Wild Talents v. Savage Worlds

[scruffygrognard]

Hey all,
My group is taking a break from D&D following a 3 year Ptolus campaign and will be using the summer to test drive new games.
One campaign setting that looks really interesting is the Kerberos Club steampunk/superhero setting for either Savage Worlds or Wild Talents.
If you've tried both systems and can offer feedback as to which you preferred please share it. At this point I'm leaning towards the Savage Worlds version (because I own the rulebook) but have heard good things about Wild Talents too.
Thanks in advance.

 

[Walking Dad]

I wasn't very impressed by the ORE system. If you already have and like Savage Worlds, I would stay with the system.

Wild Talents is gritty, high-powered, without any system forced balance (for survivability) and utilities require much GM interpretation. Not my favored combination of traits.

 

[pawsplay]

If you think you might like Wild Talents and you haven't tried it, try it. And contrary to what Walking Dad says, it's not inherently gritty.

 

[scruffygrognard]

Thanks guys... though I'm still at a loss to choose a system (I'm still leaning towards Savage Worlds, for financial reasons). Hopefully some other people chime in.

 

[Walking Dad]

Thanks guys... though I'm still at a loss to choose a system (I'm still leaning towards Savage Worlds, for financial reasons). Hopefully some other people chime in.

To be fair, the Essential Edition of WT is pretty cheap for a core book and I recommend the use of a SW supplement to play KC.

pawsplay, would you agree that 'vanilla' WT is more gritty than Savage Worlds? There are more extreme systems out there, but I like 'my' Kerberos Club with a certain bit of pulp flavor, and SW is good at this.

 

[pawsplay]

pawsplay, would you agree that 'vanilla' WT is more gritty than Savage Worlds? There are more extreme systems out there, but I like 'my' Kerberos Club with a certain bit of pulp flavor, and SW is good at this.

I think WT is grit-agnostic. You can use harsh rules for being on fire, or not, for instance. You can choose high fatality or fatality settings. Squish-squash or no squish-squash. It's really a toolkit. Godlike, on which it is based, is very gritty... but you have to turn a few dials to ask WT to do Godlike classic.

 

[Saeviomagy]

WT essentials is $15 bucks here in Australia, and is pretty much the cheapest RPG that I can buy.

I've not played savage worlds, but I'd have to say that you can make WT decidedly ungritty and very pulplike, with lucky escapes and relatively nonlethal-for-players combat. Hell, the sidebars for doing that were in godlike too.

 

[scruffygrognard]

Thanks Saeviomagy. Maybe I'll pick it up just to check out the system.

 

[Gilbetron]

It's a tough call - I've played a bit of Wild Talents and a bunch of Savage Worlds, and I like them both. When I look back at those games, I can say I've had more fun with Savage Worlds, but not by much. Savage Worlds is really fun to GM, and it's hard to explain until you experience it yourself. It's set up to minimize the GM workload, while still maintaining fun player options. Additionally, it maintains a type of progression system that is a hybrid between levels and simple point buy. Finally, all the various "bits" of the game are fun to me. Playing card initiative is fantastic (and not just a gimmick, it actually helps run things a bit faster), Bennies are neat, and the Shaken/Wounded mechanic is nifty.

However, if you want something a bit more "normal", WT might be it. It has hit locations and health level damage, it has Willpower instead of Bennies, etc.

I'd just get the PDF of both "Explorer Editions" and check them out. But off the cuff, not hardly knowing you, but knowing that you like 3.5/PF, I'd say go with Savage Worlds.

 

[scruffygrognard]

That's exactly what I was looking for Gilbertron! Like I wrote, I was leaning towards SW anyway. Now to start adding stuff to my Amazon Wishlish!