Deadlands is retconning the Confederacy away. They lost the war, no longer playable.

[Retreater]

So steering it back to Deadland...

How heavy is the Savage Worlds system? Any people have experience with it and Deadland? I'm curious what the basic mechanics are like?

I would describe Savage Worlds as a "rules medium" system. It's not like D&D 5E, but has about the same level of crunch. That said, combats usually go a lot faster, as the system relies heavily on minions who drop in one hit.

The basic mechanic is reach a target number of 4. The skills you're good at use higher value dice. So if you're not good at something - you need a 4 on a d4. If you're really good at something, roll a d12 and get a 4. (There are modifiers to the rule of 4, but this is the basics.)

Initiative is dealing out playing cards, with face cards going first, then in reverse numerical order.

It's a good system. I just started playing a few months ago, transitioning my groups from D&D to do so. There are many settings with all kinds of different flavors: horror, sci-fi, pulp, etc., all using the same system.

 

[Undrave]

I would describe Savage Worlds as a "rules medium" system. It's not like D&D 5E, but has about the same level of crunch. That said, combats usually go a lot faster, as the system relies heavily on minions who drop in one hit.

The basic mechanic is reach a target number of 4. The skills you're good at use higher value dice. So if you're not good at something - you need a 4 on a d4. If you're really good at something, roll a d12 and get a 4. (There are modifiers to the rule of 4, but this is the basics.)

Initiative is dealing out playing cards, with face cards going first, then in reverse numerical order.

It's a good system. I just started playing a few months ago, transitioning my groups from D&D to do so. There are many settings with all kinds of different flavors: horror, sci-fi, pulp, etc., all using the same system.

Thank you! Very informative!

 

[Umbran]

How heavy is the Savage Worlds system? Any people have experience with it and Deadland? I'm curious what the basic mechanics are like?

Well, the original, Classic Deadlands is the progenitor of Savage Worlds. The original game is... kinda baroque, honestly. They trimmed that game down significantly, to create Savage Worlds.

So, some elements of that origin remain - cards are used for initiative, for example. The base mechanic is a pretty simple. Savage Worlds, in my experience, runs pretty quickly and smoothly.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Thank you! Very informative!

For anyone that wants a tldr, it’s like if GURPS was easy to learn and play without referencing the rules much.

 

[Celebrim]

They say the South lost the War, but won the Peace...

It wasn't much like a peace, but more like a second civil war. But yes, the South won that one, Pyrrhic victory though it was. Exactly why is beyond the limits of the thread.

But I'll also assert that I don't think it fixes the problem which it seems intended to solve. Like Umbran, I don't understand how something like "In this game, no character can have a backstory based in the Confederacy?" could be enforced by this sort of thing, and if you can't enforce that, then you can't avoid situations where people will rightly or wrongly draw inferences about the beliefs of their fellow gamer based on the characters that they play. And he has a bit of a contradiction when he says, "Loyalists from both sides still skirmish, especially in the border states." and yet also, "Imagine the GM having to roleplay those [CSA loyalists]." Baffled bemusement on my part.

Ultimately I agree with the author, "Honestly, it's just not that big a deal...it really doesn't change much even in the Weird West. " His setting, he can do what he wants, for whatever reason he wants to. I wasn't inferring anything about his beliefs before, and I won't be afterwards. I hope he achieves what he wants to achieve.

 

[Libertad]

I do have to say, "they are no longer playable" or calling them a "playable faction" seems a bit weird. The Confederacy was not like a Vampire clan. The game did not ask players to "choose a faction" for their characters that had mechanical impact, or something. The Confederacy was a nation that existed in the setting, that's all. The core game didn't detail what it was like within that nation, even - that was in a later supplement.

Are they going to say, "In this game, no character can have a backstory based in the Confederacy"?

Au contraire. Throughout both Classic and Reloaded there have been Edges and archetypes which grant you in-game boons based upon your time in the Confederate Army, both former and active. The Soldier and Texas Ranger Edges presume active-duty service, whilst the Rebel Yell Edge is a powerful AoE fear-based debuff which requires you to be from the Confederacy and implied to be a soldier given its origin.

Additionally, the Agency and Texas Ranger organizations can give your PC unique equipment based upon their rank and pull. Ranging from EVEN BIGGER GUNS to useful monster-hunting devices.

But I'll also assert that I don't think it fixes the problem which it seems intended to solve. Like Umbran, I don't understand how something like "In this game, no character can have a backstory based in the Confederacy?" could be enforced by this sort of thing, and if you can't enforce that, then you can't avoid situations where people will rightly or wrongly draw inferences about the beliefs of their fellow gamer based on the characters that they play. And he has a bit of a contradiction when he says, "Loyalists from both sides still skirmish, especially in the border states." and yet also, "Imagine the GM having to roleplay those [CSA loyalists]." Baffled bemusement on my part.

I posted this elsewhere, but it's a pretty good explanation for the meta-reasons.

It's a necessary change not so much for the "in-universe lore" so much as the out-of-universe implications. Without getting too far into politics, Back East: the South was the most pre-eminent sourcebook on the country in the setting. The book more or less relayed a lot of unfortunate implications on both an in-universe and meta-level. For one example, it had the Confederacy explicitly fight for slavery and thus white supremacy without so much as a mention of states' rights anywhere in the tome. While also having the Abrahamic God explicitly grant His divine powers to chaplains in the Confederate army before said nation even contemplated manumission. I actually wrote a review for said book here on ENWorld.

But all in all, I'm very happy for this change. I've both personally witnessed in online gaming spaces and among personal friends who say that they're more willing to check out Deadlands due to this. In all my years as a Savage Worlds fan this was the largest barrier of entry for new gamers. Most gamers don't care about the in-game metaplot politics that result from this so much as the big grey elephant in the room that is the above. I know they exist, but I haven't really met many Realmslorian purists in D&D sessions, or Noddist purists in Vampire games. The types of players who hold GM's feet over the fire for changing aspects of the metaplot generally have trouble finding reliable gaming groups outside their specialized branch of fictional scholarship.

 

[Celebrim]

@Libertad - Well, I'm glad it makes you happy, though frankly your explanation has left me even more confused, as I wasn't able to tell whether your criticism was coming from the far-Left or far-Right until I got to the end of your review and you went off on a discussion of recent political events. Apparently, I'm incapable of being educated.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

@Libertad - Well, I'm glad it makes you happy, though frankly your explanation has left me even more confused, as I wasn't able to tell whether your criticism was coming from the far-Left or far-Right until I got to the end of your review and you went off on a discussion of recent political events. Apparently, I'm incapable of being educated.

I really thought the second paragraph makes it incredibly clear where the critic stands on the general political spectrum. I mean, I have never in my entire life seen anyone on even the middle-right use half of those descriptors, much less the far right.

 

[MGibster]

I do have to say, "they are no longer playable" or calling them a "playable faction" seems a bit weird. The Confederacy was not like a Vampire clan. The game did not ask players to "choose a faction" for their characters that had mechanical impact, or something. The Confederacy was a nation that existed in the setting, that's all. The core game didn't detail what it was like within that nation, even - that was in a later supplement.

Another post was nice enough to point out that in Savage Deadlands there are Edges specifically related to Union or Confederate characters. But I've been a big fan of Deadlands since the beginning and have run many, many games over the years. I've never had any significant conflicts between the Confederacy and the Union in my Deadlands campaigns. Not a single time. I'm fine with the change. In fact I prefer it. Even with werewolves, prairie ticks, and a Mexican army of the dead, the most unrealistic thing about the setting was the existence of the Confederacy. And given recent controversies the Confederacy as a nation just isn't something I'd want to see in the game.

We'll still have former Confederates as playable characters I'm sure and there's nothing wrong with that. The Texas Rangers are still going to be around and we can't just pretend the war didn't happen at all.

 

[aramis erak]

I wasn't a big fan of the setting - just enough to have read original and reloaded...

The CSA as presented doesn't mesh well with the CSA as recorded by history, nor with the common misperceptions of the CSA. It's several doses of "must educate the players befor CGen"...

My players, tho' rejected on grounds of the horror elements.