A trick I love to use for Boss Fights is the "waves of mooks" maneuver. Every turn, mooks enter the battle, until finally the boss does. If the party doesn't deal with them swiftly enough, they will stack up and be a real threat. This, plus being flexible about how I allow Powers and Trappings to be used allows the players to feel like badasses, while also making the fight feel like a threat.
So excited for this series! Great value throughout. Rewatching now and jotting notes. New to SavageWorlds and really grateful for the small but mighty community.
Borrowing from you guys and specifically for combat, mine would be something like: 1. Is there a clear objective? 2. Is there a consequence to success and failure? 3. Is there interesting terrain? 4. Is there a variety of enemies? 5. Is there a… dynamic element? Not sure how to word this last one, but does something change mid-battle or happen on a clock, like your falling staircase example, or a ritual completing after x turns. What other important ones am I missing?
Maybe a controversial take, but I think the key to engaging combat encounters is not getting to bogged down in the rules. You and your PC's are telling a shared story even in combat. I recently had a PC who's pistol weapon was not doing enough damage she ran to pick up an fallen ally's rifle she fumbled and fell flat on her face(crit fail). When she finally got back up and was able to level the rifle at a group of extras the dice exploded multiple times. We described the action as she mowed down the whole group. It was exciting for everyone around the table. Just a short example of how I think that the rules should ultimately be in service of the players and the story, If you roll in the open and are generous with the bennies there is no problem ignoring rules or bending them to fit the narrative and this is a strength of SWADE.
@@TheSavageGoose Oh no, sorry. I really liked what both of you had to say, great advice!. I meant controversial because some GM's act more like referees and are sticklers for the rules. I love that you both talked about how there should be less division in feeling between the roleplay and combat components.
i would ask for discussion about different subsystems of savage worlds. For example different chases (foot, vehicle, spacerace and space-fighter-battle). Mass combat. Quick encounter (including quick combat). social encounter.
Here's my two cents regarding combat in Savage Worlds, and it is really just my honest opinion. I like it, but after watching quite a few videos tackling the issue of „how to make combat in SW more challenging/exciting/rewarding etc.“, I really think there is something amiss here. In Savage Worlds GMs have to spice up combat by using all kinds of strategies - enemies in waves, obstacles, special monster tactics just to name a few. But the thing is... we have to spice it up, because it is a bit lackluster if we do not. This, no matter how much I like Savage Worlds as a whole, is in my opinion a flaw of the combat system itself.
@@peterb.saloom8667 More engaging? Yes. From a game system perspective SW is a bit like a coin toss. It's fast and with high stakes quite exciting. (I am aware, that is is not a 50-50% probability, but bear with me.) One of the key problems, as I see it, is the gamblers ruin. (Wikipedia has an article, I can't link it because TH-cam would delete my comment.). In essence this means: If you play coin toss multiple times with all your capital (your characters life - remember: high stakes mean high engagement), you will lose it all. This is true for all systems, but the harder/faster the systems, the faster the effect takes place in real time. Think coin toss vs Monopoly. I would argue that Monopoly is inherently more engaging. Combat systems like D&D have mechanics in play, that prolong the „toss“ and offer rising stakes over more rounds. This offers the player more options to influence the game, while the tension (degrading hp) rises. Less like a coin toss, more like Monopoly. But it does not end there. Since you want high engagement, you need those high stakes. This would mean pretty deadly combat every time and your party would not survive for long. Low stakes become boring (Hello D&D high level play!), so you have to employ design strategies to make combat more engaging. This - again - is true for every system, but not to the same degree. This is not a rant, nor do I have a compelling answer to this problem. I am aware that this might not even be a problem to some players. But browsing the internet it does seem as though quite a few people have encountered this issue and well, why not say so? As stated above, just my two cents. (Damn, this evolved to be quite long, sorry for that)
@@Waggadudewagga I appreciate the response. I respect your point of view on this. The "swing" factor in Savage Worlds has always been something perceived very differently from gamers with different tastes. Keep the comments coming! I'm so glad you're involved in our conversation.
I am going to spend some more time thinking about this, but I think a lot of the problems that occur with Savage Worlds combat is a comparison and actions like that of D&D or other games and everyone perhaps focuses on combat or does combat the way combat is familiar to them. I think this is both a GM and Player problem. That being said, I think that the recommendations we give here, and the problem I had with the encounter, would have been the same in D&D. I think that tension we are talking about is part of the reason OSR has become popular again as well. Again, I will think more on this comment and think try to have more thoughts.
@@peterb.saloom8667 Thanks for your reply, Peter - reading my first post again, I see that it does indeed have the vibe of a rant... sorry for that, that was unintended. Swinginess in itself is something I greatly enjoy in SW. I have always been annoyed by high level combat in other systems, making the player invulnerable. That said, there is something to be said for increasing pressure in combat by means of shrinking HP in terms of game design. The way I see it, there is an upper and a lower threshold of risk that you need for a combat encounter to be engaging and thus, rewarding. (Of course you can make it fun by other means, let's ignore that for now.) Too much risk and the players will experience a lot of excitement, but they will be frustrated by dying a lot or very soon. Not enough risk and it gets boring. Between those two thresholds you have a „exciting but rewarding“ zone, which you try to hit with your encounters. Swinginess - seen purely from the standpoint of developing an engaging encounter - is the accuracy with which you can hit the target zone. High level D&D has two problems: a) the high powerlevel of the players lowers risk from level to level, so they eventually fall beneath the lower threshold and b) high level play is a nightmare to balance, so you have a lot of swinginess, which randomly puts you above the high threshold. Pretty much „usually boring until you die“. Poor balancing in terms of CR-rating does not help the case either, neither does the escalating complexity that D&D is known for today. SW on the other hand has a lower power level and constant HP (By design wounds are HP, even if you have only three of them.). This is awesome. But it also means that a) Players are never far from and sometimes above the upper threshold, since you have only 3 HP. It gets too risky fast if you want to challenge them, since you have no HP-sponge to mitigate risk. Seen another way: the upper threshold is much lower in relation to the players. b) Extras have only 1HP and can usually be oneshotted by a wildcard player. This means that the lower threshold rises - you have to put in a lot of extras to rise the level of risk to a level that makes the encounter threatening/exciting. So, relatively high lower threshold, low upper threshold. What follows is that your target „exciting but rewarding“-zone is much smaller than in other systems. Swinginess on both sides of the equation makes it even harder to hit. (I still like it a lot as a concept, though.) I hope this makes sense to anybody reading it - it was written in a bit of a hurry and turned out to be even longer than I thought. 😂
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
Great discussion dissecting an actual experience!
I loved this. Helpful information that can be taken right to the table. Subbed.
Thanks! Glad it helped.
A trick I love to use for Boss Fights is the "waves of mooks" maneuver. Every turn, mooks enter the battle, until finally the boss does. If the party doesn't deal with them swiftly enough, they will stack up and be a real threat.
This, plus being flexible about how I allow Powers and Trappings to be used allows the players to feel like badasses, while also making the fight feel like a threat.
Really great series idea. Looking forward to watching more of them
So excited for this series! Great value throughout. Rewatching now and jotting notes. New to SavageWorlds and really grateful for the small but mighty community.
Glad you enjoy it!
I think that discussion such like this one is very usefull for begginers (ane even advanced GM). Good job! Looking forward for next TPK101!
Thanks!
A lot of great advice here. This series is definitely worth following.
@@GromMolotok thank you!
Good process Pete. The key takeaway: make and use an encounter design checklist!
I think it might be smart for us to share that checklist.
Borrowing from you guys and specifically for combat, mine would be something like:
1. Is there a clear objective?
2. Is there a consequence to success and failure?
3. Is there interesting terrain?
4. Is there a variety of enemies?
5. Is there a… dynamic element? Not sure how to word this last one, but does something change mid-battle or happen on a clock, like your falling staircase example, or a ritual completing after x turns.
What other important ones am I missing?
@@nickanswulf That's a great list. I am thinking I might write up my list (by no means the definitive "right" list) and share it on a future episode.
Very enjoyable to watch and really informative. A great series idea!
Thanks!
This is gold.
Thank you!
Great idea for a series!
Glad you think so!
Maybe a controversial take, but I think the key to engaging combat encounters is not getting to bogged down in the rules. You and your PC's are telling a shared story even in combat. I recently had a PC who's pistol weapon was not doing enough damage she ran to pick up an fallen ally's rifle she fumbled and fell flat on her face(crit fail). When she finally got back up and was able to level the rifle at a group of extras the dice exploded multiple times. We described the action as she mowed down the whole group. It was exciting for everyone around the table. Just a short example of how I think that the rules should ultimately be in service of the players and the story, If you roll in the open and are generous with the bennies there is no problem ignoring rules or bending them to fit the narrative and this is a strength of SWADE.
Do you feel what you are saying is in disagreement with what we said?
@@TheSavageGoose Oh no, sorry. I really liked what both of you had to say, great advice!. I meant controversial because some GM's act more like referees and are sticklers for the rules. I love that you both talked about how there should be less division in feeling between the roleplay and combat components.
@MattzuFF Awesome! That's what I wanted people to hear, but was worried we didn't make that part clear
i would ask for discussion about different subsystems of savage worlds. For example different chases (foot, vehicle, spacerace and space-fighter-battle). Mass combat. Quick encounter (including quick combat). social encounter.
Here's my two cents regarding combat in Savage Worlds, and it is really just my honest opinion. I like it, but after watching quite a few videos tackling the issue of „how to make combat in SW more challenging/exciting/rewarding etc.“, I really think there is something amiss here.
In Savage Worlds GMs have to spice up combat by using all kinds of strategies - enemies in waves, obstacles, special monster tactics just to name a few. But the thing is... we have to spice it up, because it is a bit lackluster if we do not. This, no matter how much I like Savage Worlds as a whole, is in my opinion a flaw of the combat system itself.
Are there other systems that don't require strategy, challenges, or tactics and still have engaging combat?
@@peterb.saloom8667 More engaging? Yes.
From a game system perspective SW is a bit like a coin toss. It's fast and with high stakes quite exciting. (I am aware, that is is not a 50-50% probability, but bear with me.)
One of the key problems, as I see it, is the gamblers ruin. (Wikipedia has an article, I can't link it because TH-cam would delete my comment.). In essence this means: If you play coin toss multiple times with all your capital (your characters life - remember: high stakes mean high engagement), you will lose it all. This is true for all systems, but the harder/faster the systems, the faster the effect takes place in real time. Think coin toss vs Monopoly. I would argue that Monopoly is inherently more engaging.
Combat systems like D&D have mechanics in play, that prolong the „toss“ and offer rising stakes over more rounds. This offers the player more options to influence the game, while the tension (degrading hp) rises. Less like a coin toss, more like Monopoly.
But it does not end there. Since you want high engagement, you need those high stakes. This would mean pretty deadly combat every time and your party would not survive for long. Low stakes become boring (Hello D&D high level play!), so you have to employ design strategies to make combat more engaging. This - again - is true for every system, but not to the same degree.
This is not a rant, nor do I have a compelling answer to this problem. I am aware that this might not even be a problem to some players. But browsing the internet it does seem as though quite a few people have encountered this issue and well, why not say so?
As stated above, just my two cents.
(Damn, this evolved to be quite long, sorry for that)
@@Waggadudewagga I appreciate the response. I respect your point of view on this. The "swing" factor in Savage Worlds has always been something perceived very differently from gamers with different tastes. Keep the comments coming! I'm so glad you're involved in our conversation.
I am going to spend some more time thinking about this, but I think a lot of the problems that occur with Savage Worlds combat is a comparison and actions like that of D&D or other games and everyone perhaps focuses on combat or does combat the way combat is familiar to them. I think this is both a GM and Player problem.
That being said, I think that the recommendations we give here, and the problem I had with the encounter, would have been the same in D&D.
I think that tension we are talking about is part of the reason OSR has become popular again as well.
Again, I will think more on this comment and think try to have more thoughts.
@@peterb.saloom8667 Thanks for your reply, Peter - reading my first post again, I see that it does indeed have the vibe of a rant... sorry for that, that was unintended.
Swinginess in itself is something I greatly enjoy in SW. I have always been annoyed by high level combat in other systems, making the player invulnerable. That said, there is something to be said for increasing pressure in combat by means of shrinking HP in terms of game design.
The way I see it, there is an upper and a lower threshold of risk that you need for a combat encounter to be engaging and thus, rewarding. (Of course you can make it fun by other means, let's ignore that for now.) Too much risk and the players will experience a lot of excitement, but they will be frustrated by dying a lot or very soon. Not enough risk and it gets boring.
Between those two thresholds you have a „exciting but rewarding“ zone, which you try to hit with your encounters. Swinginess - seen purely from the standpoint of developing an engaging encounter - is the accuracy with which you can hit the target zone.
High level D&D has two problems: a) the high powerlevel of the players lowers risk from level to level, so they eventually fall beneath the lower threshold and b) high level play is a nightmare to balance, so you have a lot of swinginess, which randomly puts you above the high threshold. Pretty much „usually boring until you die“. Poor balancing in terms of CR-rating does not help the case either, neither does the escalating complexity that D&D is known for today.
SW on the other hand has a lower power level and constant HP (By design wounds are HP, even if you have only three of them.). This is awesome.
But it also means that
a) Players are never far from and sometimes above the upper threshold, since you have only 3 HP. It gets too risky fast if you want to challenge them, since you have no HP-sponge to mitigate risk. Seen another way: the upper threshold is much lower in relation to the players.
b) Extras have only 1HP and can usually be oneshotted by a wildcard player. This means that the lower threshold rises - you have to put in a lot of extras to rise the level of risk to a level that makes the encounter threatening/exciting.
So, relatively high lower threshold, low upper threshold. What follows is that your target „exciting but rewarding“-zone is much smaller than in other systems. Swinginess on both sides of the equation makes it even harder to hit. (I still like it a lot as a concept, though.)
I hope this makes sense to anybody reading it - it was written in a bit of a hurry and turned out to be even longer than I thought. 😂