Great White Games/Pinnacle Entertainment Group

[JavaScrybe]

I've been playing SW for a while now, but I still can't really stand minis on grids. Not so much because of the minis but more because I never like to hear "I'd swing this chandelier all right, but I'm short 2 inches on my movement". I don't care much about exact placement.

On the other hand, ranged attacks, positioning and tactics, who's in melee with who, all those things are kind of a big deal for me. I also don't like to "fudge" cool SW rules like the extraction rules or advantages about speed (like the "Speed" power).

So I tried to design something that would allow me to both keep realistic distances, but also allow for freeform placement of miniatures. This was the result, for your perusal (fits 2 pages!):

http://chezalex.net/documents/jeux/savageworlds/sam.pdf

Now those rules have been playtested quite a bit, and the most bizarre thing about them is that they actually seem to work pretty well.(this is surprising given it's something I designed ) I use a Chessex mat and lettered/numbered beads and it's been working out really well for me.

Should you get somehow tempted in trying them out, I would really be hyper-interested in feedback you have, and it would be much appreciated. Off-the-cuff comments are also welcome.

Let me know!

Updated: now with Savage Battlefields examples!

http://chezalex.net/documents/jeux/savageworlds/sb.pdf
_________________
Lex

[Thasmodious]

We had a couple of threads on this awhile back. That's pretty much what I do, just not as codified. We just eyeball range but use zones for melee, movement and AoE.
_________________
There's more than seventy earths spinning 'bout the galaxy and the meek have inherited not a one.

[jonrog1]

I could not be more filled with rage -- I was just about to write up the cool zone system I created for my Agents of Oblivion / Shanghai 1930 game, and you've gone and done a much shinier job. Almost identical rules, by the way.

My ranges are a little bigger, though as I kind of fudge the zones to be about 5 squares by 5 squares which I think matches the area attacks a bit better.

That said, I'm switching to this now. And I'll vouch -- I've got 7 bloody players and this allows us to play big combats much, much faster. Highly recommended.

[jonrog1]

BTW I have an interesting little Chase/Dogfight system based on this too. I'll try to get it out in the next few days.

[Zadmar]

I love it! I'm a big fan of abstracting away any sort of micromanagement (like PP, wealth, ammo, etc), so this is definitely my sort of thing. I also noticed how it sort of blends together regular movement with the (old) chase mechanics, which is pretty cool.

My only concern is with the disparity between weapon ranges and movement. For shooting or throwing, every 12" equals 1 zone. But someone with Pace 6 can move 1 zone per round, and more when running.

I can see a couple of possibilities for addressing this:

1) Divide weapon ranges by 6 instead of 12. Or:

2) Moving from one zone to another counts as a running action.

With option 2 you don't really want people getting stuck in a zone, and it's rather self-defeating to start tracking positions within a zone, so I'd probably handle it more like this: Make a running roll. On a failure you move 1 zone, but can't do anything else that round. On a success you move, and can take additional actions that round at -2. On a raise, you can either move 1 zone and take additional actions without penalty, or move 2 zones and take no further actions that round. I don't think I'd allow people to move more than 2 zones without special powers or vehicles.


On another note, you mentioned stuffing each zone with things like cover, traps, chandeliers, etc. What approach do you usually use for that? Do you prepare cards or counters in advance and just toss them into the zone, or do you just tell people what's there, or something else?

[Virgobrown72]

This does remind me of the old chase rules, which my group loves!!! (I like the new rules too, but the old ones seem to turn my groups crank, so...).

This looks good, and i might give it a spin in a future game...
_________________
"Anything smaller is just fiddly, and fiddly is not one of SvgW's three Fs..."

[JavaScrybe]

[JavaScrybe]

[Thasmodious]

[Snate56]

This is why I like minis...

http://www.worldworksgames.com/store/



SteveN
_________________
"We've got a blind date with destiny... and it looks like she's ordered the lobster." <The Shoveller>

[JavaScrybe]

Updated: now with rules for blocking movement and pushing adversaries.

Also, I took out my notes and added a "Savage Battlefields!" document to illustrate some battle zones I've used.

http://chezalex.net/documents/jeux/savageworlds/sb.pdf
_________________
Lex

[JavaScrybe]

[jonrog1]

In the interest of debate, I'll make a soft argument for the "small" zones based on my own playtest. They bring firearms and movement closer into alignment.

In SW Deluxe base movement is 6" and short range on a common handgun, say, a Colt .45 is 12", or 1 zone. In your system, someone who makes their running roll and two raises can move 4 zones -- essentially, with a bit of luck, sprinting out of long range of even a rifle from right next to the shooter.

My system is a little tweak of yours. Same Move point system with a tweak to running:

1 Move to change Zones
1 Move to join or disengage melee in the same Zone
Running automatically gives you 1 extra Move, but suffers the -2 MAP. A successful Agility roll (or whatever your "running skill" is) eliminates the -2.

Weapon Ranges go to (S/M/L) *
Very Short (thrown and sawed off shotgun) - 0 (same zone) / 1 / 2
Short range weapons (handguns etc) 2 / 5 / 10
Long Range weapons (rifles etc) 5 / 10 / 20

In settings where gunfire is equally as important as melee, I find this scale keeps gunplay effective, and the players have to respect it -- find cover, try to stay out of range -- without counting squares.

Battlefield maps tend to run around 6 x 6 or 7 x 7. The scale still allows a lot of variety in mapping without getting picky. Using this system I've managed to build in less than a few minutes each: a Shanghai nightclub with balconies; a gunboat and zeppelin (both roughly accurate to scale thanks to Internet plans); a running train battle and a subterranean excavated tomb with scaffolding and terra cotta warriors. I'll toss on a link to some battlefields later, if you agree to trade.

Regardless of what range you use, I think zones are a good FFF compromise between gridded and miniature-less.


* (Unless you're fighting outside at some very long distances, you're never really going to be worrying about those long ranges. You can always hack a quick "outside" set of rules -- cut the ranges in half, you need a Running roll to get 1 extra Move, etc.)

[Zadmar]

[Dracones]

[jonrog1]

[JavaScrybe]

[JavaScrybe]

I've been reading your comments, which are very very interesting (thanks!). I get your point on the discrepancy between movement and shooting distances. I'm considering making the following change to the running roll:

"A running roll gives you 1 additional MP on a success, 2 on a raise.".

It did not happen very often in the first place that players got multiple raises, and re-thinking about the "normal" rule where running rolls can't Ace in the first place, this makes some sense.

Speaking from experience around the table, even at the abstract level it's very rare that ranged characters are more than 3 or 4 "running turns". Past that, this becomes very much a "hazard" situtation, like "this zone is subject to sniper fire".
_________________
Lex

[ValhallaGH]

[BadDecisionDino]

Awesome work!

I'll be using this for my next campaign, although I did decide to go with the 6" distance method.

Granted, my campaign is medieval, so I don't really have to worry about distances over 10 zones, and that's only if someone decides to take a Hail Mary shot with a long-bow.