See, most people who say that are talking about targeting slow-moving ground objects like people.

~J

And Ill still say they are full of shit. If you have ever seen autopsy photos of shot gun victims, the shot still stays in an amazingly tight grouping. Its not like the person only gets hit with 4 or 5 of the shot pellets and they die, they take it all. Anyone grazed by a shot load takes very little damage comparativly.

Pay no attention to this fragged up fragger.

Every game we've talked about here is a roleplaying game. Touting that as a strength of Savage Worlds, and following it with an insult just shows that you're running out of material fast.

I just went with +1 being equal to 1 on a d8, in actuality:

d8 odds of getting a 4: 62.5%
d8+1 odds of getting a 4: 75% (difference of 12.5%, as I said)
d8+2 odds of getting a 4: 87.5% (25% difference)

d10 odds of getting a 4: 70%
d10+1 odds of getting a 4: 80% (difference of 10%)
d10+2 odds of getting a 4: 90% (20% difference)

d12 odds of getting a 4: 75%
d12+1 odds of getting a 4: 83.33% (difference of 8.33%)
d12+2 odds of getting a 4: 91.67% (16.67% difference)

As you can see, the higher the die goes, the lower the difference a +1 makes. Someone who has never seen anything but a fist and elevated themselves to higher than olympic class in boxing in their life would, by the rules, be able to fight with every single melee weapon known to man at an olympic level. If I don't decide to buy Deadlands for my space travel or medieval games then he'll also be tearing his way through kungfu tournaments.

The rules:

He has olympic + 2 skill in rifles, just like our earlier melee guy. That means he's an olympic class blowgun and bow expert as well. Unless you opt to apply some GM Fiat to him and force him to not use the base Shooting skill as it's laid out in the rules.

You don't have to explain anything. If you were reading the thread instead of jumping forward to your chance to try and defend your game you'd know that the discussion has already happened.

Cannon Companion, while an addon, is just an addon. Having to buy Deadlands (a campaign book) to get the same result is totally different. It's also an almost complete waste of money if my group doesn't want to combine the old west with the supernatural. But, because it's a poorly placed patch, if I want the upgrade I have to buy the whole system.

Oh, forget that last paragraph. I misunderstood. Apparently Deadlands is Savage World's advanced combat book.

You mean the trappings for powers? That's the only place trappings are mentioned in the quick start rules. Since I already don't like those rules, I won't be spending any money on the actual rulebooks. If you'd like to buy me a copy, I'll happily run a few test sessions with my group. If we like it I'll pay you back double, and buy every other Savage Worlds supplement as well. Email me if you think your game is up to the challenge.

So then you do let your PCs that aren't in Deadlands win Kungfu tournaments? You let them pick up any weapon, despite their background, and use their full fighting skill with it. Okely dokely. If that's your definition of works then it won't surprise me at all when you opt not to take the challenge.

Hence the "from what I've seen."

Never played GURPS. Never head anything good about it, so didn't bother. I've never had problems with the realism level of Rolemaster. Your calling it Chartmaster speaks to your bias, but that's cool. Unlike a certain Savage Worlds fanatic, I don't feel the need to tout my favorite system all up and down other gaming boards.

1) I've played a crapload of game systems: WoD, nWoD, ME WoD, D&D (every version), RIFTs, Role/Spacemaster, Tunnels and Trolls, some Christian game I can't remember the name of (you cast spells by reciting scripture), Amber diceless, many d20 systems, Warhammer FRPG, Hackmaster, some Dune game, Legend of the Five rings (multiple editions), Marvel Super Heroes, and Shadowrun to name the ones that jump to my mind right now. I've played games that some guy at a Con made up (some were good, most sucked).

EDIT: The fact that I don't like your pet doesn't mean I lack experience, it just means that I don't like it, and feel that what I have seen is poorly made.

Your false assumptions about other people are showing themselves again.

2) I didn't say realism = complexity. I said the two are often tied together. Nice try though. Perhaps you'd like to stick to what's said?

You left out blowgun.

Silly me, I was thinking blow gun the entire time I was typing my rant. I guess I got ahead of myself and forgot it. And that reminds me, I need to get back to the gun shop, my new iron sights are finally on my blow gun and the 30 power scope. I went with thermo instead of low light.

Not an insult, a joke. Note the use of a smiley? You *do* know what a joke is, right?

Nice try to twist the statistics. Actually, while the relative difference might be smaller, your own numbers show that the character does become more effective. A slowdown at the top would represent a curve of diminishing returns, which is also realistic, and which doesn't happen in SR4. It does happen to a degree in SR3, and many other systems.

Again, 1 point != 1 Skill increase. You do realize that sometimes it takes more than one point to raise a stat in a game, right?

Actually, it's not. Savage Worlds is a generic system. In GURPS and d20, you often will find that certain rules are clustered in certain setting books. WOD and a ton of White Wolf books did exactly the same thing. Shadowrun, being setting-specific, only has one campaign setting to sell. Also, Deadlands is not a campaign book; it's a setting book. No adventures are included. The other Savage World plot point books, however, are campaign books: they all contain a full campaign, complete with world and adventures.

Considering that I've never run a setting for which kung-fu tournaments was appropriate, it's never come up. At any event, if their fighting skill is low, there's really no problem; and if their fighting skill is high, they've always got edges in their favorite weapons. So, their "full fighting skill" != "full fighting effectiveness".

I can see that you've played a con game or two, but I doubt that you're even old enough to have played "every version" of D&D; I can recall playing this game called "Chainmail". I've played just about each and every one of those, with monthlong campaigns in many; you've played it "once at a con". If you only own ten or so different rule systems, then you still have very little exposure to what's out there. Including only what's on my shelves at the moment (and excluding what's in storage, loaned out, or permanently lost) I've got over fifty different *systems*, not just variants.

I'm not arguing the fact that you don't like it; you wouldn't like anything I do, no matter how superior it is shown to be. You have the right to dislike anything, even though it's better.

What I *am* arguing is the fact that a "simpler" approach is not necessarily less realistic than an overly complex and crunchy one. They're not even remotely tied together. I've seen just as many rules-heavy, totally-unrealistic systems out there as I've seen "realistic" lighter systems. Realism is such a subjective term; what people end up meaning by "realistic" is that it comes close to their [generally mistaken] view of biology or physics. When you see systems that are actually realistic-- there's one written by a friend of mine, a certified instructor in multiple martial arts, that comes to mind-- you often see something totally different. There weren't dozens of rules for dozens of rules. I wish I still had my copy, it was pretty interesting.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. At a general level, you're going to be pretty equal with a lot of similar weapons. If you've got a particular focus, then it'd be represented by buying certain edges, as opposed to an increase in the general skill.

Far as I can tell, the WotC model is "be synonymous with RPG for casual and non-players".

~J