Quote from: Derabar;763566Ah, didn't take long for that tired old gripe to surface. Is RQ swingy? There's a chance in any combat that someone is going to roll 01, and then it's a crit and very likely game over. And yet everyone I know raves about how great and 'realistic' RQ and all of the other derivatives (CoC, Stormbringer etc) is. So why is the exploding dice and extremely minor probability issue seized upon with glee by people as evidence that SW is borked?

RQ6 may very well be swingy. I've never had a chance to try it out.

Savage Worlds on the other hand can be swingy. Extreme results do happen at the table, on both sides of the screen. I don't blame Savage World's normal resolution (which plays near perfectly) but with the damage system. A combat skill roll can only give +1d6 to damage after all. Sometimes a monster is too weak, unable to harm the attacker, or suddenly too powerful with a series of explosion, killing them in one attack. This may be a deal-breaker for some and is legitimate compliant.

The minor mathematics hiccup is bullshit though. Sure, a d4 might be better against rolling a TN of 5, but only if you don't expect a raise.

Quote from: Ravenswing;763543I think this is a general gamer thing, though.

I've seen the same thing.  Spam the stock attack repeatedly whether it's working or not, whether the game system rewards or punishes it, whether they're D&D players or not.

Quote from: Crabbyapples;763583The minor mathematics hiccup is bullshit though. Sure, a d4 might be better against rolling a TN of 5, but only if you don't expect a raise.

From what I can see, it's not - the issue is that for any d, you are *very slightly* more likely to hit with d than with d.

So, for the d6/d4 comparison, the blip actually occurs with a TN of 6, which for a d4 is an 18.75% chance, while with a d6 is only a 16.67% chance - and that's the *worst offender.  Against a TN of 5, d4 has a 25% chance, while d6 has a 33.3% chance.

For *any* other target, the larger die is always preferable.

http://www.insomnihack.com/?p=495

It's a minor blip, and is easily solved by having exploding dice be at -1 if you feel "fixing" it is necessary.  I personally don't.

edit:  The point about where the mathematical oddities occurs if you look at chance to get *at least* a particular number.  If you look at the chance to get *exactly* a particular number, it occurs in different places... but since getting a number or above is usually what you're looking for, that's the metric I focused on.  For instance, you're more likely to get a 5 *exactly* with a d4 (25%) than with a d6 (16.6%).  But since getting *exactly* five is irrelevant (higher is always better), the more interesting oddity happens at TN 6.

Quote from: Derabar;763566Is RQ swingy? There's a chance in any combat that someone is going to roll 01, and then it's a crit and very likely game over.

Yes, it is.  That's why Luck Points exist, and the text is very upfront about how dangerous combat is, and how to avoid fighting to the death.

I think the complaint about SW being "swingy" derives from the tone of the writing and the marketing collateral, which certainly tends more to the heroic than the gritty and deadly.

Quote from: daniel_ream;763600Yes, it is.  That's why Luck Points exist, and the text is very upfront about how dangerous combat is, and how to avoid fighting to the death.

I think the complaint about SW being "swingy" derives from the tone of the writing and the marketing collateral, which certainly tends more to the heroic than the gritty and deadly.

And yet it is a game where one-shot kills are built into the system.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;763426It doesn't do "Realistic" very well, it doesn't do superheroes very well... but it does the pulpy middle ground of Robert E. Howard, Edgar Rice Burroughs, old tough-guy movies, 80's men's paperback vigilantes, 2000 AD Punk-SF, American ninja, and 70's cop shows very, very well.

The dice wonkiness was never a problem when I played it (But then, I thrive on randomness and unpredictability). I would strongly second the poster above's recommendation to try the system "Straight" before popping the hood -I once played in a SW game where the GM tried to "Fix" it and it was a grueling slog... the system is a finer-tuned engine than it may at first appear.

As has been pretty much echoed here, I agree with this. Superman vs Darkseid not so much. Punching Nazi's in the face grabbing the spear of destiny before them, hell yes!

Quote from: Saladman;763432Every time I've seen it tried there's one or more players trying to play combats like they're playing D&D.  Swinging swords every round instead of trying tricks and tests of will, then getting frustrated when that doesn't work (which it especially doesn't against tough opponents like main villains or tough monsters).

I see the same behavior with new Fate players.  I usually have to demonstrate how effective non-attack-button-mashing is, and explicitly explain to them why it works well.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;763426I would strongly second the poster above's recommendation to try the system "Straight" before popping the hood -I once played in a SW game where the GM tried to "Fix" it and it was a grueling slog... the system is a finer-tuned engine than it may at first appear.

I usually recommend this for just about every system.  A lot of things that people think are "wrong" with systems are just ways that they're different from their favorite system - and if you want your favorite system, use that, right?

I usually say "when you can argue for a rule, you probably understand it enough to change it."

Quote from: Emperor Norton;763387BUT, if you really want to avoid it, the easiest way to do it is to have any "aced" die have a minus 1 on its reroll. So for instance, if you rolled a 4 on a d4, when you reroll, you add 1d4-1 to it instead of the full 1d4.

Yes, that looks good. The rolls it makes much harder are already pretty long shots.

If your crew likes minis, SW is a great game. I recently played in a SW 40k game and it rocked harder than the demos of Deathwatch or Only War that I have tried.

As for the PC kill issue, I consider that a feature of the system. Sometimes, shit happens and Sgt. Rock takes a bullet.

My only problem with SW is vehicle combat.

My list of things I initially or often forget about in SW, though some of them are/were pretty dumb:
*Parry is used only vs. melee attacks, not ranged.
*gang-up bonuses give +1 per extra attacker on a target.
*a tabletop inch equals 2 yards.
*rolling a 1 on the spellcasting die (regardless of wild die) is bad.
*players usually forget about bennies
*players also tend to forget about the combat manuevers; you may want to ascribe modifiers sometimes based on their description (e.g. "I charge" = wild attack).
*note that there's no direct 'armour check penalty' system, but armour is heavy and encumberance penalties are quite high.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;763674My list of things I initially or often forget about in SW, though some of them are/were pretty dumb:
*Parry is used only vs. melee attacks, not ranged.
*gang-up bonuses give +1 per extra attacker on a target.
*a tabletop inch equals 2 yards.
*rolling a 1 on the spellcasting die (regardless of wild die) is bad.
*players usually forget about bennies
*players also tend to forget about the combat manuevers; you may want to ascribe modifiers sometimes based on their description (e.g. "I charge" = wild attack).
*note that there's no direct 'armour check penalty' system, but armour is heavy and encumberance penalties are quite high.

Besides the obviously bad ones, like players forgetting about bennies, why are these rules bad/dumb? In my eyes, the above rules are features.

This thread is really whetting my appetite for some Savage Worlds gaming. Maybe I'll squeeze in a one-shot scenario between wrapping up my current OD&D game and starting the long-belated CoC one. Damn you, theRPGsite.

Getting shot all the time, for example, fails to emulate any form of entertainment I can think of.  Imagine Star Wars where all the Storm Troopers need do to kill Luke in the Death Star is roll a 4.

Quote from: Obeeron;763445It definitely plays a bit different than D&D, but once players switch their thinking a bit, I've found it great for fantasy.  I ran a pathfinder adventure path (Rise of the Runelords) using Savage Worlds and it was awesome.

I'm glad to hear that.  And in fact, I'm glossing over the fact my favorite SW campaign was a Saxa-only Hellfrost game that worked out very well.  Though that worked in part because the GM drilled down to a Saxa/Vikings themed game rather than throwing open the book and saying "make an adventurer and show up."  More generic SW fantasy games, including Shaintar which seems to get good reviews, have never yet clicked for me.

Still, when you say "once players switch their thinking a bit," I have to stand by my position as it applies to an intro session.  Better to jump straight into the system's strengths.

In that vein, I should have said something about pre-gens, since the OP is already thinking of those.  In the abstract, I'd recommend something like every character having at least one of Taunt or Intimidate, one character with Acrobat (highlights agility tricks), one character with Strong-Willed (highlights tests of will), one with Quick (highlights the initiative system and increases odds of a joker).  At all costs avoid single-classing characters by maxing out a fighting or casting skill to d12 - more balanced characters will actually be stronger across more situations.

I think the only thing you could possibly miss in the 2003 version is the character templates the Deluxe edition has up front, and even there, most one-shot adventures have pre-gens, so you can get an idea of what characters should look like.

Quote from: mcbobbo;763741Getting shot all the time, for example, fails to emulate any form of entertainment I can think of.  Imagine Star Wars where all the Storm Troopers need do to kill Luke in the Death Star is roll a 4.

Star Wars came up on the pinnacle forums once, as an example of what (not) to do with large groups of shooty extras.  The suggestion there was that a bunch of stormtroopers firing on a pc should really be a group roll rather than X number of individual rolls.  So a whole group of troopers would get their average skill die once, a wild die once (for the group, despite being extras), take the higher result and be done.  Its a fair critique the core book doesn't call that instance out specifically, but it is a rule that's in there, that works for that kind of media.

Although if you're complaining about shots hitting on a 4 at all, I just can't help you.  That's what bennies and edges are for.  And I'm pretty sure any Star Wars pc is going to have both.

Quote from: mcbobbo;763741Getting shot all the time, for example, fails to emulate any form of entertainment I can think of.  Imagine Star Wars where all the Storm Troopers need do to kill Luke in the Death Star is roll a 4.

That's a very specific sort of entertainment you've got there.

Also, a 4 is a hit, not a kill. If Luke has a Toughness of 5 (assuming an absolutely average Vigor score of 1d6), they have to score a damage (SWEE gives 3d6 for a laser rifle) of Toughness (5) + 3 Raises (3x4) = 17 to inflict three Wounds and one-shot Luke. And that's assuming he won't spend Bennies to Soak one or more of these Wounds.

Sure, the exploding dice might help with that damage (my math-fu is too weak to calculate the probability of 17 on 3d6 with exploding 6s), but my game-table experience is that Savage Worlds Wild Card characters are, if anything, too hard to kill. That's what burned me out on the game in the first place, a couple of years back. Though I've since realized I've been doing a bunch of stuff wrong.