While one faction of UGAX (Ultimate Gamer Assembly X) walks the beat in ancient Rome, the rest of us have decided to give Savage Worlds a test drive by playing through the scripted Evernight campaign which is the first released "setting book" in the SW product line.

For those who are not familiar with it Savage Worlds is the latest RPG from Deadlands creator Shane Hensley. It's intended to be a set of universal rules supplemented by specific setting books, but unlike the simulationist, detail heavy approach to a universal ruleset of something like Hero or GURPS, SW is very explicitly gamist, even to the point that the ruleset is offered both as an RPG engine and as a skirmish level miniatures engine. This puts it in the same league as d20, but a bit less detailed, perhaps even harking back to white-box D&D in its style. In fact, I specifically get a sort of "modernized T&T" vibe off it.

Evernight is "scripted campaign" (i.e. please ignore the two steel rails underfoot) for SW, set in a very straightforward (at least so far) D&D fantasy derived setting, with the small wrinkle that early black powder weapons are available.

This has been an interesting outing for me, since I've spent the last 9 months of my gaming life embedded among the "liberal elite" of Seattle Gamers Assemble. SW in general and Evernight in particular represent a return to a more "mainstream" style of RPG play than what I've been accustomed to, but since it is among UGAX folks, we are definitely going into this with our eyes open. Much like Ron's experiment with T&T, we have a commitment to "play it as written" and let the dice fall where they may.

The Evernight setting explicitly pokes fun at the D&D trope of the party by setting up a world in which successful bands of heros have "rock star" like status, and the players are a group of young hopefuls. In our case they are:

Adrastea the Sun Priestess and her Kep Hound Io
Woodchuck the Half-folk (read Halfling) musketeer
Achebe the Pirate (my character) and his Kep Hound Ikemefune

Let me clarify that when I say pirate, I'm not going with the "arr matey" parrot on the shoulder archetype, I'm coming more from the Conan sea raider style.

Also, let me point out one feature of SW which I really enjoy, which is that the rules explicitly encourage players to have NPC sidekicks, and allow the players to control their own sidekicks. So the two dogs in the party are each played by their owners. I have to say at points I'm having as much fun playing "Ike" as I am playing Achebe.

So far we've played two sessions in which our characters were charged to deliver a letter to a famous hero type, got exposed to a little color, rescued some lumberjacks from an Orc encampment, found the hero band we were supposed to give the letter to dead in some ruins, fought nasty crab creature in said ruins, got trapped by cave-in in said ruins, and eventually snuck/fought our way out the back door of said ruins.

Here is a selection of some of the more interesting moments from my perspective:

Having originally modeled my character on a Conan like sea raider, I wanted a combat capable character, but I envisioned a tough, agile knife fighter, rather than the traditional D&D big sword/big armor tank. At a certain point (right after our party was nearly slaughtered by the nasty crab creature) I realized that that just wasn't going to work within the rules, so I picked up the magic sword that was proffered in the available loot. In most of my play, I usually prioritize exploration of character over effectiveness, but I realized that to "step on up" you have to live within the structure of the rules you are playing. Plus, Conan picked up a big sword when he needed it ;)

Still, its not all kewl toyz before role playing. On the way up to the ruins, the characters stopped at the local village inn, where my character proceeded to indulge in one of the classic blunders, only slightly less well known than "never get into a land war in Asia", which was challenging a dwarf to a drinking contest. We paid for that one later on the way up to the ruins when a drunk Achebe stumbled into the middle of an Orc encampment unprepared, eliminating the possibility of a "tactical sneak up" that was no doubt envisioned by the scenario writer. We (especially I) paid for that one. (Aside, my character has the hindrances of "Curious" and "Minor Habit (Drunkard)".

As a rules aside, I have to say I like the fact that in SW, wounds and fatigue wear a character down, unlike D&D where you are in fine fettle right up to the last hit point. As a player, it's a pain in the ass when it is happening, but it also adds a nice "resource management" challenge to the game. Also it turns out that in SW, healing magic is much less effective than its D&D counterpart.

The true gamist nature of what we are up against was brought home by the fight against the crab creature, which came very close to resulting in a total party kill. Achebe, already wounded, was womped to the point that he was still moving but useless, the Sun Priestess and her dog were taken out (Ikemefuna had to drag her body away from the crab to prevent it from being trampled) and only a lucky last minute head shot from Woodchuck's musket took the thing down. However, the fact that we *did* survive in the face of real, honest to goodness danger, does bring with it a powerful sense of accomplishment. Gamism is not without its rewards.

Final note: in the "pile o' treasure" we got for defeating the crab, Woodchuck found a huge magic maul of smacking stuff, and that combined with his blunderbuss and his generally surly and bloodthirsty attitude has lead us to decide that he looks like the character on the cover of SJG's Munchkin.

Crabs have heads?

Couple points ...

Our T&T game isn't so much of an "experiment" as an honest-to-gosh wallow. Less "h'm, let's try to be Gamist" and more "Wa-hoo-reeee-aahhhh!"

You wrote,

However, the fact that we *did* survive in the face of real, honest to goodness danger, does bring with it a powerful sense of accomplishment. Gamism is not without its rewards.

Ron Edwards wrote:
Crabs have heads?

That's one of the ideas behind WOTC's Adventure Path - common experience between many different D&D players.

Just wanted to pop my head in here and say a couple things: First, I've been wanting to play SW for some time now, so I'm jealous. Second, thanks for sharing your experiences.

Question: How do you think a game group of D&D3-heads would take to SW?

ethan_greer wrote:
Question: How do you think a game group of D&D3-heads would take to SW?

Jack Spencer Jr wrote: I picked up the All My Children board game (AMC).
...
I am liking the method of this game, but the execution and color don't really thrill me.

I feel almost certain that Jack meant that to be its own thread. Jack? Mods? Edit: Oops, didn't notice it was already given it's own thread in Actual Play.

Rafial, thanks for the insight!

I am playing Adrastea the Sun Priestess and her Kep Hound Io.

Since I was unfamiliar with the SW system and had only the Test Drive rule set and the Evernight Players Guide at my disposal I chose to just play one of the pregens. (Human Sun Priestess, page 32 of Evernight Players Guide) I had in inkling that the game was going to be more “traditionalist” and therefore thought it would be nice to have a healer in the group. It also occurred to me that I could potentially assume two corners of the holy trinity, that of healer and that of crowd control ( the third being that of a melee tank type). The character starts with a healing spell (spells for the Priestess class are called Miracles) and a direct damage spell. My plan was to upgrade to the Fear spell to do crowd control as soon as possible. Such were my plans.

Thoughts on the Healing Priestess: (fully aware that I am talking about a green character)

Magical healing is kind of lame. It is expensive (3 power points which take three hours to regenerate) and can only be used within one hour of the wound being taken. This is not consistent with the other magical form of healing in the game, Potions. These can be administered effectively at any time that an injury is present. So I guess I do not see the point of the added restriction on magical healing (it is miricle after all and Adrastea is a Priestess), and it is already expensive (costing almost 1/3 of available power points for a new character). The up side is of course that magical healing can be cast during combat. The other form of healing is the old fashioned one, direct pressure and bandages. Next to Potions this is the most effective way to remove wounds as you are able to make three attempts at it before the one hour limit for healing expires. In that sense taking the Healing edge might prove to be a wise choice since it adds +2 to healing rolls.

In terms of direct damage if she manages to hit, she can pack a wallop! 3d6 damage for 2 power points and the ability to attack added targets for additional power points. This is a great way to get those early tough NPCs shaken since the early melee types have a hard time mustering the damage totals needed to rattle them. But now that Woodchuck and Achebe have looted some fine weapons it seems less important. Since melee characters suffer no fatigue penalty for swinging a heavy weapon over and over and a caster suffers the loss of power points each cast (a type of fatigue) I see this division increasing over time. Well, at least until the pool of power points grow to a sustainable size.

I guess this all points me towards developing a more generalized character with emphasis on utility and support spells. In the end I think that this is were Adrastea is headed.

Thoughts on everything else:

Coordination of attacks and general team work seems to be essential.
The Kep Hounds are pretty worthless fighters, but serve as really excellent distractions. (Tricks)
Characters banged up and fatigued really display the effects.
Stealth and surprise are good.
I like playing it now that I have a better idea of what happens when and how it all fits together.

Edit - - - -

I forgot to pitch one of my favorite parts so far. (Well, the challenging a dwarf to a drinking contest was amusing for sure.) I agree with Rafial in that SW can have as many RP facets as you want it to. During the dreadful fight in the caves Adrastea was faced with a point where she should have run. In fact, any reasonable person would have. But, Adrastea has hindrances of Loyal and Heroic. It was pretty clear that she could not run and in fact would have never even considered it. She stood her ground and got massacred. Woodchuck then stepped up and saved the day.

The cool thing was that a situation that had all the appearances of being a party stopper turned out to have a really cool resolution. Bummed as I was that I believed my character was about to be sent to the next world I was pleased about her facing the enemy while standing over her wounded companion. Turned out to be good story.

Dan is doing a great job BTW. Thanks

Hey Rafial,

Much like Ron's experiment with T&T, we have a commitment to "play it as written" and let the dice fall where they may.

I must say, it's absolutely perfect timing that you guys are doing this...because tonight our group is going to do the exact opposite to Evernight. I'm thrilled, actually. It's going to be real interesting to compare notes. Here's what's up with us:

For a long time, I've been wanting to attempt setting-premise Narrativism. Our group's prior games have all been character-premise Narrativism. And in browsing it at a local game store the Evernight book took me completely by surprise with the delivery of a setting-premise on page 7:

"A few sages worry that the reliance on 'heroes' has made the average man too dependent on others to resolve his problems."

So I bought it.

Of course, the Savage Worlds rules reward Gamist play, and Evernight played to completion only allows one answer to the question of whether the common man has come to over-rely on heroes: "no." So what I determined was that I'd use the EPICS rules, which I think can deliver on setting-premise Narrativism, and that I'd just use creatures, villains, setting and situation from Evernight as a basis for my scenario the same way I used the Sun & Storm setting when I ran The Pool.

Ultimately though, I've probably strayed so far from the setting and situation in the Evernight book in service to Narrativist goals that it's not really the same thing anymore. But that in itself is pretty interesting, I think. I've found, for instance, that the villains are just too thematically undifferentiated for Narrativism.

And okay, I will admit to one other motive. For almost twenty years I've wanted to beat the tar out of Dragonlance. When Dragonlance became the way to game, I gave up gaming. And dammit if I'm not here on Shore Leave, with Finnegan standing in front of me...

Paul

Hmmm. I found Savage Worlds all to be rather Sim, really (and that's playing two demos of it with Mr. Hensley GMing himself; great GM). I mean, where's the gamist rewards? Benies seem to be given for acting in genre; I got several for heroic acts, etc. So no Pawn stance, just in-character play. I'm failing to see the tactical side of things, it's all just run up and attack style mechanics.

No challenge, no gamist reward, no pawn stance...where's the Gamism? I mean, sure, the genre is about fighting stuff, but that's hardly different than most Sim games.

Mike

Paul Czege wrote: So what I determined was that I'd use the EPICS rules, which I think can deliver on setting-premise Narrativism, and that I'd just use creatures, villains, setting and situation from Evernight as a basis for my scenario

Mike Holmes wrote: I found Savage Worlds all to be rather Sim, really (and that's playing two demos of it with Mr. Hensley GMing himself; great GM). I mean, where's the gamist rewards? Benies seem to be given for acting in genre;

I got several for heroic acts, etc. So no Pawn stance, just in-character play.

I'm failing to see the tactical side of things, it's all just run up and attack style mechanics.

Pawn stance is just a choice. I'm not saying that a game has to have all of these criteria for it to be Gamist, but it has to have some of them. And I can't find any.

Cool edges aren't powergaming. EXP can only be used for advancement in D&D, and are given out for winning. Bennies are useful for a wide range of things. Including doing cool stuff, which is meant to make play become more in-genre. By allowing characters to do dangerous things more safely, you get the wild action that the game tries to promote. Unlike Gamist games where you get conservative tactical play. And you get bennies for playing in-genre, and not for winning. So, again, you're not encouraged to win, or even overcome the challenge so much as to play in-genre.

Yes the situational bonuses are somewhat important to overcoming obstacles, but that's simulative. It's not difficult to just look at the list and pick the best available modifiers. No challenge there. In D&D and T&T et al, the real challenge is resource management. For many SW characters there's none of this at all outside bennies. And, again, given that bennies are given for doing things that are otherwise tactically unsound, there's no real strategy that one can employ in terms of these, other than not to blow them all on something that's less than climactic. The linear adventures don't seem to me to be a bennie saving challenge, so much as a script that accellerates to a climax. Pretty standard Sim stuff.

Where's the "Step on Up?" as Ron would call it? What's the hard part that makes it tactical challenge of some sort?

Mike

Just to clarify, and not to take sides regarding Mike's questions, "Step On Up" refers to the social pressure that people may bring to some shared activity, in terms of one another's guts and tactical skills.

In other words, Step On Up cannot be defined by rules-sets, but rules-sets (and playing by them) can facilitate Step On Up. It is a creative agenda, and it is synonymous with Gamist play.

"Challenge" refers to the in-game, imagined situation that puts the characters at risk in any way. It is not, itself, necessarily Gamist. But if you are playing Gamist, then Challenge is a big deal.

Best,
Ron

And, well, that's precisely why I used the term. Player challenge, as opposed to character challenge.

If a game has a rule that says when a character meets a challenge that the player rolls a die and then checks a chart to see what happens, that's a challenge to the character, but not to the player. If, instead, the player has to make important decisions, such that in the end he can claim as a player to have done well or poorly, that's the player challenge or, as Ron calls it, Step on Up.

I'm not seeing the Step on Up at all. Character challenge at every step, but no challenge to the player.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: Cool edges aren't powergaming.

And you get bennies for playing in-genre, and not for winning. So, again, you're not encouraged to win, or even overcome the challenge so much as to play in-genre.

In D&D and T&T et al, the real challenge is resource management. For many SW characters there's none of this at all outside bennies.

And, again, given that bennies are given for doing things that are otherwise tactically unsound, there's no real strategy that one can employ in terms of these, other than not to blow them all on something that's less than climactic.

The linear adventures don't seem to me to be a bennie saving challenge, so much as a script that accellerates to a climax. Pretty standard Sim stuff.

Where's the "Step on Up?" as Ron would call it? What's the hard part that makes it tactical challenge of some sort?

I'm not seeing the Step on Up at all. Character challenge at every step, but no challenge to the player.

Mike's experience with SW is somewhat colored by the fact that the two games we played at Origins with Shane and his sidekick Dirk were

1) both demo games
2) involved only 1 real fight each
3) involved no sidekicks or subordinates
4) Did not use a battle map and played REAL fast and loose with distance and range rules,

and perhaps most importantly the battles in each were against a handful of scrubs backed by 1 boss. In the first session the boss was brought down by a truely heinous series of exploding dice from yours truly, and in the second the boss was designed to show case the "godzilla scale" monster rules, and we were essentially a bunch of scrubs fighting King Kong. I ran away :-)


Thus the miniatures wargame aspect which is the centerpiece of SW was completely missing at our demo. Not that they weren't a blast. I especially enjoyed the Crusade scenario, but I think that's the piece that's missing.

The tactical options expand ENORMOUSLY when you have several additional followers per PC, and a laundry list of Leadership edges to bolster them with.

Mike Holmes wrote: If a game has a rule that says when a character meets a challenge that the player rolls a die and then checks a chart to see what happens, that's a challenge to the character, but not to the player. If, instead, the player has to make important decisions, such that in the end he can claim as a player to have done well or poorly, that's the player challenge or, as Ron calls it, Step on Up.

Actually I think that TROS combat is highly Gamist. Just well cordoned off in that from the rest of the context of play. Hell, it works so well as a Gamist game that we had a little tourney at GenCon where Ralph kicked my ass.

Which must be why he so underestimates my ability to analyze the game. It so happens that I read most of those rules he refers to as we played (hence why I was actually hardly paying attention), and he may also remember that I querried Hensley on the subject specifically when one of the games was over. On your side of the argument, Hensley pointed to those same rules as being about player challenge. But it seems to me that he was under the impression that I was being critical, and he was trying to sell me a copy (and would have had a different answer had the question been different). :-)

Put it this way, to the extent that this is a Gamist game, so is GURPS. The only things that you guys have identified as the Gamist elements are found in GURPS (including mass combat systems that exist for it). But what GURPS does not have is bennies given out for doing heroic deeds, and playing in genre. So I have to conclude that SW is less Gamist supporting than GURPS is.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: So I have to conclude that SW is less Gamist supporting than GURPS is.

It's not that there's no Gamist elements in SW, indeed there are many. All I've been pointing to is a strong Sim element as well. Uh, like the previous poster pointed out about it being a G/S hybrid (or potentially incoherent).

Further, depending on what D&D edition you're refering to, there's Ron's point that Gygax was trying to make the game more simulationist, and that some of these things got into a lot of editions.

For example, in Basic D&D when a character got enough EXP he just went up a level. No attempt to explain where the ability came from, just an assumption that suddenly, Bang, the character was better. Very pawn stance for Gamism there. In AD&D1 there suddenly appeared all this text about how a character had to go off for X number of weeks and train. An attempt to make the event more plausible in terms of in-game action.

So, yes, most D&D editions have Gamist support elements. But there's a lot of Sim in there as well. Yet it's always been an irony to me that D&D is actually a bad "game". That is, while there are some tactical considerations that stem mostly from resource management that you cite, there's very little real mental challenge to it all. It's a wargame with one somewhat complicated unit per player. Pretty easy decision making (fight! Run!) I used to say that D&D didn't really have a combat system because of the abstracted one minute rounds.

Most of the challenge, in fact, comes from GM's making up puzzles in dungeons. Which, unlike say T&T, there are few rules about. Basically, it seems to me that GM's are informed that the game is Gamist by it's reward system (EXP/Level) and the "modules" available that they feel it neccessary to add to the player challenge. Again, it's all the reward system that's the cause.

In the SW reward system you see that players are rewarded on the spot for playing in-genre. Yes there's an experience system, but that actually seems to have little to do with challenge. As you put it, it's for finishing the adventure. Which, given the feeling I get that the players seldom "lose" (fail to achieve the goal), seems to me as yet another reward for playing. No different really than points given for attendance. Also, the rewards delivered are Sim "gradual improvement" effects which players react in a less aquisitive way than levels (which are quite cathartic in terms of the massiveness of the reward). These are actually more social rewards, I think, and don't really relate to a GNS preference in any way; just a thanks for playing. Again, from what I can see, the mechanic that's going to have the most effect on in-play decisions are the bennies. And, relative to D&D EXP, that's a Sim sort of mechanic.

Want a really Gamist game inn terms of high levels of player challenge? Try Rune, where the real skill is building an advanture that will defeat the characters, but not kill them all off. Now that's a challenge. I think that SW is a Sim game with some nifty Gamist options (the mass rules, mostly) thrown in.

Mike