PDA

View Full Version : Western RPG



Shyftir
2010-07-16, 12:46 AM
So me and a friend were considering role-playing in a Old-West inspired setting. Is there a good rpg for doing so? and if not what game/games would you suggest we use as a framework for such a setting?

bobspldbckwrds
2010-07-16, 12:48 AM
i know that i am going to get mobbed on for suggesting it, but i have had a lot of luck with d20 modern for games like that, especially low level.

Hurlbut
2010-07-16, 12:49 AM
D20 Modern's 'Past' sourcebook can help there.

Lycan 01
2010-07-16, 12:50 AM
Savage Worlds. Its 9 bucks, and is a pretty fun and easy universal RPG system. It has a lot of info on various settings and time zones, and actually has stats and info on Western gear, weapons, et cetera.

I actually tried the game out by running a Western game with two of my friends. We only meant to learn the ropes and play a short practice game, but it turned into an epic Western yarn that lasted more than 5 hours and had several shoot outs, double-crosses, and even a Faith Healing.


Then, if you want to make it a paranormal Weird West game, you can pick up Deadlands: Reloaded, which is an add-on for Savage Worlds and is one of the best Western games around. Two birds with one stone, really. :smallbiggrin:

Thurbane
2010-07-16, 01:05 AM
Boot Hill? :smallbiggrin:

Stone Heart
2010-07-16, 01:33 AM
Is that one just regular old west, or fantasy old west, because I was curious about a fantasy style old west, including dwarves and elves etc.

Balain
2010-07-16, 01:56 AM
Sidewinder: Recoiled

Dust Devils

Werewolf wild west (just make everyone normal humans not werewolves)

Boot Hill 3rd edition.

Here is a list of western games

http://www.erichotz.com/game_rules1.html#rpgames

Psyx
2010-07-16, 03:27 AM
Deadlands.

Deadlands.

Deadlands.


Awesome system. 1st Edition is the better of the two, if you can get hold of it.

Kaun
2010-07-16, 03:37 AM
Deadlands..

thats all you need to know.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-16, 03:44 AM
Throw my vote to Deadlands! It really is what you want. That, and you finally can give your d12s some love!

Bharg
2010-07-16, 03:59 AM
DEADLANDS!

(If you like Steampunk and Zombies? It's also in there! :smallfurious: YEAH!)

Comet
2010-07-16, 04:21 AM
Deadlands.

Deadlands.

Deadlands.


Awesome system. 1st Edition is the better of the two, if you can get hold of it.


Deadlands..

thats all you need to know.


Throw my vote to Deadlands! It really is what you want. That, and you finally can give your d12s some love!


DEADLANDS!

(If you like Steampunk and Zombies? It's also in there! :smallfurious: YEAH!)

You have your answer right there. Courtesy of multiquote.

Kaun
2010-07-16, 04:24 AM
yeah 1st Ed is the way to go and stay away from the d20 version...

The Rose Dragon
2010-07-16, 06:15 AM
If Deadlands is like Savage Worlds as I was led to believe, you might want to stay away from the system. The setting is probably awesome, though.

If you want a solid system to go with the setting, I suggest getting All Flesh Must Be Eaten and the Fistful O' Zombies supplement. It has rules for conversion from Deadlands to Unisystem (or vice versa), worked on by the founder of Pinnacle and writer of Deadlands, Shane Lacy Hensley.

Psyx
2010-07-16, 06:41 AM
Deadlands 1st Ed was nothing like anything I'd really seen before. Very solid system with just a few minor niggles*. And the tactility of it makes it really interesting.


*Such as individual XP. Heroic characters who did all the work ended spending all their chips, while do-nothings sat back, did nothing, and converted all their chips to XP. We started pooling chip XP.

Bharg
2010-07-16, 06:53 AM
Deadlands 1st Ed was nothing like anything I'd really seen before. Very solid system with just a few minor niggles*. And the tactility of it makes it really interesting.


*Such as individual XP. Heroic characters who did all the work ended spending all their chips, while do-nothings sat back, did nothing, and converted all their chips to XP. We started pooling chip XP.

I guess that's your DM's fault then. :smallwink:

hamlet
2010-07-16, 06:57 AM
So me and a friend were considering role-playing in a Old-West inspired setting. Is there a good rpg for doing so? and if not what game/games would you suggest we use as a framework for such a setting?

Aces & Eights by Kenzer and Company (www.kenzerco.com). It's really excellent.

Reinboom
2010-07-16, 06:57 AM
If Deadlands is like Savage Worlds as I was led to believe, you might want to stay away from the system. The setting is probably awesome, though.

This.

Even though Deadlands is a wonderful setting, the savage worlds system is not very sound at all, it is not very well made and I recommend staying away from it.



A system I would recommend would be Dogs in the Vineyard. Though, you may wish to cut the religion back in it.

Psyx
2010-07-16, 07:05 AM
I guess that's your DM's fault then. :smallwink:

How is a published rule the GM's fault, if he houseruled it as soon as it became apparent?


This is a problem with all systems that treat 'action points' as XP: Players who do nothing earn more. Characters doing all the work earn less. The two should not really be transferable. Torg and d6 SW also suffer from the issue.

Satyr
2010-07-16, 07:20 AM
There is a Gurps version of Deadlands. As usual, it is superior to the other takes on the rules, especially anything that involves Savage Worlds.

Personally, however, I would suggest to go for All Flesh Must be Eaten and Fistful O' Zombies and create my own setting. Deadlands isn't exactly bad, but suffers a bit from overkill.

Aroka
2010-07-16, 07:47 AM
The Riddle of Steel would work fine for gunfighting - just get The Flower of Battle for the firearms rules and come up with your own stats for 19th century firearms (the book only has match-, wheel-, and flintlock firearms). Start making those rolls to steal initiative. I've been wanting to do a pirate game and/or the Thirty Years' War and/or 18th-century war campaigns in it myself.

'course there's not much point using TROS if you're not going to do hand-to-hand combat, because that's where the system really shines.

AFMBE has a very adjustable level of lethality, and all the survival material in some of the sourcebooks could be very useful in a Wild West game.

Dogmantra
2010-07-16, 07:48 AM
There's Risus. There is always Risus.

Ruinix
2010-07-16, 08:29 AM
deadlands !!!!

best setting and system for a western game ever!!!!! especially the called shot system.

WalkingTarget
2010-07-16, 08:41 AM
Deadlands 1st Ed was nothing like anything I'd really seen before. Very solid system with just a few minor niggles*. And the tactility of it makes it really interesting.


*Such as individual XP. Heroic characters who did all the work ended spending all their chips, while do-nothings sat back, did nothing, and converted all their chips to XP. We started pooling chip XP.

...or the Marshall can make individual bounty point (i.e. XP) awards at the end of the adventure that reflects a player's contributions above and beyond what's awarded in fate chips.

I suppose that's a problem some people might run into, though our game (which lasted 3.5 years of weekly play, sometimes with up to 8 players :smalleek:) tended to not have anybody sitting on big piles of chips. We always wound up having to use them, though I suppose we eventually tended to game the system by only spending red chips in-game when absolutely necessary.

I like the original system (haven't tried D20 or SW), but large combats can wind up taking a long time to resolve. Especially when people start getting lots of action cards every round.

Psyx
2010-07-16, 08:46 AM
There was one player in particular who would participate in the safest way possible... getting to cover, aiming for maximum actions, and then moving. As a result, about one-in-five of their actions was spent doing anything, meaning that they drew no fire. It was a deliberate tactic to avoid using chips, but was soon sorted out.

The only other problem we ever encountered was zombies with one action card being able to dash across streets in one action, while players with five actions waiting to shoot at them simply got off a single shot with the held action!

SilverClawShift
2010-07-16, 09:00 AM
I wish we'd finished the dustlands settings, I could suggest that!

As it is, I think a proper western feel is more about what you make of it than any specific RPG. Shadowrun can be a western, is you set it in a wasteland and throw in a posse of Black Hats.

valadil
2010-07-16, 09:11 AM
*Such as individual XP. Heroic characters who did all the work ended spending all their chips, while do-nothings sat back, did nothing, and converted all their chips to XP. We started pooling chip XP.

The way we played it, if you don't chip you die. But if you get through the mod with any chips left, you definitely earned them.

I like Deadlands a whole lot. I'm pretty sure you could run the basic stuff without going into the horror part of the game. Never seen it done though.

It is a heavy and slow system. But it works and it's interesting. And the mechanics are thematically appropriate.

Natael
2010-07-16, 09:27 AM
As always, GURPS works for everything.

I've played Deadlands a few times, not sure which edition, but absolutely loved the system. Of course, as a player in a few one shots, I didn't have a chance to get real in depth with the issues in the system, so I can't comment on people saying it has some bad points, but I liked it a fair bit.

Personally, I despise anything related to d20 modern, so would recommend avoiding it, but that seems to be as much an animosity between me and class/level based systems as anything else.

Ravens_cry
2010-07-16, 09:31 AM
Dogs in the Vineyard would be good for a very different western experience.

Tengu_temp
2010-07-16, 10:21 AM
There is a Gurps version of Deadlands. As usual, it is superior to the other takes on the rules, especially anything that involves Savage Worlds.


Does it use cards and chips? If the answer is negative then it's not superior to the original rules. Though probably a lot better than the other alternatives, especially Deadlands D20.

The Rose Dragon
2010-07-16, 10:32 AM
Does it use cards and chips? If the answer is negative then it's not superior to the original rules.

How does the form of the random number generator a game uses make it superior despite its other, glaring flaws?

Tengu_temp
2010-07-16, 10:35 AM
Atmosphere.

Psyx
2010-07-16, 10:43 AM
Tactility

Deadlands has props - the cards and chips simply add to the immersion. Few other games do anything similar.

Satyr
2010-07-16, 11:30 AM
"Hey look! The system does not have the random aesthetic element X, thus it is clearly inferior".

Yes, Deadlands 1st Ed. used a card deck for a lot of things. But not for playing cards. The "oh, let's wait until I have enough cards to make something sensible" mechanism might be colorful thanks to the cards, but it is also cumbersome and slow.
I found that the cards are just a gimmick which is included in the game for the sake of itself but fulfills no real purpose; if it is just a question of props, ask everybody in the game to wear a hat.

Aroka
2010-07-16, 11:31 AM
I make my players throw a dagger at a dwarf tied to a great wooden wheel when they make an attack roll.

Then they roll the d20 and add their attack bonus.

Seriously, though, integrating props - especially as simple as playing cards and chips - into a game is ridiculously easy.

jamroar
2010-07-16, 11:36 AM
"Hey look! The system does not have the random aesthetic element X, thus it is clearly inferior".

Yes, Deadlands 1st Ed. used a card deck for a lot of things. But not for playing cards. The "oh, let's wait until I have enough cards to make something sensible" mechanism might be colorful thanks to the cards, but it is also cumbersome and slow.
I found that the cards are just a gimmick which is included in the game for the sake of itself but fulfills no real purpose; if it is just a question of props, ask everybody in the game to wear a hat.

Out of curiousity, how _did_ Deadlands use playing cards and chips as a game mechanism?

The Rose Dragon
2010-07-16, 11:36 AM
I make my players throw a dagger at a dwarf tied to a great wooden wheel when they make an attack roll.

Is this a prop of a dwarf, or a real, live dwarf?

If the latter, I'm sort of scared and impressed.


Out of curiousity, how _did_ Deadlands use playing cards and chips as a game mechanism?

Cards were for initiative, and if I recall correctly, huckster spells. I don't know anything about chips.

Psyx
2010-07-16, 11:37 AM
"Hey look! The system does not have the random aesthetic element X, thus it is clearly inferior"....
I found that the cards are just a gimmick which is included in the game for the sake of itself but fulfills no real purpose; if it is just a question of props, ask everybody in the game to wear a hat.

Fair enough. We found it added an extra level of involvement. It's a neat psychological trick.

I personally found GURPS to be one of the worst systems ever considered worthy of print, but each to his own...

Tengu_temp
2010-07-16, 11:41 AM
Gimmicks are what makes a gaming system memorable. Sure, you could play every single game out there using GURPS or M&M, but why do that if they already have their own mechanics which, while less balanced, have gimmicks that help create a really unique experience?

LibraryOgre
2010-07-16, 11:41 AM
Out of curiousity, how _did_ Deadlands use playing cards and chips as a game mechanism?

Chips were a combination luck and experience system... you got chips for doing things, and could either spend them for improving abilities or could save them for improving rolls.

Cards were used partially in character creation (your cards determined how good your stats were, and if you had some weird events in your past), and also in the magic system (with how good of a hand you could build being the determination of how well your spells worked). There were a few other uses that I can't recall at the distance of a decade.

What first sold me on it was the intro from Bruce Campbell. In practice, I didn't like it very much, for a variety of mechanical reasons (that I can't recall now).

Reinboom
2010-07-16, 11:42 AM
Cards were for initiative, and if I recall correctly, huckster spells. I don't know anything about chips.

This is correct.
And the chips are just action points.

The Rose Dragon
2010-07-16, 11:44 AM
Gimmicks are what makes a gaming system memorable. Sure, you could play every single game out there using GURPS or M&M, but why do that if they already have their own mechanics which, while less balanced, have gimmicks that help create a really unique experience?

I'm willing and eager to play with any system if it doesn't have as many glaring flaws as Savage Worlds. Gimmicks should be an addition to a good system, not a red herring to distract you away from the flaws of a bad one.

Tengu_temp
2010-07-16, 11:50 AM
I'm willing and eager to play with any system if it doesn't have as many glaring flaws as Savage Worlds. Gimmicks should be an addition to a good system, not a red herring to distract you away from the flaws of a bad one.

Are the standard rules of Deadlands even based on Savage Worlds? All I see in this thread is a mention that SW has a Deadlands add-on, but the Deadlands I'm (roughly) familiar with was a completely standalone game.

The Rose Dragon
2010-07-16, 11:54 AM
Are the standard rules of Deadlands even based on Savage Worlds? All I see in this thread is a mention that SW has a Deadlands add-on, but the Deadlands I'm (roughly) familiar with was a completely standalone game.

It's the other way around. Savage Worlds is based on Deadlands, since it was released after Deadlands. However, other than the setting-specific mechanics, such as hucksters, the harrowed and so forth, there is little, if any, changes to the mechanics.

Aroka
2010-07-16, 11:57 AM
Is this a prop of a dwarf, or a real, live dwarf?

If the latter, I'm sort of scared and impressed.

It's been a prop ever since Dinklage got too expensive. Damn Prince Caspian.


I'm willing and eager to play with any system if it doesn't have as many glaring flaws as Savage Worlds. Gimmicks should be an addition to a good system, not a red herring to distract you away from the flaws of a bad one.

Absolutely. You can always add gimmicks if you like them.

It is true that systems designed for a specific type of play may be superior for that type of play (I like Satyr's litmus test: "does it work better than GURPS would?") - The Riddle of Steel is peerless for realistic, tactical, and awesome one-on-one or small group melee combat, and Twilight 2013 is awesome for small-squad firefighting... but those aren't just gimmicks, those are core mechanics designed around specific requirements and themes that were deemed an integral part of the game. (In both of those examples, the main requirement was pretty much "make it something the sword/gun geeks will love.")

White_North
2010-07-16, 02:39 PM
I'll add in another Deadlands recommendation as well.

As a side-note, I'm really curious as to why people seem to hate SW so much. I mean, it's faaaaar from being a perfect system and it has its flaws, but overall, I like it. It's really not universal and is only really suited for a specific style of play, but I find it enjoyable. I'm running Deadlands Reloaded right now and we're all having a blast. So, why all the hate?

Lycan 01
2010-07-16, 02:51 PM
I like Savage Worlds... :smallfrown:

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-16, 03:01 PM
I'm actually curious as to the dislike towards the Deadlands/SW system. I played a year's worth of Reloaded and found it rather enjoyable. A little Faustian, yeah, but still worth while.

Darrin
2010-07-16, 03:35 PM
Are the standard rules of Deadlands even based on Savage Worlds? All I see in this thread is a mention that SW has a Deadlands add-on, but the Deadlands I'm (roughly) familiar with was a completely standalone game.

Savage Worlds is a stripped-down somewhat streamlined version of the original Deadlands rules (or if you want to nitpick, the Great Rail Wars miniatures game that was a spin-off of the Deadlands rules). It's been designed to play quickly and keep the action going even when there's a large number of minis on the table. The core Savage World rules are not specific to any genre or campaign world. The setting/campaign rules are purchased separately as an add-on. It retains some of the original flavor (playing cards are used for determining initiative, poker chips = action/fate points, and the exploding-die mechanics are similar).

The original Deadlands rules are the best, or rather have the most flavor in spite of the klunky mechanics. Wonderful, wonderful system that throws an incredible amount of really weird $%!# at the players. There's a couple areas where they break down, but the sheer amount of two-fisted fun you can dish out quickly outshines the blemishes.

The GURPS version is... well, a pretty standard GURPS conversion, although if you play it straight it's a bit grittier and harsher than the original version. Mechanically, the rules are much more solid, but a lot of the life and unique flavor got drained out.

The D20 version should just be avoided or ignored.

Aroka
2010-07-16, 04:53 PM
The D20 version should just be avoided or ignored.

This is pretty much the rule for all d20 conversions of other games, like Fading Suns (sheer, unadulterated manure, with entire pages copy-pasted and an occasional word or sentence changed here and there).

Legend of Five Rings may be something of an exception - while I far prefer the actual L5R games (any of the three versions I'm familiar with), L5Rd20 doesn't seem to be technically incompetent, and the sourcebooks have looked to be about 50/50 mechanics and setting "fluff", which is a nice ratio for a d20 game.

Kaun
2010-07-16, 07:01 PM
I like Gurps but Deadlands gurps was like ash in my mouth...

and as previously mentioned putting a d20 next to anything makes it bad.

on a side note the deadlands ccg was imho one of the best ccgs, it is just a shame it went out of production after 7th ed or what ever it got up to.

The Big Dice
2010-07-16, 07:23 PM
Does it use cards and chips? If the answer is negative then it's not superior to the original rules. Though probably a lot better than the other alternatives, especially Deadlands D20.

I don't think it does. Though to be fair, the 1st edition system was as clunky as they come. Cards, poker chips, dice, paper clips in various colours... Too much to keep track of.

Raum
2010-07-16, 07:32 PM
"Hey look! The system does not have the random aesthetic element X, thus it is clearly inferior". Ironic considering your most commonly stated complaint about Savage Worlds is its advertising.
-----

To the OP - Deadlands is worth a look if you want fantasy and horror mixed into your western. If you're open to looking at systems, I would also recommend looking at Savage Worlds. While this forum isn't very friendly towards it, SW can be an enjoyable break from levels and classes. It's very tactical though and less strategic than d20...obviously not everyone likes it.

If you want a setting without the fantasy elements, you might look at Aces and Eights. And, if you want to create your own setting while using a published system, Unisystem (the system in All Flesh Must be Eaten) is worth a look. In some ways it's d20 without levels.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-16, 08:20 PM
I don't think it does. Though to be fair, the 1st edition system was as clunky as they come. Cards, poker chips, dice, paper clips in various colours... Too much to keep track of.

To be honest, I've never bothered with the paper clips, largely due to using an editable PDF for my character sheets, though. The dice are fairly easy to keep track of, honestly. It is a table top game, after all. :smalltongue:

For the poker-paraphernalia, all you really need are the cards, which are easy to get. I've heard a few suggestions using colored counters, dice, or other assorted items in place of the chips, too.

Thurbane
2010-07-16, 08:21 PM
...if it is just a question of props, ask everybody in the game to wear a hat.
If my sig line wasn't already full, that would totally get sigged! :smalltongue:

Lycan 01
2010-07-16, 08:40 PM
My family has a Texas Hold Em kit, so cards and chips were easy to snag. :smalltongue:


You could just use loose change for the tokens and chips. And a pack of cards is almost too easy to find...

Platinum_Mongoose
2010-07-16, 09:01 PM
The D20 version should just be avoided or ignored.

The what? I'm sorry I choose to pretend I don't know what you're talking about.

IF you're looking for d20, however, I can see a Star Wars Saga Edition conversion working for Deadlands. (Among other settings.) Not entirely sure, though. It just came to mind.

I'll second (third, fourth, nineteenth) Savage Worlds. It's probably the best system that fits my cinematic playing style. I have a few nitpicks with it, but it has, overall, been the most fun gaming experience I've had around a table.

Moofaa
2010-07-16, 09:21 PM
SWSE totally works for a western setting. Remove the Jedi classes and refluff a few abilities and your ready to go as far as rules and character creation go.

I've done it recently and my players seem to be enjoying it.

The Big Dice
2010-07-16, 10:04 PM
SWSE totally works for a western setting. Remove the Jedi classes and refluff a few abilities and your ready to go as far as rules and character creation go.

I've done it recently and my players seem to be enjoying it.

Treat the Jedi as "US Marshalls with laser swords" or "Circuit Judges with magic powers" and everything works out fine if you want to treat Star Wars as a Western. Westerns were a huge influence on the original movie, as were samurai movies.

Speaking of samurai movies, Legend of the Five Rings also makes for a good game that uses Western ideas in a non-cowboy setting. It even features the iaijutsu duel, which is basically the sword slinging version of your cowboys at high noon gunfighter duel. It worked for Akira Kurosawa, who ironically was reviled in 50s Japan because his samurai movies were too obviously influenced by John Ford cowboy movies from the 40s.

Platinum_Mongoose
2010-07-16, 10:49 PM
Star Wars is a Western, after all. And/or Arthurian Fantasy. And/or a Samurai movie.

...IN SPAAAAAAAAAAACE!


...as many glaring flaws as Savage Worlds.

Such as? I mean, your problems with Savage Worlds probably comes down to playing style, in which case they aren't flaws in the system so much as a poor match for what you're looking for in a game. So, to clarify my question: What are you looking for, and what doesn't Savage Worlds deliver?

Aroka
2010-07-17, 01:06 AM
and as previously mentioned putting a d20 next to anything makes it bad.

Not even close, but doing a bad job at a conversion, and converting a game that just doesn't work (level-based Fading Suns!? Ack! Pthui!), just doesn't work.

There's a bunch of good d20 games, like Conan d20; and a bunch of bad ones (conversion or not), like Game of Thrones d20.


Speaking of samurai movies, Legend of the Five Rings also makes for a good game that uses Western ideas in a non-cowboy setting. It even features the iaijutsu duel, which is basically the sword slinging version of your cowboys at high noon gunfighter duel. It worked for Akira Kurosawa, who ironically was reviled in 50s Japan because his samurai movies were too obviously influenced by John Ford cowboy movies from the 40s.

Akira Kurosawa made samurai movies inspired by westerns, and Sergio Leone and John Sturges made westerns not just based on, but completely ripping off Kurosawa's movies... pretty hilarious, really.

And yeah, the iaijutsu in Yojimbo, for instance, is such complete gunslinging stuff it's hard to not imagine Mifune wearing a cowboy hat. (And, indeed, there's an actual gunslinger in the film.)

Satyr
2010-07-17, 04:19 AM
If my sig line wasn't already full, that would totally get sigged!


Well, some days are better than others.
I still think that wearing a hat in a Western game is a good idea, however. As much as goggles for a weird scientist.


Ironic considering your most commonly stated complaint about Savage Worlds is its advertising.

Not so much the advertising itself but the fact that the game lies straight to your face and won't stop the marketing. Within the book itself. That's just a bad writing style, especially when the constant reminder of how great this game you already purchased is, and when the reminder of the I AM AWESOME MY GAME IS AWESOME YOU WANT TO BE AWESOME TOO GO PLAY MY GAME has little to do with the supposed topic at hand. And no, it's not nearly the main issue I have with the game. But in combination with the mediocre overall design, it's just laughable. It's like listening to a teenager virgin who talks about his many, many (fictional) sexual encounters to play over his insecurity.

I certainly cannot speak for Rose Dragon, and what he considers the system's weaknesses. He can do that himself (Do you know what Rose Dragon is awesome! You know what's awesome too? My game! So go play my game!); but I can offer my opinion why I think Savage Worlds is a bland and mediocre game (with an obnoxious style).


Savage Worlds suffer from two major problems: On the one hand, it is mostly a patchwork system combining various elements which all had appeared elsewhere before. On the other hand, the game is extremely shallow and superficial, a problem which often occurs with games which try to make the rules easy to learn through minimalism instead of easy to use through good design.
Unfortunately, the copied and pasted rule elements are not used any better than in the games they were inspired by; the dice mechanisms work actually better in Sovereign Stone (and the similarity between the systems makes it awfully close to plagiarism) or Earthdawn, because there, the attributes actually have significance on the dice roll, and not only act as a ceiling with little significance for the actual game; the edges and hindrances are very binary and through this clumsy approach have not nearly the elegance or finer adjustment usually found in a advantage/disadvantage system (you know, as in Gurps). It doesn't help that the game is basically level-based, even though they try to hide that fact a bit.
This very shallow and two-dimensional approach to character creation is detrimental to the creation of well-rounded, interesting characters; there are a few traits dealing with the personality of a character, but it's really rudimentary. Since the mechanical variation of the system and the number of options is so pitifully low, character variation is consequently quite low as well, which means that the game becomes quite repetitive, and therefore quite dull.

The combat system is uninspired as well and virtually offers no new ideas at all, but suffers from a major paradox - on the one hand it is very abstract and offers little innovations (or any innovations at all), but at the same time the dependency on miniatures and the sluggish and superfluous use of cards (and really, the cards might offer an atmospheric bonus in the Western context and a few other settings. In many settings however they are really out of place) makes the combat tedious and about as elegant as a beached whale. Especially miniature use often lead to the exact different result than the proclaimed intentions.
Despite claiming the opposite (and never shutting up about it), these aren't even particularly fast combat rules, but the lack of depth and detail make them - again - quite repetitive and thus quite dull.

Many of these problems bog down to one major issue: Ease of use and simplicity are a mean to an end, not an end by themselves. If one starts to sacrifice depth and adaptability for the sake of a simplified gameplay, you have a null sum calculation - at best. It's much more likely that one creates a simple game for simple people. I think that a good flexible game actually leaves it to the gaming groups who play the game to chose how simple or complex they want to make their game; options of this kind are completely missing from Savage Worlds which again adds to the feeling that the game treats its players as idiots - too stupid to cope with rules with more than knee-deep substance, and also too stupid too know what they want for themselves. I don't think that anybody deserves to be treated like an idiot.

But what's really off is the system's claim that it is designed for any genre, which is a bold claim to make. There are a few games which can indeed fulfill this role (promise?) but they are rare.

Savage Wolrds however does certainly not belong there. It really is an action adventure game /skirmish board game crossbreed where you can exchange the colors and the props, but not the genre.

There is a good benchmark for an adaptive game, and that is "can you create a real person with it, e.g. yourself. Usually, this establishes the bottom line of the game. Now go, try it with Savage World. It really doesn't work that well, does it?
There is nothing wrong with an action adventure RPG, and if it would fill this niche, it would still be a bland and mediocre game without any distinctive features on its own, but at least it would not be obnoxious.

Which finally leads me to the whole writing style and marketing issue. Creating an action RPG/skirmish board game is okay but claiming that it is something more is either stupid or a lie, and that leads me to the point where I think that Savage Worlds goes from somewhat uninspired to a despicable mess: What makes the game really annoying is the constant and obtrusive claim how fast!, fun! and furious! the game is. Have you ever heard the phrase "Show, Don't Tell"? While Savage Worlds constantly try to tell you it is fun and fast (don't even start on the furious part of that particular alliteration... I am still not sure why it is in any way desirable to have an angry game) it never comes up to actually show this. To the contrary. Between the superfluous card mini game and the tossing around of minis on the one side, the game is not particularly fast, and with the lack of depth and character options, it is also not including several staples of creating tension or drama, either. Fun is an entirely subjective measure, so it is difficult to find criteria for it, but tension and character depth are among the more important tools to create a good enthralling RPG. I mean who wants to play bland, boring flat characters in a boring and repetitive campaign?

Yes, this is the first game I ever disliked because of its attitude, which actually feels as stupid as it sounds. However, this is a game that treats its players as if they couldn't find their own arse without using both hands, and which blatantly lies to your face, while at the same time constantly repeats how awesome it is. And no matter how often you repeat a phrase, constant repetition does not make it true.

To come up with a final verdict, Savage Worlds is an unimaginative and bland game which makes it pretty mediocre to begin with. What makes it truly bad, is the constant reminders of its delusions of grandeur and the condescending attitude towards its players.
Savage Worlds is a bland game which tries to be something more (or at least claims to do so), but really does nothing outstanding. Apart from aggressive marketing.

Raum
2010-07-17, 09:04 AM
Not so much the advertising itself but the fact that the game lies straight to your face and won't stop the marketing. Within the book itself. That's just a bad writing style...<snip>Wow. It's just advertising Satyr. Budweiser is the "King of Beers", Miller has "great taste", and every car out there is the 'best' at something...so on and so forth. In this day and age you really need a thick skin when it comes to advertising.

I'll buy a product (or not) based on a rational decision of need / desire and quality / function. What the advertisers say is immaterial.


Savage Worlds suffer from two major problems: On the one hand, it is mostly a patchwork system combining various elements which all had appeared elsewhere before. Since almost all systems are based on those which have gone before, I don't really see this as a knock. D&D came from previous versions, Chainmail, tactical wargames, and a lot of ideas co-opted from competitors. Yet, being the first published RPG, it is arguably the most original of role-playing games. Everything else is a derivative or reaction to it. The good thing is, derivatives often get better than the originals.


On the other hand, the game is extremely shallow and superficial, a problem which often occurs with games which try to make the rules easy to learn through minimalism instead of easy to use through good design. I'd hate to hear what you think of Risus, Wushu, Over the Edge, and other minimalist games. Many of us see less complexity (and its associated issues) as a good thing. But you've put the conclusion first, lets look at your stated reasons...


Unfortunately, the copied and pasted rule elements are not used any better than in the games they were inspired by; the dice mechanisms work actually better in Sovereign Stone (and the similarity between the systems makes it awfully close to plagiarism) or Earthdawn, because there, the attributes actually have significance on the dice roll, and not only act as a ceiling with little significance for the actual game; the edges and hindrances are very binary and through this clumsy approach have not nearly the elegance or finer adjustment usually found in a advantage/disadvantage system (you know, as in Gurps). So it's the same text (plagiarism accusation) but it's different and, in your opinion, inferior? You can't have it both ways. An obviously fallacious argument.


It doesn't help that the game is basically level-based, even though they try to hide that fact a bit. How do you figure? Just because they've labeled certain amounts of experience as 'Seasoned', Veteran', etc? By that logic every point buy system which provides labels for differing amounts of points is "basically level-based". Afraid I can't agree with your definition of 'level-based'.


This very shallow and two-dimensional approach to character creation is detrimental to the creation of well-rounded, interesting characters; there are a few traits dealing with the personality of a character, but it's really rudimentary. Since the mechanical variation of the system and the number of options is so pitifully low, character variation is consequently quite low as well, which means that the game becomes quite repetitive, and therefore quite dull. With a purely superficial look, SW characters often appear very similar. With some play or with a deeper look, you begin to realize the characters are primarily defined by their edges and not simply by trait die numbers.


The combat system is uninspired as well and virtually offers no new ideas at all, but suffers from a major paradox - on the one hand it is very abstract and offers little innovations (or any innovations at all), but at the same time the dependency on miniatures and the sluggish and superfluous use of cards (and really, the cards might offer an atmospheric bonus in the Western context and a few other settings. In many settings however they are really out of place) makes the combat tedious and about as elegant as a beached whale. Especially miniature use often lead to the exact different result than the proclaimed intentions.Weren't you poking fun at criticizing games because of a random mechanic earlier in this thread?

In any case, cards are only used for initiative in core Savage Worlds. It works as well as any other initiative randomizer and has the advantage of being easily visible from across the table.


Despite claiming the opposite (and never shutting up about it), these aren't even particularly fast combat rules, but the lack of depth and detail make them - again - quite repetitive and thus quite dull. What is your criteria for "fast combat"? In my experience, SW combat is faster than d20, GURPS, and Shadowrun. It's about the same as Cinematic Unisystem and probably slower than Over the Edge or Risus. Whether that's "fast" or not is a qualitative judgment.


Many of these problems bog down to one major issue: Ease of use and simplicity are a mean to an end, not an end by themselves. If one starts to sacrifice depth and adaptability for the sake of a simplified gameplay, you have a null sum calculation - at best. This is simply untrue and easily refutable. Many prefer simple mechanics to complex. Perhaps more importantly, simple mechanics do not equate to less adaptability or simple play. Quite often (and with Savage Worlds specifically) it's the reverse.


It's much more likely that one creates a simple game for simple people. This is simply a fallacious attack. I'd prefer to keep the discussion civil.


I think that a good flexible game actually leaves it to the gaming groups who play the game to chose how simple or complex they want to make their game;<snipped more attacks>Why? I look for a game to do what I want at the time. Some amount of flexibility is good but I don't want a game purporting to be able to do 'everything'. Savage Worlds is basically pulp which can be dialed up to heroic or down to gritty. If I want cosmic supers I'll pick a different game.


But what's really off is the system's claim that it is designed for any genre, which is a bold claim to make. There are a few games which can indeed fulfill this role (promise?) but they are rare. I've never seen such a claim by the system's designers. Can you point it out?

In my experience, the designers call SW a 'core' system. One which can be tailored to a lot of different settings. Not one which does it all out of the box or is 'designed for any genre'.


Savage Wolrds however does certainly not belong there. It really is an action adventure game /skirmish board game crossbreed where you can exchange the colors and the props, but not the genre.

There is a good benchmark for an adaptive game, and that is "can you create a real person with it, e.g. yourself. Usually, this establishes the bottom line of the game. Now go, try it with Savage World. It really doesn't work that well, does it?Not sure I agree with that as a benchmark, but why can't you create a character representing a real person?


There is nothing wrong with an action adventure RPG, and if it would fill this niche, it would still be a bland and mediocre game without any distinctive features on its own, but at least it would not be obnoxious.More fallacious attacks...


Which finally leads me to the whole writing style and marketing issue. <snipped rant on advertising>See above comments on advertising.

Snipped the rest - seemed to be repeats of the same attacks.

------
I'm not really trying to convince you Satyr. I doubt I can. But the attacks get old. We get it, you don't like Savage Worlds. I don't agree with your reasons and I deplore your attacks. Can we simply move on without the acrimony?

Aroka
2010-07-17, 09:45 AM
Since almost all systems are based on those which have gone before, I don't really see this as a knock. D&D came from previous versions, Chainmail, tactical wargames, and a lot of ideas co-opted from competitors. Yet, being the first published RPG, it is arguably the most original of role-playing games. Everything else is a derivative or reaction to it. The good thing is, derivatives often get better than the originals.

There's degrees involved; there's a big difference in developing a game from scratch, creating a new edition from an existing game, or grabbing mechanics from multiple games and slapping them together and integrating them badly. (Cf. some d20 conversions, like Fading Suns d20, or the really awkward Tri-Stat Defects in AGOTd20.)


I don't agree with your reasons and I deplore your attacks. Can we simply move on without the acrimony?

So because you've read his arguments he shouldn't repeat them for new posters who may or may not find them useful?

Raum
2010-07-17, 10:01 AM
I don't agree with your reasons and I deplore your attacks. Can we simply move on without the acrimony?So because you've read his arguments he shouldn't repeat them for new posters who may or may not find them useful?Please look up the definition of "acrimony".

Rational discussion, even impassioned discussion, can be a wonderful thing. Bitterness, animosity, and spitefulness (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/acrimony) seldom add anything positive to a discussion.

Satyr
2010-07-17, 11:33 AM
Wow. It's just advertising Satyr. Budweiser is the "King of Beers", Miller has "great taste", and every car out there is the 'best' at something...so on and so forth. In this day and age you really need a thick skin when it comes to advertising.


I'll buy a product (or not) based on a rational decision of need / desire and quality / function. What the advertisers say is immaterial.

Advertising certainly has its place, but that's not within the product itself. When the advertising is repeated constantly throughout the book and take a significant space within it, it is detrimental to the game - on the one hand, because it absorbs the place better used for real content or examples, on the other hand because it is just a poor writing style.

So, how important do you deem the importance of the text quality and function? I mean if you already have purchased the book, wouldn't it be better if it contained actual useful information instead of a reminder that this is fun! fast! furious!?
Perhaps I am biased here, but wouldn't it be nice to have mostly well-written books? And a form of representation which creates an informative yet entertaining atmosphere?
A good idea which is badly verbalized will have its problems to be recognized as a good idea


Since almost all systems are based on those which have gone before, I don't really see this as a knock. D&D came from previous versions, Chainmail, tactical wargames, and a lot of ideas co-opted from competitors. Yet, being the first published RPG, it is arguably the most original of role-playing games. Everything else is a derivative or reaction to it. The good thing is, derivatives often get better than the originals.

Certainly, at least in theory. However, this is certainly no automatism, and I think that a worthy game should include at least a few unique features which sets them apart from the rest.


I'd hate to hear what you think of Risus, Wushu, Over the Edge, and other minimalist games. Many of us see less complexity (and its associated issues) as a good thing. But you've put the conclusion first, lets look at your stated reasons...

As far as I know, none of these games claims to be the game to end all games. They are basically niche games, and as such, okay. Especially because they seem, at least to me as a layperson, to have a different focus - more on the narrative flow and the representation of the character, not so much on the metagame; Savage Worlds however tries to fulfill the role of a classic RPG and therefore should be measured be the standards of a classic RPG.


So it's the same text (plagiarism accusation) but it's different and, in your opinion, inferior? You can't have it both ways. An obviously fallacious argument.

It's not hard to copy parts of the rules and combine it with other elements; the quality of a set of rules is usually not measured by single elements but by their sum.
Besides, the very fact that the mechanisms are de facto borrowed make them worse as they are less creative, or innovative than the original. And I repeat: There aren't many single mechanism in the game which has not occurred somewhere else, or which had a knack or little variation to it which could possibly qualify as an innovative step, which creates this certain blandness of Savage Worlds.


How do you figure? Just because they've labeled certain amounts of experience as 'Seasoned', Veteran', etc?

Nope, because of the extremely formulaic and uniform character improvement. Calling it "Advance" instead of "Level" might change the label, but not the content.


With a purely superficial look, SW characters often appear very similar. With some play or with a deeper look, you begin to realize the characters are primarily defined by their edges and not simply by trait die numbers.

With what? 80? or so edges in the core book, and no rules how to create one by yourself, that's still pretty repetitive. Besides, usually characters are determined by two main questions: What they are and what they do. Both halves form something like a character which is hopefully larger than its parts. If you leave out a significant part of the equation because of the overtly simple form of what characters can do, it is hardly surprising that the character will lack a certain depth.


Weren't you poking fun at criticizing games because of a random mechanic earlier in this thread?

Yes, because of the lack of a certain random mechanic; that doesn't excuse redundancies, especially in a game which is otherwise very streamlined and simple. It just comes from out of place - and it is not a very good mechanism either, as it is slow, breaks the rhythm of the game and doesn't really add anything to the game.


What is your criteria for "fast combat"? In my experience, SW combat is faster than d20, GURPS, and Shadowrun. It's about the same as Cinematic Unisystem and probably slower than Over the Edge or Risus. Whether that's "fast" or not is a qualitative judgment.

The amount of effort and steps required for a conflict resolution in relation to the granularity of the scene and the required repetitions until the conflict is solved. Gurps for example is by default a very granular system with active defenses, hit locations and dozens of combat options, so every round of combat takes several steps to resolve them (or you just leave out the options or steps you don't want, which would make the game quite fast again); but usually a combat is decided with the first or the second hit so that the combat doesn't take that long measured in turns; D20 uses a very quick "roll to hit, roll damage" formula by default, but due to the often very high amounts of hitpoints, it takes its time.
Savage Worlds falls in a worst of both worlds gap: Due to the card based initiative and the fact that it is actually quite hard to have a lasting impression, it takes its time, but it is also very abstract and as such doesn't add to the game's tension through the feeling of an intense conflict.


This is simply untrue and easily refutable. Many prefer simple mechanics to complex.Perhaps more importantly, simple mechanics do not equate to less adaptability or simple play. Quite often (and with Savage Worlds specifically) it's the reverse.

Of course certain people prefer simple systems. But not because of the simplicity itself, but because the simplicity allows for certain desirable effects. If simplicity by itself were an end in itself, the simplest game were also the best one. However, this is rarely the case, is it? No, a simple game design has certain benefits - ease of learning/use, speed etc. - but these are the actual end - the simple rules are only a method to achieve it.
However, there are very different to achieve the same ends and the sacrifice of substance is certainly one of the worst. A game does not need to be complicated to be complex, when the rules are intuitive, well streamlined and follow a stringent internal logic.


This is simply a fallacious attack. I'd prefer to keep the discussion civil.

Then you shouldn't quote the aforementioned sentence out of context, because then you create the allusion of a personal attack which was really not in there.
Yes, I have a problem with games that basically treat their players as if they were stupid and thus unable to cope with issues like a taste or ideas of their own. However, that doesn't mean that I have a negative opinion of the people who enjoy these games; to the contrary - they just don't deserve this condescending tone of the game.


Why? I look for a game to do what I want at the time. Some amount of flexibility is good but I don't want a game purporting to be able to do 'everything'.

And to get the game that does what you want at the time, it is often helpful to be able to adjust the rules to the ideas you have at the time.


I've never seen such a claim by the system's designers. Can you point it out?

It's right in the beginning:


"Savage Worlds was designed to be used with any genre - from swashbuckling pirates to superheores and sci-fi. [...] Pick up the book of your favorite game setting or create one of your own"

In the gamemaster part of the same book is another passage about converting existing settings of other game companies, which implicitly mention that they assume that pretty much any such setting can be converted to the "FFF" style.

Yes, the game description begins with a blatant lie.


Not sure I agree with that as a benchmark, but why can't you create a character representing a real person?

Because most real persons are somewhat more complex and have a certain depth which will be hard to capture with an overtly simple and abstract game. And yes, it is a benchmark for a generalist game, because reality as whole is one. It is a lot easier to start with the "real world" and increase the power level than doing it vice versa.


More fallacious attacks...
Yes because everything you don't agree with must be a fallacy, and everyone stating such is using it as an attack...


I'm not really trying to convince you Satyr. I doubt I can. But the attacks get old. We get it, you don't like Savage Worlds. I don't agree with your reasons and I deplore your attacks. Can we simply move on without the acrimony?

Platinum_Mongoose asked for an explanation what people don't like about Savage Worlds. I offered one. I don't think I attacked anyone (except perhaps the authors), and if any of my arguments felt offensive, I'm sorry. My quips were targeted at the game, and I'm pretty sure that the game has no feelings which could be hurt.

I tried to differentiate between the reasons why I think it is not a very good game, and these were mostly mechanical; the reason I don't like it however are based on the presentation of the game, and as I already said, I'm aware that this is a stupid reason.

If you thoroughly enjoy the game, that's great. Everybody should have a game he or she thoroughly enjoys. But: the assumption that a game is good because you like it is by no means better than the assumption that it is bad because you don't like it. A little differentiation between personal taste and actual criteria of quality and at the same time a little bit of differentiation between oneself and the things one likes would be a good thing for everybody, and certainly also for me because I'm certainly not nearly as objective as I want to be in these questions.

White_North
2010-07-17, 02:10 PM
Satyr, for the sake of brevity, I'll just condense your arguments and try to answer them. I'm not trying to alter them, and if I have misunderstood something, please let me know so that I can change it.

1. Over-bearing advertisment: Well, to be honest, I have to admit that I just don't see it as much as you do. Sure, the book often says things like ''this makes for a fast-paced, fun combat!'' and such, but it really doesn't bother me. To me, it's just the developpers being excited about their system. Fair enough. You may disagree with them if you don't like the system, but I haven't found these occurances to be frequent enough to actually validate counting it as a negative. It doesn't affect the actual game and can easily be ignored. I mean, it's all right if you don't like the game, but you can't really blame the writers for being enthused about it. Personally, I find that these small asides actually help. When I was learning the rules, it felt more like someone was trying to explain their game rather than reading a history/physics book (as I often feel when reading D&D books).

2. The mechanics have been ripped off from other games: See, I just really don't understand this. The dice pool mechanic is something that has been employed in more games than I can count. And yet, none of these game is worse simply because someone else did it before. Borrowing mechanics is a common enough thing in the RPG world, as people tend to stick with what works. Also, I've never played those games you say SW rips off, so I can't speak for them. But considering that the fact that SW ''plagiarises'' mechanics really doesn't actually say anything good or bad about the mechanics themselves, I can't help but feel that this is more RPG elitism than anything else. SW might not have an original mechanics in its entire frame, but that doesn't detract in any way, shape or form from it's actual quality. Generic doesn't mean bad. This isn't modern art, and I'm guessing Ezra Pound wasn't thinking about games when he said ''make it new''. A fun mechanic is fun, even if it was borrowed from somewhere else.

3. False advertisment: Okay, now, I agree with you, except that I think you're being a little over-zealous. SW is not a system that fts all genres. I use it for action-oriented pulp adventures, which it fits quite well. The developpers were wrong when they said their system could be used anywhere. But to go from ''they're wrong'' to ''they lie!'' is a bit of a stretch, and honestly, that shows some amount of gratuitous antagonism on your part. You directly assume that they're bad people and that they lie to their audience, instead of just saying that they were wrong about what their system can do.

4. Overly simplistic mechanics make for bland characters: This, I have to admit I just don't get. You say that the game allows for very little customization due to very few choices. Now, I disagree with you on the part of the edges. The game allows for the creation of a very wide range of characters, each with varying qualities and defaults. I'm sorry, but if 80 edges and hindrances are what you call a small amount of choices, then I'm afraid you're way too demanding. The one thing that I agree with you is restrictive is the magic/psionic/mad science/superhero system. But even then, all it takes is a little bit of imagination and refluffing in order to make it work. Have you actually played SW? Because, in actual play, I have seen a Wierd West adaptation of Teddy Roosevelt, a Louisiana-dwelling huckster who's terrified of bunnies, a clockwork abomination who thinks he's an opera singer and a Texas-dwelling Fremen (as in, spice, sandworms and all that). In an upcoming Shadowrun-themed campaign, I'm planning to make a samurai who uses a thousand blades to fight on the battlefield (based on Mifune from Soul Eater). If that's not variety, I don't know what is. All that's required is a bit of imagination to see the powers in different ways. You say that the system babysits the reader too much, and yet, you're unwilling to do the small amount of mental straining required to create truly original characters, instead expecting the system to provide you with a different mechanic for every character option imaginable.

5. Conflict resolution is slow: Again, I ask if you've actually played the game, because I have no idea what you're talking about. I've run extensive battles with up to 15 opponent on moving platforms in a fraction of the time that it would have taken me in D&D. Heck, in D&D, I would have not attempted this at all, since it would only have resulted in confusion and despair. The combat and skill usage is as smooth and quick as it could be. Could you detail more the ways in which you think the combat is slow?

As a final note, I want to adress your concluding thought. You say that enjoyment is fine, but does not affect the objective quality of the game. Okay, except that, once again, we're not talking about art. This is a game. By definition, a game's quality is defined by how much enjoyment people detract from it. What else would it be measured by?

Aroka
2010-07-17, 02:17 PM
Besides, if the plagiarism was that bad, I'm sure it would have led to a legal dispute, or something equivalent.

Only if they had literally taken text or tables from another book and used them unaltered. There is no copyright (or patent) for game mechanics and resolution systems, only for their specific representations. (The rules on this forum cause a lot of confusion about this among people; it's not copyright that prevents non-OGL stuff from being posted here, it's the forum rules.)

White_North
2010-07-17, 02:20 PM
Only if they had literally taken text or tables from another book and used them unaltered. There is no copyright (or patent) for game mechanics and resolution systems, only for their specific representations. (The rules on this forum cause a lot of confusion about this among people; it's not copyright that prevents non-OGL stuff from being posted here, it's the forum rules.)

Huh. Didn't know that. Thanks for the information. Imma go edit my post

Raum
2010-07-17, 07:21 PM
It's a game. Play and have fun or play something else and have fun. I still fail to see how it causes such acrimony.

Regarding a couple of your points (I'll be brief)... Advertising - eh, so it sucks. Certainly not going to get me excited in this age of ubiquitous advertising.
Unique vs derivative - Unique game systems are extremely rare. I'd rather have a variety of games available to pick and choose from. Also, uniqueness in and of itself isn't a selling point. There are far too many other variables.
Levels - Since nothing increases until you spend your 'Advance' on a trait or edge, isn't every game with advancement 'level-based' by that definition? I still can't agree with your definition.
On simplicity - The most difficult game to master (Go) is extremely simple at it's heart. So yes, if complexity of play is a measure, a simple game may well be 'best'.
One thing worth pointing out on SW's 'blandness' as it was called...SW does away with most of the pseudo-complexity of other games. Take an area attack spell / power as an example - d20 has Fireball, Ice Storm, Flame Strike, and many others. Each has it's own description and minor differences in mechanics. Savage Worlds collapses all those into one 'Blast' power, uses a single core mechanic, and encourages players and GMs to use custom trappings for the variety of different potential power sources, styles, and side effects. It's simpler than games such as d20 or GURPS but no less flexible.

From most people I've talked to, this last point has a larger effect on liking or disliking the game than anything else. Those who want a core mechanic they can modify tend to like it while those who want every option to be explicitly detailed don't.

Shademan
2010-07-17, 07:38 PM
how many people have said GURPS by now?

nyjastul69
2010-07-18, 12:20 AM
I can't recommend Aces & Eights highly enough. It can be rules light or rules heavy and everything in between. The basic rules are only seven or so pages and you can literally be up and running in minutes. You can then start adding the advanced rules as you become more comfortable with the system. It also contains a couple of mini-games for resolving chases and trials. The Shattered Frontier setting provided in the book is an interesting alternate reality setting. It's one of the best RPG's I've ever played. It is one of the prettiest books I've ever seen as well. Good luck finding a system that suits you.

Shyftir
2010-07-19, 09:28 PM
Thank you, to all the people who suggested games and systems for western style games.

No thank you, to the people who turned a thread about what western-style RPGs people would suggest, into a big fight over the quality of certain systems in comparison to others.

nyjastul69
2010-07-19, 09:39 PM
Thank you, to all the people who suggested games and systems for western style games.

No thank you, to the people who turned a thread about what western-style RPGs people would suggest, into a big fight over the quality of certain systems in comparison to others.

Well said. I'd be interested to hear what system you settle upon.

Shyftir
2010-07-19, 10:04 PM
Actually a friend and I are considering home-brewing our own western RPG. I started this thread to get a better idea of what's out there and hopefully garner ideas to both enhance our system and help us make something original.

The current trend of thought involves a large number of different guns and a system that uses the core d20 mechanic but involves skill trees and a different mechanic for taking/dealing damage.

The biggest thing I got out of this is that I need to look into Deadlands, if only to understand the basics of how it worked. Also we should probably explore GURPS which neither of us have experience with. Again thank you to all the people who made suggestions your input is much appreciated.

DueceEsMachine
2010-07-19, 10:50 PM
Huh. well, I don't think I've heard any mention of Cold Steel Reign. Pretty rules heavy to start with, but surprisingly easy once you get some familiarity with the system.

First character you make seems like it takes forever, the second just flies by. At least for me. The game also has a very gritty, dark feel, which I think works very well for it.

Just my 2 cents.

Maeglin_Dubh
2010-07-19, 10:52 PM
The 600+ page Microlite 20 collection has a few Western variants in it, including one called Gunsmoke and Goblins.

nyjastul69
2010-07-20, 01:20 AM
Actually a friend and I are considering home-brewing our own western RPG. I started this thread to get a better idea of what's out there and hopefully garner ideas to both enhance our system and help us make something original.

The current trend of thought involves a large number of different guns and a system that uses the core d20 mechanic but involves skill trees and a different mechanic for taking/dealing damage.

The biggest thing I got out of this is that I need to look into Deadlands, if only to understand the basics of how it worked. Also we should probably explore GURPS which neither of us have experience with. Again thank you to all the people who made suggestions your input is much appreciated.

I actually read past the 'framework' in your OP. GURPS might be a good bet. I find the system a bit Kluncky, but it is mutable if you're looking to home brew.