor -- mud huts, clubs, and primitive magics rule the day.

*Geography*: two big super-continents - the western one has "civilization" and lots of politicking around sites where the Old Ones live. The eastern continent is mostly wilderness with pockets of civilization (often nonhuman and hostile). My game is set in the eastern lands.

*Type of game:* West Marches - players earn XP by bringing treasure back to civilization (and then spending it on alcohol and loose women until they run out and have to go adventuring again). Players can also earn XP by killing big lumbering monsters and bringing a trophy back to civilization.

*The creatures*: total prehistoric mashup, because dinosaurs+cavemen is fun. Lots of horrific Lovecraftian things lurking in the shadows too, and because Fear/Shaken is an integral part of Savage Worlds combat, fighting elder things feels very different from going toe to toe with a dinosaur.

*The magic system*: Surprisingly little modification - basic magic in Savage Worlds leaves you Shaken if you botch the casting, which is already a nice match with the setting. PC mages can find new Trappings for powers via books and artifacts, and occasionally they can learn simple powers like Detect/Conceal Arcana without needing to spend Edges.

No divine magic exists in a PC-playable form, though if you want to bargain for favors(like beneficial mutations) with the priests of Shub, have fun...

Mad Scientist gadgets *do* actually exist, but so far the players haven't looted a Mi-Go laboratory, so it's off limits for now. The psionic background is also completely okay, but none of my players have really been into it yet.

All in all, it was incredibly easy to use Savage Worlds with this setting, and the game is going great so far!

Back to the main discussion!


----------



## oldboy (Jul 16, 2009)

I was reading about the initiative systems in SW just earlier and was a bit put off by the card based system, Does it actually play out really well? It seems like extra work and a little too random?


----------



## Sen Udo-Mal (Jul 16, 2009)

Qualidar said:


> I thought they got rid of that in the latest edition of the rules anyway. No?




It is in the Explorer Edition (at least it is in mine).

My houserule for the game that we are in right now... each game session I give out 2 xp, plus everyone gets to roll for the Bennies *spent*. I don't understand the idea of a 'pulply-fast-paced' game, where you save your 'luck points'???


----------



## Sen Udo-Mal (Jul 16, 2009)

oldboy said:


> I was reading about the initiative systems in SW just earlier and was a bit put off by the card based system, Does it actually play out really well? It seems like extra work and a little too random?




Yea I am running a Savage World game right now (session 18 last week), and yea we use Cards. It is one thing I am kind of shaky on and have never really loved. I hated it back in Deadlands, but I just really have not seen or figured out anything better. Its not terrible, as everyone sees and knows when they are going in the round...


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 16, 2009)

oldboy said:


> I was reading about the initiative systems in SW just earlier and was a bit put off by the card based system, Does it actually play out really well? It seems like extra work and a little too random?




I had similar thoughts when I first started, but I like the system quite a lot now. I do recommend assigning a player the "card monkey" job of dealing everyone's initiative, but it actually works quite well, and the randomness it adds to combat keeps players interested.

The Joker(s) can come up at any time, and initiative order varies widely, so players always pay attention, rather than just sitting there until someone says "you're up"


----------



## oldboy (Jul 16, 2009)

I really got to thank you, Kunimatyu. I'm plowing through the SW book. I've never enjoyed reading all the rules for a system so much.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 16, 2009)

I actually wasn't a big fan of reading Savage Worlds, at least the first time, probably because it's so condensed.  

IMO, it's a game that needs to be played in order for things to "click". When I ran my first combat (ninjas vs pirates!) it just felt like d20 with different dice. Then a pirate used an Agility Trick to cut some rigging and entangle a ninja, and things started to click.

Shaken, Tests of Will, Tricks, and Called Shots are all key components of the system, in my opinion - once you start using them, the game will start to feel much more distinct from d20.


----------



## oldboy (Jul 16, 2009)

For me just reading it showed me how different it was. My mind was already flooding with campaign/combat/npc ideas, and I know my players are going to be overjoyed with the condensed rules.

I really love to spend time on the nitty gritty of world building details, so not having to worry about crunch nearly as much is a huge burden off my back.


----------



## Sadrik (Jul 16, 2009)

oldboy said:


> I was reading about the initiative systems in SW just earlier and was a bit put off by the card based system, Does it actually play out really well? It seems like extra work and a little too random?




It was one of the things that some of my new players really liked. They liked that they had a visual representation sitting right in front of them on when they go. No whose next and they can just look at the table and tell who going next and so on.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 17, 2009)

Sadrik said:


> It was one of the things that some of my new players really liked. They liked that they had a visual representation sitting right in front of them on when they go. No whose next and they can just look at the table and tell who going next and so on.




That's an interesting point. With most initiative systems, the GM keeps track of it, so players often don't know exactly when they're about to go, but having playing cards on the table makes it obvious.

The other nice thing is that everyone's looking for that Joker, so initiative can be quite suspenseful at times.


----------



## scourger (Jul 17, 2009)

oldboy said:


> I was reading about the initiative systems in SW just earlier and was a bit put off by the card based system, Does it actually play out really well? It seems like extra work and a little too random?




I love it.  Much easier for me to track as a GM.  I may port it over to several other games.  It feels more dynamic, too.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Jul 17, 2009)

I have to say that the initiative system is perhaps one of, if not the, biggest reasons I don't try Savage Worlds.  I play exclusively online, and have no idea how to convert it.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jul 17, 2009)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> I have to say that the initiative system is perhaps one of, if not the, biggest reasons I don't try Savage Worlds.  I play exclusively online, and have no idea how to convert it.



1d54, with 53 and 54 being jokers.
Alternatively, there are a few electronic card drawers out there.  One or two of them may even work via chat programs, or whatever medium you use.

Finally, you could simply have everyone make Agility rolls at the beginning of each combat round; ties go to the better Agility.  Slower, but keeps some of the randomness.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 17, 2009)

Yep, online dice roller for the card draw would be an option (just order them from slowest = 1 to fastest = 54, and you can just use the numbers for your initiative order).

I would probably just grab the dice for Agility and Smarts, throw them together, ace if able, and then sum everything up.

Highest result goes first.

If you ace on both initial dice, you get the "+2 joker bonus", but you do not automatically go first.

I think that should work pretty well, even though it's a bit different to the card draw method.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## coyote6 (Jul 18, 2009)

Note that requiring double aces on the intial rolls makes dumb clumsy people more likely to get that effect, which is both different from the original system, and kind of weird.  

d4+d4 = double ace 1 in 16; d6+d6 = 1 in 36; d8+d8 = 1 in 64. Drawing from a deck of 54, you've got a 1-in-27 chance, so smart and/or agile people have a lower than normal chance, too.

You might just have everyone roll d6+d4; then they have the same odds to double ace, and the odds are only a little higher than the normal system.

In any case, you'd probably want to come up with some alternatives for the edges that let you draw extra cards. Maybe extra dice, and take the best two. That'll do even weirder things to the odds of getting the joker effect, though.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 18, 2009)

If you hop over to Welcome to Pinnacle's Weird Website! and their forums, I believe you'll find a few alternate initiative modes for those so inclined.

I've made few house rules with Savage Worlds, which is a welcome change from the usual for me


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jul 18, 2009)

Thanee, I've been wondering about your Wild Die house rule.  What do you guys do for Ability rolls?  Double Ability dice?  d6 Wild Die?  Something else?

Thanks for the answer.


----------



## Eisenhiem (Jul 21, 2009)

Wow. The real world distracts me for a few days and I return to find that the post has clearly not been forgotten. Ha.

I'm really enjoying all the banter on the topic. 

So. I've settled on my first campaign being a low-magic fantasy sort of world, perhaps using the magic system from the Solomon Kane series to represent that sort of ..darker more insidious magic rather than "GLOMP! FIREBALL!"

I havent picked up the Shaintar ..or..whatever it's called.. book yet.. though I certainly need to. One thing I have noticed, just flipping through the core rules (I have the explorer's guide now) is that they don't seem too condusive to building different "Archetypal" characters. I also remember reading somewhere someone's comment that the system isn't great for creating "classic classes" in characters (Fighter, Ranger, etc etc as archetypes.) Has anyone had any experience with this, opinions on it or work-arounds they've homebrewed, etc?

*Also - given the more.. minimalist approach to weapon stats that I've seen so far.. any suggestions if one were to incorporate more weapon variety into it? One thing I do miss is in games like The Riddle of Steel and other more period researched works (Like the excellent Codex Martialis for d20) how many different weapons there are that all have different advantages, disadvantages, and purposes. I don't necessarily want to over-complicated the beautiful simplicity the game has to bother.. but it would be nice if a norse-pattern broadsword and a scimitar have different qualities, given how different the two weapons actually were. 

Look forward to hearing from you!


----------



## coyote6 (Jul 21, 2009)

I'm not a big SW maven, but it doesn't seem to me like there's a lot of mechanical space to differentiate amongst weapons like scimitar vs. broadsword vs. falchion vs. khopesh vs. ... 

Maybe there's stuff in one or more of the toolkits or Companions, though.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 21, 2009)

I'll disagree with you on the ease of making archetype characters. The Profession edges go a long way towards giving you that feeling, as they basically reward you with a "class ability"-esque thing if you build part of your character one way.

Certain character types are *far* easier to build as archetypes: if you take the Elderly Hindrance it's far, far easier to start with the very useful Wizard professional edge.

As to the weapons, well...  Hammers, axes, flails, swords, and staves are all very different from each other already, but I think it's a little much to ask for more sword differentiation than short/long/bastard/lightsaber. Remember that they're covering a lot of genres and time periods in the basic core rules.

The soon-to-be-released Fantasy Companion will be adding more weapons useful in a fantasy setting, though.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jul 21, 2009)

coyote6 said:


> I'm not a big SW maven, but it doesn't seem to me like there's a lot of mechanical space to differentiate amongst weapons like scimitar vs. broadsword vs. falchion vs. khopesh vs. ...



Actually, between parry bonuses and penalties, die size, armor penetration (including limiting it to certain forms of armor or use), the ability to mitigate or exacerbate shields, and some other features I'm blanking on, I'd say SW has more differentiation room than 3.X ever did.

Examples:
Broadsword: 1d8.
Rapier: 1d4, +1 Parry, AP 1 vs flexible armors (leather or chain).
Kopesh: 1d6, Ignore up to 2 points of shield parry.
Scimitar: 1d6, AP 2 while mounted (or similar leverage).
Flachion: 1d8+2, -1 Parry, 2-hands.
Katana: 1d6+2, AP 2. <- Super-awesome sword.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 21, 2009)

Impressive, VGH!

Quick question for you - do you still play True20? I abandoned True20 for Savage Worlds, which is why I don't post on the t20 forum anymore.

I enjoyed True20 as baby steps away from a d20 system, but it just seems like SW has just as much flexibility without as much baggage and design time(ie. SW monsters are way faster to genereate than t20 ones)


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jul 21, 2009)

Thanks, Kunimatyu.

Mostly, I play Mutants & Masterminds at this time.  I'm also in an original Deadlands: Hell on Earth campaign.  Gamers generally end up playing what the people we play with are willing to play.

Savage Worlds, D&D 4E, and a number of other systems have the right idea when it comes to designing opponents.  Give them what they should have, no more and no less, and set them upon your players.  With some decent guidelines, or a fair amount of experience, it's easy to get an idea of just how challenging a given foe will probably be.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 21, 2009)

I agree with your comments re: opponents, VGH.

Oftentimes, my SW monsters look like a hybrid of 4e and SW - they have the easy statting of SW, with 1-2 signature abilities, sometimes with recharges.

Converting from the 4e MMs to SW is quite simple, I find, as long as one remembers that you're converting from a level-based system to one with a more flattened power curve.


----------



## Sadrik (Jul 21, 2009)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> I have to say that the initiative system is perhaps one of, if not the, biggest reasons I don't try Savage Worlds.  I play exclusively online, and have no idea how to convert it.




Um no need to... It is already done.

The Savage Worlds Online Community


----------



## Sadrik (Jul 21, 2009)

coyote6 said:


> I'm not a big SW maven, but it doesn't seem to me like there's a lot of mechanical space to differentiate amongst weapons like scimitar vs. broadsword vs. falchion vs. khopesh vs. ...
> 
> Maybe there's stuff in one or more of the toolkits or Companions, though.




I think you will not be happy with the SW rules if you are too concerned about the weapons and their individualness within the rules. 
By the rules:
A long sword is synonymous with a scimitar broad sword would be too (note this last weapon type is not even included in the last two versions of D&D)
the falchion would be a great sword and a khopesh could be like a flail (in fact it looks like flail is misplaced under blade sue to the fact it was a khopesh before...).

So if you are looking for distinctive mechanics for every nuance of weapon this is not the game you are looking for but if you want every weapon you could ever consider and you don't mind putting the mechanics to other weapons (ala a katana is a bastard sword in 3e) then this is the game for you.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 22, 2009)

ValhallaGH said:


> Thanee, I've been wondering about your Wild Die house rule.  What do you guys do for Ability rolls?  Double Ability dice?  d6 Wild Die?  Something else?




Standard d6 Wild die for ability rolls. The house rule is only for skill rolls.


@coyote6: Yeah, the double acing would be a bit weird, true. Not necessarily bad, though. Those would need the luck more, most likely. 

The "dice rolling" variant wasn't meant to perfectly emulate the existing method. That would be achieved by the d54 method (ties would have to be rolled again, of course, since you cannot "draw" the same card multiple times ).

Bye
Thanee


----------



## ragboy (Jul 22, 2009)

SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> I have to say that the initiative system is perhaps one of, if not the, biggest reasons I don't try Savage Worlds.  I play exclusively online, and have no idea how to convert it.





Blam! 

Savage World's Card Dealer

Also, Odds and Evens dice roller has a Savage Worlds option with card deck: 

--unfortunately, doesn't look like Odds and Evens is still out there. Great dice roller if you can find it.


----------



## Mythtify (Jul 22, 2009)

Savage Worlds is porbaly my favorite system.  The core rules cover just about all that you need.  That said, the extra books that Pinnacle has are fantastic.  The tool kit series for fantasy, sci-fi, horror, and pulp are fairly cheap- as they should be being pdfs- and they add a lot of depth to the system.

The "adventure deck" supplement made me very nervous, as they give the players the ability to manipulate the game in ways that the gm may not be ready for.  In play, it is awsome, and really challenges me as a Gm.

The system has picked up many good licensees in the past year or so.
For those that say are disapointed with the way that the base game does super powers, Daring Entertainment (Daring Entertainment) has a fantastic game "Dawn of Legends" that has a supers system that is rich and detailed.  They have done a lot or stuff for M&M, by the way.

Pinnacle also has a licensed Save Worlds version of Space 1889 coming out later this year. Welcome to Pinnacle's Weird Website!
Ya gotta love that!


----------



## Kunimatyu (Jul 23, 2009)

Space 1889 Savage Worlds-style will be awesome.

The basic, fundamental draw to the system is that you can run your cool and wacky homebrew campaign world with little to no fuss, rather than trying to shoehorn D&D/d20 into a job it wasn't meant to do.

Pirates, Westerns, James Bond-style secret agents, Mad Max, steampunk, Aliens, the list goes on...


----------



## Sadrik (Jul 23, 2009)

SW by far is my favorite system as well. I am going to be running S1 Tomb of Horrors, I also have a modern ops style game, I also am playing in a sundered skies game and I have been converting my fantasy setting to the rules. Not to even mention the myriad of one-shot games on their website that I have printed out and ran with the pregens an hour before game night. I simply cannot say enough.


----------



## oldboy (Jul 24, 2009)

Alright, so I've warmed up to the card based initiative system, but I get the feeling I'm doing it wrong and the book feels a little vague. Do cards get dealt out each round? So players/npcs are going in a different order every round? Or do you get one card for the entire encounter? The former, while random, actually sounds really cool, since a player could get a lucky draw and essentially get two turns in a row by being the last on the first round, and first on the second round.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jul 24, 2009)

oldboy said:


> Alright, so I've warmed up to the card based initiative system, but I get the feeling I'm doing it wrong and the book feels a little vague. Do cards get dealt out each round? So players/npcs are going in a different order every round? Or do you get one card for the entire encounter? The former, while random, actually sounds really cool, since a player could get a lucky draw and essentially get two turns in a row by being the last on the first round, and first on the second round.



Cards are dealt each round.  When the card is actually used, as opposed to being held, it is put into the discard pile.  When you run out of cards, or are about to, reshuffle the deck.


----------



## Mythtify (Jul 24, 2009)

ValhallaGH said:


> Cards are dealt each round. When the card is actually used, as opposed to being held, it is put into the discard pile. When you run out of cards, or are about to, reshuffle the deck.




Actualy you shuffle the deck at the end of any round in which a joker has been played.


----------



## Princesskeyblade (Jul 24, 2009)

oldboy said:


> I was reading about the initiative systems in SW just earlier and was a bit put off by the card based system, Does it actually play out really well? It seems like extra work and a little too random?




I love it! This is one of the mechanics that I think works really well!!! I know what everyone is going on and it excites my players to get a Joker.



Mythtify said:


> Savage Worlds is porbaly my favorite system.  The core rules cover just about all that you need.  That said, the extra books that Pinnacle has are fantastic.




The pirates suplement is awesome and I had a blast running the adventure in the back!



> The "adventure deck" supplement made me very nervous, as they give the players the ability to manipulate the game in ways that the gm may not be ready for.  In play, it is awsome, and really challenges me as a Gm.




It is really great and quite the challenge!

Last year I was using them at a convention and the player used it so that the zombie daughter of one of the NPC's ate the father so that they could have the treasure all to themselves. The card turned all my damage on the attack into d20's and we kept aceing. We did something like 105 points of damage.  





oldboy said:


> Alright, so I've warmed up to the card based initiative system, but I get the feeling I'm doing it wrong and the book feels a little vague. Do cards get dealt out each round? So players/npcs are going in a different order every round? Or do you get one card for the entire encounter? The former, while random, actually sounds really cool, since a player could get a lucky draw and essentially get two turns in a row by being the last on the first round, and first on the second round.





The cards should get handed out every round. I love the "luck of the draw" feel it has. The players and NPCs go different times each round. I pull a card for the minor NPC's and a card for each major one, and that works incredibly well for me.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 18, 2010)

We are considering to run a Savage Worlds online game. The suggestions for handling cards are ao good start, and I like Thanee's "Wild Card Skill" house rule, too.

We would be switching from a d20 Modern game. There is nothing wrong with the d20 Modern Skill System, I think, but the combat system is ultimately very dull (or high-feat intensive). 

Savage Worlds seems to have the advantage of being fast paces, but it doesn't seem to me as if there was much ... "tactics"/"Resource Management" to it, either. (Beyond figuring out how to stunt to open an enemy up for a nasty weapon attack, and the usual "take cover".) Or are Bennies enough to change this?


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jan 18, 2010)

Tactically, Savage Worlds in a modern setting has base combat rules plus: 
Double-Tap and 3-Round-Burst to change up your basic attacks.
Automatic fire to try and either hose down one guy or Suppress an area.
Clever use of grenades, ally mooks, and any other supporting equipment you allow; this provides a lot of flanking, area attack, and potentially morale destroying options for the players to utilize against their foes.
Resource-management is a great deal sparser, amounting to Allies, Ammo, and Bennies.  If you've allowed powers, and someone is using them, then that player also has to manage their power points.

Good luck.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 18, 2010)

ValhallaGH said:


> Tactically, Savage Worlds in a modern setting has base combat rules plus:
> Double-Tap and 3-Round-Burst to change up your basic attacks.
> Automatic fire to try and either hose down one guy or Suppress an area.
> Clever use of grenades, ally mooks, and any other supporting equipment you allow; this provides a lot of flanking, area attack, and potentially morale destroying options for the players to utilize against their foes.
> ...



Seems pretty much the same as d20 Modern, to be honest. With a little more "teamwork" aspect thanks to the morale/trick/stunt options... 

Hmm.


----------



## ValhallaGH (Jan 18, 2010)

Well, you always have the option of adding more rules to provide more options and management.  The downside is that this usually (but not always) increases the resolution and decision-making times by an order of magnitude.

How the characters interact with the environment (especially environments as interactive as the video-game-staple exploding barrels, but more creativity is encouraged) can *massively* alter how an encounter goes.  I once ran a gunfight, and one of my players decided to hop in her car and run fools over; it was cool and memorable, and altered the tactical goals of the other PCs (scare the guys out of cover so that Yoko can get at 'em).

The problem is that while real life has dozens of tactical choices which can matter a lot, most of them get lost in the translation to table-top.  This then leaves the basics of fire and maneuver.  The one advantage SW has over d20 Modern in this arena is that it only takes a couple of shots to put down most targets, and everyone fears the frag grenade;  this speeds up the actual encounter, makes real-world tactics more valid, and keeps a dangerous feel for all characters involved.


----------

