How does Savage Worlds play?

[VictorC]

I found it...

Not Slow
Tame
And Mehhh

As opposed to

Fast
Furious
And Fun

It is very mediocre, if you're looking for something that doesn't do anything special than this is for you. Honestly, it's like a bread sandwich. I could eat it but why when there's so many things I would rather eat.

 

[jdrakeh]

I like the setting books much better than I like the system. Savage Worlds tends to be fairly generic in that it's serviceable across the board but the trade-off is that doesn't do anything spectacularly well. In all honesty, I think that several free systems (e.g., The Window, Fable, etc) do step dice resolution with just as much aplomb as Savage Worlds — and, of course, being free means that they deliver a better value — while systems like GURPS and HERO easily surpass it where providing mechanical options are concerned. Overall, I'm just not that excited by the Savage Worlds rules (again, though, I rather like the setting supplements).

 

[Kimyou]

I like it a lot.

Granted, I didn't actually see it run, yet, but I have a copy of the game somewhere and theoretically, it's very well designed.

I have to agree with what others said, on top, I love how easy it is to create a character and create NPCs. That was my biggest beef with 3.X, creating monsters and evil wizards was a chore past level 5-ish. With this baby, it takes a few minutes. Or hell, you can wing most things by going : Omm, euh... d6 everywhere! (yeah... you're a clever GM, aren't you). It's a little less forgiving then DnD, and is more complex than it looks, but I do think it's worth the try.

 

[Corathon]

If course, in D&D, lost hit points are kinda sorta a game effect, but actually have no impact on the play of the game except at 0. Barring 4e, where there is also an effect at half.

In D&D you "hit" a whole bunch of times, and it does nothing at all noticeable to the target until they suddenly fall over dead.

In SW you "hit" a probabilistic number of times. The target can be shaken (and some can be wounded), which has measurable game effects on their performance. In that respect, it is a more robust simulation than D&D with a fraction of the book-keeping.

Not that simulation is in any way inherently good in this context, but I'm just using it as a counterpoint to "hits don't do anything." Actually, they do more than hits do in D&D, most of the time.

Canis, that's a valid point. I tried to suggest something like that in my post when I talked about potentially needing the same number of hits to drop a character in SW as in AD&D - but the total failure of many hits to do anything just bothers me sometimes.

Havard suggested having characters (PCs and NPCs) roleplay the effect of inconsequential wounds. I think that's a good idea, but it doesn't really happen at our table - for PCs or NPCs. Another mindset question, I suppose.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I've been playing it for a few weeks now and I'm really enjoying it.

It has a more mechanical focus on the non-combat side of gaming, compared to D&D. Obviously, the amount of rp-ing you do is down to you and your group, but in SW if you want to play an obese, cowardly mage you can do so and gain mechanical bonuses elsewhere for doing so.

I also like the simplicity of it. I can see what people are saying about it potentially being bland after a while, and I expect the GM has a lot to do with helping to avoid that. I do enjoy it as a system, at the moment.