Leveling is a Lie

 

Others have noted it, leveling doesn't necessarily make your character better. They just face tougher monsters and the fights take longer. I won't cover that already well-tread ground.

I want to take on the assumption that without leveling, without significant character bonuses earned over time, that a game is only good for a one-shot. Unfortunately, leveling is the default for "character growth" in RPGs because it is simpler than developing a character narratively. Characters growing in a narrative way are much more complex as there are no handy yardsticks to measure it.

To those who think leveling is necessary to hold a player's interest over long games, let me ask you a few questions.

A) Did you ever watch Scooby Doo when you were a kid?

B) Did you keep coming back to see the next week's episode? (okay maybe just the older folks need to answer this).

C) From the first episode to the last episode, how many levels did Shaggy gain? Did he improve in any way or change at all? Nope. 

Most sitcoms, cartoons, and weekly TV shows featured no character growth beyond "who's hooking up with who". Yet fans came back for more. They wanted to see the problem of the week unfold, hear the funny quips, and try to guess how it all ends. 

Without the goal of levels, perhaps the players will become more invested in the tale. Less "what will my character become" and more "what will my character do". If you can accept and enjoy that playstyle, you don't need leveling to enjoy a game for a long, long time.

The Problem With "Epic" Campaigns

 

Like Hollywood, many GMs are under the impression that the bigger the Threat to Existence, the more compelling the story will be. In my opinion, that's not going great for Hollywood right now and it may not be working great for your campaign either.

What's Bigger?

One problem with Epic storylines is that if you revisit a storyline based on saving All of Existence, your next story has to be even bigger (Dragonball Z)! Because it has nothing else really going for it except spectacle, does it? Sooner or later, you or your players will either get fed up with increasingly outrageous ways to threaten the universe (Star Trek: Discovery) or you'll just reboot or abandon it.

Not every story needs to be about saving All of Existence. Heroes can get just as much or maybe more enjoyment from just saving a village from the Barbarian Raiders. But if the heroes are working to save a village, I bet the village will know about it.

All Alone in the Night

Your heroes fight the spectacular battle with the Forces of Naughtiness, and though it was tough, they prevail. But... I've noticed a trend in Epic Stories where the world isn't necessarily aware it is in any danger, only the heroes and the villains know what is truly going on. And while a heroic victory without seeking glory is very noble, this is a game of Fantasy. Your players might be looking for some positive reinforcement beyond treasure for what they've done. How about a parade, or at least a heartfelt "Good Job" and "Thank You". Your players likely aren't getting thanks in their real life. 

However, all too often the heroes stand alone.

Take Luke Skywalker in Return of the Jedi. During the final battle over Endor, Skywalker has a serious battle of his own going on and the death of Palpatine and Vader may have helped turn the tide of the war. But I doubt anyone except Leia was told about what when down. There are parades for the Rebellion, but not for him. Very noble, the cause is more important than the person.

But! Your players might prefer a different ending, one where the people being saved know that the heroes are there doing what they can. It's all unfolding right in front of them. And when it is all over, the heroes get the recognition they've earned (see Army of Darkness).

All I am trying to say is that if the world is in constant danger of being obliterated every week, what does that say about the world? If the novelizations of Star Wars are to be believed, Republics are made out of tissue paper. 

And the Mandalorian? He just wants The Child back. That's all his story needs.

How I Handle Money Without Counting Pennies

 

I'm tired of counting coins and cracking silvers into coppers and NONE OF IT IS FUN!

It's an almost proven fact - As math increases, entertainment decreases.

So here's how we simplify things:

The Basic Unit - A Handful of Coin. What kind of coins? Who cares. How many coins? Who cares. A Weapon costs a Handful of Coin. A toolkit costs a Handful of Coin or two. A days food and lodgings costs a Handful of Coin. If the cost of an item is significant enough to note, it probably costs a Handful of Coin. When you search a goblin for loot, it might have a Handful of Coin.

The Sack of Coins. More expensive items cost 1 or more Sacks of Coin. Horses, Wagons, Sailboats, passage for a long voyage, their costs would be in Sacks of Coin. If the heroes are being hired for a "simple" job, they're going to be paid in Sacks of Coin. 1 Sack of Coin equals 10 Handfuls of Coin. The hero can carry 2 Sacks of Coin before becoming encumbered.

Chest of Coin. For the big payments. Magic items, castles, warships, blackmail, it costs Chests of Coins. A Chest of Coin equals 5 Sacks of Coin. Heroes are encumbered if they are carrying a Chest of Coins, so better get a wagon.  

Thus we keep wealth descriptive, math is at a minimum, and you can easily gauge whether a hero should be encumbered by their loot or not. And it should be easy to guess-timate the price of anything.

I got the idea from movies, tv shows, Vikings, etc. They never talk about amounts. When someone buys something, they toss a handful coins down and get what they want. The villain always pays a sack of coins to his nefarious henchmen for a dirty night's work. Kingdoms pay ransom to their attackers in chests of coins. The vikings never sat and counted each coin when they were paid off. They just threw open the lid, looked at the loot, and the deal was done. 

Edit>> I thought about just using individual coins to represent the wealth, but then heroes would only find single coins. Getting a Handful of Coins sounds better.

New D&D Edition Theory

 They announced a new edition of D&D, as well as the promise of a new setting.

Here's my prediction:

...a 5E version of BECMI, with Mystara as the setting. I believe (hope) that they come up with an even more simplified D&D5e ala Basic Edition. It will come in a boxed set like the original (maybe multiple boxed sets). Then revive the Gazeteers of Mystara.

Why?

Because modern 5e is too super-powered. That's why many people still play Basic or search out OSR. And while I love the indy press, WotC has the means to crank out support books on a regular basis. 

Also because, while 5e is easier than many predecessors, it requires a $50 buy in per core book and each book is a hefty tome for a new player to wade through. That's why they created the Essentials boxed sets. But making an rules-lite-r version of D&D may hook a broader audience. Some may stay with Basic, while others may move on to advanced, but support both game styles.

Of course, I'm probably way off base. I suspect my crystal ball is actually plexiglass.

Tiny D6 - A New Love

 

It is a rules light system. Incredibly rules light. So what?

All rpg dice systems boil down into "What are you aces at?", "What are you okay at?", and "What do you suck at?" Most games add in a bunch of fiddly numbers to measure your suck-age in 5 or 10% increments.

Tiny D6 forgoes using math to describe your character. Instead you get Traits.

Example: On a scale of 1-10, how strong is Chewbacca? What ever number you come up with, it's just a guess. What do we know? We just know he's Strong. That's one of his Traits. And we don't need a paragraph of rules to explain how being strong affects the game. You can already infer that Chewbacca is going to have an advantage in any roll that involves heavy lifting.

Describing characters with words instead of numbers? HERESY!

Maybe, but it feels so nice.

So how does Tiny D6 system work? Well, you roll with 1 to 3 6-sided dice. Any die that comes up a 5 or a 6 is a Success. If you roll at Disadvantage, you get 1d6. Standard Test is 2d6, and Advantage is 3D6.

For those that like knowing the odds of Success - 

• Disadvantage - 33%
• Standard - 56%
• Advantage - 70%

This game can be learned easily, and gets the hell out of the way when you want to get into story. And it doesn't feel jarred by constant rules lookups and shouting attack roll numbers and difficulties. Instead you get...

Player: "I want to swing across the chasm."

GM: "Okay, but your not an athlete. You're an accountant, right? I'm certain you suck at this. Roll with Disadvantage."

Player: Rolls 1d6. "5?"

GM: "Against the wishes of gravity and all of your clients, you successfully swing across."

And since it uses d6s, I don't have to look for a game store southern #Okkamuggatawa (not a real place).

My only complaint is that Heavy Weapons deal the same as Light weapons and armor does nothing. However, with such a simple system, it was easily house-ruled. Here's what I came up with:

Light weapons deal 1 Hit per success rolled. Heavy weapons deal an extra +1 Hit. Using Light Weapons lets you carry a shield.

Armor adds to Hit Points. If Hit Points are Timers (and Tiny d6 openly embraces the idea with weapons dealing 1 Hit), and armor makes you stay up longer, then armor just needs to add to Hit Points. If you get dropped to 0 Hit Points, your ruined armor is the least of your worries. 

Light Armor adds +1 HP, Heavy Armor adds +3 HP, and Shields add +2 HP.

I have to say that the system edges out ICRPG for my new go to system, but only barely. The GM advice and philosophy of ICRPG are indispensable and I do not regret my purchase.

Final Verdict: If you play with new players, this is an excellent choice. If you play with kids, this is an excellent choice. If you are a seasoned rpg player and can get over not-knowing if your hero is 10% stronger than their opponent and can let yourself go with the narrative, this game may be all you need. If you're frustrated that you can't get the feel you want from more restrictive systems, Tiny D6 is incredibly easy to modify.

I think I may be done looking for a multi-genre system.

I don't know about the Supers game though. But I rarely ever run Supers campaigns. I don't have the knack for it.

Edit: I have one other complaint/ desire. I wish there was a way to publish unique settings for it but as of yet it doesn't look like there's any kind of open license or approval method. But that's just me, feeling overly crafty.

Mentats and Dreamers

 Today's post will talk about two different types of playstyles and analysis using my thoroughly uneducated pop psychology. These are personal opinions based on my experiences and should not be taken as gospel. Also, individual players can fall anywhere on the spectrum between these two extremes.

First up, Mentats. Others call them Munchkins, but I don't like that term. It's meant to be derogatory and imply that these players are having BadWrongFun. I think Mentat is a better description, and not insulting.

A Mentat gamer is one that derives joy from navigating the mathematics of a game, find the loopholes, and seeing just how strong they can make a character. This is fun to them. These players tend toward complex and crunchy RPGs as they gave a solid framework for the calculations. These players want to know the odds of success before they roll so they can make the most potent choice available. If you understand that, then you as a gm should focus your energies on making interesting and challenging encounters for these players to test their engines of destruction. I have noticed that Mentats are also more likely to be a part of the miniature wargaming hobby as well.

Mentats prefer games like Hero System, Pathfinder, etc. They might play a rules-lite game as a one-shot, but it likely won't hold their interest for a long campaign.

A Dreamer gamer is one that derives no joy from the complex maths and find them a distraction to the narrative. These players are just as happy playing Theater of the Mind as they are using a battlemat and minis. They carry their character in their head more than on their character sheet. They wonder why they can't have a Spear with all the same properties as a Rapier instead if they are proficient with both. Can't it just look like a spear? Would that break the game?

These players want the freedom to be imaginative without being penalized by the rules. They tend more toward Rules Lite systems like Tiny D6, ICRPG, Fiasco, Fate, or Quest. If your player is a Dreamer, then you need compelling adventures, dire stakes, fantastic locations. Also, these are the players that want you to mine their backstory for adventures. 

Where do I fall? I'm leaving mid-Mentat and leaping into Dreamer. I just find more creative freedom with these games, and I can take it with me to introduce new people to the hobby. I love helping players make the character they want instead of the one that gives them the best options. And lastly, I just need to know what your hero is supposed to be good at, okay at, and suck at. All the degrees in between just don't interest me anymore.

Disclaimer: I have not been paid or endorsed by any of the game companies linked in this post.

Quick Thought - Faster Initiative

Why do we roll for initiative they way we do? It's needlessly slow and dull, even requiring table gimmicks to keep track. But here's a few facts:

 If a player rolls a d20 and the GM rolls a d20, then the player has a 50% chance of beating the GM and gaining initiative. 

After Initiative order is set, who goes first is no longer important after the first round since everyone is taking turns.

How do you speed it up? First, use team initiative. The players will have more flexibility that way and beyond the first round, it's just alternating turns.

The GM is the only one who rolls an Initiative die (d6). If he roll 3 or lower, the enemy goes first. If he rolls 4 or higher, the players go first. Want to spice it up? If the GM rolls a 1, then not only are the monsters aware of the heroes, they've set up an ambush. Their are more monstrous reinforcements waiting to spring on the heroes. If the GM rolls a 6 then the heroes have taken the enemy completely by surprise. Hey, sometimes you don't have to be stealthy to scare the hell out of someone rounding a corner.

Magic and Technology in the Same Setting...Why?

I'm not saying it can't be done. The premise of Shadowrun is sound, the world embraced technology because magic didn't exist. Magic awoke onto the scene so it makes sense that they would be in conflict.

But let's take your typical D&D Fantasy-Land. Magic is all around. Despite the claimed "rarity" of magic items, the heroes will come across a lot of it, usually in the hands of the villain. Magic has been tamed, identified, and spells can be repeated and taught. Magic is the technology. Given how powerful the idea of magic is (getting something for basically nothing), why would anyone pursue mundane technology? Technology would only advance in areas that magic can't. This is why it's important to know the limits of magic in your setting.

So would there be guns in Fantasy-Land? Traditional guns? Not likely, unless they were developed in a place of no magic and brought into Fantasy-Land. Why invent a gun when Flame Bolt and Eldritch Blast wands are options. A "Gun" developed in Fantasy-Land would likely be magic based, a wand shaped like a modern firearm. In which case, does it matter if you reskin wands as pistols?

Here's another instance of unlikely technology in Fantasy-Land, medical kits. Medical kits take time to use and they suck. However, the dearth of healing potions and low level healing spells are far more efficient and effective and would drive out the medical kit market. Heck, the presence of resurrection magic (if you are rich), throws a huge wrench into the circle of life (see Altered Carbon).

I'm not saying you shouldn't use magic and technology in the same setting, I'm suggesting that you think of them as one and the same. Whatever tech you want in a Fantasy setting, consider a magic-themed item that would do that. The gunfighter in a fantasy setting has been done before. Try adding some new spice to the old trope. If you absolutely want them in the same setting for contrast, make sure they each have limits that only the other can fill. Otherwise the inclusion of both may just feel like cheap fan-service.

Also, consider that if technology is there to make ordinary people as powerful as mages, magic will feel far less amazing in your setting.

One Room DC and Why I Can Lock Myself Up In It (ICRPG)

GMs spend a lot of time working with finicky Difficulty Target Numbers. Searching the desk is this difficult, hitting the goblin is this difficult. But in that work is a Meta-thought, "this encounter is a bit easy, let's move those difficulties up a bit".

Yup, as a GM you have probably tweaked an encounter upward in difficulty so your players don't walk easily through it.

One Room DC doesn't bother itself with individual difficulties. Why should they matter? What you really want is to make the entire encounter difficult, or easy, or whatever. So why not just stick with one difficulty for the whole encounter? If someone is good at one of the tasks, they get to roll against the EASY difficulty, 3 less than the average difficulty. It's elegant.

Wait, but he shows the players what the difficulty number is. Now there's no mystery.

There never was, really. Hiding the difficulty number has never added suspense to a roll. 

But if the players know the difficulty, they may try to avoid the encounter!

Good! Violence shouldn't be the catch-all solution. The heroes that spot the the trouble inside should have an idea whether or not this is a battle they can handle. The GM shouldn't make every encounter "balanced" to the party's ability. And maybe, maybe they will still try the challenge, but they are going in there with a plan. Making plans and seeing them come together is more fun than rolling to hit a monster whenever your turn comes around.

How to Run a Heist in Any System

This blog is in response to Zee Bashew and Matt Coleville's youtube channels, regarding running a heist. 

You want to run a heist, or your players are about to storm a heavily defended outpost. Preplanning is key, but how do your players know what to plan. I doubt any of them has real-life experience in these areas, but the characters probably do. So how do you cover for your player's lack of foresight?

The following method is a combination of the Leverage RPG system for heists and some suggestions made for Savage Worlds, but they will work for any system. You may have to add the meta-currency (bennies, tokens, fate points, hero points, most games already have one).

Start with some skill rolls. Every player needs to decide what their contribution will be to the plan: The hacker my crack the security systems, the Mastermind might get the layout, the hitter may keep tabs on the security guards, etc. Then everyone gets a skill roll. If the roll succeeds, add a Meta-Token into a pot. If it's a critical success, add two or three.

During the actual heist, any player may take a Meta-Token from the pot and spend it to reroll a failed roll or to conveniently have a tool for a job that wasn't listed on their character sheet. The Meta-Token might also follow the rules of whatever game system you are using. The player should explain how their fore-planning allowed them the advantage on the roll. Keep in mind also, the pot doesn't refill. Once it is empty, the heroes have reached the limit of what their pre-planning can do to help.

That's it. It should be easy to bolt into your game system.

Effort and Why I Dig It (ICRPG)

ICRPG uses a system called Effort, as in "this task requires more than the flip of the switch so let's see how far you get this round". Damage is effort, each round you see how much closer you've pushed the enemy toward Deadsville. Well Runehammer thought that such an interesting system should get used more often. Now, all complicated tasks have "Hit Points", and you must defeat them using the relevant skill and Effort. Now, the lock on the doorknob isn't going to be attacking you back so "where is the drama" you ask? It's in the form of a TIMER. 

A Timer is usually a d4, but it could be a d6. The GM rolls it and the players then have that many rounds to do the task before SOMETHING HAPPENS. What is it? Only the GM knows for sure and it's enough to make you pee your britches.

You don't have to use a Timer all of the... er... time, either. Suspense has to be a roller-coaster, with ups and downs for contrast. If every moment has suspense, players will become numb to it. Just pull it out every time you want the players to get worried.

Now Effort is rated by a specific die type: d4 for Basic Effort, d6 for Weapons or Tool Effort, d8 for Magic or Super-Tech Effort, d10s are skipped as they are used solely for Loot Tables, and d12s as ULTIMATE EFFORT!

Wait, all weapons deal d6 damage?

Yup.

But That's NOT REALISTIC?

What is? Take D&D for example and the humble spear. In reality, the spear was one of the most common weapons on the battlefield. It was easy to make, cheap, keeps your opponents out of reach, and could be mastered by an unskilled user. But in D&D, those extra attributes aren't calculated. As a result, every player (that I have witnessed) picks a Longsword, a Rapier, or a Two-Handed weapon because they deal the most damage for the character type. Using a spear is a detriment to the character.

Well ICRPG says "It doesn't matter anymore, use what you like". I LOVE this. My players can now use whatever type of weapon that makes them look cool (Rule of Cool) and all I have to do is add a few tags. They can even make up weapons. Putting them in ICRPG is a snap. What's that? You want fold-away short-swords that can unfold into climbing picks like Rayla's in The Dragon Prince?

Okay so that's Shadow Elf Butterfly Swords: d6 Effort; Tags: Alien, Climbing, Concealed, Fast, Light, and Sturdy.

That took me about 30 seconds and I don't have to worry about weapon balance.

So Effort shouldn't be looked at as Damage. It's a measure of progression to a specific goal this round. Hit points are the length of the track and Effort is the speed at which you run it. And the Hit Points say a weapon should complete it's task against an single-heart opponent in two rounds with two solid hits, maybe a little longer. Picking the lock on a one-heart chest is going to take 3 rounds minimum unless you score a crit.

Also, in the Movie-verse, is there a visible difference in damage between Subotai's sword and Conan's? How about the German Machine Guns, versus the American Machine Guns? When there was a difference, it was specifically called out. Guns deal the same damage but when Arnold grabs the Bazooka... The Movie-verse doesn't care that a .45 caliber bullet does more damage than a 9mm. You go bang, they fall down. While debating the merits of weapon details can be fun, it really has no place in fiction. The objects aren't the point of the tale, the characters are. 

Note: Hankerin hates the idea of balance. But there is such a thing as good game balance: The balance of player's options so they don't feel that their decisions in character creation led them to make a boring, useless, or inept character, unless that's what they intended. No one should be penalized for wanting to look cool. 

So in short, if I want to play a wandering Spear Master, in ICRPG I have the same shot in the spotlight as Grunter the Unwashed and his Clobberrock mk Many. In D&D, not so much.

Hit Points are Timers

I've played a variety of RPGs over my lifetime. Many of them have substituted Wound levels for Hit Points, such as Savage Worlds and WEG's Stars Wars. As a system, I don't mind them and they seem more realistic than Hit Points. There is already a huge RPG philosophical debate over what Hit Points actually are. Are they a measure of health and blood loss? Are they a measure of luck and combat prowess?

My friends... they are TIMERS. That is all they have ever truly been. If a 4 heroes do X damage per round, my creature needs Y Hit points to survive long enough to do its cool abilities. If you want an encounter to last longer, give the villain more Hit Points. If the players change the timer speed by doing more damage in a round, BRAVO!

Well that's definitely an argument against Hit Points, right? If we know it's a meta-measurement, we should stick with the realistic Wound systems?

Not exactly. One of the things I've found with Wound systems is a lack of suspense. Often times a hero or villain can be taken down in one hit (realistic), but that eases tension imho. The player accepts the possibilities of their character being in one of three states: Fine, Wounded, or KO'd. If fine, keep attacking. If wounded, keep attacking. If KO'd, kick back and wait until you revive.

But with Hit Points, the results are more nuanced and random. You might be hit for a point of damage or you might be slammed leaving only one hit point. As a result, there is greater range of dread. Hit Points build suspense because it is a timer that can move a little or a lot, but still leave you alive long enough to worry how you'll be next round. You hope you might only take 1 Hit Point of Damage while you scurry for safety.

You know, the older I get, the more I realize that a game will always be abstract, never realistic. And that my players want "Movie-verse" reality, and that we are so well versed in that reality they we don't necessarily need complicated rules to emulate that. We can just use the Rule of Cool (That's cool so yeah, you can try it), and all be accepting of the ruling, and we remember that in an RPG, everyone is supposed to win.

Musings on the New SWADE

Yup, I'm still pouring over the rules but I have noticed a couple of changes I will be making in my home game.

EXPERIENCE

I'm just going to leave the old experience points rules in. It's not that the idea of the GM deciding when heroes level is bad. It's fine, if you have a regular game or granting a new level after every game session.

I'm a gamer of the older variety so running a continual story is difficult as is getting player schedules to match up. So it's hard for me to remember how long it has been since the heroes leveled up. Did I decide they earned half a level last time, or was that the game before (4 weeks ago)? If only there were a way to have my players write down how close to the next level they are.

Oh...yeah.

WEALTH

I used to be really bugged about coming up with a wealth system that bypassed the bean-counting. Turns out, you don't need a system for everything. Common sense works better as an abstract.

No rolls. If it sounds like something your character's wealth could afford, you can buy it. If it's expensive or hard to get, then it's time for some role-play. Nothing is added to the game by telling a player "no, you can't rent a car". If they make a huge payment that pushes their finances, I will just rule that they are tapped out for the rest of the adventure.

CHASES

The new chase rules are remarkably like a cleaner version of the SWEX chase rules, but I don't like the second deck of cards. Instead, I'll print out a 1x10 grid for chases and a 8x8 grid for dogfights, like these:

I printed 4 of these for a game board.

 I use the action card suits dealt to indicate complications just like in SWEX. Other than that, I use the maneuvers from SWADE.

THE THINGS I LIKE

Skill Changes: I was iffy on these, even working out my own skill list. After a while, SWADE's list grey on me. My proposed changes didn't really outweigh the confusion I would have to suffer with new players who read the book but were unfamiliar to my house rules.

The New Statuses: This does streamline things.

The New Creature Size/Wounds chart: I like that larger creatures gain extra wounds, but I still think that beyond a certain size, a creature has natural heavy armor. Just as a swarm of mosquitoes can't sting a human to death (unless you count poison effects), pistols and rifles aren't going to do anything but annoy whales and dragons. So Huge or larger creatures in my games will have natural Heavy armor. Of course, called shots to the eyes and other vulnerable areas will bypass armor.

Savage Worlds Edition Wars?

The sneak peaks of Savage Worlds Adventure Edition have me cautiously enthused. But I drank the Kool-Aid and bought into the Kickstarter. I love Savage Worlds, but that doesn't mean I think it can do no wrong.

I am very under-excited about the skill changes. I have a homebrew skill list and I will likely continue to use it, but the problems I had with the Deluxe skill list are not fixed with the new one. It's just that Adventure Edition is now more of a departure from my list than Deluxe Edition.

I'm on the fence about dropping Charisma. Since it is now based on Edges and we haven't seen those yet, I will wait until I have my copy to review.

As for the new Suppressive Fire rules: Am I the only one that thought the old rule was fine? I think the new rule adds more unnecessary complication than before.

I do like the new Status rules as well as the flat 3 action limit. That, imho, has actually made the game more F!F!F!

And the new Chase rules? Hmmm. I was quite a bit confused on my read through. Granted, it's only a snippet of the rules and I plan on running it a few times just to see how it feels but my first impression is that it's just like the Explorer's Edition Chase rules although there is a layer of complication that seems unnecessary with the "chase center point".

I am definitely eager to read through the "Behind the Scenes" add-on to get a better understanding of why they did what they did. Hopefully it may change my mind.

But here's the thing. With my mindset right now, it is easier for me to mod Deluxe Edition with the new rules I know I like than it would be to mod Adventure Edition. There is enough of a shift in how Savage Worlds appears to play between the two that for the first time I feel like I have to pick a favorite. Is this the beginning of Savage Worlds Edition Wars.

For those who don't know what Edition Wars are:
When a new Edition of a game system comes out and if it radically changes the gameplay, the fanbase of that game will become sub-divided. A perfect Example of this is Dungeons and Dragons where you find groups that only play specific editions of the game. There are people who prefer the very first Basic Edition of D&D over any of the newer editions.

While that seems "meh, there's no badwrongfun in that", it does mean that the publisher is selling to a smaller market (the fans willing to buy into a new edition). D&D has a fanbase split between 6 different editions of the game and WOTC only continues to support the current version. They became acutely aware of the issue and did their best to design 5E to be appealing to all groups in an attempt to re-consolidate their market.

Well, here I am. I've just dumped Pathfinder Society because of the second Edition. Not that it's a bad game, it's just that I don't have the time or energy to learn yet another complicated d20 system. And more than a few of my Pathfinder friends are of a similar opinion (although mostly their decision is based on the financial cost of buying into a whole new Pathfinder system). And now I am wondering if I am about to become an Edition Grognard, saying things like "Pah, Savage Worlds Deluxe was the best version!"

Time will tell. I am trying to keep an open mind on this because Savage Worlds has trumped my tweaker-gene before. Here's hoping I'll continue to be the same Grognard I've always been.