Sell me on Savage Worlds

[MGibster]

Its in the equipment and gear section where the game radically shifts to simlationist mathy crunch.

While I don't personally think the equipment leads to a simulation crunch most of the time, I am mildly annoyed by having to calculate armor piercing sometimes.

 

[Thomas Shey]

While I don't personally think the equipment leads to a simulation crunch most of the time, I am mildly annoyed by having to calculate armor piercing sometimes.

Its one of those distinctions that's often really only relevant in campaigns where you have a mix of armored and unarmored opponents; how worthwhile you think that is will at least somewhat turn on how likely that's going to be the case. If everyone is running around with Toughness +3 Armor, you could have just added the AP points to damage and moved on.

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm not qualified to judge what's "fast" to other people, but SW is probably the fastest game on a round-to-round basis I've played in decades. I

It takes me at least 15 minutes to resolve a 5 party combat round in SW. There is the card drawing (and re-drawing for those PCs with Cool head and Quick edges etc) the effects of Jokers when drawn, PC's deciding what to do with their 3 actions when their turn comes up, calculating TN's via MAP (mutiaction penalty), range, wounds, recoil, snapfire and other effects, rolling and adding exploding die for each action (possibly multiple times) then rolling exploding damage die (and adding them up) for each attack that actually hit, doing the [damage -(toughness+[AP-AV])]/4 calculation, and then possibly rolling an exploding Soak test to reduce that damage (without forgetting Bennie re-rolls).

In 5E its a single initiative roll, then each turn comprises of a [Move]+[Action]+[possible bonus action]. Actions are resolved via a single d20 roll (either an attack roll or forcing a save), with a possible damage roll to follow.

Even mid tier 5e rounds take a few minutes to resolve at most.

 

[Flamestrike]

While I don't personally think the equipment leads to a simulation crunch most of the time, I am mildly annoyed by having to calculate armor piercing sometimes.

Its the other way around. The highly simulationist nature of the rules after you finish character creation and basic task resolution leads to the highly crunchy weapons tables and overly complex action resolution.

Its GNS theory. There is a massive disconnect between the abstraction of a single skill called 'Shooting' covering everything from bows to starship weapons, and then the simulationism of pages upon pages of different firearms with detailed range bands (4 including extreme range) ROF (expressed in a numerical format), damage by bullet caliber, one or more weapon qualities, AP values, reload times, finite encumbrance and ammo values etc capable of firing full auto, 3 round bursts, double-taps, semi automatic or suppressing fire (and with different rules, modifiers and resolution methods for each mind you) with a chance of hitting innocent civilians etc etc etc etc

The Skill is abstract and simple, and easy to learn, but would offend a simulationist. The weapon stats (and actual resolution) is strict simulationism with all the complexity that entails that would bore a beer and pretzel player happy with abstraction to death with them also not being bothered to learn any of it.

Seriously; the modern weapon tables (and gun rules) look like they've been cut and paste from simulationist crunchy gun porn games like 1990's Twilight 2000 or Cyberpunk 2020.

 

[Flamestrike]

Im not saying similationism is badwrongfun (or simplified abstraction for that matter is either). Im just pointing out the massive disconnect in the two competing areas of the rules.

It seriously looks like they mashed two different games together.

Simulationists get bummed out by the abstraction elsewhere (and likely implement proficiency rules for individual weapons in the shooting skill, blood and guts setting rules and other 'tweaks' to make the game 'more realistic') while abstractionists likely ignore most of the crunch and just tell someone to roll against TN 4 to succeed, ignoring all the ROF/ 3RB/ SA/ Suppressing Fire/ innocent bystander/ AP/ Range/ autofire/ ammo/ encumbrance nonsense.

I commonly see GM's fall into one of those two categories, and its due to that massive disconnect in the rules.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It takes me at least 15 minutes to resolve a 5 party combat round in SW. There is the card drawing (and re-drawing for those PCs with Cool head and Quick edges etc) the effects of Jokers when drawn, PC's deciding what to do with their 3 actions when their turn comes up, calculating TN's via MAP (mutiaction penalty), range, wounds, recoil, snapfire and other effects, rolling and adding exploding die for each action (possibly multiple times) then rolling exploding damage die (and adding them up) for each attack that actually hit, doing the [damage -(toughness+[AP-AV])]/4 calculation, and then possibly rolling an exploding Soak test to reduce that damage (without forgetting Bennie re-rolls).

In 5E its a single initiative roll, then each turn comprises of a [Move]+[Action]+[possible bonus action]. Actions are resolved via a single d20 roll (either an attack roll or forcing a save), with a possible damage roll to follow.

Even mid tier 5e rounds take a few minutes to resolve at most.

I have to suggest its a familiarity thing then; we routinely could do all that with a six player group in, say, five minutes; the longest part of a round was usually me locating where a particular opponent was on the map if they were scattered out. It might take a bit longer if I had a lot of mooks out there, but that's been true with every game I run that has those. A big part of it from the sound of it is that you and/or your folks take a lot more time with the routine parts of that (multiaction penalties, rolling and dealing with open ended die rolls) then anyone I've seen do so. Most of the rest my players have calculated before I even get to them (its not like their wound penalties change all that frequently for example, and often everyone stays within the same range band in terms of what they're shooting at for most of a combat).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I commonly see GM's fall into one of those two categories, and its due to that massive disconnect in the rules.

I don't feel its a massive disconnect, personally; its precision where it serves a purpose and abstraction where it doesn't. The only complaint I used to have with SW was that within some subsystems they weren't consistent (lumping all ranged weapons together in one skill but splitting off things in athletics for example). Notably, that's been addressed with the current edition for the most part.

 

[Flamestrike]

I don't feel its a massive disconnect, personally; its precision where it serves a purpose and abstraction where it doesn't.

It doesnt serve a purpose.

You could have equipment (namely firearms) being reduced to:

Pistol - damage 2d8, range 20/40
SMG - damage 2d6+1, range 20/40, select fire,
Hunting Rifle - damage 3d8, range 40/120, two handed
Assault rifle - damage 3d6, range 30/90, two handed, select fire
MG - damage 3d8, range 30/90, two handed, autofire only

And largely be done. And even that is getting away from the abstract nature of the rest of the rules.

 

[Flamestrike]

I have to suggest its a familiarity thing then; we routinely could do all that with a six player group in, say, five minutes; the longest part of a round was usually me locating where a particular opponent was on the map if they were scattered out. It might take a bit longer if I had a lot of mooks out there, but that's been true with every game I run that has those. A big part of it from the sound of it is that you and/or your folks take a lot more time with the routine parts of that (multiaction penalties, rolling and dealing with open ended die rolls) then anyone I've seen do so. Most of the rest my players have calculated before I even get to them (its not like their wound penalties change all that frequently for example, and often everyone stays within the same range band in terms of what they're shooting at for most of a combat).

I bet you and your group dislike the abstract nature of the skills and flesh them out with proficiencies, use 'realistic' setting rules like blood and guts, and encumbrance, tracking ammo etc.

 

[MGibster]

It seriously looks like they mashed two different games together.

Savage Worlds is basically a simplified version of the rules they used for their Deadlands RPG back in 1996.

ts GNS theory. There is a massive disconnect between the abstraction of a single skill called 'Shooting' covering everything from bows to starship weapons, and then the simulationism of pages upon pages of different firearms with detailed range bands (4 including extreme range) ROF (expressed in a numerical format), damage by bullet caliber, one or more weapon qualities, AP values, reload times, finite encumbrance and ammo values etc capable of firing full auto, 3 round bursts, double-taps, semi automatic or suppressing fire (and with different rules, modifiers and resolution methods for each mind you) with a chance of hitting innocent civilians etc etc etc etc

This is another one of those eye of the beholder things. I don't see a massive disconnect between the skills and the way combat is handled. To me, the combat in SW is simple and moves quickly.