General RPG Rules DiscussionDiscuss the rules of any game except D&D or Pathfinder, such as Arcana Evolved, Mutants & Masterminds, Star Wars Saga, d20 Modern, and the like.
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?
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.
__________________ 28 days... six hours... 42 minutes... 12 seconds. That... is when the world... will end.
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).
__________________
Spoiler:
Quote:
Originally Posted by keteryck, on Iron Heroes
You are not your magic weapon and armor. You are not your spell buffs. You are not how much gold you have, or how many times you've been raised from the dead. When a Big Bad Demon snaps your sword in two, you do not cry because that was your holy avenger. You leap onto its back, climb up to its head, and punch it in the eye, then get a new damn sword off of the next humanoid you headbutt to death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeapThaumaturgist
"Home" is what you defend with your life ... from ninjas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stalker0
Minions are a convenience, a way to allow a dm to run many guys with little effort, and a chance for players to really strut their stuff. They are not so that Bobo the clown can kill the legion of the damned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane
Victory should come like the dawn, not like a light switch.
Spoiler:
Hate skill ranks? Try Sadrik's Fix.
Interested in Blood Throne? Find out more.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ValhallaGH
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.
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.
__________________ - Bob Huss
[H]e's dead and poisoned and possibly insane on another plane. It's a very stylish death, but a definitive one. - Piratecat
Last edited by coyote6; 29th June 2009 at 08:59 PM..
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.
__________________ 28 days... six hours... 42 minutes... 12 seconds. That... is when the world... will end.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyote6
...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.
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.
__________________ 28 days... six hours... 42 minutes... 12 seconds. That... is when the world... will end.
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.
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.
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.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ragboy
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:
Quote:
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. [...]
Character progression is constant and meaningful and doesn't take three different books of Powers and Stuff to accomplish. [...]
So, essentially, you're not gaming for more bonuses (stuff, powers, rule breakers),
... 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.
__________________ - Bob Huss
[H]e's dead and poisoned and possibly insane on another plane. It's a very stylish death, but a definitive one. - Piratecat
Last edited by coyote6; 30th June 2009 at 09:52 PM..
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.
__________________ - Bob Huss
[H]e's dead and poisoned and possibly insane on another plane. It's a very stylish death, but a definitive one. - Piratecat
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyote6
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.
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.
__________________ - Bob Huss
[H]e's dead and poisoned and possibly insane on another plane. It's a very stylish death, but a definitive one. - Piratecat
Location: the bustling metro that is...East Providence, RI
Posts: 3,883
[quote=Eisenhiem;4848484]
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.
Quote:
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.
Again, if you start a campaign like this, check out the Necropolis series of products. I think it would give you a great starting point for a 40k campaign.
I also highly recommend the Pinnacle forums. The people are very helpful and the authors post a lot. And if you want to run a modern horror campaign, check out the modules by 12 to Midnight. They are some of the best-written modules I've read from any system. The authors are also very helpful and also post on the Pinnacle forums.
__________________ TRAILBLAZER from Bad Axe Games out now!
New Horizons in 3.5 Roleplaying
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.
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...
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
__________________ "What are they playing over there? d20 Funny?" -- Erick, commenting on overly raucous table across the room at ConCarolinas 2006.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
