Savage Worlds

[BluSponge]

There are actually two company names: Great White and Pinnacle and they're both in use. Don't know why.

I believe it has something to do with the joint operation of Pinnacle and AEG a few years back. There is still some weird contractural stuff floating around from that. So in order to keep the profits from the game, Shane Hensley had to create SW under a different company (GWG) and then license it to Pinnacle for publication.

Or something like that.

Tom

 

[Karl Green]

I like it ok, but there are things I am not happy with it. Also it is not good for long term gaming as advancement is very limited

 

[Henry]

Now that said, lets clear a few things up. SW is NOT rules-lite. However, the mechanics are basic enough that they get out of your way when you get going. Best way to look at it is that the game is crunchy enough to satisfy players, but lite enough to make the GM's job a breeze. It is definitely paperwork-lite, however. Aside from tracking the PCs abilities, you shouldn't have to spend much time keeping track of anything else in-game.

It's as rules-light as Feng Shui, to me - that's pretty skim. As I said, it's no TWERPS. But then, rules-heavy to me is more like ADB's Star Fleet Battles, where it reads like a Government Legal Code.

 

[nsruf]

I picked up SW a while ago as I was looking for something lighter and faster than 3E. Last year, I ran a Conan campaign with it for about 20 sessions. It isn't finished, but since my players don't like the game very much, I doubt we'll complete it. As a GM, I liked SW a lot, though. It is fast, easy to use, handles almost everything with little tweaking required.

So what did my players not like? I should start by saying that I don't agree with any of these points, but here they are nevertheless:

1. SW is too "random", i.e. the with unlimited open-ended rolls yield unrealistic results

(this came up when an alert guard they were sneaking up on rolled a 32 on his notice check, so the stealthy PCs had no chance to get by him)

2. beginning characters are not competent enough

(after realizing they couldn't possible take all skills they wanted to during character creation)

3. combat is too deadly

(after the barbarian with 11 XP tried wrestling a bear and got mauled - I kid you not; the player abandoned his PC because the party didn't want to wait 10-15 days for him to heal)

Ok, they were spoiled by playing high-level D&D before that (3.5E from level 10 to 16 with lots of options allowed), but I still think they are a bunch of whiners BTW, I gave up running the D&D game because I hated the amount of prep-time it took.

Maybe C&C will be more to their taste...

 

[BluSponge]

I like it ok, but there are things I am not happy with it. Also it is not good for long term gaming as advancement is very limited

How do you mean?

 

[kengar]

Savage Worlds is all that and a bag of chips.

Time it took to switch my d20 group from 3e to SW?: One session. We haven't played d20 in 2 years. During that time, we've played almost exclusively fantasy. Or played a fantasy game along side another SW campaign.

nsruf: I've heard those kinds of comments before. They really don't make sense to me either. SW is far more realistic than d20. The aces (open-ended rolls) reflect an exceptionally good hit/shot, etc. A system like D&D, where a 20th level character can virtually ignore "lower level" opponents because there's no way for them to hurt him badly is ridiculous, IMNSHO.

Starting (Novice) Wild Card characters are more powerful than 1st level D&D characters (closer in power levels to 3rd).

"combat is too deadly" ?? It's COMBAT! Of course it's dangerous! But with 3 wounds v. 1 (mooks) and soak rolls, smart play will see you through as often as not.

The lack of advancement argument amuses me too. I've been running a cleric in a D&D style SW game for over a year now and he's just reached "Heroic." Which is still one level below the highest ranking of "Legendary." It will probably take me another 4-5 sessions to reach that, and that doesn't end his career. There are a host of Edges (advantages) which only become available at Legendary and there are always new skills, spells, and lower level edges to take or improve.

 

[mmadsen]

Shane's design goals (from The Making of Savage Worlds) impressed me:

But what Savage Worlds does do is exactly what I, as a player AND a Game Master, want.

Specifically:

As a Game Master:

1) I want a game that it's easy to make up monsters, NPCs, magic items, weapons, etc. on the fly. If I have to look up lots of charts and tables, add up points (as a GM, not a player), and so on, it's too complicated.

2) I want a game where "mooks" are either up, down, or off the table. I don't want to keep track of wounds for lesser NPCs--only important bad guys, villains, dragons, and so on.

3) I want a game that easily handles vehicles. The vehicle rules in many games require a PHD to decipher.

4) I want a game a non-gamer friend of mine can look at and understand *at a glance.* The basic rules for Savage Worlds can be described in one sentence.

5) I want a game that has a "spine" capable of gaming any genre, but allows me to insert special rules to tailor specific genres. Horror needs detailed fright tables, for instance, and a pulp heroes game needs to be less gritty and deadly than World War II.

7) As a GM, I want to roll *one* attack die for my bad guys to see if they hit, and I don't want to do any math to it. If three orcs gang up on a hero, I want to roll 3 dice, look for hits, and be done.

As a player I want:

1) I want a game that provides real depth for characters. I want to see my character grow, gain new special abilities, and even increase my skills and attributes.

2) I want a game that handles large battles fast. If my sergeant in World War II persuades the villagers to fight beside him, I want them on the table-top, not glossed over.

Update: After going round and round on this one a bit, what I was really after was reasonable speed--but more importantly--ease. I just don't want to do a lot of bookeeping during a fight.

3) I want my NPC allies to have names and at least a "personality" trait for each. If my Lt. in Vietnam needs to send someone to scout a hill, I want to know who's "Gung Ho," "Reliable," "Shifty," "Lazy," and so on.

4) I want a little control over the dice--like Fate Chips or bennies--so the hero I've been working on for a year doesn't drop dead because of one bad die roll. Two or three I can handle, but not one.

5) "Open ended die rolls." If I get lucky and roll that high number, I want to keep rolling and feel like I just conquered the world.

Does Savage Worlds do all that?

Keep Reading!​

 

[Aaron2]

3) I want a game that easily handles vehicles. The vehicle rules in many games require a PHD to decipher.

Unfortunately, the quickstart rules don't have any vehicle info. How do they work?

4) I want a game a non-gamer friend of mine can look at and understand *at a glance.* The basic rules for Savage Worlds can be described in one sentence.

Can you do this for SW? It would take a pretty long sentance just to describe all the wierd terminology used like "Raises", "Ace", "Wild Card", "Soak", and "Bennies".

7) As a GM, I want to roll *one* attack die for my bad guys to see if they hit, and I don't want to do any math to it. If three orcs gang up on a hero, I want to roll 3 dice, look for hits, and be done.

But with exploding dice you might end up needing more. Plus due to raises, the number of hits might all have different damage rolls despite them coming from identically equipped orcs.


Aaron

 

[scourger]

I was pretty excited about Deadlands Reloaded when it was announced. I got the Savage Worlds intro rules because DLR was to be in SW format. But, DLR has not arrived that I have seen. So, I haven't been too inclined to pick up SW.

 

[Gundark]

While I like the quick start rules, I think that it depends on what you like. I can see the value of fast and furious and sometimes I would want that. However d20 has a level of complexity that I like. I think that I might be a little under crunched.