Savage Pathfinder - More of a Slog Than PF1?

[Doctor Futurity]

This thread is an interesting read, because I have experienced both some horrrible and brilliant combat encounters over the years with Savage Worlds. My time with Savage Pathfinder did not go the way that the OP described it, and in fact was some of the best combat I've had in a D&D-like experience in a long time, but I also wasn't using any published scenarios and was building the campaign out with years of familiarity with SW and how to avoid the "overly balanced fight" problem. I still remember a friend of mine years ago who really wanted to run SW fantasy, and we spent 90% of a four hour session in arguably the most unpleasant stalemate combat I have ever experienced. Had that been my first introduction to SW back then, I would have written the game off.

 

[Retreater]

I still remember a friend of mine years ago who really wanted to run SW fantasy, and we spent 90% of a four hour session in arguably the most unpleasant stalemate combat I have ever experienced. Had that been my first introduction to SW back then, I would have written the game off.

So I'm (slowly) coming to a realization about my gaming style preferences and different systems.

Recently, I had an overlong combat in Pirate Borg, much like your "stalemate" combat from Savage Worlds. My complaints about that system were addressed in much the same manner as folks addressed my complaints about Savage Worlds.

• "If you just found another way to defeat the enemy. Like, if you hired seagulls that could engage in bombing runs, you wouldn't have such a boring time."
• "Have you considered using the 'Advanced Combat maneuvers section' and looking at tripping, ganging up, etc.? Everyone knows that you'd have an easier time if a character dropped a bag over the enemy's head to blind him."
• "You need to use Morale. Like, I know the adventure says the enemies fight to the death and that even if you run the Morale rules as they're presented in the book. But come on! If your players are getting bored, just have the enemies run away."

Yes, I'm exaggerating somewhat for comedic purposes, but this is basically what fans of Savage Worlds and also Pirate Borg told me about these specific issues.

Here's how I view it, just in my opinion: No, the system should handle this; not just a willy-nilly "GM make sure this works because of lackadaisical design."
You shouldn't need to do Advanced Combat maneuvers in a basic starter adventure encounter. If your encounter relies on "hiring 12 NPCs to aim weapons and all spend metacurrency to maximize damage" to have a chance of winning (which is what the Pirate Borg designer told me made the encounter fun) - it's not a system for me. If a system requires the group to houserule and throw out big sections of the actual rules that I purchased that are printed in a hardcover book, that's not good design (for me.)

 

[Uluairi]

I Guess Nimble is the answer to any of this combat slog. I would like to try Nimble in the Golarion Setting.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'll repeat that my experience with SW is such that that your experience just sounds like a different game to me (but again, as noted, far as I can tell SW was never designed for most of the opposition to be Wild Cards, and it generically has a problem when weapon damage lags behind Toughness, same as the equivelent in any armor-absorbtive game).

 

[Doctor Futurity]

So I'm (slowly) coming to a realization about my gaming style preferences and different systems.

Recently, I had an overlong combat in Pirate Borg, much like your "stalemate" combat from Savage Worlds. My complaints about that system were addressed in much the same manner as folks addressed my complaints about Savage Worlds.

• "If you just found another way to defeat the enemy. Like, if you hired seagulls that could engage in bombing runs, you wouldn't have such a boring time."
• "Have you considered using the 'Advanced Combat maneuvers section' and looking at tripping, ganging up, etc.? Everyone knows that you'd have an easier time if a character dropped a bag over the enemy's head to blind him."
• "You need to use Morale. Like, I know the adventure says the enemies fight to the death and that even if you run the Morale rules as they're presented in the book. But come on! If your players are getting bored, just have the enemies run away."

Yes, I'm exaggerating somewhat for comedic purposes, but this is basically what fans of Savage Worlds and also Pirate Borg told me about these specific issues.

Here's how I view it, just in my opinion: No, the system should handle this; not just a willy-nilly "GM make sure this works because of lackadaisical design."
You shouldn't need to do Advanced Combat maneuvers in a basic starter adventure encounter. If your encounter relies on "hiring 12 NPCs to aim weapons and all spend metacurrency to maximize damage" to have a chance of winning (which is what the Pirate Borg designer told me made the encounter fun) - it's not a system for me. If a system requires the group to houserule and throw out big sections of the actual rules that I purchased that are printed in a hardcover book, that's not good design (for me.)

So I think there are two items worth noting: first is that I once thought as you do about SW and better GMs of the game than I made me realize that there are no advanced combat rules in the game....those are just THE combat rules and trying to reduce the system to a more basic mechanic of trading blows is just not how SW is designed. Second, this started to make more sense to me when I realized that SW in its original incarnation started as a tactical skirmish minis game. When you play it that way, and embrace the full range of combat rules, it starts to function really well. It starts to break when the table ignores the full suite of combat rules, though.
Can't comment on Pirate Borg though....I've run Mork Borg and found it is one of the lightest and fastest combat systems out there.

 

[Retreater]

When you play it that way, and embrace the full range of combat rules, it starts to function really well. It starts to break when the table ignores the full suite of combat rules, though.

In that case, it might be too much combat rules for my desired level of crunch. I just can't get the "fast, furious, and fun" with the level of combat tactical mastery the system seems to require. And for me, pacing is more important than depth.

Can't comment on Pirate Borg though....I've run Mork Borg and found it is one of the lightest and fastest combat systems out there.

Yeah, it should be. We just got in a bad loop of a stalemate encounter that assumed a level of strategic play to win that was outside the rules provided, which required GM fiat I wasn't comfortable making because I didn't have the tools. (How much are hirelings? What are their stats? How much damage would bombs or cannons do?)

I've heard this described by some RPG theorists with the term "the fruitful void." It's the concept of the thing that is the most important part of play is not described and up to the GM to adjudicate. I don't care for this kind of design. If it's vitally important to the function of the game, I think it needs to be codified.
It's like playing a version of Monopoly without knowing how much rent is when you land on a property and having the banker decide each time someone lands on a property to set a reasonable rate.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

In that case, it might be too much combat rules for my desired level of crunch. I just can't get the "fast, furious, and fun" with the level of combat tactical mastery the system seems to require. And for me, pacing is more important than depth.


Yeah, it should be. We just got in a bad loop of a stalemate encounter that assumed a level of strategic play to win that was outside the rules provided, which required GM fiat I wasn't comfortable making because I didn't have the tools. (How much are hirelings? What are their stats? How much damage would bombs or cannons do?)

I've heard this described by some RPG theorists with the term "the fruitful void." It's the concept of the thing that is the most important part of play is not described and up to the GM to adjudicate. I don't care for this kind of design. If it's vitally important to the function of the game, I think it needs to be codified.
It's like playing a version of Monopoly without knowing how much rent is when you land on a property and having the banker decide each time someone lands on a property to set a reasonable rate.

On SW I'll only comment than when you get used to it the game (for my group) affords some of the fastest tactical combat around, much better than D&D style games unless we go back to old school. Im fortunate to have players who get invested in embracing the rules though.

On Mork Borg it is a game that offers a very lite set of rules and works best for groups who want more ad hoc and free form experiences. It is imo opposite a game like SW.

I'd be interested to know what games mechanically scratch your specific combat itch, though. Might help to better understand why these two don't.

 

[conankeep]

My complaints about that system were addressed in much the same manner ...
...
Yes, I'm exaggerating somewhat for comedic purposes

yeah, that's quite an exaggeration of posters pointing out that the adventure explicitly tells you the boss encounter should not be tried head on and that this should be telegraphed to the players

OSR Post in thread 'Pirate Borg - Math Thoughts'

Jun 27, 2026

I have briefly looked at the adventure. I've noticed that the hitting that opponent is DR 10. I don't think it changes too much, but it is easier to hit him. In the hooks section it also states that taking him out is very hard and that the characters should resort to guerrilla tactics, making an assassination attempt or hiring more pirates to tackle the mission. As I said, I just briefly skimmed it, so I don't know how those things work in practice, but the hints about attempting an all-out assault are there.

• Nikosandros

• 

OSR Post in thread 'Pirate Borg - Math Thoughts'

Jun 29, 2026

I get that this is the ideal way the OSR works. But it's never stated. It's not in the book.

If you don't expect people to interact with HP and attack rolls, then you need to put in something like "here are some options to defeat the bad guy" especially in a starter promotional adventure designed for new GMs.

I took the time to get this adventure and read through it, and I had a very different experience from you in regards to what's in the book. To whit, the adventure straight up tells you it's not a good idea to just attack the Big Bad in a direct fight, and...

• Deset Gled

• 

 

[Retreater]

I'd be interested to know what games mechanically scratch your specific combat itch, though. Might help to better understand why these two don't.

I've never had a dull combat or one take too long in Daggerheart. While some have ended too quickly or have been cakewalks, I've never run into the boredom that I get in other systems.

Usually there are a few interesting choices to be made for the heroes and enemies. There is a mechanical resource (Hope and Fear) to change the dynamics in either direction.

For exciting battles that do what Pirate Borg and other OSR games do - but more exciting for me - I look at Dragonbane. You have options to re-roll by pushing your rolls for ability damage, spend Willpower to pull off stunts. The monsters have interesting and flavorful options every round in combat. Hit points aren't bloated.

 

[Retreater]

yeah, that's quite an exaggeration of posters pointing out that the adventure explicitly tells you the boss encounter should not be tried head on and that this should be telegraphed to the players

But they don't say what to do or how to do anything. They present you with very little in the adventure. But there is a map of the keep where the villain is. They give you the stats for the villain. They put him on the cover of the adventure.
But we don't expect that any group of players is going to want to fight him? Even when there's thousands of silver offered as tribute by the suggested adventure hook where the pirate queen asks the party to do it?
Really, who are we fooling? We're running a game of high adventure of piracy and swashbuckling action. You have a bowl of Doritos and your favorite beer at the table. What are you going to want to do? You're going to want to raid the haunted fortress, fight the ghoul captain, get big rewards, and high-five your friend who just kicked the villain's butt.
We can argue that "uh ... actually if you read the adventure and know the spirit behind proper OSR design, you'd know that you need to hire a crew of gunmen to have a chance to take out the bad guy."
WHO WANTS TO PLAY THAT WAY?
When you are picturing Captain Jack Sparrow dueling with Barbosa - it ain't that.