Quote from: CRKrueger;416841That'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! )

I think there's a middle ground, personally. Again, I go back to what Matthew Cutter is doing with Deadlands, adding more layers onto stuff that got too simplified in Deadlands Reloaded. That said, I also don't need exceptions for everything if there's a rule that already fits.

Quote from: CRKrueger;416841...rather then a nice pint of Guinness.

Mmmm, Guinness.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: GrimJesta;416836Good times, motherfucker.

[off-topic]

Hell yeah.  I still have your number, btw, and we'll be in touch very soon.  Shit got bizzay again; maybe after T-day we can get together.
[/off-topic]

Quote from: CRKrueger;416841That'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! )

That could be true.  It probably is true.  I still think that "Trim the Fat!" is good advice with respect to adding tomes and layers of Edges, odd skill lists and the like.  But if that advice is taken to the opposite extreme and prevents an author from capturing a setting, something is probably wrong.

I reckon examples are probably more informative:

Necessary Evil is a Pinnacle setting that actually breaks the the mold when needed in order to simulate its setting: Supervillains opposed to an alien invasion.  The core SWEX simply can't handle that and Necessary Evil casually discards the normal Powers system.  It leaves most of the other game mechanics intact, adds cool gear, encounter tables, a setting and the campaign outline.  So I think it's a pretty good example of even the official publisher shirking the core rules when they need to.  The settings "overwrites" the SWEX.  This is pretty standard.

On the other hand, you have the fan-made Advanced Dungeons & Savages.  I think it's notable for all the ambition and hard work, I like the source material, but it really could have benefited by Trimming the Fat and enjoying the parts of SW that make it SW.  It cleaves too close to AD&D for me.  I like AD&D...a lot.  I'll just play AD&D, thank you.

So there is a sane middle ground.  SW actually has quite a lot of levers to pull on and buttons to push.  But I still believe the Trim the Fat advice is well placed, particularly with respect to Edges rules creep.  Shit, I've even picked up one of the "companion" books (a generic genre splat) and wished there was more meat on it.

Savage Worlds has been tremendously fun for skirmish games with minis where PCs are fighting lots of foes and/or PCs have lots of allies.   For those kinds of games, SW is top notch.

I played SW without minis once and the game felt flat as compared to our usual "battle dioramas" with a dozen or two dozen figs and terrain.

Quote from: Spinachcat;416859Savage Worlds has been tremendously fun for skirmish games with minis where PCs are fighting lots of foes and/or PCs have lots of allies.   For those kinds of games, SW is top notch.

I played SW without minis once and the game felt flat as compared to our usual "battle dioramas" with a dozen or two dozen figs and terrain.

True, since SW came out the only fun I had with it really was using it as it was originally intended - skirmish combat for Deadlands.  Solomon Kane really stood out because the designer said "Fuck your trim the fat, this is SOLOMON KANE motherfucker!"  Interface Zero does the same thing, which is why I'm gonna try and run it in a few weeks.

I've always found Savage Worlds to be Extremely Boring but tinged with significant snippets of Extremely Annoying.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;416937I've always found Savage Worlds to be Extremely Boring but tinged with significant snippets of Extremely Annoying.

RPGPundit

Oh yea? Well... well... Savage Worlds thinks you're a jerk! So there!



-=Grim=-

SW is somewhere in the middle of my gaming hierarchy.  I've got players that really like it, saying it gets you up and gaming quickly, and some that just don't get it, saying it feels too sketchy.  I waffle, as usual.

The thing I do like about SW is that it seems to produce or get linked to some settings I absolutely love, such as the aforementioned Hellfrost.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;416814Well, 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).

If what separates two character is, basically, that one uses a sword and the other uses a bow, yeah, I'd say were pretty much the same.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;416814...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.

I don't think they're basically re-skinned. I think that limited choices produce characters which are basically the same, particularly when you factor in choice selections.

Seanchai

Quote from: GrimJesta;416836...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.

You're certainly welcome to do so. I think folks other than I would be interested in seeing it.

Seanchai

Quote from: winkingbishop;416815In 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.

I have access to stunts, tactics, and an understanding of my character's strengths and weaknesses in almost every RPG I've played.

Quote from: winkingbishop;416815So, to my mind, one is definitely more fun than the other (the latter).

I'm not speaking to whether or not a game is fun or should be considered fun or not.

Quote from: winkingbishop;41681528 that are specifically "combat Edges" if you count the "improved" ones.  19 base ones.

How many of those don't have prerequisites? How many could a particular character actually choose from?

Here's an example from one of my tables. I'm playing a Runepriest in a 4e game. The game itself, D&D 4e has hundreds and hundreds of Powers and Feats. However, because no one has done much work with Runepriests, you have about four different Powers to choose from at various junctures.

Because those four Power selections tend to run off the same Ability Scores, Runepriests tend to look the same in that area.

As Class and Abilities Scores determine, in part, what Feats you can take, the long, long list of Feats is narrowed. As we can remove Feats which really don't work for Runepriests (who fights because of his Power selection in melee combat on the front line) - Feats dealing with ranged attacks, magic, et al.. - we have a significantly shorter list of selections. We can then winnow down that short list via utility - some Feats simply are better or more choice worthy than others.

In the end, although there are hundreds and hundreds (and hundreds) of options available, one Runepriest tends to look like another.

Contrast this with a 4e Fighter, who has significantly more choice when it comes to Powers (four or more times as much, I'd say) and Feats.

It seems to me that Savage Worlds characters tend to be more like Runepriests than Fighters, for the basic reasons I've explained.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;417009If what separates two character is, basically, that one uses a sword and the other uses a bow, yeah, I'd say were pretty much the same.

Considering that

a) As noted, the tactics and even target numbers are markedly different between the two (which would mean also that a successful build would have fundamental differences, especially between Strength and Agility)

and

b) you've said that you don't see the difference between having to apply combat tactics or just spamming your same attack over and over again

I can conclude that trying to discuss this further with you would be as productive as talking to a wall.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;417022b) you've said that you don't see the difference between having to apply combat tactics or just spamming your same attack over and over again...

No, I said I didn't see a quantitative difference between using Savage World's Taunt, Trick, etc., mechanics over and over again and spamming the same attack repeatedly.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;417022I can conclude that trying to discuss this further with you would be as productive as talking to a wall.

Feel free to be a Savage Worlds martyr with someone else then.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;417056No, I said I didn't see a quantitative difference between using Savage World's Taunt, Trick, etc., mechanics over and over again and spamming the same attack repeatedly.



Feel free to be a Savage Worlds martyr with someone else then.

Seanchai

"Savage Worlds martyr"?

I believe you're the one banging the drum about how fundamentally flawed the game is after one bad session. I'm just pointing out that my multiple campaigns across multiple settings with multiple players has never once produced what you're describing.

As much as I like Savage Worlds, my enjoyment of it (or any other game) isn't contingent upon convincing anyone other than my players that it's awesome.

I will, again, note that any SW game in which the players can get away with spamming any single action with success is confusing to me, unless they just get REALLY lucky with the die rolls...because, in my experience actually running the game, what works with one creature can lead to a catastrophic failure with another, unless the players have a TON of luck on their side.