This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Use Savage Worlds instead of D&D for your fantasy Lose/Gain Compare/Contrast  (Read 5133 times)

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
I have played nor GM's neither for an extended campaign.  I have played both to about the same relative scale of time/challenges in game.   I like both.  I like SW more, and that is mostly for personal preferences (I like power points, armor as damage resistance, fighting skill having a direct relation to defense, and a few other things) rather than things that I think of as being objectively better/worse.   I would like to hear from people with more game time/experience playing both or either.  

    Thanks.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
The real question is, do you want to do Savage Worlds fantasy, or do you want to do Savage D&D? The reason I say this is that many automatically assume D&D-like conditions will exist in fantasy worlds. Archetypes like (spellcasting, armor-wearing, and hammer/mace-swinging) clerics and all of the other classes are pretty strong across many game lines. Savage Worlds can very easily do fantasy without such limits. Whether this is a boon or a bane depends on the answer to the question I asked in the first sentence.

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Quote from: HappyDaze;1135311
The real question is, do you want to do Savage Worlds fantasy, or do you want to do Savage D&D? The reason I say this is that many automatically assume D&D-like conditions will exist in fantasy worlds. Archetypes like (spellcasting, armor-wearing, and hammer/mace-swinging) clerics and all of the other classes are pretty strong across many game lines. Savage Worlds can very easily do fantasy without such limits. Whether this is a boon or a bane depends on the answer to the question I asked in the first sentence.

  The fantasy companion reads Savage D&D.  There are sword and sorcery and other fantasy supplements for Savage worlds, but the "default" Fantasy Companion, is pretty clearly Savage D&D.

insubordinate polyhedral

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • i
  • Posts: 352
Quote from: HappyDaze;1135311
The real question is, do you want to do Savage Worlds fantasy, or do you want to do Savage D&D? The reason I say this is that many automatically assume D&D-like conditions will exist in fantasy worlds. Archetypes like (spellcasting, armor-wearing, and hammer/mace-swinging) clerics and all of the other classes are pretty strong across many game lines. Savage Worlds can very easily do fantasy without such limits. Whether this is a boon or a bane depends on the answer to the question I asked in the first sentence.

As a bystander curious about the Savage Worlds vs. D&D question myself: I've read this a couple of times and I'm not sure I understand the difference proposed. When you say "fantasy without such limits", do you mean Savage Worlds is workable as a fantasy system without fighter/cleric/thief/magic user archetypes? Or something else? I guess I don't get the boon or bane part -- if it can do both well, what's the bane?

Dave 2

  • Gamer
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • D
  • Posts: 266
I've done a lot of D&D and Savage Worlds, and I come out the opposite. I like both, but fantasy is my least favorite use of SW, to the extent I'll no longer play it.

In a good SW game players are swashbuckling, they're leveraging the rules to swing on chandeliers and taunt their opponents and set their fellow party members up for attacks. If you can picture Erol Flynn as a PC you've nailed a Savage Worlds campaign. So it's great for things like pirates, steampunk or Robin Hood.

Somehow in fantasy SW there's always a couple players who try to recreate fantasy or D&D class roles. So one guy's the mage, one guy's the healer, one guys the fighter - and they all insist on getting their relevant skill, Casting or Fighting, as high as possible. Then they've got that high skill and they insist on rolling it as much as possible because they're "just playing their character, man" and because it's "optimal." Except it's not optimal, it's suboptimal, they're passing up times the best play is to buckle their swash but they can't see it. So they're fighting the system, they're frustrated because it's not going how they think it should, any players who actually understand SW are frustrated because they're not pulling their weight, and the GM gets frustrated because they swing between getting their asses kicked when they shouldn't and only occasionally curb-stomping something that should have stayed up for a few rounds when they can leverage their high skill.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
Quote from: insubordinate polyhedral;1135326
As a bystander curious about the Savage Worlds vs. D&D question myself: I've read this a couple of times and I'm not sure I understand the difference proposed. When you say "fantasy without such limits", do you mean Savage Worlds is workable as a fantasy system without fighter/cleric/thief/magic user archetypes? Or something else? I guess I don't get the boon or bane part -- if it can do both well, what's the bane?

The game is built on Attributes, Skills, and Edges. Some require others as prerequisites, but there are no classes that define advancement paths. One warrior type might be great at melee (Fighting skill plus some relevant Edges) while another might go with archery (Shooting skill plus relevant edges) and a third might be a battlefield lead/tactician (Battle skill and leadership Edges), but many can mix those in various ways. Likewise, there doesnt have to be D&D limits on magic, so "wizards" that heal and "holy men" that do magic tricks that D&D players consider more the realm of "arcane magic" are possible.

There is also the fact that SW is not a hit point system. It can be hard to hurt high toughness monsters, but at other times a single high damage roll might kill a powerful opponent in one hit. Whether that's a feature or bug is a matter of taste.

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Quote from: Dave R;1135329
I've done a lot of D&D and Savage Worlds, and I come out the opposite. I like both, but fantasy is my least favorite use of SW, to the extent I'll no longer play it.

In a good SW game players are swashbuckling, they're leveraging the rules to swing on chandeliers and taunt their opponents and set their fellow party members up for attacks. If you can picture Erol Flynn as a PC you've nailed a Savage Worlds campaign. So it's great for things like pirates, steampunk or Robin Hood.

Somehow in fantasy SW there's always a couple players who try to recreate fantasy or D&D class roles. So one guy's the mage, one guy's the healer, one guys the fighter - and they all insist on getting their relevant skill, Casting or Fighting, as high as possible. Then they've got that high skill and they insist on rolling it as much as possible because they're "just playing their character, man" and because it's "optimal." Except it's not optimal, it's suboptimal, they're passing up times the best play is to buckle their swash but they can't see it. So they're fighting the system, they're frustrated because it's not going how they think it should, any players who actually understand SW are frustrated because they're not pulling their weight, and the GM gets frustrated because they swing between getting their asses kicked when they shouldn't and only occasionally curb-stomping something that should have stayed up for a few rounds when they can leverage their high skill.

  I guess I am missing how characters choosing to have a very narrow focus is a SW problem?   That seems like a lack of player understanding the breadth of options the rules give (and I have a similar issue with GURPS and playing fantasy similar to D&D vibe) more so than a system limit.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
Quote from: oggsmash;1135334
I guess I am missing how characters choosing to have a very narrow focus is a SW problem?   That seems like a lack of player understanding the breadth of options the rules give (and I have a similar issue with GURPS and playing fantasy similar to D&D vibe) more so than a system limit.

It's not a SW problem, but it is a problem that shows up in games with freedom to advance at the player's choice rather than through guardrails like classes. Classes make PC growth predictable in both height and breadth of power, while something like SW is far harder to gauge.

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Quote from: HappyDaze;1135335
It's not a SW problem, but it is a problem that shows up in games with freedom to advance at the player's choice rather than through guardrails like classes. Classes make PC growth predictable in both height and breadth of power, while something like SW is far harder to gauge.

   Now that is something I can understand being an issue.  Very slight player balance I have seen (at least at seasoned level of 20pts) can have a HUGE swing on encounters where one encounter was a complete disaster, and a bit of change and essentially the same encounter looked like the players were unbeatable conquerors.

Dave 2

  • Gamer
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • D
  • Posts: 266
Quote from: oggsmash;1135334
missing how characters choosing to have a very narrow focus is a SW problem

In the abstract it's not, but when it happens three times in a row with different groups, and the third time is after the GM warns players making characters they should consider diversifying, it certainly is a problem in the as-applied sense. And, yes, if I'd been the GM for all of those I'd give a stronger warning or even exercise a veto over too-narrow character builds. Then again, when I'm the GM I can choose another system for fantasy, one where class roles actually work how players expect and want them to. And I can save SW for the swashbuckling games that are in its wheelhouse.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
Another key point of difference:

D&D, at least with 5e, assumes a group of 4-6 PCs vs. the world. Rarely will PCs have along hirelings like basic mercenaries, and mechanical support for controlling them is limited. Conversely, in SW, it is fairly common to have numerous allied NPCs along with the group and the game has mechanics (mainly leadership Edges) for controlling them.

tenbones

  • Poobah of the D.O.N.G.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6164
Quote from: HappyDaze;1135311
The real question is, do you want to do Savage Worlds fantasy, or do you want to do Savage D&D? The reason I say this is that many automatically assume D&D-like conditions will exist in fantasy worlds. Archetypes like (spellcasting, armor-wearing, and hammer/mace-swinging) clerics and all of the other classes are pretty strong across many game lines. Savage Worlds can very easily do fantasy without such limits. Whether this is a boon or a bane depends on the answer to the question I asked in the first sentence.


False dichotomy! (I'm teasing but a little serious).

Savage Worlds "fantasy" is setting-specific, but the rules themselves are setting neutral. As someone that by default runs "D&D" using Savage Worlds as my system - the approach is simple:

Make whatever *you* think is "D&D Fantasy" expressed in Savage Worlds. That's what I do. I run Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, Planescape using Savage Worlds Core - with bits of stuff from Shaintar, Fantasy Core, Hellfrost, 50-Fathoms, Beasts and Barbarians, and I use Deadlands and Rippers to cover all my "black powder" and steampunk stuff. ALL the rules work interchangeably.

So that said, the main differences:

D&D RAW has a much slower potential progression speed. I find that Savage Worlds is more high-octane in this regard, and you may want to moderate XP or do away with it entirely.

The nifty thing about SW<>D&D is that SW's tiers do a good job of conforming to the assumed tiers of play based on level. Novice - is about 1-3, Seasoned is about 4-6, Veteran is about 7-9, Heroic is about 10-14th and Legendary is 15+... where the + could scale WAAAAYYYYYY beyond anything D&D can handle.

Spellcasting is naturally different - but there are options available to go full Vancian if you want. Or point-based, or skill-based, etc etc. If you wanna make it magic HEAVY - you can take the magic rules from Rifts and overlay them... then you're talking insanely God-mode levels of play.

Combat is a lot faster. You can set your own setting conceits to dial the "grittiness" factor up or down.

tenbones

  • Poobah of the D.O.N.G.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6164
Quote from: Dave R;1135329
I've done a lot of D&D and Savage Worlds, and I come out the opposite. I like both, but fantasy is my least favorite use of SW, to the extent I'll no longer play it.

In a good SW game players are swashbuckling, they're leveraging the rules to swing on chandeliers and taunt their opponents and set their fellow party members up for attacks. If you can picture Erol Flynn as a PC you've nailed a Savage Worlds campaign. So it's great for things like pirates, steampunk or Robin Hood.

Somehow in fantasy SW there's always a couple players who try to recreate fantasy or D&D class roles. So one guy's the mage, one guy's the healer, one guys the fighter - and they all insist on getting their relevant skill, Casting or Fighting, as high as possible. Then they've got that high skill and they insist on rolling it as much as possible because they're "just playing their character, man" and because it's "optimal." Except it's not optimal, it's suboptimal, they're passing up times the best play is to buckle their swash but they can't see it. So they're fighting the system, they're frustrated because it's not going how they think it should, any players who actually understand SW are frustrated because they're not pulling their weight, and the GM gets frustrated because they swing between getting their asses kicked when they shouldn't and only occasionally curb-stomping something that should have stayed up for a few rounds when they can leverage their high skill.


This sounds like a Player/GM dynamics issue. Not a system issue.

GM's should be feeding their players, players should be engaging in the content they wanna engage in to the limits of the setting's conceits. if they wanna go Full Hammer and treat everything like a Nail... then you should present them when applicable with problems that require a needle and thread - and let the world react to their insistent hammering.

Crusader X

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 228
I have mainly played old school D&D, which has a strong focus on things like resource management (food, torches, etc), XP for Gold, monster reactions, monster morale, and high lethality.  These things are the heart of a D&D B/X dungeon crawl.  Does Savage Worlds deal with these old school elements at all?

tenbones

  • Poobah of the D.O.N.G.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6164
Quote from: Crusader X;1135378
I have mainly played old school D&D, which has a strong focus on things like resource management (food, torches, etc), XP for Gold, monster reactions, monster morale, and high lethality.  These things are the heart of a D&D B/X dungeon crawl.  Does Savage Worlds deal with these old school elements at all?

As a specific conceit - No. But I'll address each of these...

XP is purely based on playing. In the new edition SWADE - they don't even USE XP. You play, and when the GM tells everyone they can Advance, they can spend that Advance on specific things: Raising Stats, Skills, purchase Edges, Remove Hindrances - this assumes there's roleplaying elements to justify it.
Resource management - As needed. *I* enforce strict resource management. But gear lists in SW Core is pretty straightforward. We're still waiting for the Fantasy SWADE edition. But the Fantasy Reloaded edition (along with any other fantasy setting like Shaintar, Hellfrost, or Beast and Barbarians will make any D&D player/GM feel right at home.
Monster Morale - No. But they do have Fear mechanics, and Morale for Mass Combat. They leave it to GM common-sense.
High Lethality - Yes. I find that SW can be very lethal - though combat doesn't do the HP-sponge thing that D&D does. It is very much a too-and-froe tide of battle. Some people find that it can feel Bullet-spongey with people using their Bennies to keep from landing on the Death spiral of the Wound Track... I've found most times that's because the GM is being stingy with Bennies and this causes PC's to hoard them. Also - there are Gritty Setting Rules, where whenever you take a Wound you roll on the Injury Table and it's BEASTLY nasty.

Dungeon Crawling - You absolutely can Dungeon Crawl in Savage Worlds. Most of the SWADE stuff now, uses lots of random tables for encounters (the SWADE Rifts rules are packed with them). Presumably all the settings going forward will do the same. That said, Dungeon Crawling isn't game-specific to any game per se, but SW can stand with the best of them in this style of play - even their movement rules are based on grid-style play.

The true beauty of Savage Worlds is that you can *make* it play to your style with ease. Whether you wanna storygame, or go hardcore and old-school. I lean closer to the latter and almost never the former.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2020, 07:39:12 PM by tenbones »