Appeal of Savage Worlds

[zozotroll]

In what way to rules for combat inhibit RP? Most rules cover combat or Chargen. I have not seen a rule that covers RP. Task completion yes, but not actual RP.


Of course, if you have people that dont like to talk their way through an encounter, then you can sub in rules. But if you dont want it that way, then RP works just fine. I have never seen a set of rules state you may not RP, only roll dice.

 

[Strom]

Anyone have a link to a rules summary or quick start guide pdf? Especially for Solomon Kane - that would be great.

 

[SnowDog]

Here are the "test drive" rules http://www.peginc.com/Downloads/SWEX/TD06.pdf. I don't remember if there are specific Solomon Kane quick start rules anywhere...

 

[Demetrio]

I think some people feel that time spent resolving combat is time that could be spent role-playing. As if combat did not give numerous opportunities for role-playing.

To be fair, I think it's the time it takes to resolve a 'hit' that's the issue. How long does it take to determine, do tables have to be consulted, is there a defence roll or saving throw, how complex are different manoeuvers to resolve etc etc. But it seems to me that d20 isn't the worst offender amongst rpgs for those sorts of things and that familiarity with whatever rules system is being used is usually more important than using something that is (often spuriously referred to as) rules-lite.

The biggest problem I have with SW is that characters are so lame. Actually I have that problem with d20 at low levels too. To me, feats (by whatever name and under whatever system) are things that really help to define a character. Even more so than his skills. But in SW it applies even to 'high level' characters, I find.

I confess, I find the use of playing cards to be something of a gimmick too. Adding another 'rules prop'.

To be fair though, I have issues with every rpg system I've ever played so please don't think I'm being unecessarily 'down' on SW. d20 and % systems have different issues is all.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

I honestly think a 'complete' rpg system HAS to be a certain length. All 'rules-lite' systems always seem incomplete. Still, put the Explorers and the Fantasy Companion together and youve basically got 150 A4 size pages as a someway near-complete frp. Of course, its lacking in experience advancement rules, background and a solid magic system, so, you get what you pay for, really. Youre actually sacrificing some depth of characterisation (dexterity affecting initiative, for instance), a full workable generic magic system and an ability to sustain long-term play, all as a tradeoff for fast play with a deck of playing cards.

To me, Call of Cthulhu has lots more depth than SW, and CoC is fast play too.

 

[Demetrio]

Yes, that's a fair point actually. CoC is probably the best game I've played in terms of overall 'experience'. We did change the combat system a bit (making it a bit more like original RQ - adding hit locations and changing weapon damage mainly) but that was really the only house-ruling we did. And it was complete 'out of the box' as it were. As I recall all the initial supplements were adventures, not rules additions.

 

[celmive]

Completely agree on CoC & the BRP System by Chaosium also.

No RPG is "Perfect". Of course anyone who authors or has a hand in one will obviously think theirs is the best at least until their next project

From my side I usually like to get Combat over and done with as quick as possible as most of the games I enjoy running and designing are investigatory. That said, I don't hold back on the fighting and fully appreciate the RP potential in those situations - another of my favourite games is Feng Shui...

I do not agree that a RPG has to be a certain amount of pages though to be complete. An RPG is what you make of it. I would like to see more comments about this from others as I am in the middle of writing a couple of projects at the moment.

Some good points though PrinceYyrkoon and I fully appreciate what you are saying and where you are coming from. Great to see other views

 

[Demetrio]

I don't include BRP in what I said mind you. Because BRP is meant to be 'setting free' wheread CoC was very much setting focused (and I've always thought that a good rpg system should be setting focused, like original RQ was and Conan d20 is).

CoC worked very well out the box as it were. It is the only rpg I've played which I felt did so and was not in need of supplements (bar adventures) to round it out to fit its setting properly. Original RQ needed Cults of Prax as a minumum really, and while Conan did not, I feel there are underlying issues with the mechanics that while not exactly game-breaking, could have done with tweaking.

But the combat mechanic in CoC was crap. It only worked because combat was very much a last resort in that game. And even then we modified it.

 

[zozotroll]

I find it humorous that people find D20 combat slow and comples. When I changed to the system I found it fast and simple, compared to other things I have played.

All a matter of what you have played before.

 

[Demetrio]

I think what some people find makes d20 more complex is the host of manoeuvers and feats that are available for use, and that not all resolution uses the base mechanic (eg grapple, disarm etc). But the essence is roll to hit vs an easily determined number then roll damage if successful. that's pretty simple. Many 'simple' systems require more rolls than that to establish a hit and also have 'special cases' for various tricks and manoeuvers.

SW for instance has the following steps:

Roll to hit vs pre-determined number (essentially the same as in d20)
Roll damage (if using a melee weapon (essentially the same as in d20)
Compare damage to vigour and apply effect (not a lot easier than marking off hit points in d20). There's also a whole bleeding and incapacitation thing to consider in SW

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Thanks celmive. I know I just talk to encourage conversation! Often I'll have a completely different view the next day. Changeable? Me?

I suppose Call of Cthulhu gets around the problem, rather than tackling it head on. The most pages in frpgs are usually taken up with combat and magic. Both of these are incidental to CoC, pretty much.

I can create the shortest rpg ever, right now;

Roll 6 on a d6 to succeed.

Thats it. Thing is, I think an rpg needs to be a certain length to satisfactorily cover all the bases. Systems can skimp on one thing or another, but, often, there will be supplements following closely behind. This is the thing with the SW Fantasy Companion. Its ok having a fast-play system, but when you need a book just as big as the original in order to play a specific genre, (rather than have to wing it yourself), one could say that they might have included it right away, in the original book. N'est pas?

 

[Demetrio]

I think you're right CoC evaded the problem of combat by making it very much a last resort whereas most rpg settings need a strong combat mechanic (and imnsho generally fail to deliver to varying degrees).

I wonder if that's because, generally speaking, doing unusual things (ie not just hacking at your opponent) always involves some kind of special case, something that makes the special thing harder. Whereas it might be an idea to make them as straightforward as hacking so players are inclined to use them more and there aren't more rules to remember. Even an easy mechanic can be problematic for a group where everyone's not pretty fluent with the rules. So the more disarm, grapple, knockdown etc resemble the base mechanic the better. Probably.

 

[zozotroll]

The problem of most combat systems is they are designed for the game, rather than as a simulation of combat. The only two that are not, that I have played are original Runequest, which was based on the authers time in the early SCA, and cyberpunk, which I believed is based on the auther reading lots and lots of police reports.

The problem many gamers have is that both of those systems are very lethal. In CP for example, a single 9mm pistol shot can kill, just like in real life. Gamers like thier heros to be a bit more survivsable.

 

[treeplanter]

Roll 6 on a d6 to succeed.

And add dice as you grow stronger

 

[Demetrio]

The problem of most combat systems is they are designed for the game

Well yes. But as most games have now become 'settingless' that becomes something of a weakness in many cases.

Generally speaking I don't want rpg rules to be a proper simulation of combat. But I do want them to provide appropriate flavour to combat.

Original RQ combat worked fairly well for its setting (despite the tendency for starting characters to fail more rolls than they succeeded with), but it was intricately linked with its magic rules, armour rules and a host of game world 'assumptions'. Was it useable outside the low-level but ubiquitous magic setting? Yes. But in my view it did not perform as well. We took some ideas into CoC for instance (not very many) but then CoC combat was very simple, and quiet unsuited to any game where combat would be a freqquent occurence or where players were expected to survive it...

On the other hand original Traveller combat was cumbersome and rather broken, being neither a satisfactory simulation nor thrilling. It dodn't really work even within its setting and it is no surprise to me that it didn't ever become more widely applied.

 

[Spongly]

I find it hard to believe how many people think Runequest combat "works well" or is fast and easy. I played Runequest for years and still have nightmares about large fights which could easily take up whole sessions by themselves. Not to mention the number of characters who sever their own limbs once a fight starts going on for any length of time...

The advantage of SW, in my opinion, isn't that it's perfect. It's just intuitive, fast to play, and mostly seems to make sense when you're playing it. It's also very easily modifiable - in many ways that's the big difference between SW and GURPS - GURPS felt like you were playing GURPS no matter what setting you were playing in. SW is very easy to successfully "reflavour" in my experience.

 

[Demetrio]

I don't know about new RQ but the original worked just fine for us in its original Gloranthan setting. It had its issues but it was no more cumbersome than I have found SW the few times I have dabbled with it(which is to say not desperately cumbersome but not the holy grail either).

SW has some odd little quirks too. Guts as a skill? I'd have thought the Spirit characteristic kind of covered it really. And I confess I was slightly surprised to see a Notice Skill rather than an Awareness characteristic. Also what's with Fighting being an Agi based skill when in most pulp settings it's the domain of big, strong men? None of these are big deals, mind you. I just find them a bit odd. And I'm not saying other games don't have their oddities too.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Roll 6 on a d6 to succeed.

And add dice as you grow stronger

Youve just written the supplement, treeplanter!

 

[SnowDog]

I think what some people find makes d20 more complex is the host of manoeuvers and feats that are available for use, and that not all resolution uses the base mechanic (eg grapple, disarm etc). But the essence is roll to hit vs an easily determined number then roll damage if successful. that's pretty simple. Many 'simple' systems require more rolls than that to establish a hit and also have 'special cases' for various tricks and manoeuvers.

To me d20 is not complex because of how the combat works. Based on what I read about combat in Conan RPG (1st ed) it would have worked pretty well. My biggest beef was the host of feats and special abilities etc. that comes along in character generation and when levelling. It is especially true when creating higher level NPCs (not to mention spell casters). I have to admit that my Conan campaign stumbled before the first session when I began to create a 5th level Scholar (a sorcerer) that would be the main antagonist in the story

 

[flatscan]

Yeah, that's been my only real gripe about the current Conan system, making NPCs can be a time consuming endeavor. However, you don't have to completely stat them out. Prioritize which elements of char gen are necessary for the role your NPC will be playing in game and focus on those, only doing the rest if you feel it's necessary. For instance, there's no reason to fully stat out a mook city guard that will be used as a combat antagonist. The most important aspects of that character will be Level, HP, DR, Defense, Attack, Weapons and a couple combat related Feats. Now, your players may throw out a mind scramble and try to avoid combat and parley with the guard at which point I go by the rule of 2. Basically assigning increments of 2 to any Skill or ability in question determined by how good I think that particular character should be at it. A 3rd Level member of the watch might have 2-4 points in Sense Motive for instance. They know enough to not trust joe random to be completely honest but a skilled liar will breeze past them unless suffering a circumstance penalty or other situational modifier. It's not a perfect solution but it does keep the game going without investing hours and hours on NPC generation.