Savage Worlds - Things for me to Remember

[aramis erak]

That's the Adventure edition, right? If so, I'm set. I have some of the older books and have run into a few differences.

Yep, it is. But the edition differences are pretty mild. They ripped out Guts several editions earlier (like about 10 years prior, and it was still a sidebar in the most recent revision of Deluxe... and SWADE makes note of the skill changes on page 30.

 

[thullgrim]

See attached. Also there are a couple of good combat cheat sheets available. Just google it and you’ll find one you like.

 

[dbm]

That's the Adventure edition, right? If so, I'm set. I have some of the older books and have run into a few differences.

Yes, but… the very latest version of the rules is the fifth printing of SWADE which has the latest errata included. If you have the rules in PDF you should have them. If not, the errata an be downloaded here.

A couple of additional points I would add to the advice you have already been given.

First, ‘initiative card superiority’ is a thing in our experience. Whichever side in an encounter is drawing more cards per round (the PCs or their opposition) is more likely to end up with a Joker. It is a marginal difference but it does tell in the longer term. If you structure your encounters so that the opposition are drawing fewer cards for initiative each round you will subtly tip the odds in the direction of the players.

Second, combat is dangerous no matter how many advances a character has, so avoid ‘filler combats’. D20 games need filler combats to whittle down PC resources and make the later fights more challenging. Savage Worlds doesn’t have this same ablative resource model so you don’t need to do this. If you need to have minor combats because they make narrative sense use the ‘Dangerous Quick Encounter’ rules instead of the full combat system. That will allow you to mechanically resolve the encounter based on the stats of the PCs while significantly reducing the chance of a random mook one-shotting a PC.

 

[cbwjm]

Yes, but… the very latest version of the rules is the fifth printing of SWADE which has the latest errata included. If you have the rules in PDF you should have them. If not, the errata an be downloaded here.

A couple of additional points I would add to the advice you have already been given.

First, ‘initiative card superiority’ is a thing in our experience. Whichever side in an encounter is drawing more cards per round (the PCs or their opposition) is more likely to end up with a Joker. It is a marginal difference but it does tell in the longer term. If you structure your encounters so that the opposition are drawing fewer cards for initiative each round you will subtly tip the odds in the direction of the players.

Second, combat is dangerous no matter how many advances a character has, so avoid ‘filler combats’. D20 games need filler combats to whittle down PC resources and make the later fights more challenging. Savage Worlds doesn’t have this same ablative resource model so you don’t need to do this. If you need to have minor combats because they make narrative sense use the ‘Dangerous Quick Encounter’ rules instead of the full combat system. That will allow you to mechanically resolve the encounter based on the stats of the PCs while significantly reducing the chance of a random mook one-shotting a PC.

Cool, thanks for letting me know about the errata, I've checked and I have downloaded the latest version. I actually thought I hadn't updated it since it first came out, but it looks like I've got the 5th printing in my dropbox.

I'll have a look at the dangerous quick encounter rules, I don't expect it to come up but it might be worthwhile having the rules in my back pocket. I'm planning on only drawing a single card for the enemies (a handful of Klingons, and later a bird of prey) for the actual planned battles so the players should have better luck drawing jokers (actually, this reminds me, I need to check if I do have a deck of cards, pretty sure I have some in my games cupboard).

 

[cbwjm]

Thanks again everyone, this has given me some useful information and ideas which should make the game run smoother when I introduce it to my group.

 

[cbwjm]

I've been working on the adventure (or, I guess, away mission since I'm running star trek) for my friends and maybe it's just because it's a new system which I'm having fun exploring, but I'm finding it much simpler to set up than DnD. I don't know what it will be like to run until we get together in a couple of weeks but the process of setting the game up definitely feels better.

 

[dbm]

I think it can depend. I personally find prep for SWADE super-quick, but one of my co-GMs likes to make lots of intricate custom enemies and that can take a chunk of time.

 

[cbwjm]

I can see how making a lot of custom enemies would slow things down in adventure creation. I did throw something together for the Klingons that my players will be fighting but that was fairly quick.

I'm really looking forward to playing as well, we'll likely make plenty of mistakes but it sounds like a game that will run pretty fast and smoothly (some of this perception is from the crystal hearts web comic). The more I look into it, the more I wonder why I waited so long to introduce my group to the system.

 

[aramis erak]

The more I look into it, the more I wonder why I waited so long to introduce my group to the system.

I don't know your reasons, but I do know mine.
Note: I've had Pirates of the Spanish Main since about 2003... it's got the rules it needs (most of the rulebook, except races, race building, and supernatural abilities) as a standalone. I later, out fo curiousity and during a sale, picked up the Deadlands Reloaded setting books to compare to original (non-SW) Deadlands. I then later grabbed a bundle with Deluxe in it. Oh, and I got an earlier edition on DTRPG, too.

• Initiative using cards. It creates a specific tone. Especially when the cards aren't revealed until your turn. This made it pretty slow for a buddy's group... but not for mine.
• Step dice with skills and wild die only. (I like attributes to figure into skill checks.)
• Level based advancement.
• players had expressed no interest in a Western setting until after playing Alien.

So, 22 years after picking up PotSM, I gave DLR a try. It worked well for the setting. It was gritty. It was brutal. Taste the Nitro and flames from Grannies homemade Dynamite... As she screams "FIREBALL" while tossing it... Usually at something demonic. Usually.

Attributes do get enough non-skill use to matter.

Would I use it for Trek? No. Flash Gordon? Maybe. Buck Rogers - using the XXVc game's setting, sure. Using the TV show of 1979-1981? probably not. Space 1889? Absolutely, but with some houseruling of the inventions. Hercules &/or Xena? maybe... but I've got the D6 version...

I can't get my players interested in Flash Gordon.
I can't get my players interested in The Terran Trade Authority setting. Nor Robotech, especially not Macross.
So, the settings I'd use it for just ain't hitting the table.

 

[cbwjm]

Ive had savage worlds for a while, possibly 3 editions of it, I'd have to look back through drivethru. I have a few settings I got out of interest, crystal hearts was one, as well as rifts (which I feel cranks up the complexity a bit), and one or two others. Settings were just something that I bought out of interest as they could be adapted to other systems.

The reason I've picked savage worlds for Star Trek is that I feel it has an easy system that matches the narrative feel of star trek. I also really don't like the modiphius 2d20 system. I own a bunch of the pdfs because they showed up as a bundle somewhere for hardly anything which does give me a bunch of lore to draw upon. Bear in mind, it is still a couple of weeks off from playing so, while I feel like it is going to be a good system for Star Trek, I'll find out in a couple of weeks.

I actually quite like attributes not impacting skills in play, having someone who is somewhat clumsy (d4 agility) but through perserverance has spent more on becoming a crack shot, outshooting others who might have a higher natural ability, I think that's quite a good system.