savage worlds - easy DMing makes game more fun for players

[longarms]

Made the switch from D&D 3.5 to savage worlds and ran my first SW game this weekend.

I started the session with a totally chessy, cliche, red herring, boring plot hook pretty much as a joke to warm things up until the real plot hook took over. As often occurs when DMing, I was surprised by my player's choice.

Instead of pursuing what I thought would be the more interesting plot hook, they seemed to take interest in the totally cliche joke-hook. If I had been DMing d20, I would have invested a lot of prep work for the intended hook. As a result, I would have been more tempted to railroad my players down that path, or if I didn't railroad them, been left frustrated at all the prep time lost.

However, with the light prep work associated with SW, I figured what the heck and just threw the intended hook out the window. We developed the unintended hook more as we played, and good times were had by all. Things could have turned out differently if this was a d20 game whereby the prep work would have tempted me to railroad.

At the end of the session one of my players said he really liked my DMing style. That was pretty good news since this is my first time DMing with SW.

He then suggested that the session would have been even better had we used the D&D 3.5 ruleset. I told him no, of course, but I think it was an ironic comment. The session we had would have absolutely been different in "style" had I used the "other" ruleset, for the reasons I explained above. I would submit that he almost certainly would have had less freedom as a player, and may have actually had less fun.

If I could characterize the style of the game this weekend, I would say it was much closer to my good ole days of AD&D 2.0 than D&D 3.5 ever was. And I mean that from either side of the coin too - as a player in some D&D 3.5 games here on FG the often plodding paced and often railroading style was much different from AD&D 2.0 games. Although I am sticking to savage worlds, I think I could also be pretty happy switching back to AD&D 2.0. Either system is undisputably easier to DM than 3.5, which is arguably better for players in the long run.

[Elf]

I completely agree with longarms on this one. I find that 3.5 is rules heavy and does not lend itself well to off the cuff DMing in a virtual environment. I enjoy 3.5 but I find that I like SW for online play in a free wheeling kind of campaign (as opposed to a scripted campaign).

[Kalan]

That's good to hear longarms :)

I converted fairly early on (being one of the developers of the SW ruleset), and have been active in SW now for the better part of the last two years - and have been trying to convert people to the system. It can be as crunchy, or as light as you want - which is I think perfect, not only for an online format, but in any format (then again, I tend to be a very much off the cuff GM).

Glad to hear you had a good time longarms :) I've seen your comments on the ruleset - and they're being takin into account :)

Take care!

V

[Wook]

I have played in both Savage Worlds and D20 systems and DM in the D20 system.

I can see why many people enjoy the fluid dynamic of the Savage Worlds system. Action resolution is fast and the system is very open ended in character typing. It was a joy to play. That fast pace is not lost on the GM and the ease of game prep makes it that much more enjoyable.

I will say this. If your looking for detail and consistency, you're going to fair better in D20. No, this is not a bash at Savage, I enjoy it for the reasons above. If your detail oriented and enjoy known quantities (knowing your place in the scheme of things) then d20 can provide that experience for you better then Savage Worlds. The price you pay is the time you must commit to that detail.

In terms of running the game. I would challenge the notion that D&D 3.5 is lock step in expressing story lines and adamant in frustrating player choice. The GM/DM has a lot of say in this. This is a style issue, not a systems issue. I will confess that the D20 system will take a little more prep the Savage to facilitate this open ended play, but it is possible and rewarding to tailor your sessions and present your world in such a manner that the players are allowed to choose their own paths. But once again, any lock step your feeling is a matter of DM / Party style and campaign structure, not the ruleset.

I have DMd 3.0 games where after the party gathered some loot from a few local adventures they gave up roaming the land and moved to establish a trading company? and open an inn?? :confused: So, I said OK, and we went about setting up the dynamics as part of the session. The next session they got tired of worrying about having enough ale on tap and saddled up and road off into the wilds.. with no particular destination... :) What allowed for that fluid change was a solid campaign world and a bit of discussion on what direction THEY, not me, were intrested in after each session to help me tailor my prep..

I will say that "new" characters in the world do need a push towards adventure as they do not have the resources to pack up and ride into the great unknown on a whip without disasterous results. I would suggest that after about 4th level, the DM should take off the training wheels and go with the flow. (by this time you'll know what intrests them anyway) Prepare mini adventures in the backgroud, drop hints to these mini-dungeons at the inn, and let the players go where they may, if they decide to open an ice cream stand, fine... :o It's there story... that's my style anyway...

Just a few thoughts...

[longarms]

"I would challenge the notion that D&D 3.5 is lock step in expressing story lines and adamant in frustrating player choice. The GM/DM has a lot of say in this."

The GM has a lot of say in this, but in my opinion the GM is fighting an uphill battle if he is using D&D 3.5. Particulary when trying to run said system using online software, which just amplifies the amount of planning required as well as the plodding pace. This is coming from someone who has DMed with d20 using fantasy grounds for 2+ years and who has played with alot of people DMing the same.

I know the moment I gave up DMing d20 using online software. I was reading a "max character length" post on how to speed up D&D 3.5 combat in FG. People were suggesting essentially dumping certain d20 rules to make combat with FG managable. I realized that I should just find a system with rules that fit well with online gaming - rather than taking one that doesn't and trying to bend them.

Other mini-epiphanies that are not specific to running 3.5 using an online tool:
- trying to keep combat fast paced and excited while trying to read a one page monster stat block. It got so bad that I had to stat my monsters on 3x5 cards so that I could read them without making my players wait. Why should I have to do this???
- having my players ask about exp, consulting the exp table and realizing that it would take too long to calculate exp while my players are waiting, and hearing their dissappointment. Remembering that I am an electrical engineer by training and very quick with numbers in my head... if I can't accurately calculate something in my head (without guestimating), somebody better be providing me with a sliderule. I checked the DM guide and it is missing the slide rule!
- realizing that D&D 4.0 will be out soon. Irony is a cruel bitch - if I ever got to where I felt "fluent" with my D&D 3.5 books like I used to be with my 2.0 books, I would be fighting against the current migrating from 3.5 to 4.0...

[Elf]

I agree with Wook about the style versus system however only in a face to face environment. It is the combination of 3.5 with online play that makes the prep time involved in a free wheeling campaign prohibitive, unless you have a lot of free time between sessions. There is a way around this and that is to limit the source books you allow in the campaign but you still have that prep time curve for a free wheeling style, it should just be slightly less steep. I also tend to let the characters have "training wheels" until around 4th to 5th in a free wheeling campaign, then it is driven by the group's previous adventures and what the group decides to do next.

I also agree with Wook that if you are looking for a system that covers every possible effect in detail than 3.5 is better than SW. I actually play in both systems and enjoy both online, I DM 3.5 online and I find that the prep time is steep but my players like 3.5 so I just have to try and keep up (fortunately my players do not stray too far off the stuff I have prepped).

[Wook]

Hahha,
Longarms, you poor fella.. you didn't get the "Slide Rule of Omni-Knowence" with your DMG? No wonder you dislike the system :o

I will concede on time gentlemen, As mentioned, that is the price you pay for detail and the burden of a commited DM. I use to have 3X5 cards of monster stats readily available, knowing what monsters where in the area and what could be encountered. I also had a tailored random encounter list that was more fitting to my campaign and less open to the disaster that is the "oh, you stumble upon a dragon in the woods, hurray for you"

I want to second an important point that Elf mentioned. I limit my campaigns to the 3 CORE BOOKS books and my worlds are all homebrew. I love the rich setting of FR and it makes for a great gaming background, but it takes time to feel comfortable in that MASSIVE place.

This puts me at an adavtage, and I do not find it limiting. There are so many feats, spells, and monsters, and such in the core material that I find it difficult to beleive much else is required to play the game. I concede that if I let in every class, race and "juicer" book published, I would be fit to tie, yes. But limiting the scope to the core and making your own world, well that is my recipe for a fluid open ended campaign on or offline.

Just some thoughts... and as I said, I play Savage as much as 3.5 these days ;) So, find a DM that wants to put in the time and commits to that style and play Savage, two is better then one. :)

[richvalle]

I will say this. If your looking for detail and consistency, you're going to fair better in D20. No, this is not a bash at Savage, I enjoy it for the reasons above. If your detail oriented and enjoy known quantities (knowing your place in the scheme of things) then d20 can provide that experience for you better then Savage Worlds. The price you pay is the time you must commit to that detail.


I must admit I'm a bit worried about this. I DO like having things well defined and some of my players do as well. At least one likes to 'play the system' and I think with SW he might have a hard time as there is not as much system to play. He's going to be trying to grab at air.

That said, I'm still willing to give it a try and I'm hoping the players will enjoy the openness that is Savage Worlds.

rv

[Sorontar]

I must admit I'm a bit worried about this. I DO like having things well defined and some of my players do as well. At least one likes to 'play the system' and I think with SW he might have a hard time as there is not as much system to play. He's going to be trying to grab at air.

That said, I'm still willing to give it a try and I'm hoping the players will enjoy the openness that is Savage Worlds.

rv

Do you find yourself watching said player so that he doesn't push things too far and go from "playing the system" to "exploiting the system".

I am playing in a couple of games at the moment and have one of these players in each. I suspect the DMs spend far more time than they would wish rooting through Splat books checking things out than they would wish to.

I think the funniest thing I have seen is a player who goes to "optimization" boards and finds an uber build at 20th level, but doesn't realise that in reality it plays like a bag of spanners up to that level.

Anyway I think you may find it refreshing to have everything plain and simple in front of you and hopefully the rest of your group do to.

PS: I am contemplating getting my group a SW:Ex each for Xmas to try and force it onto the table :)

[Valarian]

I must admit, my GMing style is definitely of the "the rules as a guide" type, even with d20. I've not tried SW as a GM yet, but from I've seen as a player it's pretty good. I like d20 as well though, and I'm not going to be making any big leaps. I may run a few SW games though.

[richvalle]

Do you find yourself watching said player so that he doesn't push things too far and go from "playing the system" to "exploiting the system".

I am playing in a couple of games at the moment and have one of these players in each. I suspect the DMs spend far more time than they would wish rooting through Splat books checking things out than they would wish to.

I think the funniest thing I have seen is a player who goes to "optimization" boards and finds an uber build at 20th level, but doesn't realise that in reality it plays like a bag of spanners up to that level.

Anyway I think you may find it refreshing to have everything plain and simple in front of you and hopefully the rest of your group do to.

PS: I am contemplating getting my group a SW:Ex each for Xmas to try and force it onto the table :)

I'm only allowing the Core 3 books and some select feats from the PHB II so its not too bad.

I do have to watch a few players a bit to make sure they don't get too gamey. I think the worse case was when one guy was trying to up is AC in case he got attacked (while not in combat) so wanted to 'fight defensively'. Since it says you have to make an attack while doing this I said it wasn't something he could do. His resonse was to 'attack the ground'. Oh boy. :)

I have one current player who has said he will refuse to play if I use SW as 'I don't want to learn a new system'. He's one of the gamey guys so I'm not worried about it. As long as I can get 4 or more players to give it a try I'll be happy.

rv