What is the deal with Savage Worlds?

What is the deal with Savage Worlds?

By that I mean, how does it compare to other systems in terms of combat, social interaction, ease of player use, character creation, and the viability for campaign play as well as GM use?

Other urls found in this thread:

mega.nz/#F!axkmmbKT!NKiex_659PAGOlaKBbukFA!rhNwhT5I
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I got mixed feelings with it for a number of reasons.

On the positive side!

>Fast combat that is resolved quickly pretty much universally but can still be dangerous as hell for the players
>Pretty easy to learn mechanics (Roll stat die plus wild die for almost all checks, take the higher result, if it beats a 4 you succeed)
>The rules for checks, damage, and all the fiddly bits are pretty much universal across all the different settings. You are primarily just manipulating the flavor of stuff while still applying the same result (for example, a shot gun blast, a telekinetic assault, and fire spell would all basically achieve the same effect and the rolls are going to be basically identical with just the core stat for those rolls to hit being different)
>You can pretty much make whatever character you want right out the gate you just need to respect edge and power point limits

The bad
>Give the character creations options being so vast, character creation causes a shit load of analysis paralysis
>People often try to break the game given the freedom of character creation and they usual fuck up and make useless character for the most part. (For example I had a guy make someone who only used explosive damage for attacks, he couldn't do shit when fighting in close quarters with his bros and just got beat to death constantly)
>It is difficult to make a big bad challenging if you are playing RAW because the players will usually drop them right out of the gate or you will make a big bad overpowered and characters will get absolutely smashed by them
>The story telling mechanics are kind of weak and it is primarily focused on combat. Very good combat though.
>Only needing that four to pass with exploding dice and two dice rolls available per turn and bennies getting kicked around? Yeah, failure is rare as hell.

It's an okay system. It has some strengths and some flaws, and it's kind of like a training wheels version of point-buy systems, like GURPS.

>how does it compare to other systems in terms of combat
The combat is generally pretty fast paced with a lot of quick kills. However, it relies on lots of critical hits (called Aceing) and highly variable burst damage. That means that with boss monsters, who have a lot of Toughness, you can sometimes get very, very long battles, where the players just cannot bring an enemy down, because in order to inflict damage, they have to get critical rolls. Damage is also weird. Because attack and damage dice explode, and because the system relies on that, you can have weird stuff happen. Sometimes a house cat can one shot a t-rex. Other times, a guy with 6 health can get hit for 40 damage and walk away without a scratch. Both of those things have happened in games I've run. The combat is just very random at times.

>social interaction
It does it okay. There is a subsystem for social conflict which isn't great. The Charisma stat is actually quite overpowered if you stack it from multiple sources, which allows focused charisma characters to overwhelm NPCs pretty easily.

>character creation
Similar to World of Darkness. It's half free form, half structured. You can KINDA do what you want, but there are hard limits on things, like how many Attribute points are possible, how high skills can go relative to their attribute, and so on. Good for creating pulp human characters. Less good for weird stuff, like aliens, monsters, supers.

>viability for campaign play as well as GM use
I've run several campaigns with it and had few problems. The system is relatively simple, and has a huge amount of source material, so it's pretty easy to set stuff up as a GM. The biggest issue is that skills are fucked up. You get too few of them at start, and they are hugely expensive to raise. I house rule them to be cheaper.

It can be off putting going into the system when you are used to something like Dungeons and Dragons because player balance is harder to achieve, the system is so different that it takes some getting used to as well. It also doesn't lend itself well to some play styles at all. For example an investigatory mystery game for a game so focused on combat is a poor mix. Horror is great though, just make the monsters way outside of the player's ability to handle and have them running the fuck away while PCs drop in super violent ways around them with getting out alive being the only way to 'win' a scenario.

The core rulebook is kind of fuddy about some things but they are easy enough to figure out and some of the supplemental books are better left avoided because they can get fucktarded. Super Powers for example, the character creation for that is needlessly complex for a lot of people. Having to differentiate between an always on power and activated power in regards to basic functions like super speed and explaining to someone 'Yes, your character CAN run as fast as the speed of light, however, you need to spend power points each time you activate that speed instead of just having it on and going' really makes them scratch their head at first.

On the whole, if you get a good group and competent DM, the Savage Worlds system is pretty stellar for combat heavy games with a lot of character customization. It lends itself well to high adventure and epic battles across time and space and interesting locals, just don't expect super deep social interactions, character creation hiccups at first, and fully expect everyone to bitch that it isn't D&D. The counter to that last argument is to tell them 'YOU run D&D then.' (note this only works if you are a forever DM, because nobody else will run D&D without preparing for like a month in advance because they don't know the big DM secret of pulling shit out of your ass on the fly)

>Combat
It's my favorite in terms of combat, actually. It flows really well and other than combat ending too quickly sometimes I don't feel like it's a bad system for it to the point where It's my preferred general system.
>Social Interaction
Eugh. I fucking HATE the charisma based edges in Savage Worlds. It doesn't really handle social stuff well at all, really. I would highly recommend cutting all charisma bonuses in half. Or make things not stack.
>Ease of player use
It's got one of the simpler setups for character creation compared to the systems my various groups frequently use (3.5, WoD, L5R, Shadowrun)
>Character Creation
With a wealth of options it's wonderful for this, characters usually end up being pretty unique in the end even if their stats are similar.
>Campaign play/GM use
It's my favorite system for long term play because of how quick it goes, and the system's small scale makes stating out enemies an absolute breeze. I also think the combat in itself is rather fun.

>and just got beat to death constantly
hmmm

>It is difficult to make a big bad challenging if you are playing RAW because the players will usually drop them right out of the gate or you will make a big bad overpowered and characters will get absolutely smashed by them
excuse me, i have never played SW and i have no preconceived notions either way but this sounds fucking terrible. if true, this is a huge, huge drawback.

>Only needing that four to pass with exploding dice and two dice rolls available per turn and bennies getting kicked around? Yeah, failure is rare as hell.
again, you may not realize it but this comes across as really awful. i hope it's not as bad as it sounds.

>if true, this is a huge, huge drawback.
It's not, in my experience at least.

>Only needing that four

Four is unmodified, the base target number. Anything worth doing has some modifiers.

Savage Worlds is basically a simplified and generic version of the old Deadlands/Hell on Earth system.

Personally, I find that by simplifying the system, it lost much of its flavor. For playing Deadlands and Hell on Earth I would continue to play the old system. For other settings it might be interesting as it is simpler than GURPS, better suited for pulp genre than BRP, and offers more possibilities than Mini 6.

>Deadlands/Hell on Earth old system
>Good

Fuck that shit.

I spend one action to draw my gun
I spend one action to aim my gun
I spend one action to cock my hammer back
I spend one action to fire my gun
I spend one action to aim my gun again
I spend one action to pull the hammer back
I spend one action to fire my gun

Fuck that shit.

Responding to some of these, I can't argue with the pro's.
>Give the character creations options being so vast, character creation causes a shit load of analysis paralysis
Yeah, absolutely.
>People often try to break the game given the freedom of character creation and they usual fuck up and make useless character for the most part. (For example I had a guy make someone who only used explosive damage for attacks, he couldn't do shit when fighting in close quarters with his bros and just got beat to death constantly)
Oh I've my glorious tales as well. Half of them not thinking putting points into fighting for the parry would matter on a person with a gun.
>It is difficult to make a big bad challenging if you are playing RAW because the players will usually drop them right out of the gate or you will make a big bad overpowered and characters will get absolutely smashed by them
True. Tons of mooks can help but not solve the problem. Different books introduce some edges that help (body guard which is in multiple books for example). But yeah, you can always add additional wounds/phases/conditional immunities/quirks ala the dredlich's "Oh you killed me? Too bad I stole another skeleton's body ahahaha" power.
>The story telling mechanics are kind of weak and it is primarily focused on combat. Very good combat though.
And yet people still call it a storyteller system. Fuck if I know why either.
>Only needing that four to pass with exploding dice and two dice rolls available per turn and bennies getting kicked around? Yeah, failure is rare as hell.
Modifiers son. 4 is a base, you're more than welcome to increase it and decrease it. I think the largest in book modifier I've ever seen to a roll is a fucking -12 in either the scifi or interface 0's hacking.

To add my own.
The modern chase rules are hot garbage.

Bonus
>charisma characters to overwhelm
Rolling a 1 on persuasion is a critfail regardless of wild die tho

Yes. Combat is slower than in some other games, mainly because of initiative, but it's exactly this that makes Deadland's and Hell on Earth's combat special.

Also:
>I spend one action to draw my gun
If you're gun is not already drawn, then you just walzt in an ambush like a noob. That's what happen when you don't listen to Saint Jeff Cooper's teachings. Also, there's Fast Draw.
>I spend one action to aim my gun
Not needed. If you're close enough, and/or if you're a good shot enough, you can snap shot all you want.
>I spend one action to cock my hammer back
Rules got changed in Deadland's first errata. Manual repeating firearms have a RoF of 1. Semi-automatic firearms have a RoF of 2. This point is moot in HoE where manual repeating firearms are rare.
>I spend one action to fire my gun
Yup. Once in a while, you have to use one action.

So it's nothing I haven't seen in Boothill RPG before?

Not OP, but this thread has been helpful to me. I'll give Savage Worlds another read and see if it'll work for my games.

Does anyone have the old and new chase rules? I wanted to compare them.

is anyone interested in a savage rifts game?

While I said that I prefer classic Deadlands to Savage World Deadlands, I'm perfectly fine with using SW for Rifts for example.

If you're willing to wait 12 hours, and the thread is still up, I can get you them tomorrow morning.

Actually i had more time before work than I realized.

Even if you don't play the game you should be able to pick up on everything you need to know. They clearly went for the shorten and shitten it up approach.

>It is difficult to make a big bad challenging if you are playing RAW because the players will usually drop them right out of the gate
The game is sort of at fault here, because it doesn't really tell you how to handle BBEGs, but it mostly comes down to DMs not knowing what they're doing. Just give the BBEG a fluffed version of the Heavy Armor rule, and that will solve 90% of your problems.

>Only needing that four to pass
If things seem too easy, the DM might not be applying the correct modifiers.
I'm not trying to say the game is flawless or anything, but in my experience as a player, most problems seem to stem from bad/rookie DMs rather than the system itself. I don't know why people call Savage Worlds a "light system", it requires a good deal of system mastery to run well.

>(for example, a shot gun blast, a telekinetic assault, and fire spell would all basically achieve the same effect and the rolls are going to be basically identical with just the core stat for those rolls to hit being different)

Am I the only one that sees this as a big minus? Those three things fell like they should work very differently. Okay, I kan see telekinetic blast and fireball being kinda similar, but shotgun?

There are actually stats for the shotgun (the double barrel is broken as shit) so they are different.

I don't think that's a good thing tho, I hate weapon tables and the SW ones can get pretty silly.

I fucking love Deadlands and have a huge love of that era.

Doesn't the original lands use a distinctly different system to savage worlds. Similar trappings but noticeably different?

What was some of your best moments with Deadlands? I need some inspiration.

Savage Worlds is a shitty system that tries too hard to reinvent the wheel. The exploding die and raise mechanics make any form of encounter

balance/planning impossible. A rank 1 novice can one-shot a dragon with lucky die rolls using his fist. The system boasts that bennies are used for "cool

things" like players changing narrative or pulling off impossible stunts, but players just hoard them for use as extra hit points. The chase system (any iteration

of it) is an absolute shit storm of retardation. The 3-wound limit is just plain bad game design. The community is full of sad 40-something-year-old zealots who

foam at the mouth at any notion of house ruling the assy mechanics. Shotguns are utterly broken and despite having the same average damage as a rifle, end

up dealing twice as much because of exploding dice. The entire game works on a fucktarded tabletop scale so you either have to use miniatures for EVERY

combat or have fun doing extra math every time you want to figure out range penalties.

It's like the worst parts of FATE and GURPS put together, with none of the upsides. Don't play it. Leave it in the trash where it belongs.

>The 3-wound limit is just plain bad game design.

Elaborate. I for one appreciate the lack of HP bloat usually seen in other systems.

>Fighting down the length of a monstrous train during a Rail War skirmish as it speeds towards Austin, packed with nitro!

>Gambling with everybodies money in order to distract the casino, distracting as much of the place as I could while the rest of the party sneaks in and guts a Manitou cabal.

>Each going through a mini-session during the week to fake our deaths to get Stone (Unkillable BBEG) off our trail.

>Joining Texas Rangers, becoming a Lawdog

>Using phrases like Back East, Tinhorn and firing sixguns

>The community is full of sad 40-something-year-old zealots who foam at the mouth at any notion of house ruling the assy mechanics.

I love Savage Worlds, but dear God this is the most accurate thing that anyone has ever said.

>Only needing that four to pass with exploding dice and two dice rolls available per turn and bennies getting kicked around? Yeah, failure is rare as hell.
That's why you also have situational modifiers like unstable ground, light cover, poor lighting, etc to give additional penalties to player when you want to cause tension in extreme circumstances.

Savage worlds was born of the original deadlands. It's a bizarre story where the child changed it's name, grew up, killed and cannibalized it's father and then became it's own dad.

Going from memory. Some of this may be Deadlands bleeding through.
>Clunky core mechanic where improving your skill can make you more likely to fail.
>characters can often be useless in combat due to being a fraction of the turns of the other characters.
>action points "bennies" are your characters hp, and the game balance shifts drastically of the gm gives slightly too few or too many of gives them out unevenly.
>fanbase seems to think it's the best and tries to encourage it's use for literally everything.
Not a huge fan, personally.

A dragon has 20 toughness 4 of which is armor. Dragons are by default wildcards and thus by core and core alone may use 2 bennies for their own purposes, and any gm bennies available. So let's assume the gm has used all of their bennies to keep this dragon and dragon only. The dragon has a d12 vigor.

To kill the dragon in a single attack you'd need to as a novice to roll 36 damage on a d6 strength and the wild die. The percent chance of this happening rounds to to something like 0.0002% or so. But the dragon has 2 bennies. The average roll of an exploding d12 or an exploding d6 is about 8. Which is a hit with a raise on vigor. Which means the dragon would after the already retardedly unlikely punch, still be at 2 wounds and not at all dead. Also since wounds cap at incap, you can't actually overkill the dragon to avoid it not dying.

The only chance of it truly being one shot would be for it to crit fail that vigor roll, which is a 1.39% chance.

So in other words, sure, that person probably could.

The 3 wound limit isn't even a limit in certain books, but ok. There are plenty of other ways to get more durable even if you're not a boat.

I've seen enough savage setting books to disagree with the frothing over house rules.

Shotguns yeah a little bit, though interface 0 re-balances them to be fairly balanced.

I haven't used miniatures in over 5 years and my combat takes significantly less time than the friend who meticulously maps out every encounter in roll 20 with literally none of the set up.

Anyway I'm going to min max a novice to see how much more likely I can get them to force a dragon to spend a single benny.

>Clunky core mechanic where improving your skill can make you more likely to fail.

>implying rolling a single dice is clunky

Improving a skill never makes you more likely to fail. It makes it less likely for your dice to explode, and some steps make it less likely to roll a certain number exactly (I think the example is a 6 on the d4->d6 step).

>characters can often be useless in combat due to being a fraction of the turns of the other characters.
... what? Is this about TWF-ing and automatic weapons or something?
>action points "bennies" are your characters hp, and the game balance shifts drastically of the gm gives slightly too few or too many of gives them out unevenly.
True. This is annoying.
>fanbase seems to think it's the best and tries to encourage it's use for literally everything.
The same could be said of all the vocal members of all fanbases, especially for generic games.

Copypasta

Alright so made a quick martial artist.
He has a d12 in fighting, and his punches hit for 12+d4+3 damage. Due to the dragon's size and his skill he is nearly guaranteed a bonus d6 damage as well.
He's an avian because otherwise we're assuming someone who cannot fly can even touch the dragon, and why would the dragon allow that?

So likelyhood of capping off the dragon's health is about 2%. Wow an actual percent this time. The dragon's shit is still the same. So about 1.39% of 2% is how likely someone built for punching dragons in the dick can punch said dragon in the dick. If we aim for the head instead (and risk failing the fighting roll) this increases to 1.39% of 4.7%. So still a fucking hail mary if I've ever seen one.

Meanwhile the dragon is nearly guaranteed to maul this angry fist strapped to a cripple of a character to death if it doesn't burn them to ash before they even touch it. Because the dragon is significantly faster and has ranged attacks.

Could you do the math if the dragon is grounded, surprised, the attacker has the backstabbing/assassin edges and wild attacks with a katana? Possibly has a smite on him as well from somewhere, just in case.

>Less likely to roll a 6 when going from a d4 to a d6.
Which makes you more likely to fail tn6 rolls after improving your skill, does it not? I see that as a definite negative.

I hear adding a couple of fudge dice to all rolls fixes this, but by default, it's irritating to me.

>less turns and confusion
Am I mixing it up with Deadlands and this is an area they're different?

>Combat uses playing cards for initiative.
>not everyone gets the same number of cards (actions).
>cards are the most important combat stat, which may not be immediately obvious to the guy building his character new to the system.

I remember my first Deadlands hell on earth character being fucking garbage because i Didn't understand this mechanic. I thought i read it worked basically the same in sw last time i looked at it.

My biggest gripe is the reliance on bennies, and it's the thing imo that makes the game unplayable.

The dice thing is an annoyance and something I consider bad design, but not enough to make the game unplayable.

The cards thing (assuming I'm even remembering it correctly in applying to sw as well) isn't such a problem once people understand how it works.

I mean I could, but that ain't no novice. Also core katana or the canonical and not retarded solomon kane katana? Or for added sure why not the k-tana for maximum overweeb?

I'll actually do the math for 1 and only 1 of these.

d4 chance of rolling 6: 18%
d6 chance of rolling a 6: impossible it would explode into higher numbers.

Either way the d6 has a higher average roll of 4.2 compared to the d4's 3.33. Ergo the d6 rolls better.

Accounting for wild die.
d4+w = 32%
d6+w = still impossible but you're about as likely to roll a 7 as the d4 has to roll a 6. Of course a 7 would be the worst explosion.

Averages are 5.3 and 5.8 respectively. The only slightly counter intuitive thing being that the wild die really mitigates lows skills from being too bad, and there are absolutely diminishing returns for raising a skill too high.

oh and you can only use 1 card in a turn usually your highest but you don't have to pick that one. In no way shape or form is your initiative your action count.

There's no more "card" stat in SW.

There are a number of easy fixes for the dice thing, but they aren't official I think.

The benny reliance needs some strict policing, but on the other hand it lets the GM control how harsh the game is.

There are 3 katanas? I only know the core one.

I think you could do most of that with a novice, I made a char like that once.

So it just gives you more cards to pick from and a higher chance of going first?

Okay. Yeah I was remembering it as being the same as in Deadlands, and there is definitely also your action count.

Chance of succeeding a tn6 task? Ie Roll a 6+?

But either way, the main problem is the reliance on Bennies, and that's not something I've seen a good solution for.

I apologize if this is the wrong place to ask for this, but does anyone have either edition of the low life PDF? I'm thinking about buying it to run for my goofy ass group, but I'd like to check before a throw 40 bucks down on the book.

Check 4plebs for a sw mega

Someone suggested sw would work well as a ruleset for a skirmish wargame, allowing you to build your whole army with it, and being good for crossover whfb vs warmahordes battles.

Has anyone tried it for such? How did it work out?

The solomon kane books include a katana as an exotic weapon that can't cut through 3 tanks in a single blow. Interface 0 is totally not shadowrun and includes a hyper future katana with improved holographics which is absurd in the vein of core's +2 out of nowhere damage.

I'm sure there are more in other books. Either way I can force novice if using the k-tana. Because augs.

>So it just gives you more cards to pick from and a higher chance of going first?
Correct. Technically this can lead to a "free" multi action more often as you're more likely to draw the joker, but that's a stretch.

Technically for a TN 6 task you'd get roughly the same chance + or - less than 5%. Which is the oddity created through explosions and the 6 not being able to roll itself. Anything higher than 6 immediately favors the d6 though it balances out to nearly negligible difference when we include the wild die.

The bennie thing I can get behind. You need a good gm, or in my case a stingy one. I know full well I don't hand bennies out as much as I should. So I use the bonus bennie on a crit fail rule, and generally use starting bennies +1 - rest of session estimate to balance things out if I'm tailoring an encounter. I might through another at players, or plan an interlude to make that more likely.

I also tend to run settings with access to pocket bennies (bennies in the form of a one use item) such as hellfrost to give players more control over their bennie count.

Yeh, that really isn't helpful. Searching for that gives me a shitload of tangentially related results.

It was the third one down. And it's in there.

archive.4plebs.org/tg/search/text/"savage worlds" "mega.nz"/

mega.nz/#F!axkmmbKT!NKiex_659PAGOlaKBbukFA!rhNwhT5I

Thanks man!

Np.

4plebs is really good for that sort of thing, you just need to know how to find what you're looking for.

Hope the book proves to be of use to you.

>Tn6 task is nearly the same +/- bennie reliance is problematic
Is there a way to make them a non - issue? You could basically drop them other than how they serve as your hp.

And because my sw is rusty, how do you make a tough sob in sw, again, when there's no real hp other than bennies?

Iirc that dice hiccup happens every time you go up a die.

Tn6 from d4 to d6.
Tn8 from d6 to d8.
Etc.

2% without wild, 1.7% with wild. Specifically for a TN equally the die type. But not for every die type and the one below it. Not that you'll be running into many TN 10 checks. As the die type raises the difference shrinks to below 1% for the d10 and d8 trying to roll a 10 without wild.

Well there's me being s stingy bastard method. It Generally I tend to reward players with +1's instead of bennies. You can also set a hard limit to the amount they can earn in a given session. I've seen that done before for an online game. You could never have more than your starting amount at a time. Or the gm can limit the amount they're willing to hand out in a session to something like max of 2 bonus bennies for any given player.

A toughy depends on the books we're using. A lot of the older ones do it by affecting the soak rolls through edges. Elan as an edge always applies to soak rolls. Combining these methods can result in someone auto soaking a wound or 2. There's increasing toughness which can be done by upping vigor (which also increases the success rate of soaking) or through myriad edges throughout the books and even a hindrance. In some books (interface 0, or scifi) there is stackable armor (which can get silly, I have a bounty hunter I play that could easily go toe to toe with my example dragon and not break a sweat (he has sealed power armor and as a result would be protected pretty heavily from the fire)).

All in all it tends to come down to being able to soak things at some point or another, and as a result your bennies.

Already a thing. SW Showdown.

>Is there a way to make them a non - issue? You could basically drop them other than how they serve as your hp.

Have a combat (physical) benny pool that recharges on rests and a normal benny pool?

Oh I should also tell you I have an old health in savage world's conversion lying around. I finally updated it for a setting I'm working on. It doesn't do away with bennies, though they are both better at soaking larger hits, but worse at soaking smaller hits.

I haven't playtested them to satisfaction yet though. I also totally stole a limb sacrifice alternative rule for reign (one day I'll actually read through reign) for it. I'll post it if interested.

I have also bargained with properly failed their incap roll dead characters before. I'll choose something precious, and you can survive incapacitated in exchange for it. Sometimes it was an arm, once it was a sibling, another time it was their ability to use magic.

I was thinking of running this for some friends with some of the war-game elements mentioned in the core book + some minor home brewed stuff. How does it hold up as a war game? I imagine the fast and lethal combat would make things comparatively snappy.

Considering that quite a few of the published settings are set during major wars, pretty well. I mean, there's Weird Wars (with sub-settings for Rome, WW1, WW2, and Vietnam), Necropolis (WH40K with the serial numbers filed off), World of the Dead (a zombie apocalypse setting with a war against the living dead in the background), and a few more. There are also really good mass battle rules, which helps a lot.

The gripe is that with everything having a maximum of three wounds, the game is too easy or something.

It's a stupid criticism. I've been playing SW for a few years now, and while there's some rough spots, it's great fun. Bitching about there only being three wounds to me indicates someone who's never played the system. Between toughness, parry, and wildcard enemies spending bennies, three wounds can be a lot.

Pic related: has three wounds, is hell to fight.

Not to mention setting rules that change wound values. Games like Trail of Cthulu give PCs less wounds and sometimes even take away the wild die in order to make players more like fragile little meatbags instead of one-liner-spouting pulp heroes.

lol, I wrote the majority of that a couple months ago when I was raging on SW and its community. It's since become copy pasta -- but this one has some stuff I didn't say tacked on (everything after the 40-year-old zealots comment).

Anyway, I've since grown to enjoy Savage Worlds. I currently GM Savage Rifts and we're having a ton of fun. I just avoid the SW community and YouTube videos from people like Jerrod Gunning. The community (and vocal fan "representatives") can be horribly detrimental to the game. They have really shit opinions that give false impressions of how the game feels and how the mechanics actually work.

Tons of settings here, including Low Life 1e:
mega.nz/#F!axkmmbKT!NKiex_659PAGOlaKBbukFA!rhNwhT5I

I love the Low Life setting. Easy to get people to play it, hard to find a GM that can run it right. Good luck finding the Redredged (2e) book. I own a physical copy, but have never been able to find a PDF version.

I'd be interested in reading that.

Ooh. I'll check it out.

I don't know man, I hate SW with a burning passion, but I'd take it any day of the week over Fate and GURPS. Fate is practically pretending to play a game while actually freeforming and I really respect GURPS for what it is, but it seems way too fucking granular and finnicky to play for what it does.

But now I really do wonder about the community. I usually don't look into fandoms behind games at all, but is it really that bad with SW? Anything good to share?

How do you end up passionately hating a system?

Does it even break the system to give something an extra wound or two?

Being stuck with playing for lack of better options for several years.

'ere you are then. They're already due for a re-write, just not a mechanical one.

Not really, especially if you don't alter how wounds work. Honestly you tend to make retarded cripples out of people that way.

You see sans edges which reduce wound penalties a person with say 5 wounds instead of 3 (a boss I once used) will end up trying to do everything at a -4 at the point they'd normally be dead. Which is a pretty big modifier in savage worlds.