BESM d20 Revised

[Walking Dad]

So for partial deafness, do I get a Hero Point when I make a check to hear something? Or whenever it might be useful to do so? Etc.

When it would be useful. Daredevil is blind, but it is nearly never a complication. He cannot read the numbers of cars or the slogans on transporters driving by. But he doesn't get a HP for this.

If a minion just gave him a hint after some persuasion that the bomb is in the green truck with the red cola slogan, he would get a HP.

Actually, thanks to his Enhanced Abilities, it would be very simple.

Very simple but not better. If it is Alternate Form that has a requirement for the change and the villain can prevent it (binding his mouth so he cannot speak), Billy Batson is simply in bad luck. But he got the PP for this 'Disadvantage'.

As a complication, with the same situation, Billy Batson hadn't gained any PP but will receive a HP now.

Except it doesn't. You just pick a number equal to or lower than a sub-trait. You could make it -1 and still be the King of Fighters, if you wanted.

Yes, but why would you? Would it be better if buying just Fighting would be cheaper/more expensive than buying the parts of it?

That's not what I'm talking about. You don't need Charisma to be charismatic. -- Actually, it's called Presence now. So as I was saying, PRE +1 costs 2 points. +1 with Deception, Intimidation, and Persuasion costs (3 x 1/2 =) 1.5 points. It is always cheaper to raise those three skills. And you know what? Again, there is no penalty for a low PRE. You could have PRE -1, all three skills at +13, and you would never have a single problem.

I see your Presence score for the immediate reaction before a character does anything (uses a skill). But you are right, that is probably not worth 0.5 PP

If FIG, CON, PRE, CHA, and INT have no independent functionality, why have them at all? More to the point, why are INT and PRE such rotten investments?

What is the independent functionality of DEX?
As I said, I agree that not all Abilities are 'balanced' with each other. This would require either new, artificial uses for some of the abilities or even more splitting of the old Dex to make sure each of the new abilities has no more use than INT.

So, yeah. M&M 3e, pretty cool game, but not the tightest balance.

You can see INT and PRE as traps, but otherwise I think the game is pretty much balanced. Which game has a better balance in your opinion?

 

[pawsplay]

When it would be useful. Daredevil is blind, but it is nearly never a complication. He cannot read the numbers of cars or the slogans on transporters driving by. But he doesn't get a HP for this.

If a minion just gave him a hint after some persuasion that the bomb is in the green truck with the red cola slogan, he would get a HP.

In my mind, it's more elegant to simply give him a point or two for the fact he on a daily basis has to rely on a different set of senses. If someone knocks out his radar sense, that's more like a Complication.

Yes, but why would you? Would it be better if buying just Fighting would be cheaper/more expensive than buying the parts of it?

It doesn't break the game in any way. It is simply an example of where the core game is less elegant than some other systems.

I see your Presence score for the immediate reaction before a character does anything (uses a skill). But you are right, that is probably not worth 0.5 PP

I do that, too, but as far as I know, that's not an actual rule. I thought of using PRE for a "social lifting capacity" where you took a penalty for using Interaction skills for more than then number of people you can handle, but I never got very far with that line of thought.

What is the independent functionality of DEX?

DEX checks. Arguably, also, DEX skills have more breadth, so having DEX makes sense to keep costs under control.

As I said, I agree that not all Abilities are 'balanced' with each other. This would require either new, artificial uses for some of the abilities or even more splitting of the old Dex to make sure each of the new abilities has no more use than INT.

I'm not sure about that. As long as the challenges are rated appropriately against each ability, it hardly matters how they balance across domains. I don't think the game offers enough opportunities to make INT checks, I suppose.

You can see INT and PRE as traps, but otherwise I think the game is pretty much balanced. Which game has a better balance in your opinion?

I've been thinking about this. GURPS and Hero have softer caps on individual abilities, and I think they can get away with it because of two things. First, each trait is basically worthwhile on its own terms. It isn't possible, for instance, to get all the benefits of IQ without, at some point, buying IQ. You could boost skill checks, raise Will and Per, and so forth, and you would still have raw IQ rolls to resist certain effects, to get over mental stunning, etc. Second, the pricing is simply better. You get what you pay for.

Thus, in the abstract, GURPS or Hero is probably better balanced. But in practical terms, M&M's use of power level caps is simpler. I've started games of M&M in the past few years, but not GURPS or Hero, because M&M's approach, while less "fair" is still pretty fair, and it's much, much simpler.

So in looking at BESM d20 and adapting it to my needs, my eye is on making balance simple. Capping Attributes at character level is probably a good starting place.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Can someone confirm what is OGC? My copy lists a font type for OGC stuff, but this is IMHO the font used on the tables and sample character sheets.

Sorry, it's not clear to me... what exactly are you asking is OGC in terms of the products? BESMd20? SASd20? Presumably it's not M&M.

Like I said, I've got the Stingy Gamer's edition of both of them so it's easy enough to pull what exactly is OGC. Chapter 2 is declared as OGC for SASd20 by not being declared Product Identity; this includes all the PMV stuff.

You still miss my character class deconstruction concerns. It is still bad if you completely ignore CR. There are mistakes in the math decisions (higher skill cost for intelligent classes, for example.

No, I don't miss them... I just have no way of addressing them. At the end of the day, you don't agree with how they've deconstructed it; ok, now what? As I've already said, _all_ point-based systems that are expecting characters to engage with the CR system (like BESMd20 does, but M&M doesn't since M&M ignores CR) are of a fundamental concern to me.

As for the Wizards paying more, it _is_ addressed specifically when they're talking about the class breakdowns in the first place. BESMd20 shifts combat to being skill-based.

It explicitly says:

Although the number of Character Points assigned to each class to reflect Skill knowledge is usually not affected by the character’s potential Intelligence score, Wizards are the exception. Since they are the only class with Intelligence as the primary Ability Score - and thus will usually have a high Intelligence - the number of Skill Points they gain each level more closely represents the (4 + Int modifier) progression than the (2 + Int modifier) at which they are rated. As a result, their level progression includes an additional 0.5 Character Points/Level associated with their high Intelligence bonus for Skills.

If they didn't have that, then people instead would be complaining about how you should take the Wizard class if you want to be a fighter because it's going to give you more points for your fighting skills.

I don't see BESMd20 being able to win here; no matter what, you're not going to be happy with it I think. Shifting combat from the class/level progression to skill-based is what's introducing this problem in the first place. Going back to the BaB approach will resolve it, although that does have problems itself. *shrug* The decision to go for skill-based combat is... well, it is what it is. It's not my own preference, but some people rage on d20's class/level system and want skill-based, so... pick your audience and realise you're losing others.

It _is_ choices like this though that tell me there was a serious lack of d20 system mastery going on. I mean, I don't consider myself to have a particularly high level of mastery, just because I'm not interested in learning all of the rules and the way they've got their funky interactions; but I can still see some powerful benefits to the class/level approach. It's just that many games take a lazy approach to class/level design, staying with the standard D&D approach.

Skills-based combat is something that isn't going to appeal to most fans of d20 and ups the complication factor in a system that's already got a lot of moving parts to begin with. Note I didn't say "players" but "fans" of d20; BESMd20 was intended to try and tap into the already existing fan-base, as opposed to trying to bring people over to the d20 system.

BTW, yes. I think we disagree philosophically. Still nice to do this online without ending in insults. Very appreciated. I really like the GoO stuff, but the needed group specific balancing (you need to redo the point cost with your group etc.) isn't for me

Yup, nice to be able to hold differing opinions and not have it be a reflection of some sort of personal character failing.

For all that I've presented a differing viewpoint on BESMd20, it _is_ a flawed game. It's not inssurmountable, but using it requires some very conscious choices on the part of the designer I think. I personally choose it for a number of reasons, one of them being that I find M&M to be overly complicated and fiddly, as it moves editions. Honestly, I think Tri-Stat is overly complicated and fiddly too; stuff like PMVs is needless complication in my opinion. Even BESM 2E was shifting to a more complicated framework and Tri-Stat just kinda firmed that up. I skimmed 3E BESM and had zero interest in it period.

I think this bias on my part is also part of why I've got little problem making BESMd20 work for me and is another little source of it's flaws. I'm interested in getting at the heart of something and then simplifying it down; I care more about the... principles? foundations?... of the rules than explicit expressions of them.

BESM started off as a pretty light system and over time got more complicated (Tri-Stat evolution). Then it made the jump of its overall framework being ported over to a completely new system (d20). I think it kinda needed to figure out whether it _really_ wanted to be a complex rule system or not in the first place, before trying to leverage that framework in the d20 rules.

BESMd20 is a diamond in the rough. M&M is a diamond that's been cut and polished. If you need/want to shape a diamond, you're going to have to decide if you want to recut M&M or take BESMd20 and clean it up.

Thanks for the discussion Walking Dad, it's really nice to _have_ a discussion where opinions and ideas are bounced at each other, as opposed to an arguement where folks are proclaiming the one way.

I'll see if I can dig out the explicit OGC citations from my Stingy Gamer's editions when I get home from Thor tonight.

 

[pawsplay]

BESMd20 is a diamond in the rough. M&M is a diamond that's been cut and polished.

I totally agree on BESDM d20. It's possible that at some point I may get frustrated and give up on it, but at this point, I am totally confident I can make it shine.

M&M was cut and polished. Now that it's in 3e, it's a little rough again, and the polishing process starts over. It's not as rough, however, as 2e, which was not as rough as 1e. And 1e was a tremendous, innovative, fun, and awesome game.

 

[Walking Dad]

In my mind, it's more elegant to simply give him a point or two for the fact he on a daily basis has to rely on a different set of senses. If someone knocks out his radar sense, that's more like a Complication.

It could be. But if the other paid for a power that negates the sense, the (N)PC is just using his power. Suffering an affliction from the Affliction power should not give HP either.

It doesn't break the game in any way. It is simply an example of where the core game is less elegant than some other systems.

Different tastes. I think the game has different 'tiers' for character creation. For example, you can specialize your fighting buy buy ing the advantage and the skill, but you can make a fully viable character with just the Fighting Ability, too.

I do that, too, but as far as I know, that's not an actual rule. I thought of using PRE for a "social lifting capacity" where you took a penalty for using Interaction skills for more than then number of people you can handle, but I never got very far with that line of thought.

No, it isn't. At this point the small number of social skills is actually disappointing. Maybe they should have made Presence an advantage and add the skills to INT. 'Leverage' uses intelligence for social rolls, too.

DEX checks. Arguably, also, DEX skills have more breadth, so having DEX makes sense to keep costs under control.

IMHO, pure DEX checks are not more common than pure PRE checks. But see above.

I'm not sure about that. As long as the challenges are rated appropriately against each ability, it hardly matters how they balance across domains. I don't think the game offers enough opportunities to make INT checks, I suppose.

May vary with the style of the game, but you are right in most cases.

I've been thinking about this. GURPS and Hero have softer caps on individual abilities, and I think they can get away with it because of two things. First, each trait is basically worthwhile on its own terms. It isn't possible, for instance, to get all the benefits of IQ without, at some point, buying IQ. You could boost skill checks, raise Will and Per, and so forth, and you would still have raw IQ rolls to resist certain effects, to get over mental stunning, etc. Second, the pricing is simply better. You get what you pay for.

So the solution would be more uses for Abilities you cannot buy separated?

Thus, in the abstract, GURPS or Hero is probably better balanced. But in practical terms, M&M's use of power level caps is simpler. I've started games of M&M in the past few years, but not GURPS or Hero, because M&M's approach, while less "fair" is still pretty fair, and it's much, much simpler.

No immediate familiar with the last editions of these games, but the last edition of GURPS I read lacked a power ceiling limit.

So in looking at BESM d20 and adapting it to my needs, my eye is on making balance simple. Capping Attributes at character level is probably a good starting place.

I would also try to do 'attack bonus / damage' and 'defense/health' caps.

 

[Walking Dad]

Sorry, it's not clear to me... what exactly are you asking is OGC in terms of the products? BESMd20? SASd20? Presumably it's not M&M.

Like I said, I've got the Stingy Gamer's edition of both of them so it's easy enough to pull what exactly is OGC. Chapter 2 is declared as OGC for SASd20 by not being declared Product Identity; this includes all the PMV stuff.

...

I'll see if I can dig out the explicit OGC citations from my Stingy Gamer's editions when I get home from Thor tonight.

Stingy Gamers edition p

SILVER AGE SENTINELS OPEN CONTENT/PRODUCT IDENTITY
All information presented in Helvetica is Open Content.

This isn't the font they used for the PMVs, right.
(They used it in the second sentence of the quote)

In the attachment you see the use in the table, but not in the regular text.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Stingy Gamers edition p

This isn't the font they used for the PMVs, right.
(They used it in the second sentence of the quote)

In the attachment you see the use in the table, but not in the regular text.

So this is what's printed on the back of my SASd20 Stingy Gamer Edition:

Designation of Product Identity:
Page 2 [Roleplaying Game Manifesto]
Chapter 1 [Introduction, different comic ages, gameplay example]
Chapters 5 - 10 [Playing Superheros, GMing Superheroes, World Building, Campaign Introduction, Geopolitical Overview, Empire City]
Chapter 11, all text not printed in Helvetica Font [NPCs]
Page 155 [SASd20 to SAS Tri-Stat Conversion]

And then the usual tradedress, character, race, place names, etc.

Designation of Open Content: Everything else.

Basically Chapters 2 [Character Creation], Chapter 3 [Game Mechanics], and Chapter 4 [Weapons & Vehicles]

PMVs are on page 16, solidly within Chapter 2.

I dunno what the deal is, but I'll tell you that if _that_ is all you've got for a PI declaration and OGC declaration, it's a pathetic job they did writing it. Stingy Gamer edition does a much better job and basically everything that's mechanics (which is what you're interested in) is OGC.

 

[Walking Dad]

Strange, but I have to believe you.

Look at the last page of the RPG Now Preview pdf. There is the designation I found. I found no other.

http://watermark.rpgnow.com/pdf_previews/388-sample.pdf

 

[pawsplay]

It could be. But if the other paid for a power that negates the sense, the (N)PC is just using his power. Suffering an affliction from the Affliction power should not give HP either.

But not all Complications are created equal.

Different tastes. I think the game has different 'tiers' for character creation. For example, you can specialize your fighting buy buy ing the advantage and the skill, but you can make a fully viable character with just the Fighting Ability, too...

So the solution would be more uses for Abilities you cannot buy separated?

Specialization is good, but in this case, there is effectively only specialization. The designers could simply have stated that no attribute at all gives bonus to attack or Parry.

No, it isn't. At this point the small number of social skills is actually disappointing. Maybe they should have made Presence an advantage and add the skills to INT. 'Leverage' uses intelligence for social rolls, too.

GURPS does that. Would probably work. It's only slightly unrealistic. In real life they are generally related, but being charismatic doesn't actually depend, in a literal sense, on intellect. There are rare conditions where someone's social skills are intact, even compelling, but they are mentally challenged.

No immediate familiar with the last editions of these games, but the last edition of GURPS I read lacked a power ceiling limit.

You can of course create whatever limits you want. The current version of GURPS Supers has a ceiling that compares capabilities to different scales of weapon. The GM can optionally charge an Unusual Background for higher tiers, or simply forbid them.

I would also try to do 'attack bonus / damage' and 'defense/health' caps.

Sure, although I'm inclined to go with softer caps. Over the years I have found M&M's PL system to be a little draconian.

 

[Walking Dad]

...
Specialization is good, but in this case, there is effectively only specialization. The designers could simply have stated that no attribute at all gives bonus to attack or Parry.
...

So, to what should abilities add at all? Skill use? Lifting (str only)?

And as I said, you don't have to buy advantages and parry to effective replace Fighting. Fighting is just an easy way to not your general melee abilities. Advantages and skills show only where your better at.

...
You can of course create whatever limits you want. The current version of GURPS Supers has a ceiling that compares capabilities to different scales of weapon. The GM can optionally charge an Unusual Background for higher tiers, or simply forbid them.
...

The Unusual Background only limits (gets subtracted) from the total character points. It doesn't hinder the player to pay all of the remaining ones for a big blast.
In which edition is GURPS currently?