Does anyone here play Savage Worlds? Would it be any fun for

>>54151804
So, Savage Worlds is an adaptation of a skirmish wargame and is meant to be easy to use with groups of followers and such, designed primarily around moving things on a grid. That said, it works just fine without them as a standard roleplaying game.

>horror and such

The horror supplement is more "horror themed pulp" than straight up horror. Think Buffy.

It can be stretched to fit other genres but it's at its best when doing tactical combat. You can get away with doing it without miniatures, there's guidelines in the core rules for doing so, and there's even optional houserules in there for adjusting things to get a certain feel (gritty damage giving you an injury for every time you're wounded, snake-eyes being un-bennyable, etc).
Weird coincidence: I'm considering doing an Aliens vs Predator campaign with it again (was going to, but Prodos Games completely fucked up with my miniatures so it fell through)

File: 1497032748277.gif (61KB, 300x351px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 300x351px

Pkayed it for a year with only one fightwhere we brought out the minis. We had a great, mostly narrative, Deadlands campaign.

> Looks mostly like a pretty light game about punching things in the face and pulpy action.

Yes, and?

>>54151883
>think Buffy
Buffy didn't have a sanity meter or any of their characters eating bugs as a good luck charm.

Savage Worlds fits pretty well to mostly any kind of a game. The system it's based on, Deadlands, is more western horror than any kind of pulp.

>>54151883
>>54151898

Okay, thanks. Seems like it's probably not what I'm looking for, despite my interest.

On a sidenote, how well does it do what it's actually meant to do? After reading some online discussion, it seems that fights can turn into whiffing contests and nobody can really hit. I guess I can kinda see that, if it's true, what with the general nature of how you're either going to mess them up, you you're not.

>>54151905
>Yes, and?

And the topic of the thread is whether that holds true, given the fact there's additional material that would, at first glance, seem to suggest otherwise.

Mainly, I was just interested in hearing from people with actual experience and seeing if I was mistaken about what kind of a game it's made for.

>>54151940
>nobody can really hit
Then you're doing something wrong. If anything, you should always at least attempt to attack something even if it seems tough; since all die rolls explode, including damage, a lucky hit can drop nearly anything. They had to include the Heavy Weapon/Heavy Armour rules to stop people from putting a lucky .45 through a tank turret or crazy shit like that.

If you're doing a modern or sci-fi gun-heavy campaign there's none better. Cover is your friend, a headshot really feels like one and stealth is extremely powerful (sneak up and plant a round in an enemy's brain and they're suffering 8 damage or so before you even roll). It also works for a grittier kind of fantasy game.

>>54151913
Maybe, but the sanity meter is also optional, and fitting for certain genres where you can still have a big badass affected by his experiences.

>>54151940
Yeah, melee combat can be pretty bad like that. My suggestion is to always use the reckless attack (I think that's the name) option to get +2 attack +2 damage, and -2 parry.

>>54152031
The horror companion has both the sanity meter and a literal "chosen slayer" NPC template. It's quite capable of both.

>>54152047
Wild Attack is pretty hardcore broken. Just pray you hit and actually hurt your target.

>>54152061
I honestly wouldn't say it's all that broken, since parry starts out 2 higher than the typical rolled value of the die and 2 damage isn't that much to a dedicated melee combatant (for a guy with a 1d8 strength and a longsword, it raises it from a typical value of 9 to 11, and that +2 can't explode so it's not a big deal).

>>54152090
Yeah, you're probably right, I've never really GMed a heavily melee-focused campaign (although I did a cyberpunk game where one PC was a cyborg assassin who used monoknives exclusively, he did very well for himself). Shotguns really do need toning down, though, or at least given the treatment they got in East Texas University that softens their to-hit bonuses.

>>54152120
I'd just give them their bonus to hit only when they start losing damage. +1 when they're down to 2d6, +2 when they're down to 1d6. There's no reason a cluster of pellets less than an inch across should be getting a bonus to hit.

I really would not suggest playing Savage Worlds. It is a badly designed system with terrible meta-mechanics that encourage not only metagaming but ending session early, it also makes it near impossible for characters to fail at anything. The gun mechanic are broken, and literally do not make sense. The only thing it is good for is being a miniatures wargame, and it even sucks at most of that. Exploding dice make stupid shit happen constantly, the damage is way overkill for 90% of the threats allowing characters to one-shot massive creatures with tiny weapons. On the other end, characters literally cannot fail, because they have three bennies per session which allow them to reroll whatever the fuck they want (not damage rolls, to be fair, but still). And the GM is told he is a piece of shit if he doesn't hand out more bennies for "good roleplaying" (in other words, stupid nat20-lolz bullshit). Also the characters get to roll a wild die with their normal roll and take the wild die if it is higher, thus making them even less likely to fail at anything. Not to mention the cancer of the bennies being basically a safe-space for retarded character actions, CAN and WILL spread to other RPGs you play with this group. Just count down the sessions until your character asks during D&D after failing a roll "can I have a bennie"? No, get fucked faggot. Failure is an important part of RPGs and Savage Worlds throws that shit out the window.

>>54152279
That's kinda how ETU does it, but there it's +2 from 2d6 onwards. Me, I just tend to chop it down to a flat +1 to all ranges unless it's a sawed-off. Those things need some love.
>>54152332
Oh look, it's this guy again. Nice pasta, shame it's so stale.

File: anusincinerated.png (77KB, 238x200px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 238x200px

>>54152332
Funny, because I've never experienced anything you've described here in all the years I've played Savage Worlds.

Of course, I happen to have a group that isn't complete ass, so...

Nice pasta, by the way.

>>54152332
What gets me laughing at this shit pasta is that he seems to think bennies make your character invulnerable.
Tell that to the Nord thief I played in an Elder Scrolls campaign who nearly died due to the rest of the team being clumsy fucktards and general bad luck in the resulting fight. Rerolling doesn't help if your dice refuse to roll above three.

>>54152090
>>54152120
>SW shotguns

here's how I do it, on top of +0/+1/+2 to-hit: if target has any armor, then the armor value applies to EVERY buckshot dice separately. That means suddenly cheapo flak jacket of Armor 4 stops almost all buckshot damage, like it should.

File: a38acba1560c16b5b80c29890c65db87.jpg (70KB, 803x438px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 803x438px

>>54152332
>not only metagaming but ending session early
I've never had my players want to end the session early to refill their bennies.

Maybe you just play with shitty people.

>>54153172
>>54153032
>my anecdotal evidence is a counterargument.

>>54152332
Don't bennies give you a shot of bonus experience if you save them?

File: 1468782630592.png (960KB, 840x1229px) Image search: [Google]

960KB, 840x1229px

>>54151804
>and it honestly reads like an elaborated version of a minis game,

Because that's exactly what it is. Even I, a big fan of the system, will admit that.

> So I'm curious, does this game actually, for real, do less punchy stuff well?

Nope! Savage Worlds shines at its best when you stick to the pulpy roots where it's coming from. In other words, either a medieval swordsman level or power, or by more modern standards a skilled guy with a few guns to see him through danger. Any power level higher than that, and the characters are more or less gods you can't touch as a GM.

Now in spite of the critique, there's still A LOT of shit Savage Worlds is good for, and it's worth learning the rules just so you can open yourself up to a lot of potential games in the future. All very different from each other, depending on the GM's imagination. The games Savage Worlds does well, it does very well.

>>54154511
In certain settings, they used to. I haven't seen one that does in the last 5 years or so, though.

>>54154511
No.

>>54151804
>Looks mostly like a pretty light game about punching things in the face and pulpy action.

System is a secondary concern if your GM is good. You can have great games with just "roll d100" for every action.

SW is pretty okay if you want a rules light system. Just houserule stupid shit like exploding dice or card decks for initiative.

>>54154847
>SW is pretty okay if you want a rules light system.

No.

Savage Worlds is a shitty system that tries too hard to reinvent the wheel. The exploding die and raise mechanics make any form of encounter balance/planning impossible. A rank 1 novice can one-shot a dragon with lucky die rolls using his fist. The system boasts that bennies are used for "cool things" like players changing narrative or pulling off impossible stunts, but players just hoard them for use as extra hit points. The chase system (any iteration of it) is an absolute shit storm of retardation. The 3-wound limit is just plain bad game design. The community is full of sad 40-something-year-old zealots who foam at the mouth at any notion of house ruling the assy mechanics. Shotguns are utterly broken and despite having the same average damage as a rifle, end up dealing twice as much because of exploding dice. The entire game works on a fucktarded tabletop scale so you either have to use miniatures for EVERY combat or have fun doing extra math every time you want to figure out range penalties.

It's like the worst parts of FATE and GURPS put together, with none of the upsides. Don't play it. Leave it in the trash where it belongs.

>>54154886
>Shotguns are utterly broken
Short range and no armor piercing. Exploding dice don't come to play nearly as often as to have them do "twice as much" damage. Shotguns are fine.

>>54154886

You know the core book literally tells you to modify stuff you don't like like removing exploding dice or adding more wounds? Hell, books often offer tons of side rules and changes you may want to use.

>sad 40-something-year-old zealots who foam at the mouth at any notion of house ruling the assy mechanics

Never ever happened to me. It's D&D fags who are always crazy about muh rules.

>>54155361
>You know the core book literally tells you to modify stuff you don't like like removing exploding dice or adding more wounds?
It matters little when his understanding of the rules is so faulty to begin with. It'd be like trying to fix your computer by replacing parts that already work with some faulty bullshit.

>>54154886
>worst parts of GURPS
But SW doesn't try to autistically replicate every possible variable or have combat turns that take ages anon

>>54155280
In my experience, the main sticking point with shotguns is that +2 to attack they get, which makes it much more likely you'll get a raise. Between that the decent chance of exploding dice at close range, they're absurdly deadly.

>>54154886
>A rank 1 novice can one-shot a dragon with lucky die rolls using his fist.

Would someone who is better than me at math calculate the odds of a wildcard with a d12 melee skill, a d12 strength, and the martial arts edge doing this to a dragon with a parry of 7, a toughness of 20, and the +4 to hit for the dragon being huge doing this?

Also

>encounter balance

Kek. Don't fuss about balancing encounters and just describe things as should make sense; let the players figure out their own survival.

>>54156554
Sure, but they'll completely whittle out at long range, and still don't do too much against armor or damage reduction.

>>54156977
With exploding dice, they'll do plenty against both since they just add to toughness.

>>54151804
Benny economy.

Poorly designed, the whole system is built around it, and ruins the entire game.

If you redesign the Benny system to actually work, it could be a decent pulpy system.

Only other gripe is that when you improve a skill and go up a die type, your odds against specific dcs (sometimes very common dcs) actually go *down*.

That one can easily be fixed by adding 2-3 fate dice to every roll.

>>54157072
What's wrong with the benny economy?

>Only other gripe is that when you improve a skill and go up a die type, your odds against specific dcs (sometimes very common dcs) actually go *down*.

This has been debunked. It's in one instance (d4-d6) and it's a tiny amount.

>>54158771
this, it's something stupid, like a fraction of a percent IIRC.

>>54153304
any opinions on my houserule plox?

>>54158883
>houserule

I like the to-hit bonuses, but I think you've misunderstood armor in SW. Since it doesn't reduce damage but adds to toughness. Unless you're considering a multiplier to armor based on buckshot, but I'd say negative AP (which should have been a thing from the start) would be a better solution.

>>54158896
I know armor adds to toughness, I meant deducing the armor value alone from the results, lemme explain:
For example: target has standard 5 toughness and 3 armor on top of that (just to be clear, 4AP would only remove 3 armor, since ap doesn't *bite* into raw toughness). RAW, a shotgun roll of 4,4,3 without modifiers would add up to 11dmg total, shaking the character. With +2, it would even score a wound.
My idea is to have the 3 armor removed from each result on shot dice, so with my houserule a roll of 4,4,3 would look liek this - 4(-3),4(-3),3(-3), so it'd only add up to 2; or 4 with +2 from buckshot. See where I'm getting at? You could still aim for the head to blow someone's brains out, though. Buckshot it still killmurdery against unarmored targets, but even a bit of armor goes a long way againt my variant, like it should.

>>54159015
I think ti overcomplicates things. If armor bothers you so much, just say that the -4 to AP of modern body armor applies as additional armor to shotguns.

>>54155280
>no armor piercing.
>he thinks armor piercing actually matters

>>54160491
It makes a difference when you're fighting anything that isn't armored with ballistic armor.

>>54156693
Hitting the dragon isn't a problem. With the guy rolling d12+4, he's got a 75% chance of hitting the dragon.

I'm using AnyDice to calculate damage so bear with me if this is incorrect, but to kill the dragon in one hit you'd need to roll high enough to Shake it plus three raises, so 20+4+4+4. According to AnyDice the odds of rolling 32 with d12+d4 even on exploding dice is something like 0.29%.

That's also completely ignoring the fact that a Dragon is a Wild Card and therefore can use GM bennies to make a Soak Roll.

So basically anon is being a hyperbolic fuckwit.

>>54162418
Oh, also, this is ignoring the fact that a dragon has Fear -2, so anyone who sees it has to make a Fear check at a -2 penalty, and someone who minmaxed their character to have d12 Strength and d12 Fighting skill as a Rank 1 novice is going to have a piss-poor Spirit or Guts stat.

>>54162418
Thanks. I kinda figure it would be absurdly small, even with the punching savant. Fun fact: he'd likely shit-all for vigor and no other edges.

>>54158771
It's a small amount. The fact remains that rather than getting *better* you get worse. And it happens for a specific TN at every increase, IIRC.

It's a small issue, but it's still bullshit. *not increasing* with investment is bullshit. And it's not like they're only rare DCs that won't come up. But with a couple of fate dice to smooth out the curve, the issue disappears completely.

The fact that Bennies=hp, and that the whole game hinges on people having the right flow of Bennies or combat = stun lock and die, is something I just can't stomach. I absolutely hated it.

Better than the deadlands classic system though!

File: exploding dice prob.png (18KB, 351x415px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 351x415px

>>54163071
>And it happens for a specific TN at every increase, IIRC.
When a die has to roll maximum, you're better off rolling the next lower die instead.

I agree that it's not an ideal situation, but A) it *is* a small difference, B) you can sometimes see something like this at play in real life (frequently a new fighting game player who just mashes buttons furiously is a bit more dangerous to a skilled player than one who is inexperienced but starting to learn the ropes, as the latter is more predictable), and C) it's easy to remedy if you care about it.

How do you fix it? One of two ways. The simple way: if you roll maximum on your second roll, treat it as 0. This, of course, means you can only roll up once, so if you're not okay with that you can do it the slightly more annoying way, which is to subtract one from the result each time you roll up (so a d8 that rolls 8, 8, 5 = 19). Why didn't Savage Worlds go ahead and fix it? I'm guess that they didn't think that people would be autistic enough to care about or even notice the small discrepancies (and I'm not trying to insult other people by saying this; I'm absolutely autistic enough to be concerned about shit like this, myself). The also probably figured that it wasn't worth the complexity involved in adding in a fix. And sure, it wouldn't be that complex, but then the problem also isn't that big.

>>54163071
The stunlock thing shouldn't happen if you don't tank spirit.

>>54163071
>combat = stun lock and die

They fixed this with an errata literally every group uses now.

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/peg-freebies/SW_FAQ_May_2015.pdf

Long story short, if you succeed your spirit roll to unshake you still get your full turn, whereas previously you needed a raise to do so.

I like it, though I do apply a few tweaks.

>Use Savage Armory for weapons.
>Fuse strength and vigor into one attribute, especially for modern stuff.
>Use the "exploding roll is 0 on max" as above.
>If I want to go really simple, default skills to the relevant attributes.

>>54163071
>>54163964
Also, even if you stay shaken you can still move your entire Pace and try to avoid whatever it was that hit you having another go.

>>54154886
>The system boasts that bennies are used for "cool things" like players changing narrative or pulling off impossible stunts, but players just hoard them for use as extra hit points
This is actually something I've encountered. What are some ways to "fix" that problem?

>>54165033
Don't. There's nothing wrong with using it that way. It's their bennies. But if you insist on fucking with it, then just be really stingy with your bennies (I only hand them out if PCs actually play out their flaws) and give them the opportunity to make a lot of skill rolls - they'll flunk some of them eventually and burn a benny to reroll. Don't FORCE them to make a lot of unnecessary skill rolls, just give them opportunities to get a little more information or cool little bonuses for doing a skill check on something.

>>54165033
Encourage their use by not only bringing up the opportunities for cool stunts, but also charging them with narrative and emotional weight so that the players have all the more reason to try and succeed. Make rolls relatively rare but high-stakes, so that if they fail they'll want to spend a benny for another try. Maybe also throw stronger enemies at them so that they might want to try soak rolls when they get hurt.

Basically just use the system for what it's intended. If the players don't use their bennies so much, maybe it's because the GM isn't giving them enough reason to.

>>54163298
That table is misleading. The goal is not to HIT the number but to hit or surpass.

Just looking at the d4 and d6 here are the probability of succeeding with TN 6
d4 - 49.9
d6 - 65.7

Gotta add up the probabilities of the TN and every number higher (obviously not the gray ones).

How do people not know this?

>>54165033
>>54165169
>>54165203
Remind them of what they can use them for besides soak rolls. Hell, expand upon it if you can think of cool shit to spend them on (can't remember if adding something narratively is already an option, but if it's not it should be).

>>54151925
western horror with tiny brooms attached to your shoes, and chinamen that can tornado through dirt.

>>54165242
>How do people not know this?
System bitching doesn't have to be accurate, it just has to look plausible when someone glances at it.

>>54163964
>They fixed this with an errata literally every group uses now.
Every gm in my group myself included refuses to do so.

>>54165242
>The goal is not to HIT the number but to hit or surpass.
That's what the numbers are. You don't have a 75% chance to roll a 2 on a d4. You have a 75% chance to roll a 2 or higher.

>>54165461
A) The system bitching *is* accurate. B) It wasn't really system bitching.

If you read >>54163298 you'll see that while I acknowledge the matter as an issue, I indicate that it's minor, might have at least some precedence in life, and is easily remedied.

What are people's thoughts on exploding matryoshka dice? As in each time it explodes it gets 1 step smaller, with a d4 exploding into nothing. Or alternatively the wacky variant where rolling 1 below max results in an matryoshka explosion.

>>54165644
Sounds like a good way of preventing things from getting too silly by chance.

Unfortunately the only SW games I can get these days are on Roll20, and I don't think their die roller supports that yet. Aside from just rolling each exploded die individually, that is.

>>54165512
Then my apologies, I'm an idiot.

>>54165644
Seems like it's just an excuse for extra work. If you want to limit the power of exploding dice, just do one and done.

>>54165767
No problem. We all have a brain-fart from time to time.

>>54165492
Why?

>>54165838
Because all change is universally bad. :(

>Savage Worlds general never

>>54166833
If GURPS shit can have one than /savgen/ should be capable of existing too.

>People asking for advice on homerules and settings.
>Talking about their favourite supplements.
>Sharing content.
>Arguing over bennies.
>tfw.

>>54165568
>A) The system bitching *is* accurate.
Except it's not. You're factually wrong.

Why is 50 Fathoms the best Savage Worlds setting and why does no one want to play it with me?

>>54167399
>You're factually wrong.
Really? Please show me where my math is wrong.

>>54167466
I'll play it with you.

>>54167466
Because Weird War Two exists.

>>54167544
>weird war II
>not weird war I
Also, Tour of Darkness second edition when?

>>54165169
>Don't. There's nothing wrong with using it that way.
Yes there is, it makes characters basically invincible in combat unless you throw an unbelievable shit-ton of mooks against them.

>>54168669
>implying the entire point of mooks isn't for them to die in droves wearing down the heroes

>>54168669
Mix a wild card in with those mooks

I had a player who complained that attribute die don't really affect anything other than providing a soft cap for skill die, which I think is mostly untrue since Strength governs melee damage, Agility governs movement speed, Vigor is used for Toughness and Soak rolls, and Spirit is used to come out of Shaken and for various morale checks.

Does Wits actually do anything though?

Anyone want me to share my collection of Savage Worlds media? I've got 407 files in it.

>>54169638
That's a fair few more books than what I've got, so go right ahead.

>>54154463
>original argument wasn't constructed entirely of anecdotal bullshit.

The shotgun is borked, yes.

Ending a game early to refill your bennies never happened.

3/10, consistent posting with every reference of SW, and got be to reply

>>54169760
I mean I've seen some shitty enough player groups that it wouldn't be a stretch to imagine some would decide to end a session early just to refill their bennies.

>>54169666
Shit, let me just find my dewatermarked versions of some of these.

I usually just change the "per session" mechanic of bennies to "per adventure" and then hand out bennies for good roleplaying along the way.

>>54166833
The issue is Savage Worlds draws out dedicated shit posters.

>>54169845
Haven't seen daily threads about Savage Worlds being garbage yet, though.

>>54169817
That's a problem with the players then, and not the system.

>>54169872
It's not popular enough to warrant that.

Which is also why SW generals can be killed by one to two shitters shitting everywhere.

>>54169839
You're supposed to give bennies for good roleplaying anyway.
One of my GMs never did and turned a supers game into a grim slog out of sheer forgetfulness/stinginess

>>54169845
It's not quite as bad as with Fate, thank goodness, but it is pretty bad. I wonder if it's that guy from the Rifts threads who got butthurt about the Savage Rifts getting more discussion than Palladium Rifts.

>>54169917
Yeah. I mean perhaps more permissively than typical to make up for slower rate of refresh. Our sessions can often be quite short, so doing them per session wound up with too many on hand.

>>54169381
>Does Wits actually do anything though?

As per the book, not really. But what I often do is gave players make Wits rolls to provide them with hints and clues for a given situation they need to think through.

>>54169381
>>54170159
Common knowledge rolls.

>>54152332
This is just not true. Sounds like a player issue or sounds like someone is just a crunch-faggot and simply does not like the game and making shit up.

>>54170226
He's not wrong about shotguns. The 3d6 damage with +2 to attack means they'll often hit with a raise, doing 4d6 damage in the process, which stands a pretty good chance of one or more dice exploding.

>>54163331
>>54163071
Even with a d4 Spirit you still come back from Shaken 62% of the time.

>>54168748
>every game is D&D

>>54168892
>every group of enemies is led by a super-talented named opponent
>4e encounter design is ubiquitous
>"just design your encounters differently bro!"

>>54170245
>He's not wrong about shotguns.
If he's not, he's at least exaggerating pretty wildly. 3d6 damage with +2 attack only applies in the short range, which with shotguns is usually pretty cruddy, and the odds of an exploding die - let alone more than one, or more than once - aren't nearly as great as he makes it look. I'd rather have a good rifle and pick the enemy off before they even get near.

>>54169381
>>54170159
The fuck is "wits"? You mean Smarts?

>>54151804
Savage Worlds is a pretty solid system, moves pretty fast as well. But they need to license the D&D world if they want to get big.

>>54169760
>Ending a game early to refill your bennies never happened.
Maybe not, but if you run shorter or longer sessions than the 4-6 hours suggested by the book, your game balance is adversely affected. Same depending on the amount of checks you make. Meta-gaming metacurrency is just plain fucking stupid.

>>54169876
>That's a problem with the players then, and not the system.

No, it's a problem with a system that allows such a thing to happen. Also see above about why bennies are INHERENTLY BAD, abused or not. Then you'll probably just get mad at me for not playing 4-6 hour sessions and completely miss the point you are making about how utterly inflexible savage worlds is.

>>54170412
>Also see above about why bennies are INHERENTLY BAD, abused or not.

Jog our memory. Because so far we haven't seen anything glaring.

>>54170378
Fucking deal with it. You don't have to literally name every wild card NPC you throw at your opponents and they can be every bit as disposable as your mooks are - just more powerful while they are on the tabletop.

>>54170412
>No, it's a problem with a system that allows such a thing to happen.

GURPS allows you to destroy the universe in 100> points. The designers just expect you to have the basic maturity not to.

File: fucker.jpg (41KB, 340x429px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 340x429px

>>54170412
Read the books. It says there the GM is encouraged to hand on bennies like candy throughout the session, which instantly turns your entire problem to null.

>>54170438
>opponents
Meant to say players but you get the idea

>>54170378
>a game with actual mook rules
>HURR YOU'RE ACTING LIKE IT'S D&D 4E
Stop being a colossal retard. Use wild cards exclusively if you're that fucking concerned about MUH MOOKS

>>54170378
There are lots of default monsters in the book that are wildcards without names. Do you think every animal intelligence drake has a name?

>>54170379
>3d6 damage with +2 attack only applies in the short range,

Which is where most firefights in RPGs happen. Especially if you use miniatures as the game suggests. I'm sure you'll deny this but it's still true.

>>54170463
>. It says there the GM is encouraged to hand on bennies like candy throughout the session, which instantly turns your entire problem to null.

Except for a short 2-3 hour session where the characters have way too many bennies and become basically invincible.

>>54170550
I don't know about you but I roll way more than once per hour on average. If that few rolls are needed, the game is likely pretty boring.

>>54170438
>Fucking deal with it.
Fucking kill yourself.
>You don't have to literally name every wild card NPC you throw at your opponents and they can be every bit as disposable as your mooks are
Ahem. From the book:
>"Besides your own characters, it’s up to the Game Master to decide which characters are Wild Cards. The sergeant of the City Watch probably isn’t a Wild Card, but Sergeant Grimlock of the City Watch, a veteran of many wars and an important character in your campaign, certainly is. Skytch the Dragon is also a Wild Card, though his three young wyrms aren’t."

So basically, I am breaking the rules just to make the game more "balanced." It's like people saying "oh well D&D 3.5 wizards are balanced if you constantly throw high level wizards against them even though that makes no sense in the context of an actual world"

>>54170478
>if you're that fucking concerned about MUH MOOKS
Except I'm not. I mentioned it as a side point originally, and you started sperging out, as if making all opponents wild cards is a solution, even though that goes against some of the core expectations of the game. Hint: if you have to excessively house-rule and contradict the rules to make a system work, then it's broken. End of story.

>>54170550
Keep in mind that this still only applies to mooks. If you think the players are getting too much done, then maybe throw in a wild card with his own bennies to oppose them.

>>54170576
>I don't know about you but I roll way more than once per hour on average
So do I. But the point is that it becomes in the characters' interests to avoid rolling as much as possible, due to the stupid fucking metacurrency. It is also in their interest to turtle and not go into a big encounter, even if they are all rested up, because their bennies are exhausted and don't refresh until "next session," which is a non-entity in the game world. So they might as well sit around and wait because it is quite literally stupid for them to go in and get slaughtered. Could you even blame them? It is EXACTLY like going into a boss fight in D&D when you have half-hit points without healing. Would you do that? No. Then why would you expect a Savage Worlds group to continue playing without bennies?

>>54170519
According to anydice, the median values for 3d6 exploding remain 10-11, with the eventually inclusion of some positively minuscule chances for higher chances, whereas an AK doing a 3 round burst for 2d8+3 exploding will do a median damage of 12, with some positively minuscule chances for higher values. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

>>54170614
>Keep in mind that this still only applies to mooks. If you think the players are getting too much done, then maybe throw in a wild card with his own bennies to oppose them.

One wild card does little to change the balance of an encounter.

>>54170651
But again, the GM is encouraged to give the party more bennies, so why the fuck would they be thrifty with them and not want to roll much?

You literally have no argument.

>>54170661
You're retarded. AK-47 can't do 3-round-burst by RAW because it doesn't have the fucking 3RB quality. So you can use the M-16 which reduces that by 1. Also the EV for a 3d6 exploding roll is 12.6 not "10 or 11."

>You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
You're outright lying, which is worse.

>>54170671
False.

>>54170651
>So do I. But the point is that it becomes in the characters' interests to avoid rolling as much as possible, due to the stupid fucking metacurrency.

Rolling is how they get shit done, so not really.

>Could you even blame them?

Yes. If they're so fucking averse to failure that they can't handle an encounter without some bennies, then they're bad players, full stop.

>It is EXACTLY like going into a boss fight in D&D when you have half-hit points without healing.

Not really, because they have all their other resources in play and bennies are layered on top of the system.

>Would you do that?

Yes, because I'm not a terrible player.

>>54170671
A single wild card plus a whole lot of mooks can match a bunch of three to five wild cards well enough.

>>54170697
I'm looking at the anydice page right now, it's 10-11.

Also you're right about the AK, sorry about that.

>>54170691
>But again, the GM is encouraged to give the party more bennies, so why the fuck would they be thrifty with them and not want to roll much?

Because it gives no set rules as to how or why the GM is supposed to do so? It's all soft suggestions. They don't refresh based on specific in-world events, like failure earning you XP in Dungeon World. It's just a "here we can't balance our shitty metaccurency so you do it." And if things change in the game like the PCs suddenly decide to attack something they hadn't planned to yet, what do you do, refresh their bennies to 3 because "lol reasons"? That's fucking stupid. Or what if you only get partway through a fight before having to end the session, and suddenly the characters are way tougher halfway through a fight for no fucking reason? I've had all these situations, and more, come up due to the stupid ass bennies, whose refresh rate is based on a stupid metric (session length) that should not affect game balance and yet somehow does.

If you want examples of GOOD metacurrency implementation, look at FATE, or hell even D&D 5e. Neither of those base their reroll points on anything so inane as session length, nor do they base their entire fucking game balance and combat balance around their existence.

File: giphy-facebook_s.jpg (46KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 480x270px

>>54170519
I don't know what kind of games you play in, but ours take place in big fields and wastelands and roads about as often as they do in ruins and dungeons. Ambushes don't happen all the time.

Besides, for close range, there's flamethrower. It's cooler than the shotgun. They scream better and longer, and then the smell...

File: Screenshot_2017-07-05_12-16-28.png (26KB, 980x510px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 980x510px

>>54170697

>>54170733
>I'm looking at the anydice page right now, it's 10-11.

You're going to have to post the link because I quite literally did the math on expected value of exploding dice, the expected value of a NORMAL 3d6 roll is 10.5, when you factor in the exploding dice it becomes 12.6.

File: Screenshot_2017-07-05_12-19-21.png (24KB, 985x479px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 985x479px

>>54170697
and the m16

>>54170775
>>54170828
And these take into account neither the armor piercing nor the far better range.

>>54169666
https://mega.nz/#F!6wFAlLbY!l2Rb_wmJdsSEAteHfHK-Tg

Had to remove my Mythos and Ultimate Guide collections because they were still watermarked and the old links mageguru made don't work any more. Sorry about that.

>>54170771
FATE does the same thing though. It's absolutely based on session length.

>>54170519
So if you keep using shotguns at melee range all the time, why wouldn't the enemy try to adapt and decide to snipe you from afar?

You don't always fight just stupid zombies or animals or killer robots, you know. Unless your games are lame.

>>54170775
https://eric22222.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/a-mathematical-analysis-of-exploding-dice/

Normal 3d6 roll: 3.5+3.5+3.5 = ev of 10.5
Exploded 3d6 roll: 4.2+4.2+4.2 = ev of 12.6

>>54170857
Against humanoid opponents, armor piercing doesn't amount to much due to the fact all ballistic armor knocks of 4 points of AP from ballistic weapons. It mainly only makes a difference against critters. Or possibly helmets in a ww1/ww2 game.

>>54170885
I'm not going to your wordpress site to read your math. A computer algorithm showed that exploding dice don't affect outcomes that much, instead just introducing a tiny chance of extreme outcomes. Deal with it.

>>54170366
If you're a Wild Card.

>>54170931
Yeah, but who cares about the mooks?

>>54170857
Unless all of your opponents wear nothing but a tac-vest they negate all the armor piercing anyway. The armor piercing of a .50 Cal rifle is quite literally negated by a kevlar vest with inserts (negating up to 4 armor piercing). Hell, the average character wearing kevlar with inserts has a 5 + 8 Toughness against bullets, and all of a .50 cal's AP is negated, so he isn't even shaken by the average .50 cal shot. Other rifles? Good luck. That M16 burst fire hardly shakes him either, and the AK is even worse off. Burst fire IS broken as fuck though, and was made mostly for the American devs to wank to how "good" shitty american weapons are, and by making Shotguns so overpowered, having an AK deal more damage than a garand, and having 3 round burst be god-tier, they proved that they know absolutely NOTHING about firearms. Even in the parameters of the pulpy world Savage Worlds is meant for, they are fucking stupid. Why not just give all your mooks shotguns? It makes them almost twice as likely to hit (god forbid your character is caught out in the open because a mook has an 83% chance of hitting him with a shotgun) and gives them insane damage. Armor piercing isn't even needed because if even one of the d6's explodes, well, there goes your character. Oh wait he can just soak that with a giant-ass vigor roll and be fine.

>>54170916
>A computer algorithm showed that exploding dice don't affect outcomes that much, instead just introducing a tiny chance of extreme outcomes. Deal with it.
>exploded only five times

Your computer algorithm is lazy and also can't do math right. Also, I can write a computer algorithm to say whatever the fuck I want, it doesn't make you right.

>>54171022
>what is range

>>54170771
If you think it's a problem, then it's a trivial as fuck to fix one. Wrap your sessions up at natural break points, where there's a lull between two different scenes. If due to your incompetence you miss the break points, then use them anyway, if group keeps going past that break point they get their bennies for next session early, and if they end before the break point they maintain their bennies from last session.

>>54171022
If you're bitching about shotguns on account of them exploding, you should be more focused on the automatic weapons that can feature anywhere from 6-8 dice being thrown around.

>>54171042
So characters are inherently at a disadvantage in CQB? All that extra shotgun damage is just overkill against a mook, but it has potential to really hurt a character.

>>54171074
Just because something a mook doesn't mean it can't be a pretty tough one, like an ogre or some shit. And there's always enemy wild cards as well.

But I mean, yeah - why would you want to go to close quarters if you can pick them off before that point? CQB is for last resorts and suicidal chumps.

>>54171037
>only exploded five times

Each die exploding 5 times is a pretty generous assumption.

>can't do math right.

Math is the most fundamental process of computers, they can do it better than you.

>Also, I can write a computer algorithm to say whatever the fuck I want, it doesn't make you right.
>implying I wrote anydice

I'm flattered, but no.

You're just going to have to deal with the fact you've made a mountain out of a molehill in your autistic fury about a game you don't like.

>>54171048
>it's your fault the system doesn't work well, everything about the system is fine, you're just a bad DM for not structuring your sessions to fit a bullshit rule
Yep, this is why I stopped playing Savage Worlds and have prevented at least 3 people from getting into the system since then (they asked me if it was good and I told them it's fun for a bit but after you start to learn the system you realize how shitty and broken it is). You guys are EXACTLY like 3.5 apologists, NOTHING is wrong with your precious fucking system, it's all "well you just aren't adapting to it correctly, you should structure this and that around the shitty mechanics, and remember this is a flexible generic system that works well for multiple genres, but ONLY if you end your sessions at explicit times."

Also, if you think I'm the kind of railroading fuck who sets up "break points" for the session to end, you're retarded. You're also retarded if you think that the natural break points that crop up during play, coincide with when the characters run out of bennies. God you're so fucking dumb it's hard to put into words.

File: 1494898238159.jpg (121KB, 680x1164px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 680x1164px

Ah, good timing on this thread. I've been looking into running a a sequel part to a pic related game I ran with my group ages back.
I originally ran it in FATE with some accoutrements to fit the setting.
That said, SW sounds like it's a bit gritter, and I'm torn since FATE definitely handles some of the more esoteric parts of the setting well (albeit because the entire system is kind of an abstraction).
Does anyone have experience running a game like this-- sort of a psuedo-supers game-- in SW? Or is it too pulpy to pull it off? I just want a good combat system that hits hard.

>>54171112
No, it really pretty much just sounds like you had a really shitty party.

>>54171037
There's a little over a 1 in 8,000 chance to get five explosions in a row, and each successive explosion still only adds another d6. You're complaining about thousandths or ten thousandths of differences in expected value.

>>54171101
>Math is the most fundamental process of computers, they can do it better than you.
Not if they are programmed incorrectly.
>Each die exploding 5 times is a pretty generous assumption.
You are a dumb fucking nigger. An exploding die has the potential to explode infinite times. He does a series out to infinity with decreasing probability to SHOW THAT. THAT IS WHERE HE GETS THE EXPLODING VALUE. Your math is literally wrong. I don't know why the idiots at anydice didn't program their fucking dice calculator with the n/(n-1) multiplier for sides number, but THAT IS THE CORRECT MATH. Your math is wrong. Look at this: >>54170775, look at the upper right corner: "exploded at most 5 times." Just because that doesn't happen very often does not mean it is not an INTEGRAL PART of calculating the probability.

Holy shit I knew /tg/ was retarded but this is too goddamn much.

>>54171112
There's not a single game system out there that doesn't expect decent GM judgement, making things up on the fly, and learning to do some sound decisions and figure out when to do what. If that's what you're looking for, play a video game.

Or just learn to hand the fucking bennies at a good moment that fits your player party, instead of relying on the system to hold your hand.

>>54171136
>That said, SW sounds like it's a bit gritter,
It is if you remove bennies, and use Gritty Damage rule. Or just remove bennies. I used that and it was VERY satisfying.

>>54171137
>characters who don't follow your lame-ass railroad, and actually plan intelligently, are a shitty party
>characters who recognize the metagame conflict of interest between lack of bennies (player knowledge) and character knowledge, and are frustrated by the fact that they "would" do something but shouldn't, are bad players

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

File: of-course.gif (684KB, 245x170px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 245x170px

>>54171149
So shotguns are terrible because of some infinity paradox quantum bullshit?

>>54171112
Because literally nothing you've talked about so far has been a big issue.

>>54171149
No, it really isn't. 5 times exploding is a generous assumption, you're just going to have to deal with it. Get over yourself, maybe take a walk and go have a drink of water and ask yourself it throwing yourself into a temper tantrum over a game is worth it.

>>54171181
Metagaming in any fashion is shitty conduct.

>>54171167
>There's not a single game system out there that doesn't expect decent GM judgement, making things up on the fly, and learning to do some sound decisions and figure out when to do what.

Sure. Except Savage Worlds goes out of its way to tax that with a stupid metagame currency that leads to players making decisions against their best interests just to "in character." And not even for the sake of roleplaying, for the sake of a stupid reroll mechanic with an abominably stupid refresh rate reason (ending a session). And making them integral to the combat balance? Even fucking stupider. That is like saying "we're going to play D&D, but you can only heal when the DM tells you you can, or at the end of a session." What happens? The characters have to quit the session when they would normally "rest" in the game. But did Savage Worlds set up its bennies that way? No, it chose to have them per session. It also requires you to have a box of playing cards at hand to use the initiative system correctly, but that's another complaint I won't get into.

>>54171149
>Your math is literally wrong.

How so?

>>54171181
No, I'm sorry, it looks like my assumption was faulty: your party was not in fact shitty after all. You're just a shitty GM.

>>54171112
But it is your fault that the system isn't working well. You're bad at designing and running adventures. It's nothing to be ashamed of, nobody was born good, but blaming the system won't help.

>>54171207
You can froth in your mouth all you want, but the entire problem is at your end: you just need to learn when to hand over the bennies instead of blaming "metagaming" or some other stupid shit.

>>54171207
Jesus Christ. You strike me as the type of person completely unwilling to ever subject themselves to hardship or something. The players keep going without bennies because that's what their characters would do, and you rightly give them shit for being metagaming fuckwits if they don't.

>>54171184
>infinite series
>quantum bullshit
>cutting off your series at 5 leads to a different result but that doesn't matter

That's it, I'm done. You're too fucking retarded to talk to. You claim to care about the theoretical results of something (which is what probability is) then use incorrect math and say "lololol well that's what is practical because dice almost never explode more than 5 times" then fail to fucking understand what expected value actually is. You argue math, are objectively wrong about said math, then try to change the parameters of math to fit what you want. Just fuck off. The fact that that Wordpress article was too much for you to read, and that you'd rather just mindlessly plug shit into AnyDice and ignore the limited result it gives you with a DISCLAIMER attached, just seals the deal.

>>54171187
>No, it really isn't. 5 times exploding is a generous assumption, you're just going to have to deal with it.

You need to deal with doing your math correctly, or else don't talk about math. You want to argue over anecdotals, we can argue over anecdotals. That's fine.

>>54171204
>Metagaming in any fashion is shitty conduct.
Making a game that encourages metagaming, is shitty design.

>>54171219
Look. At. The. Fucking. Wordpress. Article. It's not hard to read and if you've graduated high school the math is easy enough.

>>54171249
Any damage roll exploding five times in a row is unlikely enough an event as to not make for any kind of a reasonable, practical argument. Such theoretical assumptions have no place in a debate about the merits of a game system.

Countless games function just fine with per session mechanics. Shadowrun, Fate, the 40K RPGs, Fantasycraft, etc. and groups manage just fine with all of these games (they all have features to bitch about, but the bitching is not typically about their meta currencies) which leads me to the obvious conclusion: the problem is indeed with you.

>>54171266
I'm not going to your wordpress site. That's the end of it.

>>54171220
I'm not a shitty GM, though. My players love my campaigns. They are a good mix of "sandbox" and "railroad" and it's a blend I've struck over years of running games. I adapt, I create new content based on what they want to do, I still have the storyline that was already there. I've gotten people begging for my GMing. Here's the thing: you wouldn't call my GMing shit EXCEPT in the context of Savage Worlds, all because I won't adapt my GMing to match the system's shitty mechanics. Because guess what? Most GMs wouldn't. Why? Because that's fucking stupid. This isn't the same as calibrating your expectations to a game like D&D where characters can fall off of cliffs and be fine, this is a matter of changing your entire narrative structure to fit a game that doesn't advertise itself as narrative. If this were FATE or that fucking mouse game where the idea is that the rules structure the narrative, that'd be one thing. But why the fuck would call sessions early, set up pre-generated break points (??) or do other stupid shit like that to design around a garbage-ass mechanic?

>>54171335
After all this autistic shitflinging, I don't believe for one second that you run games.

Also I've encountered some truly ass GMs that still have players begging them to run GMs, because a willing GM of any caliber beats no GM.

>>54171335
Are you somewhere on the spectrum? I'm genuinely curious. I've never met a non-autist that's so rigid, set in their ways, and unable to adapt even though every system does different things in a different way.

>>54171233
>You can froth in your mouth all you want, but the entire problem is at your end: you just need to learn when to hand over the bennies instead of blaming "metagaming" or some other stupid shit.

Except they start with three right off the bat for a 4-6 hour session. Meaning to balance for a 2-3 hour session I need to hand out zero.

>>54171222
>You're bad at designing and running adventures.

No, I am bad at designing and running adventures balanced around the dumb-ass bennies. There's a difference. D&D, GURPS, etc. I don't have this problem. Only one variable is different, and that's the system. Which is sad because I like a lot of Savage Worlds, there's just so much gristle in the meat that it's a hassle to run well.

>>54171335
>No no, I'm a great GM, really I am, please believe me!
You've never run a single session, have you.

>>54171327
It's not my Wordpress site. I would type it out here for you to read but you'd refuse to read it because that would mean accepting that you are WRONG about the math.

>>54171277
>Any damage roll exploding five times in a row is unlikely enough an event as to not make for any kind of a reasonable, practical argument.

I've had it happen eight times. So it does happen. Yep, it's rare, but rare events are part of a probability calculation. If you limit yourself to 5 explosions your numbers will be off by a lot. Your math is quite literally wrong. And in fact I'd bet if you did the experiments with actual dice you'd end up with a higher EV than your stupid anydice calculator tells you.

>>54171363
>Except they start with three right off the bat for a 4-6 hour session. Meaning to balance for a 2-3 hour session I need to hand out zero.
You're looking at it the wrong way. If they start three for a 2-3 hour session, then for a 4-6 hour session they need to earn three more during play.

Or is that too hard for you?

>>54171327
>I'm not going to your wordpress site. That's the end of it.
Then you're wrong. That's the end of it.

>>54171149
A die which explodes 5x and then stops will have a value between 31 and 36, and will occur 1 in 7,776 times. That's less than an EV of 0.005. A die which explodes 6x and then stops will have a value between 37 and 42, and will occur 1 in 46,656 times. That's less than an EV of 0.0009.

You're splitting hairs over something of minimal impact.

>>54171204
All gaming is metagaming. You can't separate your knowledge from your character's knowledge, nor would you want to. Otherwise you'd just watch a movie or play a book.

>>54171377
>You've never run a single session, have you.
Nope. You've caught me. I haven't run even one session of Savage Worlds.

>>54171362
The thing is, I have adapted. That's why, as I said, I don't hand out bennies for a 2 hour session because I don't want benny bloat. That's why one SW campaign I ran, I ran without Bennies to give it a grittier feel (also used the gritty damage rules). But if you have to use so many houserules to fix your game around a shitty mechanic, why does that mechanic exist. WHY do bennies exist? Game design is an empty space, pretty much. When you design a mechanic, it's toward a certain goal. Why make bennies refresh by session? Because it's easy, right? And for something minor and peripheral to gameplay, a per-session refresh wouldn't be that bad. Except bennies are not peripheral, they are an EXTREMELY important game mechanic.

To GM around bennies you must:
>run sessions of appropriate length
>regulate number of rolls per hour
>hand out or not hand out bennies if you adapt session length and based on number of rolls

As a result, character power level is entirely based on your intuition of how many bennies to hand out, and how often you roll.

>>54171436
>You're splitting hairs over something of minimal impact.
Except it's not. It raises the expected value to 4.2 per d6, or 12.6 for 3d6. That is the correct math. Either disprove me, with math, or stop posting. Your AnyDice link is provably wrong.

>>54171487
>To GM around bennies you must:
Only do the third thing on your list.

You're making this way harder than it has to be.

>>54171520
So the game balance is dependent on a skill which takes quite a bit of experience with the system to master. All based around a per-session metagame mechanic. Tell me, why would I play this system instead of something competently designed like GURPS or MiniSix?

>>54171549
I'd say GURPS would have way more to learn than a single stupid bennie system.

>>54171562
GURPSlite is 32 pages. Has the same level of content as Savage Worlds. Most of the extra GURPS rules are situational, and you don't have to use them besides, the rules are modular and you are "encouraged" to use what you want from them, the same way you are "encouraged" to adapt yourself to the shitty bennies mechanic.

You could have brought up something about lethality level or style of play, but I guess you don't really understand the difference between the systems. I can make this assertion, the same way you made the assertion I am a bad GM just because I get annoyed by a stupid benny mechanic that so far has not shown a single good reason to exist as such.

If something requires you to adapt to it and model your game around it, but provides no tangible benefit in its current state, then what reason does it have to exist? That's just bad game design.

>>54171508
But it's true. The difference between a die that can only explode five times and one that can explode an infinite number of times is negligible. I've already proven you wrong with math, which you completely ignored. The odds of successive explosions decrease geometrically, but their value only increases linearly.

Refute it here on the board, admit you're an idiot, or go ahead and strut around like a pigeon despite being demonstrably wrong... It's all the same to me.

>>54171641
>The difference between a die that can only explode five times and one that can explode an infinite number of times is negligible.
Except it isn't, because it results in the expected value being 12.6 instead of 10.5 like your stupid AnyDice calculator.

Either refute the Wordpress article, or you're wrong. I'm not Ctrl-V-ing it into here.

>>54171808
Quantum mathematics still make absolutely no difference in gameplay when they are based on the assumption that you're going to get a sixth exploding die: the first five are already unlikely enough.

>>54171393
Nah, I just refuse to go to an external site.

>>54171412
>then you're wrong because you refuse to chase down every link in the world

Nah.

>>54171609
>Has the same level of content as Savage Worlds.

It doesn't even have autofire rules or any combat mechanic more advanced than "I attack."

File: big difference.png (24KB, 994x483px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 994x483px

Still no discernible change, except the 0.00 section that I cut off was a lot bigger.

File: huge difference.png (26KB, 958x514px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 958x514px

>>54172067
Wordpress guy was wrong.

>>54171808
Why? You haven't proven that anydice's math is wrong.

>>54171808
Ah, nothing like an idiot just parroting something he read on the internet then freaking out when someone tries to argue with him and he's incapable of responding.

So I just did the math, and while the guy you're all arguing with is as dumb as a brick, and wrong about basically everything... he is right that the EV of an exploding D6 is 4.2. A single d6 has an EV of 3.5, which means a d6 that explodes twice has an EV of (1+2+3+4+5+(6+3.5))/6, or 4.083. Two explosions makes it (1+2+3+4+5+(6+4.083))/6, or 4.18. And so on, with each successive explosion adding less and less, until you get a number that asymptotically approaches 4.2. And as we all know, 3x4.2 =12.6.

I think you must have made a mistake in calculation, so they only explode if you roll an 18.

But hey, take solace in the fact that he's completely wrong about how much successive explosions affect the number.

>>54172114
>You haven't proven that anydice's math is wrong.
IT SAID IT ONLY DOES IT TO FIVE EXPLOSIONS. IN TEH UPPPER RIGHT CORNER OF THE ORIGINAL FUCKING IMAGE.

>>54172821
I have not been wrong about a single thing.

>>54171974
So? Just use them.

>combat mechanics
>like Wild Attack which is broken as fuck

>>54171954
>>54171914
It's one. Fucking. Link.

>>54171893
>infinite series are quantum mathematics
...no.... not really.

>>54170691
What if you do like d&d?

You get 1* Benny with a 1h rest.
You get 8* Bennies if you get 8 hours of rest.
You can bank no more than 8 Bennies.
This is the only way to get Bennies.

Does that solve the issue?

>deal 75 damage to a mook
>he goes unconscious
>still gets a vigor roll to survive
>has 50% chance of surviving with a d6 vigor
>from a tank shell to the face

And into the trash with Savage Worlds

File: dnno.gif (1011KB, 500x208px) Image search: [Google]

1011KB, 500x208px

>>54174547
I don't know - I feel like it'd go a bit against the system's M.O. of fast speedy pulp action with few stops for rest in the way. Like a single session is just a few quick scenes with little time for rest in between. It'd also not maintain the old system of encouraging to take crazy risks to earn more bennies.

Worth a shot - it might work better from a mechanical standpoint - but you'd need to change the system philosophy to work around it as well.

>>54174658
>Wounded Extras are removed from play. They're dead, injured, or otherwise out of the fight.
Gee, it's like you didn't even read the book before you came in to spout memes and shit.

>>54174676
What about if the Bennies restored by resting are for soak, and only soak, and other Bennies are for everything else?

>>54174192
>I have not been wrong about a single thing.

You've been wrong about plenty, and your entire autistic shitfit so far has been over one fucking point of damage, as though that somehow proves your original claim that shotguns are absurdly broken.

The end result, regardless of equation you use, is that a shotgun isn't especially more deadly than an assault rifle using a 3 round burst.

>>54172821
My mistake. Oh well. He's been having a sperg attack over one point of damage.

So the output for a single exploded d6 comes out to 4.2 after a while, meaning that the total for the shotgun is 12.6, the outcome for an exploding d8 comes out to 5.14, so the total for a burst firing assault rifle is 12.28 (including the +2 for burst fire). So, while the numbers are off, the basic conclusion remains the same: they're very similar in capability, only the assault rifle has range and AP on top.

>>54170771
>And if things change in the game like the PCs suddenly decide to attack something they hadn't planned to yet, what do you do, refresh their bennies to 3 because "lol reasons"?

Let the PCs die for being dumbshits?

>>54170771
>look at FATE,

But your refresh is per session in Fate.

Plenty of games use per-session mechanics and do just fine with them. It seems to be mainly you that has an autistic shitfit over this.

>>54175410
This is too true. If per session mechanics bother someone so much, then it is easy to alleviate. Refresh the party after they clear a dungeon or whatever, rather then by the length of the session. It is not like per session abilities turn the core system into iredeemable garbage or anything, when the change is so obvious. It is too Damm sad that you can't have Savage Worlds threads without that autist throwing a fit over something so small.

Hey is there any rule stating how much poisons cost?

>>54170795
>when you factor in the exploding dice it becomes 12.6.
Confirmed. I didn't math it out, but I ran a million simulations and got an average of 12.602.

>>54177309
Even in this thread there was a guy saying he replenishes it per adventure due to overly short session length.

That seems to be the case with anything that isn't popular enough to drown out the autists.

I honestly don't think I can judge, because I've thrown shitfits about minor details of systems that the fans clearly didn't see as problems. I think half of it is just getting frustrated that no one is validating your viewpoint, so you double down and assume that it must be a particularly obsessive fanbase or something and before you realize it you're frothing at the mouth like a lunatic. I'm sorry WFRP, Dark Heresy, and OSR threads, I'm such an asshole.

>>54178904
Not that I've seen, sad to say.

I play savage worlds a lot. I use some rules, tell me what you autists think.

1) All dice may only explode once, but if a dice would explode a second time just keep the max and get a benny instead.

2) More wounds. Extras can get up to two more wounds (for a total of 3) and Wild Cards can get up to 6 more (for a total of 9) wounds. Done with an edge tree.

3) Halve all +2/-2 charisma bonuses to +1.

4) Soak rolls negate all wounds on a raise.

I also have other minor rules involving amounts of advances per rank, starting skill points, skill point increasing, and combat maneuvers.

My games run pretty well, and there are rough moments but generally the system doesn't get in the way. Both me and my players had some qualms with the system. So we played other systems, but still felt it was worth it to come back and worked on these rules.

>>54182006
1) Doesn't sound so bad. I love exploding dice but they can sometimes get pretty ridiculous, unlikely as it may be. It'll also incidentally solve the benny issue spoken of previously.
2) Would kinda bog down the game a little, and you'd most of the time be better off to get more toughness.
3) Most other bonuses from edges and such are +2, so this seems a bit out of place.
4) Would rather trivialize fights the way it sounds.

>>54178904
None. Poisons don't really come up all that often anyway.

You can fairly easily wing it: vigor roll or death, possibly over a while of time, but death nonetheless.

>>54169979
>I wonder if it's that guy from the Rifts threads who got butthurt about the Savage Rifts getting more discussion than Palladium Rifts.

Sure sounds like him.

Would Savage World work for a homebrew campaign inspired by the aesthetics of Morrowind? How does it handle magic? Would I have to create a bunch of stuff from scratch?

>>54187512
Yeah, probably. It handles magic by you taking an edge, which grants you a couple of powers and some power points to use them, and then has you activate them with a skill roll. There's a bunch of different variants, but the basic sorcery variant gives you 3 powers and if you roll a 1 while making your check, the spell fails and you're shaken.

>>54187512
>>54188358
As for making stuff from scratch, maybe, but the spells are pretty robust and are designed to have trappings layered on top to make them more diverse. There's also race creation guidelines in the core book, and everything in SW is simple enough to homebrew easily. The Fantasy Companion has magic items, but I haven't really looked at them as of yet.

File: Savage Spellbook.pdf (671KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

671KB, 1x1px

>>54188384
Check this out for some spell options, and ideas for how to work the system to your advantage.

>>54182006
No. Here is how you fix Savage Worlds.

1) Remove bennies.
2) Each die can only explode once.
3) Delete the kevlar inserts negating 4 AP. Change to 2 AP.
4) Shotgun gives +1 to hit not +2.
5) Three-round burst gives an extra die of damage.
6) Fuck double-tap, remove it.
7) Wild Attack is +1 to hit & damage and -1 to Parry.
8) Garand deals 2d8+1, as does G3.
9) If a characters takes a raise of damage over what's needed to incap him (2 wounds for an extra or 5 for a wild card) they are dead instantly)

Would fix the game quite a bit, honestly.

>>54191964
>Here is how you fix Savage Worlds.
We already heard you. At least wait for the next thread before you start this all over again.

>>54191987
It sucks that the only games allowed to be discussed on /tg/ are Pathfinder and 5e. Otherwise a game's dedicated autist will swoop in and shit all over it, stifling any and all discussion with their obtuseness.

>>54170613
Same people who tell you to do this claim if you have to house rule anything in Pallafium games that the whole systems broken.

Mooks are retarded, "for some reason only the commander of an army is competent"!

>>54191964
Literally the only two things I agree with are 4 and 8

>>54192392
>people who aren't touched by fate or blessed with luck in the same way the PCs are are retarded
Glad to see who the true retards in this thread are

>>54180991
>so you double down and assume that it must be a particularly obsessive fanbase or something and before you realize it you're frothing at the mouth like a lunatic
I was this way with FATE for awhile.

>>54192535
"Touched by fate" is a retarded concept for a universal system.
Fate isn't a real thing...... you are aware of this right?

How easy is it to play Savage Worlds without minis? I've been trying to get 50 Fathoms going in other systems for some time but Savage Worlds has more of a player base than my special snowflake systems. I'm just not super into tactical combat,

>>54192605
How are you so sure?

>>54192605
Okay faggot, go play Ultra-Tech GURPS, stick your characters in front of a very upset man with a gauss rifle and see what happens. If you don't understand why some kind of luck/fate mechanic isn't universally applicable to a game where you're likely to identify with and get attached to your character, you're an even bigger spacker than I thought

>>54192466
Well that's too bad, because three round burst is just as broken as shotguns so if you agree with 4 but not 5 and 6 then you are a fucking retard. You also clearly don't know shit about firearms if you think three round burst turns you into a god of combat. Jesus christ you are so fucking dumb.

>>54192392
>Same people who tell you to do this claim if you have to house rule anything in Pallafium games that the whole systems broken.

Except that's true. A game should work out of the goddamn box. House rules should be for things of personal preference, not objective system quality.

>>54192607
It's doable, the only issue you're likely to run into is with ranges, which aren't too difficult to abstract. Besides savage worlds weapon ranges are god awful anyway.

>>54188358
>>54188384

Thank you very much!

>>54194405
But short bursts are regularly used and are effective.

>>54192605
>He thinks fate isn't a real thing!
>laughing determinists.jpg

>>54195983
What about the cone and blast/burst templates?

>>54196566
No, shut up. No one ever uses 3 round bursts. It's just dumb. Putting more lead in the air does not help you hit things.

File: games without miniatures.png (259KB, 493x493px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 493x493px

>>54197488

>>54194405
>remove double-tap
>because the Mozambique drill has never been effective
>also short controlled bursts into a single target isn't effective either, just spam lead into them on full auto until they die
Are you the "hurr fate doesn't exist in muh gaems" autist?

>>54194405
>My houserules make the game better because they're realistic!
Go back to GURPS or whatever.

>>54197497
Also
>putting more lead in the air doesn't help you hit things
And that's why the US military still uses M14s and M1911s, right? You fucking mongo

>>54197593
I thought Savage Negro Worlds was about realism.

>>54197497
Which is why the marine corps m16a4 rifles have it as a feature and other countries train soldiers to use controlled bursts.

>>54151804
Been using it with the Sci-fi companion to run both gritty Cyberpunk and lofty Space Opera with great success.

>>54196566
Yep you just proved you know about as much about firearms as the PEG devs.

>>54197579
Mozambique is effective because two chest shots with stopping power might stagger a guy enough to put a headshot in him. Or just plain, I dunno, THREE shots to vital areas? It's about shot placement, you moron. Two bullets to the arm instead of one isn't going to matter for shit.

>>54197593
It's about game balance as much as realism. And you're telling me that realism doesn't matter to you at all? Okay, shotguns give +4 to hit now because they are EPIC boomsticks!! Anything else is just anti-fun, right?

>>54201476
Burst fire might give you a small advantage over singleshot. But it does NOT make you 40% more likely to hit.

>>54202504
>Yep you just proved you know about as much about firearms as the PEG devs.
>The FN M16A4, using safe/semi/burst selective fire, became standard issue for the U.S. Marine Corps and is the current issue to Marine Corps recruits in both MCRD San Diego and MCRD Parris Island.[172]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#M16A4

>It's about game balance as much as realism.

So far, it's mostly been about your pedantic hangups. The burst fire option works fine for making combatants using it a threat, and it's not especially unbalanced.

>And you're telling me that realism doesn't matter to you at all?

None of us actually know what realism is.

>>54202519
>muh realism

No one cares. The basic mechanic works well enough to make it a worthwhile option to use.

>>54202504
Also we've been over the shotguns repeatedly; they're not particularly overpowered compared to assault rifles. They have a slight edge in damage that the assault rifles make up for with range and AP.

One bad thing I've heard about SW is the lack of advancement possibilities. If you can stick d12 to your combat skills from the start, where can you go from there?

>>54205857
If you've put a d12 in a combat ability at the start you've fucked that character. Huge new player trap to put anything higher than a d8 starting in anything.

>>54205994
>not minmaxing yourself a mighty warrior custom race

>>54205994
How come? Curious new player without a mastery of the system

>>54206281
You don't have many stat points to start with, and putting the agility and strength higher than d8 to be a great warrior would require dumping your smarts, vigor, and spirit all at once - which you can imagine would get you in trouble a lot in the future.

You could probably get away with leaving your relevant stats smaller but pumping your fighting skill all the way to d10 or even d12 right from the beginning, if you'll accept the fact that then your character really won't have much skill in anything outside beating shit up. You'd almost certainly be better off not going above your agility and boosting the stat up before the skill in advancements, so that you won't be lagging behind the others skill-point-wise.

>>54206281
All eggs in one basket with diminishing returns. Oh and new skills are half price at chargen, so unless you spending an entire advance to get a d4 in something you'll probably want to not over specialize.

>>54206353
>>54206326
I gotcha, thanks folks.