(as always over on the Big Purple as well - I love the differences of opinion!)

So, to continue my amazing group face-punching, I'm looking into my different systems to make some episodic type games. Two of them are GURPS 4e and Savage Worlds Deluxe.

Based on your experiences, what does each system do well? What I mean is, both are "generic", but both games are also made in such a way that certain types of campaigns are easier to do in it without changing much than others.

I acknowledge that both games give advice about how to change the genre and style of the game used running it. But I'd like to know, well, what do you all think these two games do well?

I'm not terribly interested in what they do badly, mind - I just want to know what each game, in terms of settings and genres or playstyles, they lend themselves to.

Opinions? Evaluations? Outright lies?

GURPS would be my pick for a game where you intend to have lots of non-combat stuff, since SW's skill list is more geared toward adventuring and fighting; although in general I like SW more. SW also I think defaults the characters to a more heroic level (whereas GURPS is more resettable), although its still potentially high lethality IMHO. Neither would be my pick of choice for a superhero game (having tried this briefly in both SW Explorer and a GURPS 2e/3e mashup).

GURPS is very good at games where you require a lot of technical detail. If your the kind of group that worries about the impact low gravity planets have upon ballistics damage, GURPS is by far your best (if not only) choice.

Savage Worlds is very good at games where you have a lot of combatants in a given fight. You could pretty much run it as a pure wargame and it would basically work.

Both systems have the advantage that theirs a lot of varied setting material out their, so you can probably find enough official material to allow you to play in any genre.

As a general guideline, GURPS for gritty, grimy stuff, and Savage Worlds for stuff with Hollywood (as in, Jerry Bruckheimer, Roland Emmerich, Michael Bay) action movie sensibilities.

GURPS, at least the versions I've had experience with (2e and 3e) have very granular skill and advantage/disadvantage systems, and an involved combat system that feels very detailed and gritty. Also extensive support by way of supplements. We played a lot of SF games with it, mostly cyberpunk and milSF, and it felt pretty good for those sorts of games. We used it for fantasy a couple of times, too, but it never struck me as a partciularly good system for it with so many more elaborate options (e.g. D&D, Runequest, Rolemaster). I've stopped playing it because our GURPS guy stopped GMing, and never ran it because character creation was too drawn-out for my tastes (we only ever had one copy, two tops).

SW has quite a bit of "script immunity" built-in for PCs. Wild Cards (which the PCs are) get a Wild Die (an extra d6 to roll with every check) and bennies (action point-type mechanic that can be used to reroll skill checks, or to soak wounds). This means they are quite literally omni-competent paragons capable of shrugging off injuries that put "lesser men" (mooks, or Extras in SW parlance) out of action. I used to run sword-and-sorcery stuff (Solomon Kane, later Conan) and a couple of modern-day one-shot scenarios, but I'm a bit burned out on SW right now, having come to appreciate grittier systems.

Man, conceptually I love Gurps. Its "scientificist" internal logic is really admirable.

In practice though, I find the system bland like salt-less cream-cracker, and its "world of statues" 1-sec phases combat makes me cry in agony.

Quote from: The Butcher;536664SW has quite a bit of "script immunity" built-in for PCs. Wild Cards (which the PCs are) get a Wild Die (an extra d6 to roll with every check) and bennies (action point-type mechanic that can be used to reroll skill checks, or to soak wounds). This means they are quite literally omni-competent paragons capable of shrugging off injuries that put "lesser men" (mooks, or Extras in SW parlance) out of action. I used to run sword-and-sorcery stuff (Solomon Kane, later Conan) and a couple of modern-day one-shot scenarios, but I'm a bit burned out on SW right now, having come to appreciate grittier systems.

I can see where the Butcher is coming from here, though I do have to say that while SW PCs are much tougher than Extras in the system, the PCs are still more fragile than are PCs are in many (maybe most) other systems - any damage roll could potentially roll up multiple times and kill a PC, and wound penalties and healing times are quite harsh. Surprise situations are very bad as well.
 
(There's an optional system for starting PCs as Extras in Realms of Cthulhu, and progressing them through stages where they have less wounds and a d4 wild die, although I think that would make PCs a bit too flimsy).

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;536737I can see where the Butcher is coming from here, though I do have to say that while SW PCs are much tougher than Extras in the system, the PCs are still more fragile than are PCs are in many (maybe most) other systems - any damage roll could potentially roll up multiple times and kill a PC, and wound penalties and healing times are quite harsh. Surprise situations are very bad as well.

I'm sure I've mentioned this before, and IIRC other posters haven't reported the same problem, but I've never had a PC killed in 3 years of semi-regular SW gaming. Maybe I wasn't throwing enough extras at them, but right now, having starting PCs mow down dozens of mooks isn't my idea of exciting combat. Which is probably the #1 reason I dropped SW.

Quote from: The Butcher;536752I'm sure I've mentioned this before, and IIRC other posters haven't reported the same problem, but I've never had a PC killed in 3 years of semi-regular SW gaming. Maybe I wasn't throwing enough extras at them, but right now, having starting PCs mow down dozens of mooks isn't my idea of exciting combat. Which is probably the #1 reason I dropped SW.

I don't have that much SW experience (5 sessions, currently - I'm behind on the trend) so no kills here...
1st session of the current campaign or #3 did start off with a mook getting a lucky bow shot on a PC that nearly took them out (15 to hit; raise added to damage roll with 2 of the dice Acing for 23 damage; 4 wounds; soaked to 3 so he wasn't quite incapacitated - the PCs then fled). I hadn't thought that sort of thing would be terribly uncommon, but the probabilities are a bit hard to calculate out.

I love Savage Worlds for pulp oriented campaigns.  If you're looking for larger-than-life heroes battling over-the-top villains where realism isn't quite so important, SW fits the bill.  I've never played it for Fantasy or any hard core SF (more Space Opera), but I can see where SW would fall down in a hard core SF campaign.  It's just not designed for heavy complexity.

I've never played GURPS, so I'm not really qualified to discuss the pros/cons there.

I see GURPS as what you'd use for a historical or modern campaign, that's meant to be "realistic".

RPGPundit

GURPS is just more realistic.  Great for simulating a world and characters with.  Combat can be harsh.  People can die.  Choose your battles carefully.

Hero is much more cinematic than Gurps, which makes sense, since it started as a supers game.

Both are more toolkits than straight-up rpg's anymore, though. (i.e., they are rpg's, but you have to do a chunk of heavy lifting to make them work for any particular game).

Quote from: flyerfan1991;536896I've never played GURPS, so I'm not really qualified to discuss the pros/cons there.

You know you can change that status? - you and I do live in the same town and frequent the same game store.

- Ed C.

(Oh and I thought your offspring made smart purchases last weekend)

Quote from: silva;536679Man, conceptually I love Gurps. Its "scientificist" internal logic is really admirable.

In practice though, I find the system bland like salt-less cream-cracker, and its "world of statues" 1-sec phases combat makes me cry in agony.

Just don't blink.

Fuck.  I've found that I've been doing Wounds wrong in SW...excessive wounds anyway. Hadn't realized (until looking at the recent crop of questions in the Pinnacle forums) that I'd misread the wounds section in Explorer Edition. I'd been running Incapacitated as an extra condition that applied if PCs had more than 3 wounds, but re-reading it now PCs are supposed to gain the Incapacitated status instead of getting more Wounds, which would make a big difference in the wound penalty to not die if hit with a ridiculous damage roll.
 
So do pardon me, Butcher; its much harder to die in SW than I'd previously thought.