Quote from: Phantom Black;416737With Savage Worlds you've got aimed shots, tricks, taunts....

Which you use over and over and over again.

To my mind, rushing up and spamming your best attack fight after fight is no better or worse than having to resort to aimed shots, tricks, and taunts combat after combat...

Quote from: Phantom Black;416737You can have two warrior characters with totally different abilities, skills and edges.

How many different Edges are there for warriors in the core book? Because, from what I recall, with the restrictions place on them because of various things, the selection was minimal.

Also, give us some examples of the abilities, Edges, and skills that make warriors different from one another. I know you can make a ranged warrior and a melee warrior, for example, but to my mind, that's not really very different mechanically.

Now if you could build one warrior who fights via a beefed up melee attack and another who has Edges and skills which, while not providing a great to-hit or damage, allow him to change the battlefield to provide advantages to himself and his comrades, those would be, to my mind, mechanically different.

Seanchai

1st: What's your point of critique then?
2nd: Nobody uses the SWEX alone without a kind of setting.
3rd: We don't need that many mechanically different characters. At all.
But yeah, if you're a moron that only uses the SWEX, yeah, you might end up having bit aimilar warrior types if they're direct combattants and not officers/generals of sorts.
That's why the german version of SW integrated more stuff into the core rulebook than the SWEX has.

But i guess that's a matter of taste what "mechanically similar" means.

I read Savage worlds and thought yep, that's how to write a slim, functional system and I can see exactly how to use it. I have yet to actually use it because my time is limited and I have other things on my plate. It provides a simple framework which you could hang most things on. The use of cards for initiative is the main bit of frippery and adds some excitement. (I imported it into a RQII/CoC hack I ran for newbies a while back and it worked a dream).

Basically after skimming it I feel like I know it well enough to use it. You pick a die and try to roll 4 or higher or to beat another person. Your card tells when to go and everything else is gravy. If only all rulebooks could be so boringly functional.

Quote from: winkingbishop;416704The SWEX (basic book) isn't a generic RPG to me.  It's more like a genre-neutral action/adventure RPG.  A subtle but important difference.

I'd go with that. Of course that's sort of what I'm looking for in an roleplaying game. That said D6 or BRP will tend to produce more rounded characters.

QuoteI noticed that even during our brief previews, I found myself wanting to make more rulings and only asking for dice rolls during times of stress/danger.  That could be, arguably, a positive side effect of not trusting the dice.  I'd be curious if the SW veterans have had similar experiences.

I have noticed that.  I think its more to do with restricted range of skills than the randomness but I'm not sure.

Quote from: Seanchai;416749Which you use over and over and over again.

To my mind, rushing up and spamming your best attack fight after fight is no better or worse than having to resort to aimed shots, tricks, and taunts combat after combat...

We kind of found that as well. In out first few Savage Worlds games it seemed that to hit at all we had to resorted to trick & taunts every time and the soon got old (not to mention slow). The GM made some rule tweaks, mostly to damage rules, and from that point onwards it was plain sailing.

It's nice to have some special moves as an option, but if you have to use it all the time it stops being special.

Quote from: Phantom Black;4167551st: What's your point of critique then?
2nd: Nobody uses the SWEX alone without a kind of setting.
3rd: We don't need that many mechanically different characters. At all.
But yeah, if you're a moron that only uses the SWEX, yeah, you might end up having bit aimilar warrior types if they're direct combattants and not officers/generals of sorts.
That's why the german version of SW integrated more stuff into the core rulebook than the SWEX has.

But i guess that's a matter of taste what "mechanically similar" means.

So in other words, No, you can't come up with an example to answer Seanchai's question about two different warriors.  Not the best way to argue your point.  

Quote from: Soylent Green;416762We kind of found that as well.

In my one session, we ended up using the same one over and over and over again because that's the only way we could hit. Eventually, we decided to quit in the middle and go play video games.

Seanchai

Quote from: Phantom Black;4167551st: What's your point of critique then?

Er...

Quote from: Phantom Black;4167552nd: Nobody uses the SWEX alone without a kind of setting.

Do you have an example using setting materials?

Quote from: Phantom Black;4167553rd: We don't need that many mechanically different characters. At all.

I think many folks would disagree with that assertion.

Seanchai

Quote from: Phantom Black;416737a) Uhm, this only happened to me with any D&D edition or ANY d20 game, where you always get to rush up to the enemy and spam them with your best attack, never changing the way you do it. With Savage Worlds you've got aimed shots, tricks, taunts and what have you, and that's both from gaming experiences i had with both systems.

b) Certain mechanical sameness to them? Uhm, no, not really. You can have two warrior characters with totally different abilities, skills and edges.

Yeah, gotta go with Phantom Black here, especially on part B. I've ran several Savage Worlds games with multiple players among multiple settings at different power levels and I've yet to see two characters that felt the same.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;416795Yeah, gotta go with Phantom Black here, especially on part B. I've ran several Savage Worlds games with multiple players among multiple settings at different power levels and I've yet to see two characters that felt the same.

But can you actually present two characters that interact with battle in a mechanically different way?

Two characters can feel different because one of them "is a smart mouthed jerk" or because one of them "is a spunky girl" or because one of them "wears red." But none of those are mechanical differences. While I normally hate Seanchai with every gram of bitterness I can spare for him (.0285kg), he made a very fair gauntlet toss to Phantom Black, and Phantom Black completely screwed the pooch.

Two characters feeling different can be a result of the game mechanics giving you clear methods to differentiate your characters, or it can be a matter of creative or at least different role playing on the part of the people actually at the table with you. The first is a feather in the cap of the system, the second is not.

-Frank

Quote from: CRKrueger;416765So in other words, No, you can't come up with an example to answer Seanchai's question about two different warriors.  Not the best way to argue your point.  

I could, if i would NEED to argue my point. But i don't have to, that's the point.
I don't have to prove that many folks like and play the system.
This is not about evangelizing, is it?

Quote from: FrankTrollman;416806But can you actually present two characters that interact with battle in a mechanically different way?

Two characters can feel different because one of them "is a smart mouthed jerk" or because one of them "is a spunky girl" or because one of them "wears red." But none of those are mechanical differences. While I normally hate Seanchai with every gram of bitterness I can spare for him (.0285kg), he made a very fair gauntlet toss to Phantom Black, and Phantom Black completely screwed the pooch.

Two characters feeling different can be a result of the game mechanics giving you clear methods to differentiate your characters, or it can be a matter of creative or at least different role playing on the part of the people actually at the table with you. The first is a feather in the cap of the system, the second is not.

-Frank

Well, Seanchai also said that he didn't think a ranged warrior and a melee warrior was a significant mechanical difference, so I'm not sure that Phantom Black could have done anything to satisfy that qualifier (especially considering how wildly different tactics and target numbers are between Melee and Ranged Combat).

Four PCs, same player, I don't have character sheets in front of me:

Solomon Kane - A spellcaster who is basically useless in direct combat, uses magic to buff the rest of his party, while also tossing out the occasional Trick to Shake an opponent and hopefully set up an easy Wound for one of his party.

Necessary Evil - A mutant badger (basically), who burrows up under foes for surprise attacks, generally hitting the middle of a group when possible, Sweeping if there are multiple foes, unless he has a very specific target he needs to take out first, and then he focuses on them while counting on his Toughness to absorb attacks from Mooks. Has low Spirit (d4), so he NEEDS to avoid being Shaken as much as possible. Very easily Tricked and Taunted.

Deadlands Game A - Chinese Monk Martial Artist. Combat monster like above, except he can't sweep. He can pierce armor, take out foes with some effectiveness at a range (with his Flying Claw and the Bolt power)...far more level headed than the above combat monster, due to better mental stats. Since he has to focus on Spirit because of the Martial Arts, he has a much easier time with Shaken.

Deadlands Game B - Cantankerous Native American gunslinger who has to end every fight at a distance with Intimidation and Shooting, because anything that gets within melee range will absolutely tear him up.

If anything, in my experience two similar character types will start off being more alike and get further and further apart as they advance. And while SW characters are likely to have favorite tactics, a) I've *never* seen a game when the PCs didn't develop favorite tactics and b) I'm not sure what you're supposed to do about a GM who just hands them the same encounter over and over again.

I'm not saying everyone has to like Savage Worlds...God knows there are games I can't be bothered to play that are a lot more popular...or even that it's perfect...it's not, but 9 times out of 10 it does what my group and I want, and it does it well...but my actual play experience over multiple campaigns doesn't allow me to agree with the notion that every Savage Worlds character is the same guy, re-skinned, or that they only have one good tactic. Our experience has been pretty much the opposite.

Quote from: Seanchai;416749Which you use over and over and over again.

To my mind, rushing up and spamming your best attack fight after fight is no better or worse than having to resort to aimed shots, tricks, and taunts combat after combat...

That comment actually sounds pretty shallow.  In the former case, you're just relying on your "best attack."  In the latter, you're taking tactics, stunts and characters' strengths and weaknesses in mind during combat.  So, to my mind, one is definitely more fun than the other (the latter).

There are a lot of things to gripe about with SW and combat, but I didn't experience this (spamming) during our test runs.  In fact, I thought it was kind of cool that players had use a different technique to defeat a talented (high Parry) opponent as opposed to a plain ol' badass opponent (high Toughness).  It definitely did rattle our sensibilities during the first trial combats we played, but after folks understood the mechanics and the maneuvers I found this was one of the more elegant parts of SW.  It's certainly possible that your experience was different, because the basic book does a poor job explaining potential pitfalls when creating opponents.  The SWEX is pretty bad as a learning tool, on top of the other things I complained about.

Quote from: SeanchaiHow many different Edges are there for warriors in the core book? Because, from what I recall, with the restrictions place on them because of various things, the selection was minimal.

28 that are specifically "combat Edges" if you count the "improved" ones.  19 base ones.  But one should bear in mind that the Power, Leadership, Wild Card, and Legendary Edges are also often relevant to combat, especially the Leadership ones that speak directly to the ability to:

Quote from: Seanchaichange the battlefield to provide advantages to himself and his comrades

Is that enough "stuff"?  I can't answer that for you.  I personally feel that it's plenty enough.  As a TSR-D&D guy, it's actually more than I want to track.  But it feels like just enough mechanical differentiation for guys used to d20 games, or at least a bridge between us.

Although I took a verbal poop on the SWEX on my first post, I will give credit to their section in the SWEX devoted to Converting Settings and Trim the Fat!  To make a long story short, the authors advise GMs to capture the flavor of a setting first, reskin heavily, and try to make new features fit into preexisting Skills, Edges or what-have-you when appropriate.  I think it's good advice and has kept the game fairly lean as it grows in comparison to the bloat experienced in similar games.

OVER-QUOTING IMMINENT! 3... 2... 1... [beep]

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;416617I have had the exact opposite experience...Savage Worlds has ruined me for most other RPGs because of how quickly it plays.

I have the same experience. Every time I want to run another game I have a hard time for this exact reason. In my SW games I very rarely have to open the rulebook or even write anything down. It's just so... simple. Yet detailed enough. I dunno. Everyone likes different shit though. So maybe it isn;t your thing Benoist...?

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;416630...he ran the squad in combat, using his PC to buff them with spells and cover them with long range attacks...played like a charm. Trying to do that with most systems I've played would make me pull my hair out.

Again, yes. Running Realms of Cthulhu right now. Had the PCs each control two cops on a raid of a rum-runner warehouse (the PCs knew other stuff was going on in there, but you can't really tell the cops that the local O'Bannion clan are into the occult). SMOOTH AS HECK, and "heck" can be pretty smooth. I recently tried to run Dark Heresy and had one player control an NPC Guardsman. Friggin' nightmare. Especially since they were far into the career block, so they had tons of skills and perks and shit.

Regarding over-hype: Over-hype pisses me off. SW is my game of choice, yet I admit that it isn't perfect. But some SW fans are a bit... overzealous? I happen to like how flexible the system is and how easy it is to add new rules and shit. But to say it is perfect? Hah.

Quote from: KenHR;416718I played a couple games of Savage Worlds with GrimJesta as GM.  It was also my fiance Meredith's first RPG since she dabbled with D&D in high school.

Good times, motherfucker.

This being said, other peoples' mileage may vary, sometimes by a lot. Some people like/love Savage Worlds, other hate it. Whatever. [hippy] We're all just gamers gaming. [/hippy]

Also: Winking Bishop beat me to it, but Seanchai, if you want me to post three very different starting or experienced combat characters I will for you. Just so you can see that you can make very different characters. Just... uh... if I do it please read the post. 'Cuz I'd hate to format the posts and have it for nothing, hehe.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: winkingbishop;416815Although I took a verbal poop on the SWEX on my first post, I will give credit to their section in the SWEX devoted to Converting Settings and Trim the Fat!  To make a long story short, the authors advise GMs to capture the flavor of a setting first, reskin heavily, and try to make new features fit into preexisting Skills, Edges or what-have-you when appropriate.  I think it's good advice and has kept the game fairly lean as it grows in comparison to the bloat experienced in similar games.

That's exactly the reason I don't like SW.  Most settings take that advice and reskin their setting to fit SWEX instead of adding to SWEX to make the rules fit the setting.  Interface Zero and Solomon Kane stay true to the setting, most other SW "settings" that I've read, Hellfrost included, "trim the fat" right off their setting and I end up with a cup of warm generic piss rather then a nice pint of Guinness. (Holy mixed metaphors, Batman! )