Thoughts on Deadlands?

[Lord_Xaedien]

I have a gaming group that traditionally plays 3.5/4e, and normally makes use of the "Iron Kingdoms" campaign setting from Privateer Press. I have little experience as a DM, but i am looking to start a campaign in a setting that is easy for a new storyteller. I am thinking of using Deadlands Reloaded as my campaign setting, since it seems to have a decently well established world, and I know that savage worlds is pretty user friendly. I was just hoping some more experienced DM's who has used the setting (reloaded or not) could share their thoughts, both from a rules and storytelling standpoint.

[Townopolis]

As a setting, it's a ton of fun--so long as your players enjoy the wild west at all. Between jackalopes and mad scientists and normal wild-westyness, it's easy to immerse yourself in the world. Just be sure to watch some good westerns while preparing the campaign. I recommend Tombstone and Silverado.

I'd also recommend using the original deadlands system. It uses playing cards and poker chips, which is novel and pretty awesome. There's a strong element of luck when you generate your character, a little more than when you're rolling for stats, and I don't normally like that. However, the system rules themselves are fun enough that I'm usually able to overlook that.

Just remember, save your chips for when you really need them, since they're also what you convert into XP. Also, always upgrade your stat die type before number of dice.

(there was this one time, though, when this one player got #d12 for most of her stats... that sucked.)

[Tengu_temp]

I'll second using the original system - the DND version gutted the game from almost everything that made it fun and unique in the first place.

[Ascension]

I'll second using the original system - the DND version gutted the game from almost everything that made it fun and unique in the first place.

Uhh, he was talking about using the Savage Worlds version, not a d20 version.

[Raum]

I was just hoping some more experienced DM's who has used the setting (reloaded or not) could share their thoughts, both from a rules and storytelling standpoint.I like the setting, it's expansive with lots of different possible hooks. It can also be played in several different styles, anything from horror to Kung Fu action.

The Savage Worlds rules are easy to pick up and very easy to run. Ranged combat is potentially deadly but PCs tend to survive as long as they have bennies. Adjust how many bennies you give out to how gritty / deadly you want the game to be. :)

Hope that helps!

[Reinboom]

I enjoyed it, though, I do recommending when doing character building to filter various cards out of the deck (with your player's knowledge) to reduce randomness and extremes. Which cards is based on which style of play your players prefer (or you prefer).

The system itself I have minor qualms with, though is fast and fun. Usually, I make 9-10 on d10s a reroll with the first dice on a d10, and a 10-12 a reroll with the first dice on a d12 (without legendary +s to it, that is). Which, covers most of the problems I had with the system.

Also, when using the deadlands/savage worlds setting, I recommend going against the timeline =P

[Ascension]

Also, when using the deadlands/savage worlds setting, I recommend going against the timeline =P

As someone considering running it, what in particular do you recommend leaving out/ignoring?

[Reinboom]

Well, there are a lot of "inevitable" situations that signify a BBEG status to a NPC that, as a player playing in the setting originally, I did not enjoy not being able to influence.
For example, the permanent divide of the U.S. or hellstromme's.... immortality.

[skywalker]

I hate Deadlands. I have played both the original version, and the savage worlds reloaded version. I hate them for different reasons.

The original "draw for stats" system is alright, but it is just like the initiative system, in that you can wind up in a really good situation, or a really bad one. I remember drawing an ace, a 4, and the balance of my draws being face cards. It was a good draw.

Combat, however, was incredibly slow. The "wound" system was incredibly unintuitive, and made it take forever to kill someone.

In deadlands reloaded, the initiative trouble became even more pronounced (maybe just luck). Because the cards are shuffled randomly, you have absolutely no idea when your turn will be from round to round. This makes it much more difficult to plan and say "well, I know I'll get a heal before their next attack, so I'll keep attacking." It makes the game, in my opinion, much less team-oriented than D&D or something similar. Also, if your initiative draw comes up worse than your opponent's, you can go from perfectly fine to dead in a round.

The toughness/wounding system is dumb too. Because you can roll really well to hit someone, and then not beat their toughness and not do a thing to them. It's very anti-climactic. It works against the players. If someone does beat your toughness, however, you are frequently in trouble.

Bennies: Bennies don't actually stop the bleeding, they give you a chance to stop the bleeding. I've played in a game where 4 straight "wound-save throws" were failed. Some by characters with a d8 in the appropriate stat. In this way, Bennies are worse than fate chips were in original deadlands.

So, I think the first problem with some aspects of deadlands original (stat generation system) and some aspects of reloaded (bennies) and some aspects of both (the initiative system) is that it's just too damn random. Randomness is what kills PCs. The other problem is that the combat is so darned frustrating. In D&D, I know that if I hit, I do damage, and I make progress towards ending that monster's life. Not so in deadlands. At the same time, hits that do have an effect, almost have too much of an effect, because they bring you a step closer to death.

So, randomness and combat deadliness, both of which favor the "monsters" over the PCs. That's what I hate about deadlands.

[BobVosh]

So you hate that PCs are expected to win every fight?

I really liked Deadlands, I played some version of Hell On Earth, the system was fun and I really liked the hucksters. Mainly because despite being casting BAs they still should use thier gun. Getting a bad draw on a spell meant death, or at least nothing happens.

As for killing people, I never had a problem. Was pretty easy with a rifle.

The main secret to surviving is to be paranoid, shoot dead corpses in the head (to be sure), and never stand still.

[Satyr]

As almost always, the game's best permutation is the Gurps version. I will never undestand why people voluntarily waste time and money on a crap pseudo unversial game like Savage Worlds when their is a widely superior and more flexible game with Gurps.

Gurps: Deadlands is a decent game. Not great, but certainly better than anything aligned to a failure like SW.

[banjo1985]

Original Deadlands is good, something different. I like drawing cards to see who goes first and how many actions you get, it fits in with the setting. The setting itself is pretty good, I've never run the thing but it's good fun to play.

Savage World Deadlands is a poor mans version of it to be honest, with a lot of the fun elements taken out.

[Ascension]

I will never undestand why people voluntarily waste time and money on a crap pseudo unversial game like Savage Worlds when their is a widely superior and more flexible game with Gurps.

Simplicity. GURPS may be more flexible, but Savage Worlds' relative lack of complexity makes it "widely superior" in my eyes. GURPS just intimidates me.

That being said, I've only seen the SW Deadlands rules. It may be that one or all of the other versions are superior, I just wouldn't know.

[Satyr]

Gurps is actually simpler than Savage Worlds as it may be complex, but isn't complicated and lacks the more arbitrary elements of the Savage Worlds Rules.

[skywalker]

So you hate that PCs are expected to win every fight?

I... don't see what you're driving at at all. I think that if PCs are expected to win every fight in Deadlands, someone failed majorly in designing the game. I actually think PCs should win every fight. And D&D does a much better job of making it close, but not too much in doubt, and does it without DM intervention a much higher percentage of the time.

Never played GURPS. Such an investment, both time and money, into a system I'm not sure I'd like.

[BobVosh]

I... don't see what you're driving at at all. I think that if PCs are expected to win every fight in Deadlands, someone failed majorly in designing the game. I actually think PCs should win every fight. And D&D does a much better job of making it close, but not too much in doubt, and does it without DM intervention a much higher percentage of the time.

Never played GURPS. Such an investment, both time and money, into a system I'm not sure I'd like.

Uh. Opps. *aren't suppose

3 characters off. Can I get a second place bisquit?

But I was right. I like a game where the PCs aren't assumed that they are going to win. One of my biggest beefs with D&D now.

I would like to defend this point with saying I don't want a game that enforces die no matter what, but games like Call of Cthulu, Deadlands, and even Paranoia (that one does have die or die situations...but you got 6 clones, and who cares if a clone bites it?) where you may have to run away and face them again later. Or even just avoid them.

[Darrin]

I was just hoping some more experienced DM's who has used the setting (reloaded or not) could share their thoughts, both from a rules and storytelling standpoint.

Ah... Deadlands... the heady stench of nostalgia! Spent most of my college years playing Deadlands. The original system is the best, and it's not without its blemishes, but they are blemishes that give it a lot more flavor. Listen up, Tinhorn... first thing you need to know:

Do *NOT* get the D20 version. That red-headed stepchild sucked out all the unique flavor and turned it into an uninspiring bughunt. Dual-stat is fine, just ignore the D20 bits. As for the Savage Worlds version, can't say I've had the pleasure, but I've heard... well, mixed reviews, mostly. It fixes the original's biggest weakness (combat is complex and takes too long), but over-simplifies a lot of the cool stuff.

The second thing you need to know: you know that guy in your group that has way too many dice, like a tub full of 'em? The Deadlands designers would take one look at that tub, sneering and laughing, and say, "Not enough dice! You need more!" Your much-maligned d12's will get quite a workout.

I thought the initiative system was a stroke of genius, myself. It's one of the things I'd really like to rip out and employ in other RPGs. Yeah, sure, it's a little random in that Speedy Gonzales could draw five cards and get nothing higher than a five of clubs, and ol' Slowpoke Rodriguez may get only one card but it's an ace, but I liked that. Kept the heroes on their toes... sometimes you get a bad draw, and cryin' about it don't help, you just have to make the best of it.

Combat can be quite a chore if you're not used to it. Roll to hit, roll location, roll damage, calculate wounds based on target's size. Target can spend an action to dodge (usually not worth the bother) or spend chips to ignore wounds. If any wounds are left, roll for target losing Wind, roll Vigor to see if he's stunned. Keeping track of who's been hit where, wound levels, Wind loss, Vigor checks, more wind loss from Bleedin' and Squeelin'... it's a bit of a nightmare for the Marshall, so much so that once there are more than three bad guys on the table... well, it may be a couple of hours before all the dust settles. Not as bad as Champions, I'm led to understand, but most of the later books recommend the Marshall keep track of "mook damage" in a very generalized way, without bothering too much about wound location and such. Keeping track of Wind loss and Stun checks can become so onerous, you find yourself just skipping them or forgetting about it. With the way dice rolls explode (if you roll the highest value on a die, you reroll and add to the total), combat can be quite deadly, PC frags can get quite high. Yes, bad luck can screw you over, but the PCs have poker chips that can improve rolls, negate wounds, and even out some of that random bad luck. If you run out of chips... well, good thing making characters is so much fun.

There are a few other klunky parts to it. Explosive damage is a bit borked, and calculating armor reduction can be confusing. The magic systems (of which there are over half a dozen) are delightfully evocative but mechanically... uh, let's say questionable.

Theme-wise, the game is an absolute goldmine of great ideas. Fear levels and Guts checks give the game a very dark "We're screwed!" flavor, similar to Call of Cthulhu but the PCs are more heavily armed and not quite so fragile. Most scenarios resemble a "Scooby Gang/Buffy the Vampire Slayer" model, with something weird to investigate at first, a skirmish or two to establish the stakes or throw in a red herring, a little more digging to discover the Monster of the Week's big weakness, and then wrap things up with a boss battle. Most scenarios are designed to reward players who ask questions first and then shoot later. If you charge into everything with guns blazing, you run out of chips too quickly and die with your intestines warming up your ankles.

The theme and the stewpot of genres (spaghetti western with chunks of fantasy, zombies, horror, mad science, etc.) lends itself easily to any kind of story you want to tell. So long as the story has zombies in it. And flamethrowers.