Savage Worlds

Two of the people in my group are fending for some Savage Worlds Rifts.....that's all i got.

>>48936464
We mostly like Savage Rifts, based on this thread:

>>48903963

But I personally hate bennies and the completely random deck of cards initiative draw.

>>48936464
I like it. Simple, fast, easy to hack, and a ton of resources for it.

>>48936464

Its generally well-liked short of a few vocal people on here. The biggest complaints I hear are from people who confuse it with a rule-lite narrative game, which it is not.

One of my favourite games, always a go-to when we're pitching what to play next. Mostly because it's so easy to run and play.

Really really easy to prep for. Like so easy that if you come from the 3.5/PF tradition it'll blow your dick off how easy and simple it is. I've made entire named wildcard villains in-between combats, fully statted up. The game can run a little on the crunchy side in practice but the actual rules themselves are very easy to learn. Also being a generic system it can pretty much support any kind of campaign you want, literally anything you can imagine.

yeah its pretty good.

>>48936464

I really like it as a generic system and it's one of my go-tos.

But every time I play it I run into problems with the exploding dice mechanic and I need a break. Next time I play it I might house rule a limit on how many times dice can explode.

>>48936906
>I've made entire named wildcard villains in-between combats, fully statted up.
Once you memorize the list of edges and hindrances, yes.

File: IMGP5537.jpg (66KB, 488x650px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 488x650px

I've read the deluxe book a few times now but have yet to run or play it with a group. I did a few solo scenarios to see how the mechanics work. It's a bit swingy, but fun. I felt the exploding dice thing is what a d20 kid would think of as "critical hits". The system seems legit, and I really like how it can work with any genre you throw at it - which is cool because I'm really bad about sticking with one setting or genre. I also like how it's built for miniature tactical tabletop play in mind.

I just can't stand the name "Savage Worlds". It evokes the image of a loin cloth clad barbarian standing with an axe in the middle of a cyber desert, but drawn in a shitty cartoon style like Jonny Quest.

Also, a majority of the online SW community is very annoying. They're a "you're doing it wrong" crowd. A bunch of untalented 40 year olds who sit around all day creating stats for b-rated movie creatures on their unknown blogs. And they all keep pushing that SW is "pulp"... which if you look at the first editions book, PEG was definitely pushing that label. Granted, the "pulp" can definitely be dialed down with setting rules, I think many SW players come to the table with the over-the-top action pulp ingrained in their heads.

TL;DR I want to love it so badly, but I think too much.

>>48938326

> I felt the exploding dice thing is what a d20 kid would think of as "critical hits"

They're a lot more unpredictable than that though, and they can fuck over combat. My last campaign ended when my players got TPK'd by a giant fucking crab statted as an Extra because its dice kept exploding. It's the only real critical flaw I find with the system, but it's pretty easy to homebrew.

>I just can't stand the name "Savage Worlds". It evokes the image of a loin cloth clad barbarian standing with an axe in the middle of a cyber desert, but drawn in a shitty cartoon style like Jonny Quest.

That is exactly what the devs had in mind when they designed the game though. Granted, it's not the only thing you can use it for and it's great for a wide variety of thematic games. But emulating 70s pulp sci fi, old-school Buck Rogers comics, and cartoons like He-Man was the developer's original intention.