How I learned to loathe Savage Worlds
By Orklord on Feb 4, 2010 in GMing, Rich's Journal
I recently posted a Play Report on my ongoing Savage Worlds fantasy game loosely based in Shaintar. In it, I mentioned how as a GM I have been avoiding the system at times. Both JJ Lanza and Daniel Perez quickly hopped onto the comments and asked me to unpack what I meant by it.
This is the story of how I’ve learned to loathe Savage Worlds (OK, to be honest, I don’t loathe it, I just like the alliteration). But I do often regret choosing to run it for our ongoing campaign. It just doesn’t support the kind of play I enjoy and doesn’t give me the tools I want as a GM. Or, perhaps more accurately, as a GM, I’m just not good at doing the things it supports.
In the comments, JJ had asked: “So if you are finding yourself avoiding the system, why are you using the system?”
Before we moved to Savage Worlds, our group had been rotating GMs and systems for seven months, ranging from D&D 4th edition to Lacuna. We had all agreed it would be fun to try a single game for a while, to dig into some longer stories and character growth.
I wanted to move us to a system that supported a longer term campaign, was fast and easy to pick up and something that could be influenced by some indie techniques. After some research on games I owned and what was out there, I decided that Savage Worlds would be the best option because of the price point ($10), the rave reviews from people I know online and the previews I’d seen of the Shaintar setting.
I thought I would be able to bolt on a Key-oriented Experience Point system (similar to the Shadow of Yesterday), it really felt like it would work. I thought the flexibility of Savage Worlds was its simplicity and I could mod it to be something I could dig into.
Daniel Perez commented: “It would be interesting to have you talk more about running this system, especially after the other styles of games you have been running recently.”
When it hit the table, the Key-style XP fell flat. The math didn’t work out and the players didn’t roll with it and instead of having nuanced and motivated PCs, we got stereotype PCs that didn’t relate to each other well. We went back to the default SW system which is a bland XP system that puts me in the situation of awarding two XP person session and 3 if the PCs end a chapter. Everyone gets the same XP. Ho hum.
Savage Worlds also has a reward system of bennies which can be used to influence role-playing, but there’s a catch. See, I’ve been indoctrinated with the school of thought from Dogs in the Vineyard which extols the virtue of “Say yes or roll the dice”. This speeds up play and makes die rolls meaningful because as a GM, I tend to ask for them when something is at stake.
The problem is that the only differentiated reward system is bennies, which is a system of allowing players to spend a bennie to get a free re-roll. BUT, if I’m not asking for many rolls, then re-rolls aren’t a big need for a player. I give out bennies, they sit unused in front of them. AND, bennies are a use it or lose it resource. No matter how many bennies they build up in this session, they start next game with the default.
I thought about coming up with alternate uses for the bennies. I wanted to let the players convert unused bennies to XP, but discarded the idea because I don’t want players to hoard bennies – they are supposed to influence active decision-making. I considered letting the players declare facts or create contacts or parts of the world on the fly, but then I realized that I’m already doing that during the game without requiring a benny, so to commoditize the creativity might upset the balance.
I ended up giving out bennies infrequently so they wouldn’t flood the players and when they got a benny, it was a true recognition of their actions. However, that has also bit me in the butt because since I don’t have the bennies ready to dole out, I sometimes get caught up in the actual play and when a player runs out of bennies, I end up remembering something they did before and awarding them a benny so they don’t utterly fail in combat, the one place where I cannot avoid rolls. In effect, I’ve given up on a second default reward system that doesn’t suit my needs. Instead, I reward with non-system techniques, compliments, showing interest, handing plot to players who play well, all things I enjoy, but work outside Savage Worlds.
JJ also asked: “What is Savage Worlds giving you in return?”
Savage Worlds Explorer Edition is still cheap. I get to use my cool jumbo playing cards for intiative in combat. Everyone owns a copy of the main book now. It is an easy system to understand and building characters is pretty easy. I get to use all of my different dice. As a GM, I get to roll dice, too, which is something several indie games don’t support (I’m looking at you, Jared Sorenson).
Savage Worlds combat is quick and it is more exciting than D&D combat. There is more of a threat of death when people draw swords or nock an arrow. The game does what it does well.
In the end, I would like to find a light system with more support for how I tend to GM that we could flip to, but now that my players ran out and bought the book, I feel a bit stuck. The counter-point is that the book is $10, so if we flipped, they wouldn’t be out too much money. I don’t dislike running the game, the characters and the stories are interesting. Its just the system that doesn’t work with my play style.
At this point, I am sticking with Savage Worlds for the next few months and then we can transition over to another game/campaign once everyone has been able to progress in this one to a satisfactory degree. I have my eye on Dresden Files RPG as a possible next option, which comes out in June.
I stuck the key system to my Savage Worlds game too. The way I fixed the benny system to my style was I allowed some player narrative if they spent a benny, similar to FATE. And remember, without bennies a person cannot make a soak roll, which is also a big deal when combat comes about.
I am sorry that you are stuck running a game you don’t like, but as you said the book is cheap, so I am sure your players won’t mind if you change to something you enjoy more.
Josh Rensch | Feb 4, 2010 | Reply
First, I’ll admit that I’m raving Savage Worlds fan boy but I’m also mature enough to know that not every game is for everybody.
Without knowing your exact style, it’s difficult to accurately suggest something but I’ll be bold enough to ask have looked at Green Ronin’s Dragon Age. It’s fairly rules light and has some interesting mechanics.
And I, too, am waiting anxiously for the Dresden Files RPG.
Chuck | Feb 4, 2010 | Reply
@Chuck – From what I know of Dragon Age, not sure it would suit my style, either. The kind of games I enjoy running the most are Inspectres, Don’t Rest Your Head, Lacuna Part 1, Dogs in the Vineyard and Primetime Adventures. RPGs with a focus on combat and tactics are beyond my ken as a GM.
Orklord | Feb 4, 2010 | Reply
Player buy in is a big deal, even if it is only $10. It is an investment and carries some weight, so I can really empathize with your situation. I don’t know the system so I can’t make any helpful suggestions on that front. However, I would watch your feelings toward the game. I know you’re joking about the loathing part, but if you are unhappy with the way the system is playing, it may come across in your GMing, no matter how unintentional.
If you think you can find a happy medium in play style with the system, then I say trudge on. If not, talk to your players. Explain your dilemna and ask for their imput.
JJ | Feb 4, 2010 | Reply
@JJ – Did you just tell me to talk to my players? what do you think this is?!? Sons of Kryos!!!!
Orklord | Feb 4, 2010 | Reply
No prob. How about Houses of the Blooded?
Chuck | Feb 4, 2010 | Reply
I say you ditch that trad crapfest of a game and throw down with some interpretive dance to resolve conflicts!
Mick Bradley | Feb 4, 2010 | Reply
Oh wait, should I have put a smiley in there to make sure everyone knows I’m joshing?
Mick Bradley | Feb 4, 2010 | Reply
@Rich – well, you’re the one always sayin’ how much you copy them. Heck, Judd’s a semi regular on the show!!
JJ | Feb 4, 2010 | Reply
@Mick – smiley just for you
JJ | Feb 4, 2010 | Reply
Houses of the Blooded was one of the options. It was unanimously defeated, as it requires attention between sessions.
The play environment we find ourselves in is a perfect match for the Savage Worlds rules system. [D&D hack and slash with little plot affecting abilities, very little player-to-character engagement, and hand-fed plots.]
It may be unfair to blame Savage Worlds when these same issues would show up in any game, and in fact did in previous games at this table.
Arnold Cassell | Feb 5, 2010 | Reply
@Arnold
So basically the problem here is Rich?
I’ll come back for some more meaningful feedback.
Daniel M. Perez | Feb 5, 2010 | Reply
@Daniel,
You joke, but you actually have a point.
If the play environment is as Arnold describes, then Rich is not the right guy for that. No amount of system massaging is going to help.
Rich, your choice is probably to either adjust to the group’s expectations and feed them the easy escapist hackfest they want, or opt out of running games for that group.
Me, you couldn’t pay me to play the way Arnold describes.
Mick Bradley | Feb 5, 2010 | Reply
@Josh – could you share how you hacked Keys into SW? I’d love to see your method.
@Chuck – what is it about SW that you enjoy the most? What has it done for you in play?
@Arnold, Daniel, Mick – As I said in the post: “It just doesn’t support the kind of play I enjoy and doesn’t give me the tools I want as a GM. Or, perhaps more accurately, as a GM, I’m just not good at doing the things it supports.”
Orklord | Feb 5, 2010 | Reply
@Rich,
The question really isn’t whether you’re GOOD at doing the things SW supports – or more importantly, the things your group wants. The question is how much fun are you having trying to pretend that you can put the genie back in the bottle and play like it’s the 20th Century again?
I believe that with enough effort and application, you’re WAY good enough to rise to whatever gaming situation you encounter. But do you WANT to? Is it fun?
You’ve said before that you have a tendency to blame stuff you CAN control in place of allowing responsibility to fall on things beyond your control. So you blame yourself or the system, or your disconnect with the system. My impression of what you’re doing here is “if I could just find the right system and apply it the right way, I can hit the grand slam and make these folks see how cool it is to play with some of these cool new techniques.”
You may not be able to do that, no matter what you try. Some people – apparently MOST people – just want to keep playing the way Arnold described.
All you have to decide is what to do with the time you have been given.
Mick Bradley | Feb 5, 2010 | Reply
@Rich
So I’m not gonna say anything you don’t already know, but here goes:
You’re playing the wrong game, man. If you wanted SoY Keys, then just play SoY. If the group wants brain-off hack-n-slash with a bit of cohesion, then the game may be right, but you as GM are not.
If you’re feeling like this after each session (and looking back over your APs, the feeling is there, if not outright stated), then the game *has* to be suffering. Why prolong it? Why not let someone else pick up the GM place and you can join in as a player (playing that style/game maybe is to your liking, instead of GM-ing, perhaps)?
System matters, dude, so if you can’t play with the system as it is, then accept it and don’t do it.
@Mick
Dude, you sound confrontational! Belligerent! Like when you were on The Game-Master Show!
Just FYI.
Daniel M. Perez | Feb 5, 2010 | Reply
@Daniel
So noted.
Mick Bradley | Feb 5, 2010 | Reply
@Mick & Daniel – I appreciate the intent, but I don”t need fixing, I just wanted to reflect. I’ve played much worse games.
Rich Rogers | Feb 6, 2010 | Reply
Good, because the intent is not to fix you, but to help de-fog the reflection.
Hot steamy roleplaying talk tends to fog up the mirrors, you know.
Mick Bradley | Feb 6, 2010 | Reply
@Orklord
Sorry it took so long. What I like best about Savage Worlds.
1. It’s easy on GM prep.
2. Bookkeeping during the game is a no brainer.
3. Basic SWEX rules are easy to learn and easy to tweak to most settings.
I don’t want to sound like I’m bashing anyone but one the things that gives some folks problems with SW is that they just SWEX and run with it. SWEX is the just the core there’s plenty of little tweaks people can do to make fit better with the particular mood or dynamics of a setting.
Chuck | Feb 6, 2010 | Reply
For those of us who have never played Savage Worlds, what exactly is SWEX and do I need to wear protection?
JJ | Feb 6, 2010 | Reply
Savage Worlds EXplorer edition
Chuck | Feb 6, 2010 | Reply
SWEX is Savage Worlds Explorer’s Edition (that $10 book that most of the players have purchased.)
Arnold | Feb 6, 2010 | Reply
@Arnold Thanks.
JJ | Feb 6, 2010 | Reply
@Rich
I’m no mechanic, man. I’m in no position to fix anyone, let alone even pretend I am. I just gave an observation, and frankly, one that you already know.
Daniel M. Perez | Feb 7, 2010 | Reply
@Daniel – I appreciate the observations, my friend.
Orklord | Feb 8, 2010 | Reply
At one point I too was a raving SW fan, in fact I turned on numerous people to the system (still waiting on my cut from Pinnacle). After about a year though, I began to feel like the system was just not right for me. Not that there is anything wrong with SW, it is just not where I am right now with gaming. It is low-prep for the GM, but with my limited time, I would rather play than plan to play, so even SW prepping is too much for me these days. In that respect, I have turned to a few indie games that require zero prep lately.
snikle | Feb 9, 2010 | Reply
@snikle – I hear you, brothah. What indie games have you been running lately?
Orklord | Feb 9, 2010 | Reply
Been too busy to run, but I have played in a Fiasco game and currently enjoying a Swashbucklers of the 7 Skies game, though we are really freeforming it. Hoping to do a Shotgun Diaries game down the road. Limited right now to one game a week, so it is slow going.
snikle | Feb 9, 2010 | Reply
@Rich @Arnold:
I think I understand and can relate. The only game I’ve been playing on a regular basis has been a 4e D&D RPGA game, which has essentially functioned as a tactical wargame with a veneer of story around it. I considered running the game myself and monkeying with it to fix what I see as defects, but like snikle, I think the prep and said monkeying involved would be prohibitive considering my schedule. I would also have to build up sufficient credibility with people accustomed to playing 4e to persuade them to try my game, and even if I managed to do so, when I started running a non-traditional D&D game or a fusion of D&D and something else more congenial to my tastes or heck, an indie game like Mountain Witch, they would most likely react to it as a bait-and-switch and a betrayal of their trust.
I’ve decided to enjoy the D&D game for what it is (e.g. a tactical wargame with some melodrama thrown in at times) and wait for a decent con to play the infrequent indie game. “Converting” people to my preferred style of play doesn’t seem possible or even desirable, considering the work involved.
If the spirit of your group is predisposed to the rpg style that Arnold describes, I would say it is what it is. All the rules tinkering in the world isn’t going to change it. That said, I would be delighted if someone could prove me wrong.
Jarad | Feb 12, 2010 | Reply
I agree, I was in a bit of personal turmoil trying to stay with SW (or previously D&D) so that I could make my couple groups happy. I have given up on trying to convert people, I want to have fun playing. In the end I helped create a new group with a couple people that were like minded and more concerned with having FUN and not worried about playing a particular system. It doesn’t hurt either that all of the guys in the group are married, with kids, and very busy like me.
snikle | Feb 13, 2010 | Reply