Xcom RPG- Dark Heresy or Savage Worlds?

[Ravian]

So I'm trying to make an X-com rpg, the idea being a sort of a midquel between X-com 1 and 2 set during ADVENT's occupation of Earth, in which players try to build up a more localized resistance cell against the alien forces. It's a game with a particularly gritty tone intended. However I'm not quite sure of the system to use for it. Currently I'm debating between two, Savage Worlds and Dark Heresy, and I'm hoping for some opinions on what might work better.

The way I see it both systems have their own perks and drawbacks.

Savage Worlds:
Pros-
Customization: Savage Worlds is designed to be setting neutral and as such it's really not difficult to imagine how to integrate most of what Xcom has to offer with only a little work. As a busy GM this is certainly a big benefit for me.

Cons-
Questions of Tone: Ultimately I feel that Savage Worlds is still a setting that encourages a more pulpy action game, which may not precisely gel with the tone of Xcom.

Dark Heresy:
Pros-
Strong similarities: While Dark Heresy certainly isn't the same world as Xcom both have the strong core premise of easily frightened clearly outmatched, fragile humans using every available tool at their disposal to try and stand a chance against the overwhelming waves of aliens.

Cons- Rooted in its own world: As noted above, while the two worlds have similar tones, they aren't the same by a long-shot and as such it will take more effort to try and adjust and adapt the system to do what I'd like it to do in an Xcom setting.

Any thoughts on which would work better?

[ZamielVanWeber]

A common issue I had with Dark Heresy specifically is that early on I felt (and when I ran I saw) that my players were utterly incompetent at their jobs (a sentiment echoed by other players of the system ₩. Their stats and skills just started so low that is was a huge problem (which also lead to the First Discotheque of the Emperor). If you want to use it I would recommend giving the players a little extra something to help make them have some oomph early on.

[Doorhandle]

So I'm trying to make an X-com rpg, the idea being a sort of a midquel between X-com 1 and 2 set during ADVENT's occupation of Earth, in which players try to build up a more localized resistance cell against the alien forces. It's a game with a particularly gritty tone intended. However I'm not quite sure of the system to use for it. Currently I'm debating between two, Savage Worlds and Dark Heresy, and I'm hoping for some opinions on what might work better.

The way I see it both systems have their own perks and drawbacks.

Savage Worlds:
Pros-
Customization: Savage Worlds is designed to be setting neutral and as such it's really not difficult to imagine how to integrate most of what Xcom has to offer with only a little work. As a busy GM this is certainly a big benefit for me.

Cons-
Questions of Tone: Ultimately I feel that Savage Worlds is still a setting that encourages a more pulpy action game, which may not precisely gel with the tone of Xcom.

Dark Heresy:
Pros-
Strong similarities: While Dark Heresy certainly isn't the same world as Xcom both have the strong core premise of easily frightened clearly outmatched, fragile humans using every available tool at their disposal to try and stand a chance against the overwhelming waves of aliens.

Cons- Rooted in its own world: As noted above, while the two worlds have similar tones, they aren't the same by a long-shot and as such it will take more effort to try and adjust and adapt the system to do what I'd like it to do in an Xcom setting.

Any thoughts on which would work better?

To be honest, Xcom2 is pretty pulpy by the time you have endgame equipment(or whenever the templar are involved ), so I would go for savage worlds overall. That said, you should makes sure you do additional work to make your players "easily frightened, clearly outmatched, fragile humans." Remember, savage worlds was used for deadlands! Similarly, you may want to emphasise the power of cover, even if you're running by theater of the mind, just due to the pedigree you're working from.

[Hunter Noventa]

Thinking about it, Shadowrun would cover just about everything. You've got the desperate feel of not wanting to fight things, you've got magic that could be limited and converted to psionics, and you've got hacking which is totally a thing in XCOM 2, even if it's hollywood hacking.

Obviously you'd have to refluff/cut out a lot of the magic to pare it down to XCOM psionics, but it's something.

[Slipperychicken]

Thinking about it, Shadowrun would cover just about everything. You've got the desperate feel of not wanting to fight things, you've got magic that could be limited and converted to psionics, and you've got hacking which is totally a thing in XCOM 2, even if it's hollywood hacking.

Obviously you'd have to refluff/cut out a lot of the magic to pare it down to XCOM psionics, but it's something.

Shadowrun 5e's hacking minigame is a horror story; you could slave over those rules for years and still be unclear on basic concepts like "what does the matrix look like". You'd honestly be better off homebrewing a hacking minigame yourself, or using one of the simplified fan-made ones. Really you could just throw out the matrix entirely, assume a modern internet, and probably end up with a better game.

For shadowrun XCOM, I'd just have one computer/hacking skill, make all hacking tasks into difficulty thresholds for the players or NPC hackers to beat (i.e. decide what you want to make a computer do, set a threshold, roll for it, done), and have any 'hacker fights' that come up consist of opposed hacking checks. Then anything affecting how hard or easy it is to hack (i.e. having login credentials, being really far away, etc) just modifying the threshold. If I really felt the need to gate off hacking so only specialists could do it, I'd make a positive quality "hacker" a pre-requisite for taking the hacking skill at chargen, and have it cost a bunch of karma.

[JAL_1138]

Something I noticed in Deadlands is that Savage Worlds has a bit of a problem in that it can be quite easy to have an enemy, especially a Wild Card, with defenses high enough they can't be harmed unless you roll an explosion (or two) on your dice. This can be a bit of a problem for the system in normal play, but it would simulate missing every #%^*ing shot in X-Com pretty well.

[Anonymouswizard]

A common issue I had with Dark Heresy specifically is that early on I felt (and when I ran I saw) that my players were utterly incompetent at their jobs (a sentiment echoed by other players of the system ₩. Their stats and skills just started so low that is was a huge problem (which also lead to the First Discotheque of the Emperor). If you want to use it I would recommend giving the players a little extra something to help make them have some oomph early on.

The solution I came up with for the 40K RPGs was twofold: 1) everybody begins with training in any five Basic Skills of their choice, 2) you can purchase training in any basic skill for 200XP (adjusted for later games, it was written for DH1e) even if it's not in your progression tables.

It gave players the ability to have baseline competency outside their roles while increasing their basic competency at their jobs. However, you'd never be as skilled as someone who took a career with the right advances.

Something I noticed in Deadlands is that Savage Worlds has a bit of a problem in that it can be quite easy to have an enemy, especially a Wild Card, with defenses high enough they can't be harmed unless you roll an explosion (or two) on your dice. This can be a bit of a problem for the system in normal play, but it would simulate missing every #%^*ing shot in X-Com pretty well.

The first time I played Savage Worlds most of us played concepts that weren't overly focused on melee combat, meaning we only had d6s in combat skills (I did have a d8 in Shooting, but still only a d6 in Fighting). This meant for basic enemies we had a 1 in 6 chance of hitting (the standard orcs had a d8 in Fighting), although at Novice Rank we didn't find anything we couldn't hit. But Parry is just 2+half Fighting, once you hit a d8 or d10 it becomes hard to have it be impossible.

The bigger problem than Parry is Toughness. When I first played melee weapons were still Strength+X for damage, now they're more powerful by 1.5 points on average. But still, at the higher ends you can end up with either base Toughness in the teens (you have to Ace with most firearms) or Armour of 10-20 points (and high AP is hard to come by). Although don't forget hitting with a raise deals an extra 1d6 damage which can let you harm most things that aren't made of steel, even dragons.

Plus if you can get some Extras on your side and get them an advancement or two you can easily have a force 2-4 times that you have in most RPGs. More dice rolled means more chance to Ace.