Grade the Savage Worlds System

[Umbran]

... the GM looked down and sighed and said, "I have 30 Doom. There's no way I can spend this without killing you guys."

It didn't really bother us, but it was clear that it was basically a broken system as presented.

Or, alternatively, the GM should have spent that Doom, killed the characters, and called it "consequences of your own choices".

I don't know if "GM unwilling to use the system as written" qualifies as "system broken".

 

[Reynard]

That's interesting. Do you use a fixed global pool, then?

Yes. The GM Bennie pool size is per the rules. it is just that it flows back and forth between the players and the GM.

One of the problems we had with Doom/Momentum in 2d20 Conan was that you could just overload the GM with Doom. One of the PCs was a berserker that always did a max Doom spend in combat. It became clear that that could be a problem. It didn't happen very often, but we had one session with a lot of combat and the GM looked down and sighed and said, "I have 30 Doom. There's no way I can spend this without killing you guys."

It didn't really bother us, but it was clear that it was basically a broken system as presented.

I played more STA than Conan and if I recall they capped the pools in STA.

 

[thullgrim]

When I run Savage Worlds at conventions, I use a variant of the Momentum/Doom pool from 2d20: each PC starts off with 2 bennies (or 3 if they have Lucky) and then there is a pool of Bennies on the table. If they pull from those table Bennies, they become GM Bennies, and when I use them they go back into the player pool. It works great, creates tension and,most importantly, I don't have to remember to give out Bennies.

Like a front loaded version of the Hard Choices setting rule. Do your GM Wildcards get their bennies, same as the players?

 

[Reynard]

Like a front loaded version of the Hard Choices setting rule. Do your GM Wildcards get their bennies, same as the players?

Yes, minus one, like the PCs.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Or, alternatively, the GM should have spent that Doom, killed the characters, and called it "consequences of your own choices".

I don't know if "GM unwilling to use the system as written" qualifies as "system broken".

I mean, it's an almost ubiquitous complaint about the 2d20 Conan system whenever I've seen it criticized, and as others have mentioned here they capped the pools in later versions of the game system.

But sure, you can say it's not a problem you can address by adjusting the system if you want.

 

[Breaking Star Games]

I am just not a fan of generic systems that try to handle too much - I always prefer tighter, focused experienced. All of this was from the perspective of a player who at the time was pretty new to other TTRPGs than D&D 5e. My playtime was using two of its weaker settings - Superheroes and Sci Fi which was unfortunate. But I didn't find superpowers or hacking done well. Encounters were terribly swingy where the ultimate boss fight ended in one round from a crazy roll (and this was somewhat common) while the mook encounter previously nearly TPK'd us if it weren't for GM handwaving.

I still enjoyed the time with it, but I think the campaign led us to go back to D&D 5e for that table for better encounters and definitely slowed me down from actually dipping my feet into lots of different TTRPGs. Thankfully a later experience with Blades in the Dark made me realize just how much System Matters is life changing for running other genres. When you have something focused on doing a certain playstyle well, its worth learning the system.

 

[Reynard]

When you have something focused on doing a certain playstyle well, its worth learning the system.

SWADE is focused on doing a certain playstyle well. it just sounds like that playstyle isn't for you -- which is cool, but SWADE isn't a badly designed game for its purpose.

 

[Umbran]

But sure, you can say it's not a problem you can address by adjusting the system if you want.

I could say that. BUT I DIDN'T.

Because "problem" is not equivalent to "broken".

I drove a rental car recently. Its seat was uncomfortable, for me. This was a problem, for me. But the car was not broken. I imagine lots of tall folks would have found it uncomfortable. I would not be surprised if, in future designs, they used a different seat, or repositioned it a bit, or something, to make it more comfortable for more people.

But again, "it can be improved" is not "broken".

 

[Reynard]

I could say that. BUT I DIDN'T.

Because "problem" is not equivalent to "broken".

I drove a rental car recently. Its seat was uncomfortable, for me. This was a problem, for me. But the car was not broken. I imagine lots of tall folks would have found it uncomfortable. I would not be surprised if, in future designs, they used a different seat, or repositioned it a bit, or something, to make it more comfortable for more people.

But again, "it can be improved" is not "broken".

There is no middle ground, only edges.

 

[schneeland]

The hardest part about SW to me is remembering to keep handing out bennies. If you don’t the Bennie economy right the game falters. I started handing one to each player at the end of each scene just so I could remember.

For our group, it still works without an extensive bennie flow - basically, the only times someone gains a bennie is a) for doing a full recap at the beginning of the session, b) when a joker is drawn for initiative, c) when someone extensively plays into their chosen flaws. But then we only have 2.5-3h sessions, so it works out with less bennies in most cases.