Why not Savage Worlds instead of d20?

A couple weeks ago I tried to get a dungeon crawl Savage Worlds game going on Roll20 to no avail. A couple people messaged me saying Savage Worlds wasn't a good fit as it's "pulpy" or too "rules light". Granted PEG used to push the "pulp" thing in the earlier edition of SW... but "rules light"? Have they ever played SW? I'd say it's something around rules medium if anything. Especially if you start tacking on crunchier setting rules, ammo tracking, and inventory management.

So a friend and I sat down tonight and ran a one sheet dungeon using Savage Worlds that we'd previous run using Dungeon Crawl Classics. It ran beautifully. Actually... it ran better than it did using DCC. We were able to easier narrate misses and landing hits that don't do damage. The mechanics worked well for pulling off actions that weren't just “I attack”. We didn't have to just arbitrarily pull a DC number out of thin air for ability/skill tests.

So what gives? Why do people constantly trash this system? I'm actually considering dropping the OSR systems I run in favor of Savage Worlds for my fantasy and gonzo post-apoc settings.

Other urls found in this thread:

godwars2.org/SavageWorlds/rules_edges.html#FudgeDice
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

I'm a savage worlds fan but I don't think it suited to dungeon crawl style games.

It's hit pointless high damage mechanics lean more to towards pulp adventure or horror, where combat happens quickly and notable decisive.

There is no slow whittling down of players hit points until they're in danger. Even a low level and only has a small but real chance of getting a lucky role an even a low level enemy has a small but real chance of getting a lucky roll getting an explosion both literally and figuratiy.

>It's hit pointless high damage mechanics lean more to towards pulp adventure or horror, where combat happens quickly and notable decisive.
I never understand this argument. I equate toughness to the whittling of hit points. You can land blows in Savage Worlds that don't beat toughness, so they don't cause lethal damage. So it's superficial... which is what hit points represent until the final hit. SW just doesn't have you marking down 1 hp here, 2 hp here. It only counts the crucial hits.

>There is no slow whittling down of players hit points until they're in danger.
And each wound you take actually has an effect in game. You start to accumulate penalties, which I think is a better representation of becoming more and more in danger.

> even a low level enemy has a small but real chance of getting a lucky roll getting an explosion both literally and figuratiy.
The same thing can happen in any OSR d20 system. Hell, it's actually even more likely - most retro clones have you starting with 1 to 8 HP. If a kobold/goblin's sword does 1d6, well, you can see how quickly that can escalate.

Yes, acing can create moments where I struggle to narrate how something happens... but a lot of times weaker creatures can only land a hit IF they ace. For example - The dwarf my friend was playing had a parry of 7 with his chainmail armor. A goblin and zombie only have a d6 in fighting. The ONLY way either could even land a hit (and that's just a hit, the damage might not beat the toughness) was to ace their attack roll.

Savage Worlds is rules-medium, and Moldvay Basic D&D is rules-light (and OD&D would've been rules-light when it started out if it were more comprehensible). So their argument about it being too rules-light obviously doesn't fly.

>I never understand this argument. I equate toughness to the whittling of hit points. You can land blows in Savage Worlds that don't beat toughness, so they don't cause lethal damage. So it's superficial... which is what hit points represent until the final hit. SW just doesn't have you marking down 1 hp here, 2 hp here. It only counts the crucial hits.

>There is no slow whittling down of players hit points until they're in danger.
And each wound you take actually has an effect in game. You start to accumulate penalties, which I think is a better representation of becoming more and more in danger.

They're the same in basic principle but they're different mechanics and lead to different game play.

Whether its good thing or not, any game which gives the players a lot of hit points would have relie on it as a safety net. Taking damaged becomes just another form of resource management.

If player knows a goblin (even on the critical) can't do more than 16 points of damage in a single turn, and he has 22hp, he will treated it accordingly.

He doesn't have a risk of being killed instantly so he will see taking damage as more of a cost to benefit. He might decide risk taking damage to save a spell or power for when he really needs it.

Savage worlds on the other hand is well... More savage. He doesn't have a guaranteed safety net of more HP then enemy can do in damage.

If you're really the sort of person who plays ORS and can cope with the idea of being 'one shotted' then honestly it's not a problem.

Someone who is use to playing modern d20 games however would likely hate it.

For the last couple years all I've run is OSR-ish games. Mutant Future is my primary game (essentially B/X D&D skinned to look like Gamma World). I also really like DCC. DCC is particularly deadly. If you're not familiar - players start out as level 0 peasants with 1 to 4 hit points and makeshift weapons and equipment.

I like the idea of combat being deadly and a tad more unpredictable. I feel the benny mechanic helps off-set the random die-explosions everyone loves to harp about. I just like how each round in Savage Worlds feels like some shit is going to go down. The mechanics themselves are fun - add to that good combat narration... it's a win-win.

In later DCC games, when people have more HP and a cleric, combat just becomes a really boring slug fest. Even with good narration, it's just a roll, hit, tick off some damage, repeat sort of thing. I've never played modern d20 games, so I'm not sure if they're any different. I know there are "feats" and all that, so maybe it adds more flavor?

I like how out-the-gate Savage Worlds has a shit ton of combat options and tactics available to any character.

Oh well if that's the case then honestly It's fine, it's not like the 'lol I have 75 hit points' of DND.

You already got told off in that thread, stop reposting it.

People just want to lash out against something that they havn't tried or they have actually tried it but with the heavy bias towards it being shit due to what Veeky Forums spouts. "Shit game, didn't even try" seems to be how people usually go.

Fellow SW fan here. Good taste, friend. Have you tried the other Companion or settings books?

I like SW, but it really needs a guideline/hard rule for the benny economy for dungeon crawling. I also haven't found a spell system that I actually thought was good.

Still, the core ideas of the game are solid and fun, and since it's simple it's easy to tweak. You could do much worse than SW.

What would you want out of a magic system?
I'm not sure if they've done it (I could be half remembering something I've already read), but you could copy the core super powers and have each spell as a skill.

Mostly just interesting valuation and resource management for combat stuff.

I actually sorta homebrewed one that's about drawing mana to cast spells, but I haven't had a chance to test it yet. But yeah, the "spells as skill" version also works.

Doesn't savage worlds have that retarded d4-d12 dice system?

>Retarded
Are you serious.

Doesn't Savage World have a serious problem where a d4 skill is much more likely to succeed at a roll than a d6 skill because of exploding dice?

Much worse

As I'm not much of a fan of resource mechanics in general I personally think the mana as casting penalty conversion rules work well. If you want to you she spells you have to take the risk they will miss or spend a turn or to preparing

Yes, why do you think think that's retarded?

So I've never run or played savage worlds before, but I get the impression that it's supposed to be some sort of tactics based mass combat game mostly? Rules and skills exist outside of combat of course, but the main focus of the game from reading the rule book seems to be combat against large numbers of mooks.

Is it the one where it has like a d4 for skills you're bad at and up to d12s for one's your good at?

I honestly prefer just rolling one dice type + modifiers (GURPS, Shadowrun, D20)

Not exactly. You're actually slightly better off using the dice below if the target number is the maximum results of your current dice. I.e. If you're trying to hit a eight you're better off rolling on d6 then an d8.

You still better off using the bigger dice on average though. The standard target number is four.

> I honestly just prefer to use one sort of die type

Okay then well then use d6-1,d6,d6+1,d6+2d6+3,

Not massively so but there's a strong miniature focus. Vehicle movements is listed in inches for example

And don't forget, there are penalties you could have. For the untrained example you have a -2 to that d4, as well as any bad lighting or other negative circumstances.

I've never used miniatures, mostly just sticking to the idea of short, medium or long ranges. For chases I use the rules I think were in the pulp rules, the one where you have basically distance units. Opposed drive rolls, whoever succeeds goes forwards by one, those who fail stay where they are (or on a botch go back one), along with obstacles here and there.

Not gonna lie. When I scrolled past that really quickly in the catalogue, I thought that was Pyrrha Nikos.

I used to GM Savage Worlds and I feel like I haven't grasped the system very well and I still don't. That said, it is a very good system for running pulpy adventures, I just think some things are a little too unnecessary such as the card-based initiative.

Because of the statistical abberation where in some rare cases it is better to be LESS SKILLED at something in order to have a higher chance to succeed.

A U T I S M is a harsh mistress.

I own the Supers companion too, but I've never run a supers game in SW. I also own the 50 Fathoms and Low Life setting books - have run both and enjoyed them.

That doesn't make sense... a 1d4 only has a 25% chance (1 in 4) to succeed (4 is the TN). A d6 takes you up to 50%, a d8 is 62.5%, and it goes up from there.

>Not massively so but there's a strong miniature focus. Vehicle movements is listed in inches for example
The ENTIRE game was designed with inches. Even weapon ranges are in inches. Each inch equals 6' (2 yards), so it's really easy to get standard ranges if you don't want to use minis.

>And don't forget, there are penalties you could have. For the untrained example you have a -2 to that d4, as well as any bad lighting or other negative circumstances.
Ranged weapons look very enticing to players because of the standard TN of 4 (instead of the TN being parry in melee), but ranged attacks accumulate penalties very quickly. Short range is the only range that doesn't have a penalty. Targets will quickly take cover, which adds more penalties. In my games, I'd say the average ranged attack is usually at a -2 or -3.

One of the few problems I have with the system as a GM is having to narrate situations when dice explosions achieve the near impossible. For example:

> Be GMing a gonzo post-apoc SW game.
> PCs are "newbies" and only have basic tribal gear (junk armor, spears, bows & arrows, etc).
> By their own actions, the PCs get pinned down by a group of gun-wielding bandits.
> The PCs are at long range, behind concrete cover, and it's dark outside. (came up to a -8 penalty).
> Bandit firing an AK-47 begins to ace ridiculously (d6 in shooting, aces 3 times and ends up with a 22 shooting check).
> Even with the cover, it's a hit with two raises.
> How did that even happen?

If the PCs are behind concrete COVER, then it's implied that there's still the possibility of hitting them. If it's not in fact supposed to be possible to even hit them, you shouldn't have rolled for the bandit in the first place.

Just curious as to how this would be different in any other system?

People behind cover usually get a defensive bonus of some sort and if your rolling to attack them presumably there is a way to hit them or else you wouldn't be rolling.

In SW specifically they can either have Light, Medium, Heavy or Near Total cover for a -1, -2, -4, or -6 to the enemy attack roll. If you deem that its total cover then they could have attempted to shoot through the cover entirely to try to hit them, then the concrete barrier would have added to the players toughness making it very unlikely the enemy would have hurt them.

"Your vision explodes into colors and you collapse forward as blood starts running down your face. Your partner sees the holes in your helmet and unclips the chin strap: There's a rather severe looking rake across the top of your skull and he fears something may have cracked. He replaces the helmet and tries to rouse you. You're Shaken with two Wounds.

If you guys want the odds on the whole dice probability thing, you can see pic attached. It's only a couple percent worse than the other other die, but it's a fair bit more amount below what it ideally should be.

Zadmar suggests using 1-2 Fudge dice to help fix it (you can see more at godwars2.org/SavageWorlds/rules_edges.html#FudgeDice ), but I mostly just ignore it because meh. Dragging in several other die rolls seems slow, although I do love the changed curves on using 2 of em, and I really wish it didn't exist at all.

The reason that some people hate it is for some broken bits and less than clear rules (All is easily homeruled IMO). However for dungeon crawls or anything really that involves beating up monsters and using the game's very very nice combat system, it is perfect. Don't listen to the haters OP, Savage Worlds is a fun game that clearly does what you want it to do.

Exactly! It actually handles hordes of enemies quite well. When I was play testing that crawl with my friend and his dwarf, he was blowing through the fodder monsters. At one point I said goblins just start flooding in. He was doing sweep attacks (via the edge) and decimating wave after wave. It was really fun to just have a bunch of shit going on and now worrying about encounter balance.

Just have a -1 one to the total of an ace if it really matters. It fixes the bill curve and it means you can still roll a 4 on a D4

>I just think some things are a little too unnecessary such as the card-based initiative.
Some of those things aren't exactly apparent as to why they're there, but they're there for a reason. Card-based initiative, for example, removes that slow-down where you call for initiative, everybody rolls, then calls out their numbers, then you tell them all to shut up and be patient and get the numbers one at a time, then remember you have to roll for the enemies too, then arrange it all into some semblance of order so you can read it off in combat.

With Savage Worlds, you just deal out some cards and go. Dealing out new cards each turn probably ends up taking as much time as rolling initiative once and writing it down, but it doesn't bring the game to a halt for several minutes, and it becomes part of the flow of combat. It gives you just enough time to tick down round-based durations and stuff before you have your new card and know when you're going to act.

If you want to speed things up even more, only deal out initiative cards at the start of battle, then keep them the whole time. if you do this, though, I strongly suggest allowing players to Refocus as an action (which can be combined with any other actions as normal, imposing the usual -2 penalty to other rolls), drawing a new card to replace their current one.

I find the card-based initiative flows much more smoothly than rolling for initiative.

>> How did that even happen?
Sometimes shit just happens... dude got lucky.

You should have seen what happened when a character chucked a lamp at a sleeping character to wake them up in a Savage Mouse Guard game I ran... ended up with something like 37 on the attack roll (I normally wouldn't have required a roll, but they were trying to wake a heavy sleeper during a surprise attack, so time was of the essence). Luckily that was the attack and not the damage roll...

This.

My other problem with the system was that the d4-d12 system was just generally annoying, with ambiguous probabilities. And the challenge levels are just as arbitrary as a DC number.

I found character creation tedious, though I'll allow that the GM had included way too many perks and additional options.

In general, the additional sourcebooks seem to be junk.

>I found character creation tedious
Nigga what. I've only played a few games and I can already basically create a character from memory, save for choosing (most) edges. It takes less than 5 minutes, 2 for your second adventure.
From what I've seen the settings books usually only add a couple of new edges and hindrances, etc (Slipstream is the exception I've had experience with, way too many races).

>My other problem with the system was that the d4-d12 system was just generally annoying, with ambiguous probabilities.
I like rolling something other than a d20 any time I do something. It's kind of shares the same appeal as DCC, since you get to use all the odd dice. It's different. I like it.

>And the challenge levels are just as arbitrary as a DC number.
Huh?

>I found character creation tedious,
Now you're on some bullshit. SW character creation is fast as hell.

>In general, the additional sourcebooks seem to be junk.
I'm not sure if you're referring to the Companion books or the setting books. Some of the 3rd party ones can be. Pinnacle seems to give out the 3rd party license to anyone that can type. You really only need the core book to run any genre.

Savage Rifts character creation is a tad lengthier too. You create a base character, then add an "Iconic Framework" (aka class) on top, then you usually have some random background rolls as well. Still simple compared to a lot of other systems.

I hate that every character you make in savage worlds is basically the same. There's like a core group of things you really need to pick and you run thin on points. It is deceptively constraining when at first glance it appears really flexible. That was my observation having played in several games.

I feel the exact opposite. I feel like you start with too many skill points and you can end up with a character that can do a ton of things. The only time I felt thin on points was in an Interface Zero game that was using the Skill Specialization setting rule. Even though you got 20 points (instead of the usual 15), you really had to focus on what your character was good at or you'd gimp yourself. It was fun!

Try to stop making the same characters then. My favorite character was a lucky hobo who didn't even have a point in fighting; he got through combat by taunting enemies to shake them long enough for the rest of the party to take care of them.

>And the challenge levels are just as arbitrary as a DC number.
Well yeah, 4 is pretty arbitrary, but it's 4 unless you're attacking someone's defense.

>I also own the 50 Fathoms and Low Life setting books - have run both and enjoyed them.
Jealous about you getting to run 50 Fathoms. Tried to get a game going once in game finder but was accused of being a furry or that everyone that would join would be a furry. Are furries really that interested in grab and merpeople? I don't think it's a very furry setting.

>How did that even happen?
You ruled it incorrectly. That's how. See and . Specifically the part about the wall adding to character toughness if it is total cover.

I feel like later DCC games can be really deadly really fast though if you're using giants, dragons, and other epic stuff.

> So what gives? Why do people constantly trash this system?

It gets trashed because it deserves to get trashed. 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.

> pic related, the superior OSR system.

>insert b8 meme here

Has the Virt of Bizarro-Veeky Forums leaked into our Veeky Forums or what's going on here?

>Why do people constantly trash this system?
I don't really see that that much on Veeky Forums to be honest. I mean it isn't even posted much here, since it just is not a system with much controversy going on.
Usually people are indifferent or in favour of the game, while admitting that it needs some houseruling here and there. With a few ones raging madly against it. But you always have people raging madly against what they don't like.
And then of course you have people who are telling what they didn't like aobut the system when playing. But that hardly is "trashing the system".

What is pulp adventure?

>OSR d20 system
These words do not go together.

gotcha
>Has the Virt of Bizarro-Veeky Forums leaked into our Veeky Forums?
no

James and the Giant Peach

Indiana Jones.

Yes.

Please explain how they don't. TIP: There are OSR games that are not based on the d20.

Trying too hard to be obtuse makes you look dumb.

Whatever you want it to be, user.

...

>There are OSR games that are not based on the d20.
None of them are, that's the point.

>Card-based initiative, for example, removes that slow-down
I don't see how cards remove the "problem" of slow initiative. With cards people will still call out their card, the GM will still have to sort through them and get them in order. There's no difference.

You missed the part where I explained the specific bit of slowdown I was talking about: not figuring out whose turn it is, but in getting initiative set up in the first place. Dealing out one card per player/NPC group takes a few seconds, which is much faster than the rolling/calling out/sorting/writing down combo I mentioned literally right after the part you quoted. It takes away the part where you announce "Roll for initiative!", then everybody gets excited for the battle, then loses a lot of that excitement when they don't get right into the battle since everything has to pause to generate initiative numbers and put them in order. With SW, it's "Here's your card, now what's your action?" You get straight to the battle part, without losing momentum in the process.

I'm not referring to SYSTEM called "d20", I'm referring to the die type. Pic related. That's a d20.

Just try it real quick. Pretend you have 5 players. Deal out the cards. You can SEE everyone's initiative sitting right in front of them. That's it, you're done. Now roll initiative with 5 d20s for the players, then for the GM's mobs, pretend everyone's calling out their initiative at the same time, then write it all down. See the difference?

It's important to note the players don't pick up the cards and hold them up to themselves or something. You basically leave the card out in front of you. I've been at larger SW tables where they used initiative card stands that faced the GM. Some GMs start counting down out loud through the cards. Either way, it's really fast and easy.

If it's really that big of a deal, just roll a d20 for initiative and treat 20's as a Joker.

>I just like how each round in Savage Worlds feels like some shit is going to go down.
elaborate plox

We understood that, and the point stands nonetheless.

Then you're an actual retarded person.

The fact they described it as "pulpy" makes them reek of shilling.

well, obviously it only happens when the TN equals the size of the die. easy to fix with a houserule.

Those words don't mean what you think they mean.

If you're using minis, the game becomes pretty tactical (making maneuvers, taking cover, AOE attacks, etc). There are so many combat options, you never know what someone's going to try to pull off. And the dice can explode - both in attacks AND damage. You can't just estimate shit like: "Okay, there's two goblins, the max damage they can do is 4. I have 20 HP, so no matter what they do they can't take me out this round."

It's not exactly a common word. They reek of the kind of shill that constantly puts shit down and always use the same tired easily-refuted arguments and start claiming you're "salty" when you start ripping their spines out.

Remember the alleged QTE bosses in DmC? NEITHER DO I.

>shilling
Dank memes, friend.

Again, those words really don't mean what you think you mean.

Pulpy isn't common? Since when?

This. Pulp may not get a whole lot of mainstream use, but in the sort of nerd crowds that role-gamers tend to inhabit, it's fairly common. I probably hear it used about as much as science fantasy.