Tell me about Savage Worlds

[AngryMojo]

OK, it's a big gun with automatic fire. That you can unload on a target once, unless you spend an edge on extra charges, instead of learning a new power. It's still a gun.

None of which changes the fact that mages in Savage Works are just walking guns, with the least flexibility of any mages from any magic system I've read or played. The only way casting the same three generic powers game after game could be more boring to me is if I had a single gadget to use game after game.

If there's going to be a magic system in a game, I want it to be flexible, and also at least make the attempt to evoke something mystical, not just be a guy wandering around with a few random unchanging powers. Jaws of the Six Artifacts, with it's powerful, infinitely flexible, yet hazardous magic is perfectly evocative of the Sword and Sorcery hebrew; Swashbucklers of the Seven Skies has its mystical elemental magic, and of course there's Ars Magica, Mage, Amber, and even True20. Hell even 4E tries, with rituals. But Savage Worlds manages to be both inflexible and flavorless.

So, you're basically looking for the Blessed system as outlined in Deadlands, where characters have all the powers available to them at their rank?

And Deadlands Hucksters and Mad Scientists are flavorless?

Also, most of what your'e describing can easily be done using tricks. And yes, you can do tricks with magic.

I think part of the problem is you're getting caught up with a single presentation of magic that's in the core book. There are literally dozens of different ways to handle powers in SW, some very much wind up being the more flexible system you seem to be looking for. Not every setting handles magic the same way, so the SW power system was designed to be altered with ease to fit the given requirements.

 

[Stalker0]

Savage Worlds lives up to its motto. Its easy to learn, quick to create characters, and fast to play.

Its less crunchy than my general desires, but for a pick up game I've had good fun with it.

Probably my biggest issue with teh system is the reliance on "bennies". I have generally found that my success in most combats is due to them. Without them, my character gets slaughtered, I need them to stay alive.

 

[S'mon]

After 2 sessions of SW (playing War of the Dead), my impression so far:

It seems designed very much for the "Action Movie" genre, whether that's Rambo, Indiana Jones, Where Eagles Dare, or Chronicles of Riddick. This caused some trouble with most of our PCs initially being fluff-texted as 'normal people' in a Survival Horror scenario, whereas mechanically we're Action Heroes. Things seem to be falling into place now though.

Within that Action Hero ethos it's quite a generic system; it's particularly good for running 'action movie' games in genres that don't get much love. Using it for D&D-fantasy would seem to be a bit of a waste IMO.

It's very PC-focused; again good for Action Movie 'Big Damn Heroes'; as written the 'world' will likely seem sketchy, at worst a cardboard back-drop for the Heroes to strut on.

It's very very 'gamey', with lots of elements there specifically to be fun, like the playing card initiative, the wild die, exploding dice & raises. Some of these may have a simulationist basis too; but it's simulating action movies, not life.

So far, actual round-by-round combats have pretty much been my least favourite element, and have tended to drag & feel a bit unsatisfying. They take less time than 4e combat, but can *feel* longer. It was nice when I finally managed to headshot a zombie (exploding 2d6 for 23 damage!) though. Partly we're still getting used to the system.

 

[havard]

After 2 sessions of SW (playing War of the Dead), my impression so far:

It seems designed very much for the "Action Movie" genre, whether that's Rambo, Indiana Jones, Where Eagles Dare, or Chronicles of Riddick. This caused some trouble with most of our PCs initially being fluff-texted as 'normal people' in a Survival Horror scenario, whereas mechanically we're Action Heroes. Things seem to be falling into place now though.

Yeah it is the action genre. This doesnt mean that the PCs are necessarily that competent though. If you really want things gritty you can take away their Wild Die.

Within that Action Hero ethos it's quite a generic system; it's particularly good for running 'action movie' games in genres that don't get much love. Using it for D&D-fantasy would seem to be a bit of a waste IMO.

I found that it is ideal for players who are frustrated with the D&D system, but still want to play in the D&D settings.

It's very very 'gamey', with lots of elements there specifically to be fun, like the playing card initiative, the wild die, exploding dice & raises. Some of these may have a simulationist basis too; but it's simulating action movies, not life.

Agreed. While I wanted something less complex than 3E/Pathfinder, I do prefer a solid set of rules rather than going to something completely rules light.

So far, actual round-by-round combats have pretty much been my least favourite element, and have tended to drag & feel a bit unsatisfying. They take less time than 4e combat, but can *feel* longer. It was nice when I finally managed to headshot a zombie (exploding 2d6 for 23 damage!) though. Partly we're still getting used to the system.

There are many ways to speed up combat if you want to, many are mentioned in the rules, such as letting players roll for their enemies etc. If you play with alot of "ally" NPCs this will also slow combat down, so it is wise to keep a cap on that.

-Havard

 

[amerigoV]

It's very very 'gamey', with lots of elements there specifically to be fun, like the playing card initiative, the wild die, exploding dice & raises. Some of these may have a simulationist basis too; but it's simulating action movies, not life.

I'll say this after playing many, many, years of D&D - the mechanics make the game more fun. At first, they are "gamey" but I find that fades into the background. Most people have played D&D long enough that they accept its gamist elements as "normal", so something like Savage Worlds feels more gamey. Also, its fun to watch the energy of a table rise in excitement as someones gets on a roll and Aces multiple times (or dread, if the GM is doing it).

I find the system is more "simulist" from the tactics side. If someone starts shooting, you get to cover or go prone. People piling on you, even lowly extras, can take you down fast. The system definately supports the Action Movie Genre well.

Within that Action Hero ethos it's quite a generic system; it's particularly good for running 'action movie' games in genres that don't get much love. Using it for D&D-fantasy would seem to be a bit of a waste IMO.

Would you elaborate here on your thought? I have always veiwed D&D fantasy as very action oriented and I have run/played in a couple of campaigns using SW. Or do you view the "type" of action to be different? I think I first heard of SW in conjunction with Eberron as a matter of fact.

 

[S'mon]

Would you elaborate here on your thought? I have always veiwed D&D fantasy as very action oriented and I have run/played in a couple of campaigns using SW. Or do you view the "type" of action to be different? I think I first heard of SW in conjunction with Eberron as a matter of fact.

Well, I was thinking that there is so much D&D support for D&D - fighting monsters in dungeons to take their stuff - whereas SW only has a little bit. But I think it'd be great for running an Action Movie style game set in Eberron or Forgotten Realms! I just wouldn't use it for dungeon crawls.

 

[Thanee]

In AD&D if I wanted my fighter to be intelligent and charismatic as well a being a good fighter, it was simply a matter of rolling well.

And what if you did not roll well?

Bye
Thanee

 

[amerigoV]

Well, I was thinking that there is so much D&D support for D&D - fighting monsters in dungeons to take their stuff - whereas SW only has a little bit. But I think it'd be great for running an Action Movie style game set in Eberron or Forgotten Realms! I just wouldn't use it for dungeon crawls.

Awhile back, someone posted "I really like Monte Cooke's stuff (Dungeon a Day, etc). I wish he wrote for Savage Worlds."

My response: "He does, but he just does not know it. Its so easy to convert stuff that its no different than just normal game prep."

On the GM's side, the system is just wonderful in that way. I have not bought into 4e very much, but anything I have for 3.x is still viable so long as it is not pure player crunch (and player options can be an inspiration for a build). All my Monster Manuals are useful, modules still have value, and campaign sourcebooks still work just fine.

One does have to be careful with modules, though. Third edition seemed to narrow most fights to 4-6 opponents per fight and you needed 13.333 fights to level up. One should step back and figure out which fights are meaningful and be sure to add more extras. Straight conversions tend to result in too many higher toughness creatures/wild cards that can be grindy.

Anyway, I hope you continue to enjoy Savage Worlds.

 

[Votan]

And what if you did not roll well?

Bye
Thanee

I think the contrast between AD&D and Savage Worlds is a bit more complex. AD&D went with the idea of random characters with the notion that bneing surprised about the nature of a character led one to play things outside the box. If one rolled an abysmal dexterity, then it was time to try and play (a perhaps not especially wise) cleric. This can be fun, but was never the dominate mode of playing even in 1E.

By 3E (and especially 4E), designed characters have taken over D&D and this point becomes much less meaningful.

AD&D had the cool insight that an approach like 4d6 drop one (or 3d6) in order would lead to all sorts of quirky and unexpected characters. Buit this required other features of the game (like only a modest link between ability scores and character power) as well as a high mortality rate (so a single lucky set of rolls isn't a permanent license to superiority).

Different approaches have different pluses and minuses.

 

[BluSponge]

I'll say this after playing many, many, years of D&D - the mechanics make the game more fun.

This is my feeling too. The "game" is fun to play, which is why I'm happy to ignore those nagging narrativist tendencies that are hard wired into my though process. Generally, I like mechanics to fade into the background when I'm playing. But SW is just so much dang fun...

Would you elaborate here on your thought? I have always veiwed D&D fantasy as very action oriented and I have run/played in a couple of campaigns using SW. Or do you view the "type" of action to be different? I think I first heard of SW in conjunction with Eberron as a matter of fact.

My personal experience has been that folks who go into SW expecting it to give them that "D&D" experience are almost always disappointed. I saw this first hand when I ran a fantasy game with it early on. Actually had one player leave because his "necromancer" wasn't D&D enough for his tastes. Also saw plenty of initial interest on dragonsfoot.org bleed away as folks here discovered it was not a good substitute for OD&D.

This is why, generally, when folks from a DnD background ask about SW, I recommend starting with something other than fantasy, like the Eye of Kilquato adventure. SW does fantasy just fine. It does not do Dungeons and Dragons fantasy, though. And I think it's best when it doesn't have to go up against those expectations with new players.

For those looking for a "high fantasy" experience with SW, check out Sean Patrick Fannon's Shaintar setting, either the old edition or the new, forthcoming edition from Reality Blurs.

Tom