True20 vs Savage Worlds?

[WayneLigon]

I'm still debating on which to use, myself.

Right now, I've run True20 once and played Savage Worlds once. I'm still fence-sitting on what system to use. I'm gearing up to run a campaign at the FLGS, so I need to make a decision fairly quickly.

 

[ConanMK]

That looks like an interesting point (despite I don't have a "massive d20 library"). Do you have easy conversion tables to use the D&D Monster Manual with True20 rules?

There is a brief conversion appendix in the back of the True20 core book.

True20 Bestiary contains conversions of many creatures from the SRD (so most of the work is already done for you), has a chapter on creating your own creatures and an appendix with simple step-by-step instructions for converting d20 creatures to True20.

Even if you don't already have a large d20 library, True20 has the advantage of allowing you to pick up and use virtually any d20 product with it with relative ease. That gives you TONS of source material to pick and choose from.

(incidently Castles and Crusades has a similar advantage, only it jives with D&D 1e,2e & 3.x material rather than all d20 material)

 

[Bretbo]

The biggest is that most everything on your character sheet is not worth a lot when compared to Bennies - when you have them you can do crazy stuff... when you're out you are not as cool and can't do much anymore (at least at lower power levels).

I don't know your experience, but having the Wild Die makes PCs way "cool" compared to NPCs, bennies or not.

 

[Prest0]

Haven't played True20 yet, but I played through two Savage Worlds campaigns over the course of a year. I love it. Character creation is much faster than d20. As a byproduct, GM prep time is generally much shorter. It's a lot easier to create NPCs on the fly. You can also control the tone of the game simply by the number of bennies you hand out. The standard is 3 per game. Give them 1 and you're looking at Poltergeist. Give them 5 and you're looking at Big Trouble in Little China. Savage Worlds already has some fun, unique settings out, and there are more very cool sounding ones on the way.

With Savage Worlds, the ethic is that you only need the core rulebook and a setting book to run a campaign. There's no endless line of expansions and game-breaking player books. One rulebook, one setting book. Most setting books have a player section and a GM section, and the license allows you to copy the player section for every member of your group. So it isn't even like your players have to go out and buy the setting book to have access to the setting-specific character options.

 

[Breakdaddy]

ValhallaGH sums it up pretty well, I think both could be used equally well for most purposes. I think you can make True20 a more grim n gritty game with much much less tweaking though.

 

[Michael Tree]

They both have strenths and weaknesses compared to each other.

Magic System: True20's power system is flavorful and flexible, while SW's power system, in a word, stinks. SW has one the most boring and uninspiring magic systems I've ever seen. The Deadlands setting improves on it with a bunch of extra rules for different kinds of magic, but the rules in the basic book are a disappointment.

Fun Combat: They're both pretty good at this. SW's combat options are the best part of the game, and add a lot of interesting tactical thought, while SW is more like traditional d20 (minus the AoO's). The Trick and Contest of Wills actions in SW make the game IMO, while the equivalent in True20 require some investment in feats, and in the end don't come off as interestingly. True20 does have a wealth of feats that affect combat though, so a character could be designed to have lots of interesting combat options.

Mass Combat: Savage Worlds works really well when you have lots of combatants on the field. True20 NPCs have more to keep track of, and the attack rolls require calculation, so it's not as easy to do mass battles. If you borrowed the 'minion' rules from Mutants and Masterminds, where minions don't have all the standard wound levels, and are either fine or out of the fight, the two systems would become a bit closer. SW also has specific edges for PCs leading and inspiring NPCs, while true20 doesn't as much.

Character Flexibility: True20 characters can do more things than a SW character can. At each level, they gain free skill points, attack bonus, and a feat, while SW characters have to decide whether to spend each advance on combat skills, skills, or edges. There's also a lot more variety in True20 feats than SW edges, though SW is also pretty good in that regard. SW characters are generally more focused, while True20 characters are geneally more well-rounded.

GM Preparation: True20 is much easier on the GM than standard D20, but SW is even easier than True20. A GM could improvise a fully flushed out SW character on the spot, but True20 characters require some calculation.

 

[Turanil]

Great comments, thanks! Lets come more if any.

What I personally see, is that Savage Worlds is the game I feel the less inclined to houserule (just add some edges and archetypes drawn from others' houserules / conversions). This, IMO, is a sign it's probably the game I should use. True20, I feel like adding a couple of core classes to it, so maybe it's a sign that True20 is not 100% what I seek. On the other hand I agree that SW magic system is bland and standard.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Mass Combat: Savage Worlds works really well when you have lots of combatants on the field. True20 NPCs have more to keep track of, and the attack rolls require calculation, so it's not as easy to do mass battles. If you borrowed the 'minion' rules from Mutants and Masterminds, where minions don't have all the standard wound levels, and are either fine or out of the fight, the two systems would become a bit closer. SW also has specific edges for PCs leading and inspiring NPCs, while true20 doesn't as much.

Wait, you missed the section on Minions on page 119 of True20? And you missed the Combat Unit template found in the bestiary? Between those two rules I can easily run 50 to 3,000,000 NPC combatants in a single Tr20 fight.

GM Preparation: True20 is much easier on the GM than standard D20, but SW is even easier than True20. A GM could improvise a fully flushed out SW character on the spot, but True20 characters require some calculation.

This point is all about system familiarity. I know a couple of people (two to be exact) that can generate D&D 3.5 NPCs in their heads at a moment's notice. I have generated True20 PCs and NPCs in my head when it turned out that I needed them.
The only calculation was when I had to figure the saves for a multi-role Warrior/Expert/Adept when his expert gave him good reflex saves; it was an annoying calculation, I admit. All the rest of his stats were either right off the character charts (conviction) or inside my brain.
I'm not saying that it's an invalid point, it's actually a very important point, but the direction it takes you depends upon your own level of comfort.

True20, I feel like adding a couple of core classes to it

Such as? I have difficulty seeing what you could want to play, that is actually playable in a d20-ish system, that isn't covered by a combination of the current roles and maybe a few new feats. Not that it can't be so, just that I'm not able to imagine it currently.

 

[Michael Tree]

Wait, you missed the section on Minions on page 119 of True20? And you missed the Combat Unit template found in the bestiary? Between those two rules I can easily run 50 to 3,000,000 NPC combatants in a single Tr20 fight.

Er, yes, I did miss that section. And I don't have the bestiary.

<Emily Litella> Never mind </Emily Litella>

This point is all about system familiarity. I know a couple of people (two to be exact) that can generate D&D 3.5 NPCs in their heads at a moment's notice. I have generated True20 PCs and NPCs in my head when it turned out that I needed them.
...
I'm not saying that it's an invalid point, it's actually a very important point, but the direction it takes you depends upon your own level of comfort.

That's a good point. It certainly would get easier as you become more familiar with True20, but, assuming the same level of familiarity, SW would be easier, if only because SW characters are less detailed, less structured, and don't require any calculation. It would also be much tougher for monsters in True20 than for humanoids, because True20 retains all the various creature types.

 

[Turanil]

Such as? I have difficulty seeing what you could want to play, that is actually playable in a d20-ish system, that isn't covered by a combination of the current roles and maybe a few new feats. Not that it can't be so, just that I'm not able to imagine it currently.

I just downloaded the True Force document, to play Star Wars using True20; in this case I don't feel the need for additional classes. I once considered an EarthSea campaign, and in that case too, the rules are pefect as they are, at least for me. However, when you read the EarthSea novels, there is only one type of magic-users, so the Adept is enough; then there is not much emphasize on other character types, so the Warrior and Expert will cover everything.

Now I like variety, and then I want clerics (with a crusader style) in my vanilla fantasy setting, who are not identical to wizards (but casting spells using wisdom instead of inteligence). As such, I don't see why not adding an "Initiate" class (although I have not much ideas how to design it at this time). Then, I found a "Runecharger" class made by someone on the True20 forums, that brings a different feel, and I don't see why not adding it. It would be effective for making Spellsword or Artificer types. Lastly, why not create also a Disciple class for making monks, ninjas, yogis, etc.

I am aware that most True20 gamers think the 3 core classes are not only enough, but no other class could be added. I agree that the game can be played perfectly with the 3 classes, especially in settings with a single sort of magic. But myself, I wouldn't mind adding one or more, even if they are not absolutely necessary.