Musings

So, we played our first session of Savage Worlds. To be honest, it left me a little flat. Everything I've read says play it RAW for a few sessions and it will click. My issue is that my "group" consists of my teenage son, and a teenage friend. Not the most reliable group. Getting together for our second session has been problematic, so I hold very little hope for "a few sessions".


I've been ruminating on just what old school means to me. I have arrived at the conclusion that it is more about style and attitude than it is about system or pedigree. I love D&D and my memories of it. Inevitably, though, I find myself not really tinkering with it as much as changing systems within it whole-cloth. The long road my gaming ADD has lead me down has shown me a lot of different ways to do things, many of which I like. Such as . . .


Armor reducing damage. I fully understand how hit points work and what they represent. I can rationalize the concept of "A miss isn't necessarily a miss, it just wasn't a damaging hit". I just really like damage reduction from a mechanical standpoint and all the doors it opens up.


Combat has the potential to turn Ugly. While I do like the safety net that a high hit point total gives an advanced character, I also like the idea that combat can take a nasty turn. If your character has 60 hp and he is faced off with an opponent that can only deal 8 damage per successful hit (or a max of 16 with a crit), then you know for a fact you can last a minimum of 3 rounds, and that is if he crits all three. Combat should be dangerous and suspenseful. If an opponent is so overmatched that the melee isn't potentially hazardous, why slow the flow of the game with a meaningless combat? Just hand-wave it and move on. Even knowing your character can take two of a monster's best hits and basing his tactics, and the group's plan, on that fact takes all the suspense out of the danger. No sir, combat needs to be deadly and unpredictable.


Magic is unpredictable and failure has consequences. I have made my peace with many of D&D's subsystems that rub me the wrong way. One that I hate, always have and always will, is fire-and-forget Vancian magic. I'm not real fond of power points, either, because how many people know precisely when they will tire? Also, there is rarely any mechanism for pushing yourself beyond your limits. I should clarify. I don't have a problem with spell points, per se, but with a fixed and finite amount of them, and a fixed cost for each spell. I also do not like magic being either, a) automatic or b) subject to a saving throw to determine efficacy. I want a spell roll required for success. The results of that roll will indicate how fatigued the caster is in the attempt. In other words, an especially good or bad roll might result in casting at a reduced cost, or at a greater cost. Critical failure should have a range of potential effects, as well.


Two words: D 6. I want a system based on the venerable and ubiquitous d6. It can be 2d6 or even 3d6. I don't really want a fistful of them, a la MiniSix, though. Really, anything that relies on one die-type will do. I want this for the sake of logistical simplicity. I don't really want to deal with needing a bunch of dice and learning when to roll which one for every new game I pick up. Also, on the topic of logistical simplicity . . .


Booklet-sized, with a moderate page count. At this point, I am a seasoned RPG veteran. I do not need my hand held. I don't need the chapters on What is an RPG? and The Role of the GM. I don't want a bunch of crap about how dwarves look or the cultural history of the elves. That's setting stuff and I don't want it stretching my rules out. I want writing that is readable and evocative, but doesn't mince words. Mazes and Minotaurs is a fine example of this. I also don't really need an art book. I love RPG art, don't get me wrong. But when it comes to my rulebook, I want it to be handy. It should be the sort of thing I can take anywhere and break out when I find the odd free moment. Using a rulebook that is 5 1/2" by 8 1/2", no more than around 250 pages, and uses a few d6, pencils and some paper, I should be able to fit all that in a wooden cigar box and take it just about anywhere.

Zombies, Mr. Rico! Zillions of 'em!

OK, obvious rip-off, don't sue me. Anyway, a quick entry to let you all know: I'm planning on running my first SW game this coming weekend. It'll be me, my 15 y/o son, and a 14 y/o friend. We'll likely use pregens and go through one (or two) of the one-pages included with Deluxe. If they like it (both are D&Ders, but anxious to try something different), they'll make their own characters and I'll run them through Zombie Run. This should be great.

A Brave (Savage) New World

My, it has been a while. I see I have another follower now. Welcome, Josh, if you're still here. The delay in posting was caused by my house burning down. My wife and kids are safe, but pretty much everything else was lost. That is a much better arrangement than the alternative.

Anyway, if you take my last post, add in a healthy dose of time (4 months since the fire), you get my mind onto another game. GURPS is too much like 3.5/Pathfinder to me, in that there are highly detailed rules for everything that could possibly come up. Great fun to read on a rainy afternoon, but a nightmare to keep track of at the table. Plus the fact that no matter how much I love GURPS on paper (which I do), once it comes time to develop settings/adventures, or decide on published ones, I can't get rid of the vanilla taste. So GURPS is no longer on my mind or my shelf.

I had a serious thing going with Swords & Wizardry Core. Then, I decided I wanted me some good old sword-and-sorcery style gaming. Despite my 35 year love affair with D&D, and Mr. Gygax's obvious affection for the works of REH, D&D is not suited to s&s, out of the box. It requires a complete re-tooling of magic and magic-users. There are virtually no "cleric" in s&s literature, and absolutely none of the "combat medic" sort that D&D clerics are. So, my mind continued to wander. . .

There was a stop with Barbarians of Lemuria. A cool little game, most definitely. Characters are broadly defined, mechanically, leaving the players' imagination fee reign. But, the setting (which is tied somewhat loosely to the rules) didn't excite me. It was a little too alien and unfamiliar.

There was Jaws of the Six Serpents. Incidentally, you can't read about BoL in forums without running into posts about JotSS, or vice versa. Jaws is wide-open, as most narrativistic designs are. The problem for me is that (in my opinion) narrativistic games actively encourage a disconnect between player and character. I don't want anybody wigging out like Tom Hanks in Mazes and Monsters but I do want my players snuggly wrapped in character. When rules encourage (mechanically) players to use their characters to manipulate the direction of the "story", they lose me.

Enter Savage Worlds. I've dabbled with the Explorer's Edition for about a year now. Then I discovered a little gem called Legends of Steel: Savage Worlds Edition, which is a swords&sorcery setting for SW. Coincidentally, a brand new edition of SW just came out. So, I'm in.

OK, this is long enough. I'll go a little more into SW next time. For now, if you're interested: http://www.amazon.com/Savage-Worlds-Deluxe-S2P10014-Hensley/dp/1937013049