Savage Worlds vs 13th Age

[Magean]

Hey,

The title probably sounds like one of those idiotic computer-generated online comparisons, but I don't have any better idea.

13th Age 2e's Kickstarter campaign is ongoing and I've long considered giving this game a try, but never had a chance and likely won't during the coming weeks.

As far as I know, it's a sort of spiritual derivative of D&D 4e that went all in on the crunchy, gamey side while ditching the infamous MMO / wargame influence, focusing instead on the fun in the crunch, with the escalation die speeding up 4e's combat slugfest.

Meanwhile, I tried Savage Worlds, which seems to cater to a similar audience: a classic, non-narrative, crunchy game with a "fast & furious" design principle, where rolling and rerolling exploding dice is part of the fun, and a natural fit for pulp stories.

So, am I right to compare those two systems? Maybe I'm wrong and they've little in common. And if they do overlap in purpose, then where do they differ, where do they converge? I'm not asking about specific rules or mechanics (such as their handling of skills or classes), but about feeling and "fitness" to various playstyles and stories. Which one is indeed the "fastest and most furious"? Ideally, crunch in TTRPGs (at least for me) should only include what a computer couldn't handle without taking the fun out of the game. Pure Pathfinder-style bookkeeping can be delegated to a computer; whereas the thrill of rolling dice, not so.

Btw, how constraining is 13th Age's setting, given the Idol mechanic in particular and the way it's embedded in the rules, and how easily can it be adapted to other settings ? SW is in fact a generic system and you're supposed to pick the variant fitting your setting (e.g. Deadlands, Pathfinder, Lankhmar...).

Thanks in advance.

 

[Matchstick]

I think that's a difficult comparison to make.

13th Age is better at Fantasy, because that's its target. SW can handle almost any setting with just the core book, just not to the level of completeness (is that a word?) as a more targeted ruleset (like 13th Age, or SW with the Fantasy Companion). SW uses setting books and companions to try and bring itself to a more custom-to-a-campaign ruleset.

13th Age is d20, SW is all the dice
13th Age is hit points, SW is not
13th Age has classes, SW does not

Overall I think 13th Age would be a better choice for a group that wants fantasy and is more familiar with the way D&D works. Might be an easier transition. For a group with wide-ranging setting tastes, SW would be a better option IMO; there's a LOT of places SW can take you.

 

[Magean]

I think that's a difficult comparison to make.

13th Age is better at Fantasy, because that's its target. SW can handle almost any setting with just the core book, just not to the level of completeness (is that a word?) as a more targeted ruleset (like 13th Age, or SW with the Fantasy Companion). SW uses setting books and companions to try and bring itself to a more custom-to-a-campaign ruleset.

13th Age is d20, SW is all the dice
13th Age is hit points, SW is not
13th Age has classes, SW does not

Overall I think 13th Age would be a better choice for a group that wants fantasy and is more familiar with the way D&D works. Might be an easier transition. For a group with wide-ranging setting tastes, SW would be a better option IMO; there's a LOT of places SW can take you.

Thanks ! And what of the flow of the game? Like combat pace, setup time, GMing overhead...?

Assuming players aren't particularly beholden to D&D conventions, so doing things the D&D is neither a good nor a bad in itself.

 

[Matchstick]

I'll preface by saying I really like both of these systems. A lot.

I think for me the flow is better in SW. I improvise better and keep things moving better. I'm more comfortable with not worrying about if there's a specific rule for something when I GM SW. Combat is faster in SW, and more dynamic, with exploding dice providing an element of danger that hit points just don't allow. Bennies offer a meta-currency way to adjust the deadliness and tone of an SW adventure; if the bennies are flowing the adventure will tend more toward the pulp, with chandelier swinging and narrow escapes. Fewer bennies mean the characters will (should) slow down and weigh their options carefully. I like being able to adjust that feeling.

GMing overhead is far out in favor of SW for me, but that may just be a comfort thing. 13th Age has wonderful unique classes, but that also means that the GM probably is going to need to be familiar with all those classes' unique setups and abilities. I don't feel that same kind of load with SW.

As far as setup time, well, SW wins for me there as well. There are plenty of sessions that I run where I don't prepare at all.

So much of this boils down, I think, to confidence with the system. I approach SW with more confidence, so I feel less load in terms of flow and preparation etc. 13th Age is, without hesitation, my choice for a d20 fantasy campaign; I love the unique classes and enjoy the default setting a lot. I love the way 13th Age handles skills, and the escalation die, and the One Unique Thing. SW would be my choice everywhere else though. The more I GM SW the more confidence I build, and that confidence then applies to anything from Flash Gordon to Deadlands to 50 Fathoms to Sprawlrunners. That's a pretty dang cool thing.

 

[Retreater]

I've run short campaigns (10 sessions) in both systems.

Savage Worlds is swingy ... swingy-mc-swingerson. Want to have a PC die to a mook? Want to have the arch-villain killed in a single attack? Do you like adding a bunch of numbers together, then subtracting from a Damage Resistance number, then dividing that number by 4 to get the number of wounds you deal to a target? Like having your core rulebook in a different (very boring and vanilla) book from the setting information/specific classes and races/etc., forcing everyone to buy like 2+ different books? Do you like gear - tracking down very specific types of guns/autofire/blast radiuses/armor piercing ratings/etc.?

13th Age - I would describe as a "plateau." Want every fighter to have basically the same defense/damage/ attack bonus? Want to have a rule in the game that suggests PCs just average their damage - except for "when it really matters?" Do you like d20 fantasy heartbreakers? Are you okay having limited availability until the 2nd edition is released in 2+ years? Do you like having basically everything you need (setting, treasure, monsters, etc.) in one core book? Do you like the idea of "attack powers" where every action your character has a different effect - which might change based on if the d20 rolled was even/odd or what round of combat it is? Do you want your players to have to write down a paragraph of text to remind them of these actions? Do you want to roll randomly who the villains and benefactors are for each session - even if it doesn't make any sense?

 

[overgeeked]

To the point about Savage Worlds and multiple books, there is Savage Worlds Pathfinder or Savage Pathfinder (whatever it’s called). The core book has all the rules for fantasy Savage Worlds with the PF setting attached. That core is a one-and-done for fantasy. You can use that to run any fantasy setting just as you would for most fantasy games.

 

[Retreater]

To the point about Savage Worlds and multiple books, there is Savage Worlds Pathfinder or Savage Pathfinder (whatever it’s called).

True. And that is the only Savage Worlds setting that doesn't also need an accompanying $40 rulebook - which is pretty much required for each player.

 

[overgeeked]

True. And that is the only Savage Worlds setting that doesn't also need an accompanying $40 rulebook - which is pretty much required for each player.

The GM and players can share books. You don’t all have to have your own personal copy at your elbow at all times.

 

[kronovan]

So, am I right to compare those two systems? Maybe I'm wrong and they've little in common. And if they do overlap in purpose, then where do they differ, where do they converge? I'm not asking about specific rules or mechanics (such as their handling of skills or classes), but about feeling and "fitness" to various playstyles and stories. Which one is indeed the "fastest and most furious"? Ideally, crunch in TTRPGs (at least for me) should only include what a computer couldn't handle without taking the fun out of the game. Pure Pathfinder-style bookkeeping can be delegated to a computer; whereas the thrill of rolling dice, not so.

Btw, how constraining is 13th Age's setting, given the Idol mechanic in particular and the way it's embedded in the rules, and how easily can it be adapted to other settings ? SW is in fact a generic system and you're supposed to pick the variant fitting your setting (e.g. Deadlands, Pathfinder, Lankhmar...).

Thanks in advance.

Even though the systems are different, I'd say you're right to compare them since Pinnacle Entertaiment has now published Savage Pathfinder. Classes in 13th Age are containers for powers and feats (like 4e), so in a sense there more akin to SW's archetypes with their edges and arcane powers (if an Arcane Background PC) than most D&D editions. As has already been pointed out though, the core play mechanics (especially dice) are very different.

I've run much more SW than 13th Age, but were I to want to run Epic/High fantasy like D&D settings, I'd choose 13A. It's more than doable to adapt it to other settings and there are already 3rd party Fantasy settings that support it like Midgard World and Glorantha. I'm a fan of Midgard and have been adapting the Midgard Bestiary (publication that also contains Midgard races and icons for 13A) to a virtual tabletop. For adventures, for the most part it's as easy as finding 13A equivalents. The bestiary is a snap in my VTT, because it has a parcer that almost flawlesslly builds those copied in from a PDF. Otherwise monsters can be a challenge, because they're quite complex in 13A - more so than 4e. There's decisions and maybe even a few compromises that'd need to be made in adapting some monsters from other settings. The features of monsters are discussed at length in the 13A 1e crb (not sure about 2e), so that helps with knowing how and what to adapt.

I've run a number of Sword & Sorcery settings with SW and IMO it's very good for supporting them. It'd be my choice for that genre over 13A, as it would also be if I wanted to run something that was Historical Fantasy.

Savage Worlds is swingy ... swingy-mc-swingerson. Want to have a PC die to a mook? Want to have the arch-villain killed in a single attack? Do you like adding a bunch of numbers together, then subtracting from a Damage Resistance number, then dividing that number by 4 to get the number of wounds you deal to a target? Like having your core rulebook in a different (very boring and vanilla) book from the setting information/specific classes and races/etc., forcing everyone to buy like 2+ different books? Do you like gear - tracking down very specific types of guns/autofire/blast radiuses/armor piercing ratings/etc.?

Those are all fairly extreme statements/examples, all of which I could counter. I'm not going to bother though, because I get it...you don't like Savage Worlds and not every TTRPG is for everyone - c'est la vie.

 

[Distracted DM]

13th Age is explicitly HEROIC fantasy. The characters start as powerful heroes. The system provides ways to make them slice through multiple foes with a single attack. It's basically what MCDM RPG set out to do with their system, but I didn't really know how to describe 13A until MCDM stated what they wanted their game to be about: Heroic Fantasy.
I looove 13th Age, and I ran it for years. I still steal from it!

I don't know Savage Worlds very well, it's been many years since I played a few sessions of it, so the best I can say is that if you want heroic fantasy D&D, look to 13A. If you want gritty, or sword and sorcery, or something lower-powered, look elsewhere.