Game Design Sins

Mankcam

Seeker in the Sandpit
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
4,269
Reaction score
11,564
Runequest 2e encumbrance - wonderfully intuitive; about the only system where I have bothered to enforce encumbrance.
Yes, the RQ2 ENC system is just pure in it's simplicity

Most of the better encumberance systems were influenced by this
Many of the other ones seem so fiddily by comparison (including RQ3's fatigue pts/encumberance rules)
 

Lofgeornost

Vulpine once more.
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
2,026
Reaction score
5,817
Of course the metric system probably wouldn't exist in the far, far future, or in some completely other galaxy (that somehow has humans in it). However, it 'feels' more SF-like than Imperial/US customary, because it's got consistent scaling (powers of ten), and avoids having to use constants when converting from one unit to another or when working with multiple units. Basically, metric is cleaner.

Fair enough. A lot of the advantages of metric are only relevant to accounting/engineering style games, it seems to me. If players or gms have to worry about how many hectares they can dust with the franistan bioweapon or the capacity of cargo holds, then metric has advantages. In a more Space Opera sort of game, this kind of thing does not come up. Or a game with a narrative system rather than a physics-engine approach.

As long as people keep having the same number of fingers, decimal systems are still going to be most likely to be in use.
Also, you can always get a page from Chinese measures. Those survive (with minor changes) since the times of Qin Shihuangdi, who also made them decimal.
I don't see a reason to believe metric would be any less viable, especially since it's also decimal:tongue:!
Well, I did specify the year 100 million. That's ~40,000 times farther in the future than traditional Chinese measurements have existed on this reading.
Sure, that's about all that you need in a game.
In fact, what's the most relevant distance measure for an adventure-focused game? Long/middle/close distance. Those can be covered by range zones just fine and actually much more immersively (for me:tongue:).
All of which makes we wonder how useful, really, the seamlessness of metric is for gaming purposes. As I said above, it's nice for an engineering/accounting game with a physics-engine system (GURPS, I'm looking at you) but for other approaches it's not so useful.

The perceived weakness of traditional units is that they are a hodgepodge of measures that are not really related to one another. The reason for this, of course, is that they weren't designed to be. Each type of measurement was employed in a specific context. The fact that a mile is 5280 feet just wasn't that significant; one unit was used for short distances, the other for longer.

If the same is true in a game--if one only uses specific measures in specific situations--then easy conversion of one to another isn't very important.

In a way, it's ironic that we are having this discussion in the context of SF, since it shows this feature strongly. Big-scale astronomical distances are not generally measured in either miles or kilometers, but in other units which have no simple relationship to either linear scale, or to each other: the astronomical unit, the light-year, and the parsec.
 

AsenRG

#FuckWotC #PlayNonDnDGames
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
12,671
Reaction score
15,040
Fair enough. A lot of the advantages of metric are only relevant to accounting/engineering style games, it seems to me. If players or gms have to worry about how many hectares they can dust with the franistan bioweapon or the capacity of cargo holds, then metric has advantages.
Yes, indeed!
In a more Space Opera sort of game, this kind of thing does not come up. Or a game with a narrative system rather than a physics-engine approach.
...then I have never played a Space Opera game, it seems.
And narrative systems simply avoid the imperial system just as much as metric (not to mention "not being everyone's cup of tea").
Well, I did specify the year 100 million. That's ~40,000 times farther in the future than traditional Chinese measurements have existed on this reading.
Sure, but then it's also ~2000 times further in the future than the modern humans have existed (counting from the Cromagnon man despite theories for crossbreeding with the Denisovian proto-humans and Neanderthals).
So you're either handwaving a lot anyway, in which case we're back to "what seems to make more sense to the players", or we should start by deciding what humanity looks like and how is it different. A step most such games happily avoid...:grin:
Faced with such fundamental issues being handwaved, I presume getting back to "what seems to make more sense to the players" is the only logical step. And as mentioned in the thread, most people seem to prefer metric for SF with, sometimes, other systems for fantasy (I prefer either the old system that was in use in our lands, or the Chinese measures, BTW:tongue:).

All of which makes we wonder how useful, really, the seamlessness of metric is for gaming purposes. As I said above, it's nice for an engineering/accounting game with a physics-engine system (GURPS, I'm looking at you) but for other approaches it's not so useful.

The perceived weakness of traditional units is that they are a hodgepodge of measures that are not really related to one another. The reason for this, of course, is that they weren't designed to be. Each type of measurement was employed in a specific context. The fact that a mile is 5280 feet just wasn't that significant; one unit was used for short distances, the other for longer.

If the same is true in a game--if one only uses specific measures in specific situations--then easy conversion of one to another isn't very important.
If yes, than true. However, modern sniper rifles can quite well kill you a kilometer away, and rocket launchers can have greater than that. Weapons in a SF environment might be even better.
OTOH, they would probably be used over much smaller distances as well, making conversion kinda necessary, IMO.

In a way, it's ironic that we are having this discussion in the context of SF, since it shows this feature strongly. Big-scale astronomical distances are not generally measured in either miles or kilometers, but in other units which have no simple relationship to either linear scale, or to each other: the astronomical unit, the light-year, and the parsec.
Sure, but that's for spaceship travel/combat, strictly. I'm thinking "planetside vehicles" and "personal weapons", which might well switch between personal range and kilometers away.
 

xanther

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
2,135
Reaction score
3,002
.... Big-scale astronomical distances are not generally measured in either miles or kilometers, but in other units which have no simple relationship to either linear scale, or to each other: the astronomical unit, the light-year, and the parsec.
Well the AU, LY and parsec do all have a clear and simple relation to each other as well as being linear. They are all just measures of distance...now what distance really means on parsec and light-year scales is an interesting question.

I like AU for in system sci-fi and parsec for interstellar distances, parsec has a nice ring to it.
 

TristramEvans

The Right Hand of Doom
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Messages
31,577
Reaction score
90,824
Runequest 2e encumbrance - wonderfully intuitive; about the only system where I have bothered to enforce encumbrance.

Yeah, I did say "not many"....:thumbsup:

Yes, the RQ2 ENC system is just pure in it's simplicity

Most of the better encumberance systems were influenced by this
Many of the other ones seem so fiddily by comparison (including RQ3's fatigue pts/encumberance rules)

So how did RQ2 do encumbrance? Was it significantly different than RQ6/Mythras?
 

zanshin

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Messages
774
Reaction score
1,669
So how did RQ2 do encumbrance? Was it significantly different than RQ6/Mythras?
I don't know RQ6/Mythras does it, but you could carry items without penalty = average of STR & CON, but never higher than your STR.

Items had an encumbrance value of 0 - 3.E.g. A sword would be 1, non metal armour for your arms 1, a bow & quiver 2, metal armour 2-3 depending on location, a full backpack, 2.

4 items of value 0 = 1. A creature had an encumbrance value of their SIZ x 5. 100 coins = 1 enc.

For each point of carried encumbrance over the limit, -5% to all Dex based skills.

It was pretty easy to work out your limit, what you could carry and how heavy your armour could be, and a strong incentive to stay within the limit.
 

SJB

Legendary Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2021
Messages
450
Reaction score
1,048
We are prepping a Steampunk SWADE campaign, none of us having played Savage Worlds before. SWADE is a very nice compact rulebook that worked well even though we were passing it around the table at the pub.

But my, there are some redundancies. Abilities and Skills are both Traits. One has to look under Traits to find them. Traits appear to be a completely unnecessary category. If one wants to cast a spell you have to choose an Edge, a Skill and a Power to get there. Again there is a redundant stratum. Are these things fan service left over from old editions, i.e. “it’s just not Savage Worlds” without them?

I’d also like to give a shout out to Mean Streets from Precis Intermedia. What a nicely designed ruleset with everything where it should be, including stat blocks for stock NPCs that are very easy to lift and plug in. All black & white with good illustrations. Was design just better fifteen years ago than it is now with barely readable full colour? Has anyone ever got Mean Streets to table? How does it play?
 

VisionStorm

Legendary Member
Joined
May 4, 2020
Messages
848
Reaction score
2,032
We are prepping a Steampunk SWADE campaign, none of us having played Savage Worlds before. SWADE is a very nice compact rulebook that worked well even though we were passing it around the table at the pub.

But my, there are some redundancies. Abilities and Skills are both Traits. One has to look under Traits to find them. Traits appear to be a completely unnecessary category. If one wants to cast a spell you have to choose an Edge, a Skill and a Power to get there. Again there is a redundant stratum. Are these things fan service left over from old editions, i.e. “it’s just not Savage Worlds” without them?

I’d also like to give a shout out to Mean Streets from Precis Intermedia. What a nicely designed ruleset with everything where it should be, including stat blocks for stock NPCs that are very easy to lift and plug in. All black & white with good illustrations. Was design just better fifteen years ago than it is now with barely readable full colour? Has anyone ever got Mean Streets to table? How does it play?

Yeah, I haven't had a chance to play SW yet, but I've been creating a bunch of characters for the 2023 Character Creation challenge. And one of the nitpicks I've run into is the redundancy of Attributes vs Skills in particular, where Attributes don't really do much on their own for the most part (outside of a few Resistance-type tests), but you have to drag them around cuz they serve as a softcap for Skills. Meaning that skills can only be increased as high as the parent attribute's die type for the regular cost, so that if you don't want to pay more you have to increase the (otherwise mostly useless) attribute. But you have to spend a whole "Advance" to do that, which means that you'd have to wait for a future Advance to even increase the actual skill you wanted.

It adds an whole extra layer of complexity when Skills are the thing you really use in the game, and the minor function of some attributes being used for some resistance tests could still theoretically be covered by an appropriate skill instead. Same with stuff like Vigor affecting your Toughness, which could simply be covered by an Edge. So why not just turn those functions into skills or Edges and be done with it? Why have to drag mostly useless attributes around instead of making everything just a Skill or an Edge?

I also see skill rolls to use Powers as a little redundant, since you also have to spend Power Points on their use. It makes sense if you're trying to "Short" the power (i.e. use the power at a reduced PP cost), or have to make an attack with it. But otherwise it's just an extra step for something that already costs you to use.
 

Baulderstone

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Joined
May 13, 2017
Messages
8,677
Reaction score
25,132
We are prepping a Steampunk SWADE campaign, none of us having played Savage Worlds before. SWADE is a very nice compact rulebook that worked well even though we were passing it around the table at the pub.

But my, there are some redundancies. Abilities and Skills are both Traits. One has to look under Traits to find them. Traits appear to be a completely unnecessary category. If one wants to cast a spell you have to choose an Edge, a Skill and a Power to get there. Again there is a redundant stratum. Are these things fan service left over from old editions, i.e. “it’s just not Savage Worlds” without them?

I’d also like to give a shout out to Mean Streets from Precis Intermedia. What a nicely designed ruleset with everything where it should be, including stat blocks for stock NPCs that are very easy to lift and plug in. All black & white with good illustrations. Was design just better fifteen years ago than it is now with barely readable full colour? Has anyone ever got Mean Streets to table? How does it play?
I agree that it would have been a good move with SWADE to just make all Traits one category. I think Abilities and skills are often redundant in games. Sadly, I think it's too soon to do another big change to SW. The biggest problem would be that it would weaken backwards compatibility, which SW has been pretty good at keeping so far.
 

E-Rocker

Not a goose
Joined
Mar 25, 2019
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
7,199
If I were creating a game, it would either use only attributes or only skills. I'm not a fan of any game having both, especially as the split between them is often arbitrary and poorly thought out.

That said, I've been running a SWADE game for nearly 3.5 years, and in-play the attributes/skills split has been a complete non-issue.
 

EmperorNorton

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2018
Messages
4,654
Reaction score
12,299
Eh, the thing about Savage Worlds and Attributes vs Skills is that in general the way it works is: Skill = Active use, Attribute = Passive Use.

Attributes are rolled in response to someone using a skill on you, or in cases in the system where you would be resisting something (like soak rolls). This is useful because everyone has all 5 Attributes, while not everyone would have every skill.
 

Baulderstone

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Joined
May 13, 2017
Messages
8,677
Reaction score
25,132
If I were creating a game, it would either use only attributes or only skills. I'm not a fan of any game having both, especially as the split between them is often arbitrary and poorly thought out.

That said, I've been running a SWADE game for nearly 3.5 years, and in-play the attributes/skills split has been a complete non-issue.
That's my feeling. I can see the issue, but it doesn't matter in the heat of play.
 

VisionStorm

Legendary Member
Joined
May 4, 2020
Messages
848
Reaction score
2,032
Eh, the thing about Savage Worlds and Attributes vs Skills is that in general the way it works is: Skill = Active use, Attribute = Passive Use.

Attributes are rolled in response to someone using a skill on you, or in cases in the system where you would be resisting something (like soak rolls). This is useful because everyone has all 5 Attributes, while not everyone would have every skill.

Yeah, but from what I've read so far, every resistance test tends to be either a Spirit or Vigor test, and Strength seems to exist just for melee damage. Everything else seems to be a skill test, and there's no reason why there can't be a Resolve (Spirit) and Endurance (Vigor) skill that everyone has for free at d4, just like Athletics, Notice, etc. And melee weapons could just do double dice damage, like ranged weapons, with a bonus from Size or if you have the Brawny edge or whatever.

Plus Parry is a passive value derived from a skill so there's already precedent for skill being used to resist stuff. Granted, Parry is a static value, while Spirit and Vigor test make you do opposed rolls. But mathematically they're almost the same thing, since Parry is the average die value +2. And there are also skills used for opposed rolls essentially to resist stuff, like Stealth vs Notice.

So Attributes are basically just a skill tax. They're something you have to blow an Advance every once in a while to avoid having to pay double for skill increases.
 

EmperorNorton

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2018
Messages
4,654
Reaction score
12,299
Yeah, but from what I've read so far, every resistance test tends to be either a Spirit or Vigor test, and Strength seems to exist just for melee damage. Everything else seems to be a skill test, and there's no reason why there can't be a Resolve (Spirit) and Endurance (Vigor) skill that everyone has for free at d4, just like Athletics, Notice, etc. And melee weapons could just do double dice damage, like ranged weapons, with a bonus from Size or if you have the Brawny edge or whatever.

Plus Parry is a passive value derived from a skill so there's already precedent for skill being used to resist stuff. Granted, Parry is a static value, while Spirit and Vigor test make you do opposed rolls. But mathematically they're almost the same thing, since Parry is the average die value +2. And there are also skills used for opposed rolls essentially to resist stuff, like Stealth vs Notice.

So Attributes are basically just a skill tax. They're something you have to blow an Advance every once in a while to avoid having to pay double for skill increases.

Check the rules on Tests. Tests are a big deal and a central part of the combat system and you should be using them. If you had to explicitly buy up skills to counter tests, then they would be WAY too easy to pull off. Also, Smarts is used for the range of powers, and quite a few powers are resisted by various Attributes. Also Evasion for area of effect attacks is Agility. There are a ton of places in the rules where Attributes are used passively or reflexively.
 

VisionStorm

Legendary Member
Joined
May 4, 2020
Messages
848
Reaction score
2,032
Check the rules on Tests. Tests are a big deal and a central part of the combat system and you should be using them. If you had to explicitly buy up skills to counter tests, then they would be WAY too easy to pull off. Also, Smarts is used for the range of powers, and quite a few powers are resisted by various Attributes. Also Evasion for area of effect attacks is Agility. There are a ton of places in the rules where Attributes are used passively or reflexively.

How would skills be easier to pull off when they're on the same scale as attributes for rolls? They're also more specific and numerous, so you'd still be spread thin trying to grab every resistance related skill (if they were treated as skills), even if skills cost only half as much as attributes.

Power ranges could be handled by the power's skill, which is more directly related. Stuff resisted by Smarts could be replaced with Academics, or Notice in the case of stuff like Illusions. Evasion could be handled with Athletics. Stuff resisted by Strength could probably be resisted with Athletics as well, though, that might weight things in favor of Athletics a bit as the go-to skill for physical stuff.

Looking at powers, though, there's a lot of stuff that's resisted by skills already, so it's not like this is an alien concept to the game. The majority of stuff is resisted by Spirit, though, which could just as easily be a skill.

By the way, I'm not disputing that attribute tests appear listed in the rules. What I'm asking is, are they truly necessary from a game design point of view? Do these test have to be handled by attributes specifically, as opposed to an appropriate skill (which are already used in some situations)? Cuz I think skills alone would handle a lot of this stuff more efficiently, rather than relying on attributes that have only situational uses and otherwise just tax your skill development.
 

EmperorNorton

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2018
Messages
4,654
Reaction score
12,299
How would skills be easier to pull off when they're on the same scale as attributes for rolls? They're also more specific and numerous, so you'd still be spread thin trying to grab every resistance related skill (if they were treated as skills), even if skills cost only half as much as attributes.

Power ranges could be handled by the power's skill, which is more directly related. Stuff resisted by Smarts could be replaced with Academics, or Notice in the case of stuff like Illusions. Evasion could be handled with Athletics. Stuff resisted by Strength could probably be resisted with Athletics as well, though, that might weight things in favor of Athletics a bit as the go-to skill for physical stuff.

Looking at powers, though, there's a lot of stuff that's resisted by skills already, so it's not like this is an alien concept to the game. The majority of stuff is resisted by Spirit, though, which could just as easily be a skill.

By the way, I'm not disputing that attribute tests appear listed in the rules. What I'm asking is, are they truly necessary from a game design point of view? Do these test have to be handled by attributes specifically, as opposed to an appropriate skill (which are already used in some situations)? Cuz I think skills alone would handle a lot of this stuff more efficiently, rather than relying on attributes that have only situational uses and otherwise just tax your skill development.

They would be easier to pull off because no way in hell that you can buy up all the resistances you would need to resist them, so it would be way easier for someone to find a skill you have no skill in resist to. By making the defenses against attributes, which everyone has, it keeps tests from being incredibly easy.

And if you did decide to make them all skills, then defenses would basically just become must buy skills. Especially whatever is used for soak.

By making them attributes that use a different set of points, you end up having to balance your various defenses against each other, rather than balancing your skills and defenses against each other.

Also, I would say the intention IS to make skill development a little bit harder on the higher end. Hitting d12 in a skill is way too easy if you take away the attribute limits.
 

VisionStorm

Legendary Member
Joined
May 4, 2020
Messages
848
Reaction score
2,032
They would be easier to pull off because no way in hell that you can buy up all the resistances you would need to resist them, so it would be way easier for someone to find a skill you have no skill in resist to. By making the defenses against attributes, which everyone has, it keeps tests from being incredibly easy.

And if you did decide to make them all skills, then defenses would basically just become must buy skills. Especially whatever is used for soak.

Ah, I thought you were saying that resisting stuff would be easier, not the other way around. But I already addressed this stuff in the post where I originally brought this up, when I mentioned that everyone would get these resistance skills free (or at least the ones I made up to replace Spirit and Vigor), same way stuff like Athletics, Common Knowledge, Notice, Perception and Stealth are free at d4 to everyone.

By making them attributes that use a different set of points, you end up having to balance your various defenses against each other, rather than balancing your skills and defenses against each other.

I think this is kind of a wash, since not having attributes would mean that you only have to focus on skills (might even get a few extra points during creation for them), and there aren't that many skills in the game anyways. Plus there are already some skills used to resist stuff, so you already have to balance at least some defensive skills with practical ones.

You're also basically forced to invest on Fighting and Shooting, even though anyone in the world (IRL) can easily pick up a weapon and swing or point it at someone. Though, that's kind of a different peeve I have, but it's kinda related to this.

Also, I would say the intention IS to make skill development a little bit harder on the higher end. Hitting d12 in a skill is way too easy if you take away the attribute limits.

They could also gate d10 and d12 behind higher ranks, and maybe make d12 cost double, to make max skill level special. But making skill development reliant on increasing an attribute that doesn't contribute to them is a very roundabout way of handling it.
 

EmperorNorton

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2018
Messages
4,654
Reaction score
12,299
And then you kind of end up with the same thing you have now but even weirder in my opinion. All the other skills are about actively doing things, but then you have these five defensive skills thrown in there that you don't really actively use. And you have to use the same pool of points for both.

I think of it like D&D saves. They could have been shoved into the skill system, but it feels wonky for them to use the same resources.

Idk man, I can get that you don't like it, but I guess I am coming from the perception of the thread title "Game Design Sins" and I just don't see this as being objectionable, just a different way than you would have done it.
 

VisionStorm

Legendary Member
Joined
May 4, 2020
Messages
848
Reaction score
2,032
And then you kind of end up with the same thing you have now but even weirder in my opinion. All the other skills are about actively doing things, but then you have these five defensive skills thrown in there that you don't really actively use. And you have to use the same pool of points for both.

I think of it like D&D saves. They could have been shoved into the skill system, but it feels wonky for them to use the same resources.

Idk man, I can get that you don't like it, but I guess I am coming from the perception of the thread title "Game Design Sins" and I just don't see this as being objectionable, just a different way than you would have done it.

IDK, I kinda see having to jump through hoops to increase a skill as kind of a design sin. But I can agree that it's perhaps not the worse of them, and have been enjoying creating SW characters these past few days regardless of my gripes (I have some with every system I try). So can I agree to disagree on this and move on.
 

Brand55

Active Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2017
Messages
28
Reaction score
76
The new rule in SWADE about how attributes and skills work is one of the major reasons I stayed with Deluxe instead. Strength got absolutely screwed because it's primarily used actively in real life, but all the stuff that people actually do in the game gets shoved into skills tied to agility instead. Want to pull off a feat of strength by toppling a statue over to slow down the bad guys chasing you? I hope your agility is high so that you can have a good athletics skill.

Then if you want to use the athletics skill tied to strength instead of agility, which is perfectly reasonable, you have to pay an Edge tax. No thank you. Boosting strength becomes an actual hindrance in modern and sci-fi games where you don't need to tote around heavy armor and a big weapon.
 

Sharrow

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2021
Messages
511
Reaction score
1,168
I bounce off Savage Worlds every time I read it. Even if things are going well to that point, sooner or later I get to the equipment section, and I'm reminded that their gun stats don't make a lot of sense, and at that point I lose trust that they've done the rest of the game right. SWADE is 'better' because they've removed the katana's massive 'ethnic badass' bonuses and simply taken out more of the offending guns (not fixed, just removed from the rules), but it's still not good there, and I can't get past that.
 

Brand55

Active Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2017
Messages
28
Reaction score
76
Even if things are going well to that point, sooner or later I get to the equipment section, and I'm reminded that their gun stats don't make a lot of sense
Sadly, that's how I feel about practically all the rpgs I've read. There are so many factors that can affect how a round performs even when you're looking at just one caliber that actual realism is impossible.

But yeah, I facepalmed hard when I first read SW and saw that getting hit by .50 BMG was only a tiny bit more damaging than a bullet from a Garand. Gun damage as a whole is far too compressed into a narrow range. I also really hate how the big two-handed melee weapons aren't worth using at all.
 

migo

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2023
Messages
250
Reaction score
464
Sadly, that's how I feel about practically all the rpgs I've read. There are so many factors that can affect how a round performs even when you're looking at just one caliber that actual realism is impossible.

But yeah, I facepalmed hard when I first read SW and saw that getting hit by .50 BMG was only a tiny bit more damaging than a bullet from a Garand. Gun damage as a whole is far too compressed into a narrow range. I also really hate how the big two-handed melee weapons aren't worth using at all.
How much experience do we actually have of humans being shot with .50 BMG? And then at the same range you would shoot a Garand? If the target is a person, .50 BMG is being used at ranges over a mile.

There's also going to be the issue of what are you using? There aren't any .50 BMG hunting rounds that I am aware of, but there are plenty of .30-06 hunting rounds. Does a .30-06 BSP do more damage than a .50 BMG FMJ against a man or deer size target? Possibly. What is an adventuring party most likely to have?
 

Baulderstone

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Joined
May 13, 2017
Messages
8,677
Reaction score
25,132
I bounce off Savage Worlds every time I read it. Even if things are going well to that point, sooner or later I get to the equipment section, and I'm reminded that their gun stats don't make a lot of sense, and at that point I lose trust that they've done the rest of the game right. SWADE is 'better' because they've removed the katana's massive 'ethnic badass' bonuses and simply taken out more of the offending guns (not fixed, just removed from the rules), but it's still not good there, and I can't get past that.
The weapons in SW have always been designed specifically for tabletop mini play. As an example, weapon ranges are deliberately short. I like Savage Worlds, but it's not a game that works well if you are looking realism. Savage Worlds just isn't interested in that.
 

Sharrow

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2021
Messages
511
Reaction score
1,168
Sadly, that's how I feel about practically all the rpgs I've read. There are so many factors that can affect how a round performs even when you're looking at just one caliber that actual realism is impossible.

But yeah, I facepalmed hard when I first read SW and saw that getting hit by .50 BMG was only a tiny bit more damaging than a bullet from a Garand. Gun damage as a whole is far too compressed into a narrow range. I also really hate how the big two-handed melee weapons aren't worth using at all.
I can forgive the narrow damage range - the whole damage range in SW is very narrow, and it's obviously a fairly coarse system.

From the Deluxe Edition:

However, that's no excuse to have all pistols do basically the same damage except the 9mm Glock (2d6+1 and 2d8 are basically the same once you account for open-ended dice) and the Ruger .22 (and .22LR doing 2d6-1? Really?).

Then there's the matter of the AK-47 doing more damage than the G3 (7.62x51mm NATO). That should be reversed. Which machinegunes get 2d8 vs 2d8+1 seems to be pretty arbitrary. For some unknown reason a .50 BMG is a 'Heavy Weapon' but the 14.5mm KPV is not (I assume this was just an oversight), but the .50 BMG should not have better armour penetration than the 14.5mm.

As for the AT and tank guns... They are simply awful.

And of course there's the armour-piercing katana that does damage like a greatsword, but doesn't require nearly as much Str, or even 2-hands.

SWADE brings the katana back in line, and reduces .22 pistol damage, but still insists that 9mm is worse than .45 which is as good as .357 magnum. It also still has the AK-47 doing more damage than 7.62x51mm battle rifles and .30-06 rifles. It 'solves' the 14.5mm machinegun problem by removing it. Vehicle weapons still have issues, though some typos have been fixed.

As none of this was hard to research even in the pre-internet days, do what else did they mess up? That's what the little voice in my head keeps saying.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Joined
Jul 9, 2020
Messages
9,608
Reaction score
25,958
I can forgive the narrow damage range - the whole damage range in SW is very narrow, and it's obviously a fairly coarse system.

From the Deluxe Edition:

However, that's no excuse to have all pistols do basically the same damage except the 9mm Glock (2d6+1 and 2d8 are basically the same once you account for open-ended dice) and the Ruger .22 (and .22LR doing 2d6-1? Really?).

Then there's the matter of the AK-47 doing more damage than the G3 (7.62x51mm NATO). That should be reversed. Which machinegunes get 2d8 vs 2d8+1 seems to be pretty arbitrary. For some unknown reason a .50 BMG is a 'Heavy Weapon' but the 14.5mm KPV is not (I assume this was just an oversight), but the .50 BMG should not have better armour penetration than the 14.5mm.

As for the AT and tank guns... They are simply awful.

And of course there's the armour-piercing katana that does damage like a greatsword, but doesn't require nearly as much Str, or even 2-hands.

SWADE brings the katana back in line, and reduces .22 pistol damage, but still insists that 9mm is worse than .45 which is as good as .357 magnum. It also still has the AK-47 doing more damage than 7.62x51mm battle rifles and .30-06 rifles. It 'solves' the 14.5mm machinegun problem by removing it. Vehicle weapons still have issues, though some typos have been fixed.

As none of this was hard to research even in the pre-internet days, do what else did they mess up? That's what the little voice in my head keeps saying.
This is exactly why I usually don't give a shit about this level of detail when it comes to guns.
 

SJB

Legendary Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2021
Messages
450
Reaction score
1,048
I bounce off Savage Worlds every time I read it. Even if things are going well to that point, sooner or later I get to the equipment section, and I'm reminded that their gun stats don't make a lot of sense, and at that point I lose trust that they've done the rest of the game right. SWADE is 'better' because they've removed the katana's massive 'ethnic badass' bonuses and simply taken out more of the offending guns (not fixed, just removed from the rules), but it's still not good there, and I can't get past that.
Sorry, meant to hit “sad”. Getting guns wrong is no laughing matter.
 

Sharrow

Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2021
Messages
511
Reaction score
1,168
The weapons in SW have always been designed specifically for tabletop mini play. As an example, weapon ranges are deliberately short. I like Savage Worlds, but it's not a game that works well if you are looking realism. Savage Worlds just isn't interested in that.
I don't care about the short weapon ranges - I get why they're like that. I don't care that .50AE Desert Eagles do the same damage as rifles - I get why they do that. But... when you have a system that does distinguish between 'big pistol' and 'medium pistol' and 'small pistol', for the love of all, get them in the right category. Saying an M1 Garand does the same damage as a single shot from an M16, while an AK-47 does more than either, that will bust any suspension of disbelief I had good and hard, and probably irreparably.

And so, every time I run into this, I put SW down and walk away.
 
Cthulhu Mythos - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Top