From D&D to Savage Worlds: What am I missing?

[Rel]

My players are currently hanging around Dodge. Not so much on the vulgarity - unless the Jupiter Cannon isn't what the players think it is

Maybe a RBDM thread is in order for us. I'll check to see if you started one when I get back from work this afternoon and may start one myself if you haven't.

 

[pawsplay]

I tried SW, didn't like it. There weren't a lot of explicit options in combat or in exploration situations, and I found it mathematically naive.

However, the game was explicitly designed to work on a miniatures-play level, so the experience that it's not a good slug-out game is probably more your personal experience than a generalizable quality.

 

[MortonStromgal]

Couple things
1. Savage Worlds is designed for fast, furious, fun. If you like your combats to take an hour this is not the game for you. If you want to be able to do some nifty combat maneuvers for 3 rounds and then move on with the story Savage Worlds MAY be for you.

2. If you like minis I would check out the fan made miniatures combat rules off savage heros. One of Savage Worlds big strengths in the fan content.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Thanks for the responses so far.

However, the game was explicitly designed to work on a miniatures-play level, so the experience that it's not a good slug-out game is probably more your personal experience than a generalizable quality.

Not that it's a bad slug-out game, just that it's a boring one for our group. I agree completely that are not enough explicit options in combat. I think it's really good mechanically but would only be fun, in my opinion, with a fair amount of player input. You know, describing maneuvers and roleplaying during combat. That was indeed when it was fun for me, becuase the mechanics are incredibly generic on their own (by design.)

1. Savage Worlds is designed for fast, furious, fun. If you like your combats to take an hour this is not the game for you. If you want to be able to do some nifty combat maneuvers for 3 rounds and then move on with the story Savage Worlds MAY be for you.

True, they resolved fairly quickly even though we were hobbling our way through a new system. However, houseruling D&D to 1/2 HP and double damage solved the time issue and the riskiness for us and left the robust combat system in place.

In an unrelated note, how are you supposed to make balanced encounters? That was probably the worst part for me. There's no advice at all on how to do that. And by balanced I mean fun. A challenge, with a chance of death, but beatable.

 

[Asmor]

One thing I'd recommend is the use of more forces. The first SW game I ran was set in their Necropolis setting, where the PCs each were lieutenants and each had 2 or 3 soldiers they controlled in addition.

The net result was that the battles were large, i.e. as many as 15 people on each side, and still played fast.

 

[amerigoV]

In an unrelated note, how are you supposed to make balanced encounters? That was probably the worst part for me. There's no advice at all on how to do that. And by balanced I mean fun. A challenge, with a chance of death, but beatable.

There is a thread on their board about it. Mostly, you take a quick look at average attack dice vs. Parry and damage vs. Toughness. It is hard to create a CR type system because it is not classed based. Someone can be mostly skills and not combat focus (they would rely on Tricks/Test of Wills to help in combat). Others are combat beasts (if you want, you can be pretty kick ass at very low "levels").

Overall, SW plays in a narrower range. 3.5 you went from bumpkin to god. SW you good from pretty good to very good. Low XP parties can take down pretty tough stuff with some good tactics. On the other hand, weak stuff can hammer you if you use bad tactics or some bad die rolls.

I find there is a wide varity of options in combat. They tend not to be boxed up as nicely as D&D has done in 3.5 and 4.0. But they are there. Ranged weapons can be deadly, which opens up a lot of tactical options. Gang up, tricks/test of wills, etc all feed into it.

Oh, one last think on balance - it really is not as important. XP is not given based on defeating critters. So, the GM can build encounters that push along the story (evil cultists, chases, etc) and have the cinematic/challenging combat with more polish at the appropriate spot.

 

[Stormonu]

I just played my first SW game about a night ago (Deadlands: Reloaded). I'm used to use descriptive-heavy instead of mechanics-heavy combat, so it fit right into my style. The three other players seemed to enjoy it as well, but perhaps not as much as I did.

I do find that making off-the-cuff stuff seems incredibly easier than the 3E I'm used to, and is about as easy as 4E. The quick combats I greatly enjoy over 4E (which seems to move at a snail's pace to me). However, I think I've been spoiled timewise since I've been running WoD games for quite a long time now.

As far as combat options go, I haven't seen an option I miss in SW from D&D so far. Grapple, trip, ranged combat, melee combat and all of that is there and a viable choice (including called shots and lingering effects) so I don't understand the comment of it being lacking, if someone wants to explain it further.

 

[coyote6]

As far as combat options go, I haven't seen an option I miss in SW from D&D so far. Grapple, trip, ranged combat, melee combat and all of that is there and a viable choice (including called shots and lingering effects) so I don't understand the comment of it being lacking, if someone wants to explain it further.

Perhaps some of the options aren't as immediately obvious? For example, IIRC, there's no section labeled "Trip" in SW:EE. (Or I'm completely misremembering. )

 

[fuzzlewump]

As far as combat options go, I haven't seen an option I miss in SW from D&D so far. Grapple, trip, ranged combat, melee combat and all of that is there and a viable choice (including called shots and lingering effects) so I don't understand the comment of it being lacking, if someone wants to explain it further.

For me it's that your options change only a little with time. My non-spellcasting players made the comment that what they did the first session is what they're going to do the entire span of the game. Coming from a game like 4E D&D this seems like a problem, because there's always a new power (combat option) to look forward to when leveling up in 4E.

Comparing fighting-men between SW and 3E D&D, yeah, the important options seem to be well represented.

 

[Shades of Green]

How does SW work for a smaller-than-average groups of players? IIRC this is one of the problems with later-edition D&D. I usually end up with two or three PCs in the party...