PDA

View Full Version : Savage Worlds? (Or, good alternatives to DnD)



Maquise
2011-09-26, 01:45 PM
I would like to broaden my horizons as far as RPGs go, and I was considering looking at Savage Worlds. I was wondering what some of you thought about the game (my background is 3.PF). How does it compare/contrast? Any other good games to take a look at? As always, free is best.

Don't let the title confuse you, I'm interested in any RPG.

Knaight
2011-09-26, 02:12 PM
Savage Worlds is a whole ten dollars, so its worth picking up. That said, everything it does, Spirit of the Century does far better, and the latter does have a free online form, as well as the hardback. Then there is Terra Incognita, which blows them both out of the water.

Both Spirit of the Century and Terra Incognita are based on generic systems, and generic systems more versatile than Savage Worlds. Spirit of the Century is based on the fairly crunchy, narrativist FATE 3, a decent game with some interesting mechanics - though I'd argue that FATE 2 was better. Terra Incognita is based on Fudge, which forms the basis for FATE 2.

Both FATE 2 (http://www.faterpg.com/resources/) and Fudge (http://www.fudgerpg.com/goodies/fudge-files/core/FUDGE-1995-Edition-%28PDF%29/) are available for free download, legally.

Maquise
2011-09-26, 05:25 PM
How is FATE, then? What kind of game is it suited for? Compared to DnD, what will I be doing more and less of?

Kaun
2011-09-26, 05:33 PM
The real question is what are you wanting to do with this new system?

What type of game are you hoping to run?

Are you just looking for DnD with different crunch or something completely new?

Savage world's is a good system, it plays fast which i like but it is very rules lite compared to 3.5.

Fate i have not played with so i will leave that to others to comment on.

YPU
2011-09-26, 05:37 PM
Savage worlds requires you as the DM to be prepared to say yes a lot more, if somebody wants to try something interesting and smart by the gods let them try it, the system itself its somewhat simple but allows for very fast and fun improvisation.

FATE on the other hand REQUIRES your players to do smart and inventive thinking else it will get old real fast. It allows you to build characters in a very interesting way and encounters can be quick to make but if your players are to stuck in the "hit things with sword, repeat" mindset it will get quick fast. Some of my players for instance did use the environment simply because they knew it was the way they should do it but got no fun from finding inventive ways of doing so.

golentan
2011-09-26, 05:51 PM
Savage worlds can be fun, but it's kind of rough around the edges (it gets just enough mechanical detail that mechanics start interfering with my thoughts about story but not enough to be simulationist). If you're looking for something more simplistic and well suited to low fantasy, I just picked up mouse guard and it seems to run well enough while getting that gritty low-to-mid level feel. Very narrativist and rules light. If you're looking for something DIFFERENT different, Exalted has been hit by the fantasy kitchen sink and is some good escapist fantasy, but is also mechanically kinda clunky (optimizers will break the game engine over their knee in no time flat and there are known "bugs"). Alternately, Traveller is my favorite system for space opera OR hard sci-fi funtimes. If you're looking for something familiar-but-different, True20 is a variation on d20 which feels and plays very different from the way 3.X or Pathfinder did.

Knaight
2011-09-26, 05:53 PM
How is FATE, then? What kind of game is it suited for? Compared to DnD, what will I be doing more and less of?

FATE is all about characters, their relations, and their interactions on the world. It focuses on qualitative traits, and ups and downs are pretty much the norm in FATE, where only ups are typical in D&D. You will also be spending a lot less time on the mechanics of individual scenes, FATE is a pretty fast paced system, and D&D really isn't.

I actually prefer Fudge to FATE. Its more traditional, and can be though of as sort of like GURPS. The big differences are that Fudge is incredibly fast, and it uses a unified system - skills, attributes, difficulties, all these things are described on the exact same scale, called the trait ladder. Better yet, it is word based. "Great Swordsman" can be an actual skill and skill level in Fudge, and as such it is far more intuitive than D&D. Moreover, it is easier to play with the mechanics - each aspect of the system can be played with on its own. In D&D, you couldn't just change what the attributes are, because they are tied into everything else, and you have to go through the entire system and change the ripple effects.

In Fudge? You could choose to use the attributes Computing Speed, Durability, Traction, Operating system if playing robots, change it to StrDexConIntWisCha if imitating D&D, whatever. Skills are the same, you can just decide what they are when starting the game, or even let the players decide on the skills as they make their characters (within reason). Its an incredibly versatile system, while still being traditional enough to be easy to pick up. As such, it competes pretty directly with Savage Worlds. Its faster, more intuitive, more fluid, more free, and in general better.

beyond reality
2011-09-26, 06:15 PM
Savage Worlds is great, but if you're coming from a DnD/Pathfinder background there are a few differences to keep in mind. Mainly characters in Savage Worlds are much more "human scale" than those of DnD. They're action heroes so they can still be ridiculously tough and lucky but although they become more skilled and get more abilities they never become the walking siege engines you see in DnD (for some people, this is awesome, for others lame. Personally I like it).

For example, Savage Worlds has a Toughness rating that determines if you're hurt by an attack or not. If you take more damage than your Toughness score you've suffered a significant wound. You can take 3 Wounds before you're out of the fight. Starting characters usually average a Toughness of 5-7. Once you've gone all the way up to Legendary Rank the very highest toughness you can possibly have as a human (without magic, armor, etc) is about 11.

The net effect is that even Legendary characters can still be threatened by minor enemies who get lucky and that extremely powerful enemies are deadly no matter what "level" your character is. It does a great job at handling action fantasy, street level superheroes, swashbuckling and pulp sci-fi but if you're looking for something that does epic or high powered fantasy (like you tend to see above 10th level for D+D) then it may or may not be your cup of tea.

For the record, SW is one of my favorite systems.

Any idea what kind of setting or genre you're looking to play? I could probably give better recommendations with more info.

YPU
2011-09-26, 06:17 PM
First, to avoid confusion I love both systems so if it seems I am bashing one or the others its only the experiences I have had, not my opinion on the system as a whole.

From what I understand SW was written by somebody who wanted to play all sorts of games but found he had no time for rule intensive games, he also wanted a affordable game that could do multiple settings. In this I feel he has succeeded.

Fudge is, in my opinion a deconstruction of the basic RP idea which gives you the tools to rebuild it any way you want. Fate is one of those rebuilds I particularly like as it puts very interesting focus on WHAT and WHO you are as separate bonuses from your skills themselves. Mind my main experiences are fate 2 and dresden files RPG but I do really like those as a DM

Maquise
2011-09-26, 09:41 PM
I've heard some good things about Runequest. Any opinions on that?

Knaight
2011-09-26, 10:04 PM
I've heard some good things about Runequest. Any opinions on that?

Yes. It consists of a vitriolic, profanity laden screed however, so I'm not sharing my opinion. What I will share is an excerpt of detached analysis. Its slow, its clunky, and it seems to be built for the character as game piece model.

Arbane
2011-09-26, 10:14 PM
I've heard some good things about Runequest. Any opinions on that?

I have fond memories of RuneQuest. Let's see...

Just about everyone in standard RQ can do _some_magic. Small stuff is as common as dirt, big magic is really rare.

Even really experienced characters are _fragile_. Wear armor and carry a shield if you plan on getting into a fight, or one battleaxe in the head will ruin your day pretty quick.

Characters don't have levels, they improve by training stats and individual skills. Training is more reliable than 'on-the-job' experience, usually.

Anything specific you want to know?

Knaight
2011-09-26, 10:17 PM
Characters don't have levels, they improve by training stats and individual skills. Training is more reliable than 'on-the-job' experience, usually.

On a side note, levels are basically a D&D thing. They show up occasionally elsewhere, but classless levelless systems are pretty much the default. I think GURPS probably deserves the credit for that, though GURPS looks pretty antiquated at this point as well. Not that antiques can't be fun - after all, I was just suggesting a game made in 1995 upthread.

kaomera
2011-09-26, 10:40 PM
I've heard some good things about Runequest. Any opinions on that?
Would you be playing with the same people you've heard good things about it from? RQ (like a lot of older-model games, IMO) is kind of at it's best when you have a group that is already doing it right(tm), and that can therefore show you how to do it right. (This does of course assume that their doing it right and your doing it right actually mesh.) This avoids all the potential pitfalls where you do silly things like making the wrong guess when the rules don't cover something, or (often) applying the rules as written in situations where you're better off pretending the rules aren't there...

But most of the BRP games (RQ, CoC, Stormbringer, etc.) where really great for the setting more than for the mechanics. Glorantha (the original RQ setting) in particular is pretty well bound up in the rules, what with the way that magic and other metaphysical stuff works. But it's definitely pretty rules-heavy without any big specific advantage to it if that's not specifically something you're looking for.

Which kind of brings us back to the original question: Savage Worlds tends to mostly be rules-light without any other real specific benefits. Now, it is fairly universal, which if you want rules-light in the sense that you don't want to have to learn much is pretty nice. Learn SW, play SW for lots of different stuff (optionally: suggest SW every time someone brings up a new campaign idea, annoying everyone who doesn't play / like SW...). Also, it isn't flavorless, and if you like pulpy stuff it's got that going for it. But if you want a faster, lighter system I think it's good fun, and practically too damn cheap to not give a try...

DDogwood
2011-09-28, 09:12 AM
FATE and Fudge are good games, but IMO, they are NOT good alternatives to D&D. They come at the idea of RPGs from a totally different angle.

Savage Worlds is a good, fast-playing, less-detailed alternative to D&D; it let's you do a lot of the same things in less time, although it doesn't reward spending hours and hours combing through books like D&D does. Whether this is good or bad depends on your gaming perspective.

Other games that do the same kind of thing are the D6 system, Unisystem, and the various versions of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay.

If you like the detail and crunchiness of D&D, consider something like GURPS or the HERO system.

If the thing that bugs you about D&D is how little incentive there is for character development, then I'd suggest FATE or Fudge, or maybe something like Exalted or World of Darkness if you don't want to stray too far from D&D concepts.

There is no shortage of cool and interesting RPGs out there these days.

Ravens_cry
2011-09-28, 09:19 AM
What would you recommend for an immersive, yet fun, dogfighting game? One thing, among thousands, I've wanted to try was basically "Fantasy world, but set in a period shortly after the reintroduction of magic and technologically analogous to the Interwar Period."
Basically its D&D meets Porco Rosso.

Knaight
2011-09-28, 09:20 AM
FATE and Fudge are good games, but IMO, they are NOT good alternatives to D&D. They come at the idea of RPGs from a totally different angle.

FATE does, though only in Aspects. Fudge really doesn't, and is still fairly traditional - though it is by no means intended for dungeon crawls (though it works).

stainboy
2011-09-28, 10:45 AM
Savage Worlds cribs heavily from Shadowrun and White Wolf. It uses die steps instead of die pools but otherwise it's very similar. If you know one of those systems you know generally what to expect. Bear in mind all I know about SW is from reading the core book, so if it has an awesome unique magic system I don't know about it.

If you're interested in stat+skill I'd recommend you check out Cortex, which is basically Savage Worlds plus some cool drama mechanics. Although I do have to add some caveats to that:

-You'll need to import house rules from another system to fix the combat. (I used my house rules for White Wolf.)

-You said fantasy, and Cortex has no magic system. Well it does but it's only worth reading for comedy. (And it only has about 10 spells, so even if you didn't mind terrible mechanics you'd need to add so much homebrew that you might as well fix the mathfail.)

paddyfool
2011-09-28, 11:49 AM
I would like to broaden my horizons as far as RPGs go, and I was considering looking at Savage Worlds. I was wondering what some of you thought about the game (my background is 3.PF). How does it compare/contrast? Any other good games to take a look at? As always, free is best.

Don't let the title confuse you, I'm interested in any RPG.

I tried Savage Worlds at a con; it was a fun session, and very easy to get a handle on. Be prepared as a DM for random instances of epic success/failure from the exploding dice...

My personal big recommendation would be the Crafty games, e.g. Spycraft but most particularly Fantasy Craft as you're from a D&D background. It's basically built on a similar chassis, but with a much higher level of cinematics and a big emphasis on being able to play whatever the heck you like in whatever world you like just from the main book. (You can be a dragon, fire giant, troll or pretty much whatever floats your boat from level 1 if you want to, and yet other players going with halflings or goblins will be perfectly able to contribute just as much to the group, even in combat. Partly because it sets a greater store by cinematics than realism, granted, but that's part of what makes it fun). Just don't expect FC to be D&D (or pathfinder)... there are a few key differences.

Eric Tolle
2011-09-29, 09:51 PM
My impression of Savage Worlds is that it is fairly simple, and that combat can be very lethal or survivable based on how many bennies are handed out. The game also seems very min-maxing oriented.

It also has a very restrictive and flavorless magic system, one that makes sound like the height of flavor text, and 4E the pinnacle of flexibility. That is, based on your power user type, you get 1-3 very generic powers, that you are stuck with. You only get more when you get enough experience to buy a new feat equivalent.

I was amused by over thing though; a mad scientist (one of the power using classes) gets only one power to start with, in the form of a gadget. One of the powers you can get is the ability to make something light up harmlessly. So in other words, the mad scientist's brilliant invention could be...a flashlight. "We will never fear the darkness again with my photonic expeller!"

Diskhotep
2011-09-29, 11:54 PM
My impression of Savage Worlds is that it is fairly simple, and that combat can be very lethal or survivable based on how many bennies are handed out. The game also seems very min-maxing oriented.

It also has a very restrictive and flavorless magic system, one that makes sound like the height of flavor text, and 4E the pinnacle of flexibility. That is, based on your power user type, you get 1-3 very generic powers, that you are stuck with. You only get more when you get enough experience to buy a new feat equivalent.

I was amused by over thing though; a mad scientist (one of the power using classes) gets only one power to start with, in the form of a gadget. One of the powers you can get is the ability to make something light up harmlessly. So in other words, the mad scientist's brilliant invention could be...a flashlight. "We will never fear the darkness again with my photonic expeller!"

I would have to disagree with you on several points.

First, I would not say that the system is min-max oriented, certainly not compared to some systems out there. Focusing on a single area to try to make an overpowered character will hinder you in other, equally vital areas. It is not a system with "dump stats", and I find that the Edges tend to be quite balanced in their design.

Second, the Arcane Background system is designed primarily around the concept of "trappings". When you create your character, you also choose how your powers manifest themselves. Depending on the character concept, the Bolt power could be a beam of light, a ball of fire, a swarm of bees that attacks the target, or a rash of painful boils. The player and the GM are encouraged to tweak powers to conform to a concept rather than try to find just the right power from a list of dozens. Yes, you do have to purchase a new power with an advancement, but in a standard campaign you should be leveling up every other session, with the option of a new power, skill increase, different edge, or attribute increase at every level-up opportunity. The GM also reserves the right to make gaining a new power an adventure reward (such as finding a tome of magic in a wizard's tower).

If it isn't obvious, I am a fan of the Savage Worlds system, and encourage you to investigate further. Spend a bit of time on the forums (www.peginc.com), print off the FREE test drive and sample adventures and give it a try.

Somebloke
2011-09-30, 05:38 AM
My own views:

Firstly, I'm a sucker for 'toolkit' games- games where they essentially give you rule set that is very broad and can be easily adaptable to any campaign setting.

- Savage worlds. I haven't played it but I've picked it up, and what I read I quite liked. I've only ever heard good things about this from the buzz, and it seems the closest of the discussed games to D&D, and...come on. Ten dollars, man. I've had lunches that cost less.

- FATE 3. There are a lot of versions running around out there, quite a lot of them entirely for free (so you have no excuse not to at least look up the rules). It is a very different style of game- despite the official rules it's really one of those systems that's best handled with no maps or charts beyond the bare minimum, and one where you had best be prepared for the players to try anything. I ran one FATE 3.0 campaign (set in the world of A/State- wonderful setting, awful rules) and I got a mixed reaction- I think a number of players had trouble with the rules-light approach (bear in mind I bought an especially rules-light-most-basic-toolkit-possible version, especially since I was new to the system and made one or two errors. So I bought another version of FATE...

- Strands of FATE, which in my mind has the best blend of strong rule base/interpretive flexibility/generic toolkit/ability of the rules to provide atmosphere. I'm currently running a swashbuckling campaign right now, and I have had no complaints whatsoever concerning the rules. The players are really seizing on their freedom to act and drive the narrative in strong ways. Note- you can only buy this one online. The upshot is that the creator spends a lot of time at rpgnet, where (apart from shamelessly promoting it) he answers any questions DMs might have (I think I've bothered him like a dozen times).

- Runequest- this was mentioned, so my two cents. It's a simple and entertaining system; but it seems to be very lethal- think of 1e, where single bad dice rolls can really ruin your day. Best, in my mind, for gritty realistic campaigns where stupid moves on the player's part nearly guarantee damage or death.

Raum
2011-09-30, 06:18 PM
Savage Worlds is a core system meant to be tailored to individual settings or campaigns. PCs may be investigators walking a narrow line between living and dying, they may be "Big Damn Heroes" (but getting stuck with a pointy stick or a knife still hurts), they could be Indiana Jones swinging through one peril after another, or they could be super heroes shrugging off any danger. Simply put, Savage Worlds is action oriented. You can dial it from arm and sanity losing grittiness through heroic or even super-heroic action to over the top pulpy action. The constant is action.

Combat is very tactical (frontal attacks are often a Bad IdeaTM) and includes rules for "Tricks" and "Tests of Will" which allow characters to a) do cool cinematic stuff, b) help take out extremely tough opponents, and c) give non combat-oriented characters effective potential actions. (A Trick might be throwing sand in an opponent's eyes. The mechanical result is him being 'Shaken' and possibly (not certainly) losing an action to 'get the sand out of his eyes'. While he is Shaken, your allies will find it easier to attack and hurt him. So tactics can make a big difference!) Other tactics include everything from using terrain and cover to Called Shots or getting 'The Drop' on some one.

Mechanically, SW uses a die step system to represent abilities and skills (Traits). A weak PC might have d4 Strength and a strong one d10 or even d12 (d12 is normal human maximum). The core resolution mechanic is take the best of Trait roll and Wild Die roll and compare to target number (default is 4) for success. Only PCs and Wild Card (boss) NPCs use a Wild Die. Minions or minor NPCs only roll a Trait die which significantly reduces their chances of success even if the Traits are equal. It's part of what makes PC Big Damn Heroes but, since NPCs may still have the same skill, it still hurts when they do connect. It also makes Edges (similar to D&D feats) extremely important to characters. In many ways, Edges and Hindrances are what define a character mechanically. Their ability and skill ratings are secondary. For example, a burglar with the Thief edge is sneakier than a burglar without it even if the other burglar has one or two dice higher in his Stealth skill.

Savage World's core system is intended to be customized. Savage Worlds Explorer's Edition (SWEX) is nearly all mechanics and no setting or 'flavor' text. Those you'll find in the setting books. Take the "Bolt" power as one example; SWEX simply gives you the mechanics - range, damage, and cost but the settings books customize it to fit - 50 Fathoms, for example, "Bolt" may become a "Fire Bolt" which generates a stream of tiny fire elementals slamming into your target...with the range, damage, and cost from SWEX. Similarly, many elements of the core system are intended to be customized for your campaign and setting.

FATE is either a core system or a family of related systems. The core seems to be managed by Evil Hat as much as it's "managed" (it is a free system).

It concentrates on modifying the narrative rather than simulating some version of physics. Consequently, it has fewer mechanical tactical choices than something like Savage Worlds or d20. On the other hand, narrative tactical choices are only limited by your imagination.

FATE really concentrates on manipulating the narrative and gives players as well as the GM mechanical ways to do so. Most of this is accomplished through the creation and use of aspects - important narrative elements. Each element can be used for mechanical bonuses or to directly manipulate the story.

Both are fun systems! However, they do approach the game from very different points of view. If you want fast small unit combat, Savage Worlds is a good choice. For communal creativity and manipulation of a shared narrative, FATE is a good choice.

BudgetDM
2011-10-01, 02:08 AM
I was amused by over thing though; a mad scientist (one of the power using classes) gets only one power to start with, in the form of a gadget. One of the powers you can get is the ability to make something light up harmlessly. So in other words, the mad scientist's brilliant invention could be...a flashlight. "We will never fear the darkness again with my photonic expeller!"

They did acknowledge that the Light power was a little underwhelming. In the most recent version of the rules that power can also cause darkness as well. So less a flashlight and more a light manipulation device.

Maquise
2011-10-10, 12:27 PM
So, how adaptable are the rules? Can they be used for nearly any campaign setting?

beyond reality
2011-10-10, 05:32 PM
So, how adaptable are the rules? Can they be used for nearly any campaign setting?

They can be used for pretty much any of the major genres (sci-fi, modern, fantasy, etc) but they're not nearly as flexible as something like GURPS (of course not nearly as bulky either).

A few things to keep in mind when adapting it for certain settings:

*Savage Worlds works best at the "human level". It can do action heroes and street-level supers but anything that goes far beyond that can break the system. Thus it can't really do high level superheroes very well, same goes for crazy kitchen-sink settings like rifts that feature humans, dragons, aliens and giant robots all in the same group.

*Randomness is high. This means that it's possible for just about anyone to succeed at just about anything (although the odds against it can get larger and larger). With a whole lot of luck a peasant with a sling-shot can kill a dragon in one hit. This makes it very suitable for mythic fantasy or action fantasy...but not so much for epic fantasy (say high level D+D or Exalted) where characters are meant to mow down armies and remain untouched. a Single Legendary character fighting two dozen common goblins will probably win...but at the same time he'd better be careful because it only takes a couple of really lucky hits to take him down.

*The system is low on granularity. This means that settings that normally have lots of that (hard sci-fi, cyberpunk) may have a different feel. Equipment is important but it's not a big focus for the system.

Maquise
2011-10-10, 05:35 PM
So, hypothetically, how would it run the Lord of the Rings story as a campaign? It sounds right (Human power levels, powerful witch-kings getting taken out by hobbits, etc.)

BudgetDM
2011-10-10, 06:35 PM
So, hypothetically, how would it run the Lord of the Rings story as a campaign? It sounds right (Human power levels, powerful witch-kings getting taken out by hobbits, etc.)

My answer is a definite...maybe. Human level powers, yes. Easy, right out of the box. Powerful witch-kings getting taken out by hobbits? Well...

(I probably don't need to spoilers this, by will anyway)
In the books the reason that Merry was able to slay the witch-king was that his blade was an enchanted Arnor blade. So in Savage Worlds terms the witch-king had Weakness(Arnor blades) and Immunity. In other words, he doesn't take any damage from anything other than Arnor blades.

If you want to handle it by having the hobbit just doing enough damage to kill the witch-king, I'm not sure Savage Worlds is the best choice.

Clear as mud?

beyond reality
2011-10-10, 06:46 PM
It depends a bit on how close you want to stick to cannon.

For most of the fellowship's adventures I'd say yes, it's right on. Especially the more action-intense movie version. Savage Worlds also includes some quite nice mass-combat rules.

Magic is going to be the main issue, The savage worlds magic system is very flashy and pretty much exclusively tactical magic used for combat. I'd say probably the best way to imitate magic as you see it in LoTR would be something like the Blessed Arcane Background from Deadlands. Essentially the Blessed get a large selection of powers that can be used with a great deal of subtlety. Mostly their powers deal with aiding their companions (such as Boost Trait or Healing) and their offensive abilities don't take the form of direct attacks (instead things like Fear or Stun). That could work.

As far as things like the witch-kings the most common way to stat them would be to give them something like Invulnerability with a few weaknesses (fire for example, certain magic weapons, etc). Same for extraordinary entities like the Balrog or Smaug (which is a good example of a Called Shot combined with several Aces on a damage roll).

But a lot of this depends on exactly how close you want to stick to the books and the power level you're shooting for. I'd say, overall LoTR would fit Savage Worlds just fine.

EDIT: One thing to consider is that "Boss Fights" tend to end very quickly in Savage Worlds, one way or another. Even very powerful opponents can be overwhelmed quickly by concentrated attacks from multiple PCs (that's why Invulnerability is a common trait for powerful, supernatural SW entities to have. it's all over the place in Deadlands). In most cases combat is going to be more interesting in challenging against several weaker enemies rather than a single powerful opponent.

Jolly
2011-10-10, 06:48 PM
Bit of a different genre, but I absolutely love the crunch of the second edition of D20 Star Wars. It let me make a character with nothing at all put into improving combat and still be very useful! First time in any D20 based system that's happened. And the sort of dual HP's thing it does (I forget the exact terminology) was imho far more immersive than "You're really powerful at casting spells so you can now survive a great axe to the face" model of HP that normal DnD utilizes.

stainboy
2011-10-10, 08:44 PM
Stupid question time: Is the second edition of SWd20 the same thing as Star Wars Saga?

Reverent-One
2011-10-10, 08:55 PM
Stupid question time: Is the second edition of SWd20 the same thing as Star Wars Saga?

No, it's the Revised Edition of the original d20 Star Wars RPG. I haven't played the original edition, but from what I hear, the difference between those 2 Editions is like that of D&D 3e to D&D 3.5. Meanwhile, Saga is a large scale rewrite of the system.

Jolly
2011-10-11, 10:11 AM
No, it's the Revised Edition of the original d20 Star Wars RPG. I haven't played the original edition, but from what I hear, the difference between those 2 Editions is like that of D&D 3e to D&D 3.5. Meanwhile, Saga is a large scale rewrite of the system.

Pretty much this. Although to be fair, I haven't looked in to Saga Edition. I just saw they did away with Tech Spec's and got sad.