Savage Worlds: Question for Ari

[amerigoV]

... Then you're playing in one weird setting. When I go out on a street and actually look around I see trash, cars, signs, plants, clothes, bystanders, windows, streetlights, and dozens of other things to interact with.

...

Interesting, simple to run, and zero house rules required. Just a touch of imagination and a willingness to work as a team, instead of each player trying to win the entire fight on their turn.

I wholehearted agree. When playing Savage Worlds, keep in mind advice from some green guy:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDezrybpuO8]YouTube - You must unlearn what you have learned[/ame]

 

[TheClone]

... Then you're playing in one weird setting. When I go out on a street and actually look around I see trash, cars, signs, plants, clothes, bystanders, windows, streetlights, and dozens of other things to interact with.
GM: "This guy takes cover behind the Escalade."
Player: "I shoot out the street light, raining broken glass and sparks on him."
GM: "Cool. Roll an Agility trick at no penalty, or a Shooting trick at -2. .... You've got it.
"Okay, the guy curses as the glass rains upon him and a big fat spark jumps from the lamp to the top of the SUV. He stumbles out into the open."
Player: "Awesome. Shoot him, Doug, before he gets to dive back into cover. I'll do the same thing to the other guys on my next turn."
GM: "You can try, but they've seen it now. You'll take a cumulative -1 to that trick for the rest of this fight."

Interesting, simple to run, and zero house rules required. Just a touch of imagination and a willingness to work as a team, instead of each player trying to win the entire fight on their turn.

It's more modern. Post-apocalypse. In the city this will work. Outside cities, nope. Because plants have died down in the nuclear war.

But my players wouldn't do this much anyway. If the guy to hit is behind cover it's -2. Same as doing the trick with the gun. And with the gun I have a fair chance to damage him. Talking mainly about the non-wildcards, he'd be dead by now. But the Agility-thing might work. At least two times. Then the -2 will let them shoot again.

Don't get me wrong. I like your idea. It's creative and fun. But I don't see my players using them that much, because it is less effective than simply shooting the guy dead. They know the tricks and stuff, but they don't like them for being too much ineffective. Maybe there's too much +2/-2 everywhere that negate each other. I guess multiaction would be cool. You let him stumble out of cover wit ha cool trick and them shoot him down. But tricks grant +2 and multiaction -2 in the shooting roll. It just makes no difference, if you succeed in tricking. If not, it just makes everything worse.

 

[TheNovaLord]

you can do various things to put baddies on the back foot, as well as tricks, there various taunt, persuade, etc

i imagine a game where folks just go toe to toe with fight/shoot checks is dull...but the same applies to most rpgs

not a great fan of (near) modern, and the dullest SW i ever played was a P.A. / Zombie infestation...where every shot had to be a head shot to take a zombie down

If you dont put stuff into it, you wont get good stuff out of it.

 

[ValhallaGH]

But I don't see my players using them that much, because it is less effective than simply shooting the guy dead. They know the tricks and stuff, but they don't like them for being too much ineffective. Maybe there's too much +2/-2 everywhere that negate each other. I guess multiaction would be cool. You let him stumble out of cover wit ha cool trick and them shoot him down. But tricks grant +2 and multiaction -2 in the shooting roll. It just makes no difference, if you succeed in tricking. If not, it just makes everything worse.

Right, each one of them is trying to win the entire encounter on his turn, every turn. That's boring, dull to watch and to play, and cheapens every game system I've ever seen. So, you'll run into the same problem no matter what rules you use.
Also, it encourages the GM to make his baddies equally "efficient", and pretty soon the PCs are just having to dodge frag grenades constantly, which is a losing game.

You can encourage them to use tricks. Throw a benny to the guy that spends his action setting stuff up for other people. Throw a benny to the guy that makes a cool suggestion. Throw a benny at players for being creative in how they try to solve the problem. Throw a benny at them for being realistic and running away from some fights.
One of the best post-apocalypse tricks I saw was one character screaming "Grenade out!" as he threw a rock into the gully the bad guys were hiding in. They freaked, dived out of the hole and were cut down with automatic fire. Swift, elegant, and it ended the encounter in two actions.

Tricks shouldn't be used constantly, and the same trick shouldn't be used more than twice in a given fight, but they are fun things that make combat a role playing experience rather than a chance to change up the party's loot. Which makes them valuable and something to encourage as much as possible.


Good luck.

 

[BluSponge]

It's more modern. Post-apocalypse. In the city this will work. Outside cities, nope. Because plants have died down in the nuclear war.

But my players wouldn't do this much anyway.

I laughed when I read this.

One of the problems I see happening as games get more "tactical" is that players start thinking only in terms of the tactics list. This constitutes everything and anything they can do. And if the bonuses aren't in their favor, well, than just swing/shoot at your opponent instead.

With the exception of wild attacks and aiming, I've found it much easier to just encourage the players to do whatever they want and leave it to me to translate those actions into game terms. I don't really want people trying to figure out how shooting a streetlight translates into a trick. Just figure out what you'd like to do and I'll tell you what bonuses/penalties you'll incur. In that sense, I think SW offers enough options to really reward folks for thinking outside the box. And when it doesn't, the modifiers are pretty easy to figure out.

(None of this means that players can't fall into the same tactics trap in SW, only that I - as a GM - don't encourage that style of play.)

(BTW, I laughed because you can have a robust game that gives a player every option in the world, but that doesn't do any good if the player refuses to use them. Not because theClone was doing anything wrong. )

Tom

 

[TheClone]

Not because theClone was doing anything wrong.

Thanks My players (and me often, too) are quite the tactical/gamist type of player. I find nothing wrong with that, but I found it difficult till now to present them real tactical challenges. Part of that is, that the math of SW is too easy. But I'll try your advice and see how far I get. But at least the players really enjoy the narrative challenges I present, so nobody will stay away from the game (it's figuring out how to get enough food and water for their bunker. They have to set up wholly new farm grounds in a contaminated world).

 

[BluSponge]

...I found it difficult till now to present them real tactical challenges. Part of that is, that the math of SW is too easy.

Let's talk about this a bit. How is SW math making it difficult for you to come up with tactical challenges. For that matter, where have your tactical challenges failed in the past? Granted, I'm no expert on the matter – I often find myself looking back on a session and seeing what mistakes I made and what I need to do next time (like, for instance, putting a group of players up against a single bad guy and then being surprised when he fails to pose much of a challenge – duh!). But sometimes its easy to work out from an objective stand point (as in, I can fix your game, just not my own. )

Tom

 

[TheClone]

The thing is, I want to them to think more. The basic things, they always get right. They, as I am, are pretty experienced in role playing. If they see a battle ahead (and they do metagame, so putting up a map catches their attention), they send the fighting guy to the front. One player is a mutant and has wings, so he mostly immediately starts flapping his wings and checks what's up ahead. The scientist stays behind and waits for something to show up to shoot at. But when the enemies show up, it's shooting, shooting, shooting. Occasionally the mutant shoots forth (he has a good speed, like 10 or so) and claws at someone. But there is not much puzzling out, like what to do next. It's getting in a position that combines free line of sight for the bullets and providing cover and shooting. No considering "Shall I take option 1 or options 2? Or option 3 combined with option 4 from my buddy might even better." So it's not that anybody complains about boring fights or so. Maybe it's complaining on a high level, but still I wanna get better, learn more about how to really challenge my players (and not only the characters).

The best example I can think of was in a one shot we played in between because of a missing player. Two characters (pilots) where fighting a group of Nazis in a small village. The characters had rifles, I think, or smgs and each a grenade. The opposition was made up of a group leader and 6 or so soldiers. They were armed with smgs and one mg42. The pcs initially hid behind the well, the Nazis behind the buildings and the gunner had a barrier of sandbags. We were a little in a hurry (concerning real time), but in fact in that fight, nobody moved around. The pcs used one grenade and one or two times a trick and thats it. Mostly it was shooting and not hitting because of cover. But that didn't drive them to using more tricks. And things like letting the npcs huddle together where out of question, because they're soldiers. They know how grenades work

P.S.: I know SW isn't really meant for heavy tactics and stuff. It's FFF! But I love the easiness of NPC creation and (improvised) rules and I too love heavy tactics (I guess the 4e DMG was the first to mention my player type: Thinker).

 

[ValhallaGH]

It sounds like you need to shake them out of their rut.
They see a battle ahead. Which side do they help? How do they decide? Do they just kill everyone? How do they deal with the consequences of actively killing a local hero / potential ally / favorite son?
They hunker down and randomly shoot it out. What about their goals (escape, rescue, protecting the local resistance, etc.)? What about enemy reinforcements? What about artillery fire? Why aren't more enemy troops showing up to get them, or at least have the MG keep pinning the characters down while a team or two move around to flaking positions and pick off the pilots with aimed fire?

Do the heroes care about innocent bystanders? Collateral damage? Should they care about these things?

While their initial reactions are fine, getting settled in is a Bad Thing if the other guy has any ability to move or call for help. Goals don't get accomplished, supplies get destroyed instead of captured, enemies flank you, you run out of ammo, artillery fire gets dropped on your position, and dozens of other awful, horrible, no good, very bad things happen to your character's fleshy bits.
Momentum is a major component of success, and hunkering down surrenders the momentum to your enemies. Cover is a wonderful, beautiful, fantastic thing that saves lives. It is a death trap if you don't learn when to leave it. Help your players learn this, by showing them how your baddies move and shoot, how they have one character trick a PC into a compromising position and then someone else hits him with a burst (3RB, +2 attack and damage).

Good luck.

 

[Connorsrpg]

I just downloaded the quick start rules whilst awaiting the books. We are going to play Deadlands. BUT I want to run a couple of 1-off intro sessions 1st.

I was going to try and convert the players' 4e PCs and start there, but having read this thread I may shy away from fantasy 1st up .

I am still interested to see how Ari's game is going.

@ The Clone: That whole hunker down where there is cover and shoot thing - well seeing war movies (and having heard a few stories...and watching Hitler...I mean History channel a bit) isn't that EXACTLY how such warfare is fought.

Maybe have Extras show the PCs the type of actions you want the Wild Cards doing. Have them take chances at trying to surround the WD's, make it obvious they are calling in support so the WD's will have to do something fast, or take the opposite approach - have the Nazis cease fire, hide and wait. Breaking the fight into a game of patience can be unnerving - especially when the WDs/PCs don't know what the enemy is up to. Just some ideas.

So can anyone recommend a SPECIFIC SW adventure (from their freebies) please