Savage Worlds Rifts


  • Pitcrew

    Been playing the crap out of Rifts the Savage Worlds edition and my group was wondering how much of an interest there might be in such a MUX? We have no plans of actually making one, we're just curious to see if there'd even be interest in this setting and system for it. Thanks.



  • Setting, yes. Absolutely. I personally love SW system, but it seems to get a lot of hate around here. Still, it's light years above and beyond the Palladium native system, and no one can deny that.


  • Pitcrew

    There's a strong sect of people overall that hate SW and I think it stems from the absolutely horrendous organization of their books to be honest. My TT group is in love with SW. We've moved over to it exclusively. We currently have a fantasy game, a superhero (well villain, we're playing Necessary Evil using the 2nd Edition Powers Companion rules) game, and Rifts campaign going. We think it works amazingly well. Once you understand the rules, which the rule books really do not help with at times.



  • I love the Rifts setting and Palladium is a garbage system. I don't know anything about SW, but it can only be an improvement over Palladium.


  • Coder

    RIFT's as a /setting/ is one of my favorite settings of all time, once you take out the insanity of the Splugorth, what kind of resources they have, and how anyone could keep them in check to just Atlantis on RIFT's Earth.

    SavageWorld's is a system I /want/ to learn, but I don't have a TT group to really try it out with right now, and the book... my god... that book...


  • Pitcrew

    @shelbeast said in Savage Worlds Rifts:

    Still, it's light years above and beyond the Palladium native system, and no one can deny that.

    I would deny this, but Savage Worlds is the one system I have played that I would flat out refuse to play again. Palladium I dislike and would rather not play it but I can handle playing it because at least c-gen is fun.
    Edit to Add: My biggest issue with it is the wild die concept, since the target for most things is for giving every important character a d6 along with their stat or skill die to roll means that even with a d4 in the relevant area you succeed 62.5% of the time. For me that is too high for something you bought the lowest level of sill with.



  • @thatguythere It's offset by the fact that the game is lethal af. One good, solid roll and you're back to CG. It has it's flaws, but overall I love the system and it's simplicity. Palladium, meanwhile, has a largely useless system. Until the Ultimate edition, it didn't matter if your character had a 2 strength or 15. You still did the same damage with a sword swing. Etc. Attributes STILL don't affect your skill rolls. Bad design. Also, talking about a high chance to succeed? You need a default of like 5 on a d20 to hit someone with an attack in Rifts. The system is all around garbage.


  • Pitcrew

    It's certainly one of those systems where either you like it or you don't. Like I said, I think for some it's really difficult to get into because the books are horrendously organized.

    As for the wild die is that 4 is the base difficulty for mundane actions for mundane people. Wild Cards (characters and special NPCs) should have a better than normal chance at succeeding at mundane actions. Most actions for characters will have difficulties above 4 or will require a certain number of raises to succeed.

    One thing I really like about SW is how adjustable it is. By default it is very lethal. We use a "knocked out" rule that prevents death our campaigns but have added an edge that allows for lethal strikes. I think it's one of the optional rules in the core book.


  • Pitcrew

    @shelbeast
    I agree with your thoughts on palladium, I am not really defending it as a good game, just disagreeing with your statement that SW is light years ahead of it. Palladium is a crappy rules heavy system with the only real plus being lots of neat OCCs. SW is neither light enough to be rules light and out of the way in play nor rules heavy enough to really sink your teeth into as a game. Neither one could clam to be much ahead of each other just which flavor of meh you prefer.


  • Pitcrew

    @thatguythere Well I disagree entirely with that (as do a large number of SW players). It may not be your thing, which is fine, but it's certainly not "meh".


  • Pitcrew

    All I can do with savage worlds is speak to my experience with it. In two campaigns of playing with the systems in two different settings, with two different groups of players, the stories told were fun but every time the mechanics got involved I lost interest.
    Interesting bit both groups no longer exist because in each half the group loved SW and wanted to use it for everything and half the group hated it an never wanted to see it again. It and Fate seem to the the most polarizing game systems I can remember.



  • @lithium said in Savage Worlds Rifts:

    SavageWorld's is a system I /want/ to learn,

    You have a bunch of different dice depending on skill levels, from 1d4-2 all the way to 1d12. In addition, heroes get another 1d6 to roll. Everything explodes. And you succeed on a 4+ unless there's horrible conditions.

    There you go, you've learned savage worlds.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to MU Soapbox was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.