Anybody played BESM D20 yet?

[Krieg]

Who said anything about miniatures?

My problem with the D20 versions of SAS & (to a lesser extent) BESM lie in GOO trying to shoe horn the Tri-Stat skill based combat system into D20 rather than using the system already in place.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I found the original BESM to be like this. I noticed that everything in the book was a wide range, easily abusable if given to the right players, and seemed to be designed under the concept "Let players decide how powerful they want to be, even overpowered, as they are all making anime characters, and since if the game is run LIKE an anime and the GM makes a lot of on the fly decisions to balance the game, it'll be fine. Besides, since NO one making a character is TRYING to break the system, we don't need to say how long the range of an attack is for 3 points, we can just say 'somewhere between 500 and 1000 feet.'"

Since my players like to break rules, I never ran the game system, despite buying the book. BESM D20 pretty much seems like an attempt to take the concept of BESM and shoehorn it into the D20 system. i.e. no, detailed combat system so the DM can make on the fly rulings, describe things in a cinematic style, and the players can't say "But the rules say I should have killed the bad guy." Alright if you have those kind of players (I've met a group of them before, but never played with anyone like this. This group was mostly women, and had a large page "family tree" showing the relationships between all of the characters in their game. They each played 4-6 characters each, most of which were dating each other, related to each other, or something else. They told stories about how they spent entire sessions doing nothing but talking to people at bars and smearing Universal Solvent on tables and sliding down them for fun. They got mad at me everything I said "but in the rules, you can't even PLAY that race...")

Majoru Oakheart

 

[Mucknuggle]

Could I make a decent Final Fantasy campaign using these rules?

 

[drothgery]

Could I make a decent Final Fantasy campaign using these rules?

IMO, straight D&D would work better than BESM d20 for FFI-VI, Tactics, FFIX, or FFX. d20 Modern would work better for FFVII or FFVIII.

But if you're looking at trying to run an FF game, you might want to look at this thread:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58403

 

[Stormfalcon]

The reason why I made mention of minis initially was that Thundershot made mention of squares, facing, and reach beforehand, which usually means minituares (or at least counters). My main point, however, is that BESM D20 follows a different philosophy in regards to combat and roleplaying in general. Their approach is much more abstract and cinematic, which is appropriate towards those running an anime-centric campaign. Their approach also tends to de-emphasize combat by bringing it up only when necessary.

Of course it doesn't exactly mesh well with standard D20. That's because it's another take on D20 aimed more towards those who want more cinematic mechanics. It's not perfect (my major gripe is that character defense is insufficient at the higher levels), but it's not a bad system for what it aims for.

As for the issue of replacing feats with skills in BESM D20, it actually makes sense if you're playing a campaign that's anime-centric in nature. In a lot of anime, you have characters training themselves to get better at a particular combat style (martial arts, swordmanship, marksmanship, etc.). BESM D20 approaches this by using a combination of skills and attributes, both of which can be ranked. With feats, it's a matter of having or not having the appropriate feats. With skills and attributes, you may have either one or both, but other characters may be better or worse at it, and you can improve at either at a much more incremental pace.

If you prefer standard D20 mechanics, the authors tell you flat-out that you can switch back. It takes a bit of work, but it can certainly be done. They may prefer the use of BESM D20 mechanics (after all, they wrote the book), but they aren't the gaming police and would prefer that players and GMs have fun rather than strictly adhere to one or the other at the expense of having fun. If you have more fun with standard D20, then by all means use it.

As for the matter of rule-breakers, min-maxers, and munchkins, it's the GM's responsibility for dealing with them. The GM can either deal with them appropriately or let them run amok. It is not the game system's responsibility to keep them in line. If I had a group of players who tend to abuse rules, I'd lay down the law or look for another group that isn't a hassle to deal with. Either that or put them through a few sessions of Paranoia.

 

[thundershot]

See, when I got this book, I wanted to add the classes and such of BESMd20 into my current d20 D&D/d20m campaigns seamlessly. BESMd20 tries too hard to NOT be like d20 (facing, spacing, range, etc.) and make my job as a DM harder than ever, since I have to constantly tell players "no, I'm not allowing that" and end up arguing. No, you can NOT go 50 MPH with a rank of Speed. BRO-KEN! I looked at Monk and Barbarian and ruled that you can go +10 ft. per round per rank. Flight was even worse, as it seemed you got (good) or (perfect) speed right from the get-go. It completely ignores the fact that D&D and d20m is made with some kind of miniature play. Heck, it doesn't even tell you how big your mecha starts off, or that you should have SOME kind of Level Adjustment for being a Construct race (+1 or +2 minimum!). I had to remove ALL of the combat skills and keep the current feat/proficiency system in place because that's just how it is. Combat was easy to ignore, since it's just an add-on variant, rather than forced upon you.

But yes, if I were JUST playing an anime game, it probably wouldn't matter, and the book would go just fine. But I'm not, and the book was advertised as being compatable with D&D, so that's what I'm expecting. Hence, I was disappointed. And I bought both versions of the book. But I'm going to make it work for me by doing a write-up of all of the classes and attributes and make them balanced for D&D.



Chris

 

[Stormfalcon]

IMO, straight D&D would work better than BESM d20 for FFI-VI, Tactics, FFIX, or FFX. d20 Modern would work better for FFVII or FFVIII.

I tend to disagree when it comes to the magic systems used in D&D and D20 Modern. For the most part, the Dynamic Sorcery system that BESM D20 introduces better reflects most console RPG magic systems than the magic system used in D&D & D20 Modern. Most Final Fantasy games use magic points to fuel the magic, which Dynamic Sorcery uses as well (in this case, Energy Points).

Of course, the one FF it doesn't work well with would be FF VIII, which is way out there with draining spells from monsters and NPCs. Then again, all of FF VIII's PCs are Pet Monster Trainers at their core thanks to the Guardian Forces they use. Bleah.

 

[drothgery]

I tend to disagree when it comes to the magic systems used in D&D and D20 Modern. For the most part, the Dynamic Sorcery system that BESM D20 introduces better reflects most console RPG magic systems than the magic system used in D&D & D20 Modern. Most Final Fantasy games use magic points to fuel the magic, which Dynamic Sorcery uses as well (in this case, Energy Points).

Except that the system is way too fluid for FF, where there are a relatively small number of spells with well-defined effects. It's a lot easier to roll your own Psi-based caster classes and spells (or use the ones I put together over in the FFd20 thread) and stick with D&D stuff for the rest.

 

[drothgery]

As for the issue of replacing feats with skills in BESM D20, it actually makes sense if you're playing a campaign that's anime-centric in nature. In a lot of anime, you have characters training themselves to get better at a particular combat style (martial arts, swordmanship, marksmanship, etc.). BESM D20 approaches this by using a combination of skills and attributes, both of which can be ranked. With feats, it's a matter of having or not having the appropriate feats. With skills and attributes, you may have either one or both, but other characters may be better or worse at it, and you can improve at either at a much more incremental pace.

The thing is that skills just aren't balanced for that sort of thing. One rank in a combat skill isn't even close to being balanced with one rank in a normal skill. Combat skills break two fundamental rules -- they use skills for combat stuff (the Rule of d20 is to use Feats) -- and they grant major abilities at the cost of only skill ranks (the Rule of d20 is to use class abilities, or at a minimum Feats for this).

If you prefer standard D20 mechanics, the authors tell you flat-out that you can switch back. It takes a bit of work, but it can certainly be done. They may prefer the use of BESM D20 mechanics (after all, they wrote the book), but they aren't the gaming police and would prefer that players and GMs have fun rather than strictly adhere to one or the other at the expense of having fun. If you have more fun with standard D20, then by all means use it.

And this is a serious example of Not Getting It. If people wanted BESM mechanics, they'd play Tri-Stat BESM. If you pick up a d20 game, you don't expect it to be fundamentally different from other d20 games just for the sake of being different. Tacking 'oh, and you can go back to standard d20 style if you want' at the end doesn't help anyone.

 

[Stormfalcon]

Except that the system is way too fluid for FF, where there are a relatively small number of spells with well-defined effects. It's a lot easier to roll your own Psi-based caster classes and spells (or use the ones I put together over in the FFd20 thread) and stick with D&D stuff for the rest.

Generally, my approach to Dynamic Sorcery (unless I'm reading it wrong somehow) is that it's used as the basis for the energy points the character has, and those energy points fuel the use of standard D&D/D20 spells. Last I checked, those standard spells are pretty well-defined in their scope and effect. The GM can further define which spells are available to the characters and create spells or adapt existing ones to FF equivalents (Fire 1, 2, 3; Cure 1, 2, 3; etc.).

The other reason why I tend to go for Dynamic Sorcery is that it's a lot more flexible in terms of the use of spells. I'm not limited to X number of level 0 spells, Y number of level 2 spells, Z number of level 3 spells, etc., all of which are ones I have to pick out at the start of the day (or whatever time period the class/domain calls for). Instead, as long as I have the energy points for it and I'm powerful enough to handle the spell's level, I can cast whatever spells I know as often as I want. Much like most FF magic systems...as long as you have the MP and you know the spell, you can cast it however many times you wish.

However, I had forgotten about psionics. Then again, it's a system I hardly use...at least in standard D&D settings, so it shouldn't be surprising that I overlooked it. Since it's somewhat similar to Dynamic Sorcery in its flexibility, it can make for a pretty good basis for an FF campaign's magic system as well.