No ones really complained about it. Just no one likes to wait all week to play and be Incap the first round of combat.They go incap all the time though. Like i said I roll really well. there bennies disappear quickly. I sometimes have to refresh them once or twice a session to keep playing. Otherwise it would be character generation every week.

I saw a really cool idea in a Necopolis game.

Basically, the GM edits the player posts with the resutls of the post.  If the target goes down, or spends a bennie, or whatever, that way the results are with the action.

>blush<
In necropolis we have often many enemies on a large battlefield. I had to do this to see the results especially if there are 10 ghouls and five Knights and 5 Sergeants firing on them while the first are in close combat.
To dont lose track in large combat I simply had to write to each action/message a result. :-)

Figured this might be the best post for this. This idea came up in the POTSM game that MagusRogue is running.



This make the system similar to Cortex. Any thoughts?

would attribute still limit skills by making them more expensive?

Yes, that won't change. (as far as I know)

it's a little harder to crunch the odds, but I'll give it a shot

currently, a d4 skill has a 62.5% chance of success vs a tn of 4, as I recall. a s6 skill is 75%

a person with a low attribute (d4) and low skill rolls d4 + d4, the lower of which can be replaced by the wild die.  Using excel, the odds of success are 58.33.

for a d6 skill and d4 attribute (or the other way around) it's 72.5%

for a d6 skill and attribute, it's 80%

for higher skill / attributes, I would assume it continues to be better.

Unsurprisingly, it makes attributes more important for skill use

Which is the main reason MagusRogue was talking about this idea.

Takes away from FFF though yeah?
Maybe not for us here on virtual rpol games.  But on a table full of mini's.

You'd also have to consider things like - Tricks, Soak, Common Knowledge, etc etc

Not a fan of the idea myself, just wanted to get it into other folks noodles for some thoughts.

I don't like it, and here's why

you have fighter and a rogue as partners.

Fighter only needs Fighing under agility to be high, he's ok with only a d6 shooting for his crossbow.  He saves his attribute advances for Strength and vigor, and spends full advances to buy his fighting to d8 and d10

rogue needs stealth, fighting, and throwing.  he likes a high vigor, at the cost of a lower st.  WHen he raises fighting, he also raises stealth or throwing.

under core, that's fine, they both had d10 fighting

under his house rule, the fighter can't hit as often.

For more details and crunch like that peeps might as well just go to a system that has more, well.... details and crunch.

I've got to think that the main reason SavW is so cool is because it's light without sacrificing much.  So much of what you get out of the system as-is makes so much sense that you don't feel like you're playing an RPG that's (as an extreme example) just flip-a-coin as its only rule.

(My point is if you do feel that way, there are other systems that do the whole 'more detail' thing really well).

---
edit: sorry this post probably doesn't really belong here.  the name of the thread is "house rules" after all
This message was last edited by the player at 16:47, Wed 04 May 2011.

I don't think it's a matter of more detail.  I mean, you still have the same number of skills, weapons, etc.

it just makes stats more important, which means that it's not more important for warrios to have high agility, which I don't like.  I like the way a melee character can have an average agility

Bully:
You may make a standard action to use Intimidate or Taunt on an ally. You roll for shaken but use your taunt or intimidate skill instead of his spirit. If the ally has bonuses/penalties to his shake roll your roll get's those to. On a success the ally is unshaken and may act normally on his turn. On a raise your Taunt/intimidate roll becomes a free action and no multi action penalty.

Is that too powerful?

Hi all-
I may be asking this in the wrong place and if it's already addressed elsewhere can someone provide a link?

I'm looking to do a SW Fantasy game inspired by the Basic/Expert D&D settings and rules.  SW Fantasy looks like it will get me through most of what I'm looking to do, but the races have a few glitches I don't like (namely "All Thumbs" for Elves doesn't fit my concept... not to mention the disaster that would be in a Shadowrun type setting!)

I was considering making Elves and Orcs (or Goblins) Racial Enemies, or giving Elves a -1 Toughness to reflect the slimmer/frailer build described.

Has anyone else seen an alternate race build that doesn't involve the "All Thumbs"?

Thoughts/Suggestions?  I'm new to running SW and am still getting a feel for the system.  I'm looking for a house rule that would allow me to keep races consistent across various genres.

Thanks!

Like you said, just swap the All Thumbs hindrance out for an equivalent hindrance or -1 Toughness. That's all you'd need to do.

This is what I did for a recent fantasy campaign I put together but never got off the ground.

Dwarves
Dwarves are a stout, earthy people renown for mining and building communities in great underground complexes, but they are also farmers, brewers, and craftsmen. Loyalty and honor as well as stubbornness are traits commonly ascribed to dwarves. They have a natural lifespan of over 200 years.

• Arcane Resistance: Dwarves have natural resistance to magic act as if they have 2 points of Armor when hit by damage-causing arcane powers, and adds +2 to Trait rolls when resisting opposed powers. Even friendly arcane powers must subtract this modifier to affect dwarves.
• Low Light Vision: Dwarven eyes are accustomed to the dark of the underearth. They ignore attack penalties for Dim and Dark lighting.
• Slow: Dwarves have a Pace of 5”.

Elves
Elves are a thin, mercurial people with a deep attachment to nature. Though commonly associated with forests, they can be found in all climes and environments. It is said that elves are immortal, though all eventually fade into the Wyld within a couple hundred years.

• Arcane Background (The Wyld): All elves have magic, though some are better at it than others. Elves do not begin with the spellcasting skill automatically, though any elf can use it unskilled (-2 penalty).

Xenon - I like those ideas, but wanted to keep the Agility bonus to Elves.  I could borrow the Bane idea from Marchland setting and tie Elves to the FaeWyld by making them susceptible to Rowan Wood and/or cold-wrought iron (suffer extra d6 damage from attacks).

Hi everyone - Has anyone found a table (or flowchart for Dramatic Task) that could be used to emulate trying to figure out how an unknown/alien device works?  I'm picturing the tools/tables from Gamma World, Metamorphosis Alpha, S3 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, etc., but was leaning towards levels of success, where the explorer may only be able to deduce part of the functionality.

I suppose assigning as a Dramatic Task and letting the player describe how they're trying to go about analyzing the object in question would work, with critical failure or clubs on the first check indicating breaking the item or potentially discharging a weapon in a harmful manner accidentally?


Thoughts?  Recommendations?

Yeah, sometimes I wish there was a middle ground between a simple check and a dramatic task.
-

I'm currently working on a house rule to help players know what I'm looking for in a campaign, and to incentivize taking hindrances or backstory elements that I need to use as hooks.

The current iteration is something along the lines of:

Extra Hindrance Points
The following list of Hindrances and Background Details represents a connection to the plot of the campaign. Each of these Hindrances are worth 1 extra Hindrance point (so a Minor hindrance nets you 2 points and a Major hindrance gets 3) at character creation. In addition, working any of the below details into your character's history will gain you the number of Hindrance points in parentheses following the detail. Finally, any characters who have a substantial history together (we had a drink together won't suffice) each gain an additional Hindrance Point. The maximum number of hindrance points a character can have at creation (before spending any of them) is 8.
--

I used to offer a free advance, but this led to confusion when new players joined up and I felt like giving them substantially less power was unfair. This way, it's numeric and the players know about it. The cap of 8 means that a player who takes 2 Minor and 1 Major from the list can only benefit from EITHER a history or a detail (and only if the detail is a cheap one). Contrariwise, a character who has no interest in the hindrances offered could take several details (up to a total of 4 points) or intertwine their history with each other party member (thus saving me some early-campaign trouble in bringing them together)

I found a technique that might work (or I can at least adapt from) in Savage Gamma World Revisited on Savagepedia.  I seem to remember Darwin's World having something similar, but not finding it at the moment.

Essentially, each item has a complexity rating and a technology rating.  The complexity rating is the cumulative number of successes/raises needed to figure an item out, while the difference between the technology rating of the item and the investigating character serves as a modifier to the die roll.  So if a primitive (TL1) character was fidgeting with a blaster pistol (TL3/CR4), each check would be made at -2 and 4 successes/raises would be needed to figure out the item's operations.

I think assigning certain functionalities at the success levels works a bit better, so it's possible to 'partially' figure out an item, but not understand it totally.  In the example above concerning a pistol, maybe 1 success and you figure out how to fire it (or eject a powercell/clip), but not that the first switch actually releases the safety (treating ROF as only 1 or a multi-action for that character because they always toggle the safety switch before pulling the trigger).

Some players may stop there, others may continue fidgeting to see everything their new toy might be able to do.

Maybe they think the item is 'broken' if given the description "there's a 'click' and slight 'hissing sound' then something falls out of the flat part nearest to you" when the powercell is ejected.  Perhaps they discard the item, where others might try to 'fix' it by putting the piece back.

If the player gets all the successes needed on the initial check, then you'd describe (Complexity Rating) number of 'discoveries' for each step along the way.  If the Complexity Rating isn't announced, then it could be fun seeing what the players do with what they have figured out.

Other suggestions/ideas?
This message was last edited by the player at 19:49, Sat 04 Feb 2017.

In reply to bashful_batrean (msg # 33):

That sounds excellent and usable in a lot of different settings.
You could even use that for unraveling mystery clues if you wanted to use rolls and not player smarts.

Has anyone tried using the experience points method from Dungeon World with Savage Worlds?

I don't even use the XP rules from Savage Worlds on PBP. I just give people advances periodically.

Same here. Much easier to manage.