Man, Savage Worlds is Swingy!

[TurinTurambar]

One of the big downsides of Savage Worlds.

and what are the others?

 

[Hurske]

Until a PC gets one shotted by an extra with more wounds that he can soak.

That's the exact reason I like it. I like that the fight can result in an outcome that is not quite predictable, that there is a chance you can die from a weak enemy that the hero would usually never think about.

I do run quite a few games, and an easy solution for myself is to introduce a new rule that minion type monsters can only deal one wound at most, which might fit a supers game of I run one again.

 

[Retreater]

Since when is Mercy a standard option? Is that new in the Adventure Edition?

It's the Wound Cap setting rule. I think it's standard now.

 

[Derren]

and what are the others?

All imo of course.
- The narrownes of viable statistics. Because of how SW is set up there very little room for stat varriance before you get undesireable artifacts. That means there is only very little difference between a low bandit and an unnamed elite soldier. It also means there are only limited ways you can upgrade PCs making them often look the same.

- No attrition in combat. There is no HP in SW and way combat works you either outright kill someone (unnamed characters) or wound named characters which usually dooms them, or you do nothing to them. And the only way to make a enemy stronger it to raise the threshold of when he takes damage.
Especially in high powered settings like the above mentioned Rifts it can lead to situations where characters not maxed for single attack damage are unable to damage an enemy unless they roll a amazing exploding dice streak like in the OP.
Its not much fun playing when you need to roll 20 with 3d6 to actually do anything.

 

[Retreater]

and what are the others?

As someone who has recently run two campaigns in vastly different settings, I have a few that I can bring up, though I generally like the system.
First, encounters are nearly impossible to balance. I can run a fight that is a cakewalk, then change one thing and it's a TPK.
Second, if you're not running one of their settings, there's little to help a GM prep. No official general bestiaries. Very few adventure modules (esp compared to D&D or PF).
The current core rules are expensive. $40 with no discounts available currently is pricey for a player getting into it, especially considering you'll probably also need a players manual for another setting at +$25 or more.
Untrained skills are very difficult to use. You have to get 4 on a d4-2.
The optional combat rules and manuevers are pretty difficult to remember, as they seem grafted on from another system. My players never remember they exist, even with cheat sheets.

 

[Reynard]

It's important to remember with SW that your primary tactical resource isn't "wounds" but Bennies. Bennies let PCs (and Wild Card NPCs) squeak out of those swingy situations. A lot of the time, complaints about SW come from folks that either don't grasp this or are in groups where Bennies do not flow freely enough. It is absolutely true that it is a swingy, deadly combat system by design, but that heroes and important villains are a cut above and can compensate for that swinginess.

Full disclosure: I write a bit for SW so I've got some bias.

TL;DR: If you like SW but grate on the swinginess try giving out more Bennies. They are there for a reason.

 

[Retreater]

TL;DR: If you like SW but grate on the swinginess try giving out more Bennies. They are there for a reason.

My players often have a stack of 5-6 at the start of a given combat and still get slaughtered. I give them out during fights for Jokers Wild, playing up hindrances, role-playing, and more. But they spend them at a rate beyond 1 a turn. It's hard to keep the players in stock without it looking like I'm cheating (in their favor, obviously).
And if I'm going to be doing that, why not just drop the parry to a 4? Or stop rolling the wild die for the villain? Or have the villain fall on his sword? Why use the system at all if it requires that much GM fiddling to function?

 

[Reynard]

My players often have a stack of 5-6 at the start of a given combat and still get slaughtered. I give them out during fights for Jokers Wild, playing up hindrances, role-playing, and more. But they spend them at a rate beyond 1 a turn. It's hard to keep the players in stock without it looking like I'm cheating (in their favor, obviously).
And if I'm going to be doing that, why not just drop the parry to a 4? Or stop rolling the wild die for the villain? Or have the villain fall on his sword? Why use the system at all if it requires that much GM fiddling to function?

They literally can't get slaughtered with bennies in their hand. The bad guy rolls a stupid level of success on an attack, force a reroll. That's why you have bennies. No PC should ever go down with bennies in their pocket.

I think it's a matter of misinterpretation of the role of bennies. A lot of games have a "drama point" mechanic and those are meant to be hoarded. Bennies aren't that. They are your hit points. Treat them as such.

 

[Calithorne]

I like SW because no one has a thick armor of hit points to prevent them from worrying in combat.

 

[Retreater]

They literally can't get slaughtered with bennies in their hand. The bad guy rolls a stupid level of success on an attack, force a reroll. That's why you have bennies. No PC should ever go down with bennies in their pocket.

I think it's a matter of misinterpretation of the role of bennies. A lot of games have a "drama point" mechanic and those are meant to be hoarded. Bennies aren't that. They are your hit points. Treat them as such.

They don't hoard them. They are all spent within a couple turns.