Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scurvy_Platypus" data-source="post: 5542045" data-attributes="member: 43283">No offense, but I'll disagree. Popular convention is that people expect/demand that a point system be absolute. There is no actual requirement that it be so, simply that the audience be informed as to the nature of the point system in the first place. BESMd20 does so.The fact that D&D/d20 fans don't _like_ it could be considered a problem in terms of actually identifying your _audience_; pretty clearly they missed the mark in terms of brad appeal to the d20 audience. But it doesn't automatically equal "bad balancing" or bad design; it's simply a different design assumption. Not everyone plays the game the same way, despite the rules being "the same" for everyone.I'm not sure if you're citing this as a fault or a virtue, or simply commenting. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />They did try and reduce the miniature dependency. This is a bad thing as far as many d20 people are concerned but not all of them.A number of the choices made in BESMd20 I think reflect the base operating assumptions behind Tri-Stat. That's not a defense of bad d20 design, simply a lack of understanding about some of the more intricate bits of the system I think. Although to be honest... every single d20 system has a problem with it. CR system doesn't work, something. Period. Not a defense, just a reminder that it's not like there's games without flaws, BESMd20's just happens to be closer to the surface. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Yup. I'm guessing you're using this to point out that A) There are design errors and B) You don't agree with the value of things. Can't argue with either of those points. M&M now being on its 3rd edition could be viewed from an angle indicating that it's got flaws too. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />*shrug* Opinions vary. As I said, comparing BESMd20 to 1st Ed M&M you'll actually see an awful lot of similarity. The fact the M&M has evolved into 3 editions now is a function of the company staying around and modifying/evolving their rulesystem to account for changes/expectations/problems. GoO went under so BESMd20 doesn't have the benefit of that evolution.Ok, so really again it's a philosophy thing. These systems are explicitly accounting for people attempting to gain power and they legislate limits on this within the rule system. BESMd20 and all the other GoO games (Tri-Stat based) have this to a lesser degree and explicitly rely on the GM to provide a greater balance point. As I recall, BESMd20 actually does have a ceiling, it's just not the same as the other games. I'll dig around and see if I can pull the reference, as I remember seeing it and thinking "Gee, you really need to make that more explicit"; it's possible though that I'm remembering it from a different book.No point-based system is immune to being gamed. Period. For better or worse, GoO recognised that and choose to explicitly include advice about shifting point costs to account for things being more/less valuable depending on the game. M&M certainly has a bit that mentions GMs explicitly banning combinations, so... *shrug*Actually, you'll get argument about that. A quick experiment: start a discussion talking about increasing a Fighter's damage output to match a caster's. Watch the overwhelming tide of opinion be about how "unbalanced" that is, etc.There's a strong belief that the classes are "balanced". Casters are weak in a bunch of areas and spells are what allow them to make up the difference.This is an argument that's been going on for years. Now, I personally happen to subscribe to the belief that the classes aren't in fact equal or balanced. But that doesn't change majority opinion.Another thing to note, is that a lot of people _like_ that imbalance. It's a fundamental reason they stay with 3.x. I remember seeing plenty of bits of people talking about how they didn't like 4E because everyone was so "balanced" they were basically the same; in other words, there was less room for optimisation and everyone was fundamentally on the same playing field.Having a "balanced" system is important, but _where_ those balance points are varies quite a bit, both in terms of the "average" 3.x player/GM as well as the specific game system in question.I'm aware of that, although I haven't extensively gone through it. The problem I have with it is the same problem I have with a lot of things... how did you come up with the point cost?I'm a big fan of Upper_Krust's CR System. It does suffer from the flaw of "how exactly did you come to this conclusion?" but there's 2 fundamental strengths to using it. One, is that the analysis is focused directly on the monsters, which is what characters are usually going up against. Two, it's possible to look at characters in rough relation to monsters using it. Because the system is monster focused and then looks at PCs in conjunction with it, it's "easier" to come to a place where you say "this is balanced in relation to that".The flaw a lot of systems have is trying to figure out a system for the classes and then if you're lucky, they'll look over at the monsters. This is the critical flaw BESMd20 does in the Monstrous Manual.It's not that BESMd20's system is completely broken, it's that it was made with a character-centric focus and failed to account for non-character stuff. It's trying to be compatible with other d20 products and it can't because it's actually coming from a fundamentally different expectation than the others are.M&M on the other hand... my understanding is that opposition is fundamentally expected to use the point system of M&M; that right there eliminates a number of hiccups.I'm sure that this entire post of mine looks... ungracious. Like I'm an apologist for BESMd20 or something, especially since I say "but M&M says something similar" several times.BESMd20 _is_ a system with flaws. They're not impossible to deal with, but you _must_ be clear what it is that you're wanting before you can address them.If you want an "absolute" system, yes M&M is better. It explicitly expects people to try and game the system and tries to put limits on that behaviour, while including the standard "GMs can disallow anything" clause (often referred to as Rule Zero).BESMd20's flaws are very apparent because on the d20 side of things, there really was only one other "competitor"... M&M. And M&M successfully tapped into its audience in a way that GoO failed. Some of it was design, some of it wasn't.I've _looked_ at the points cost on stuff between M&M and BESMd20; they're really not _that_ far apart. I've got a sheet kicking around with a rough "equivalancy" between M&M and BESMd20 Attributes. It's interesting to see how close things are. I believe it's 1st ed M&M though, so likely the costs have shifted and changed over the past 7 years since it originally came out.M&M wins on the details. BESMd20 went a lot of the way, but failed to have a solid foundation. M&M does have that foundation. One advantage BESMd20 does have though, is it _tried_ to stay compatible with d20 after a fashion. The Monstrous Manual, the class breakdowns... these are tools that someone looking to try and use the system can tap into. Flawless? Heck no. But it's a starting point and one that's much easier than simply looking at a blank page and trying to figure out where to go.Fix the BESMd20 costs? You've got a cascade effect. You need to double-check the critters, see what's changed, etc. For some people that might be as much work as simply doing the creature writeup in the first place. To me, it's still easier.Oh and the other critical thing of importance?OGC.You need to come up with an M&M license, which may or may not be a problem for folks. Power Points are IP and therefore off-limits. BESMd20 (or the Anime SRD more specifically) has its analogue to Power Points (Character Points) that aren't locked down.Is BESMd20 a flawed game? Yes.Is it "badly balanced"? No. It has a fundamentally different design assumption which must be accounted for. Individual costs of things need to be adjusted, but that's true of any system that relies on points; what a BESMd20 game needs is to ensure that for someone operating in an "absolute value" assumption, there are tools in place that match that. The lack of those tools in the base BESMd20 game speaks to the designer's bias and assumptions, just as much as explicitly expecting people to optimise a character and placing limits on it speaks to another set of biases and assumptions.In other words:It's all a matter of perspective. It can be annoying to find out that what you're working on has been designed from a different perspective, but that doesn't make it objectively bad. Simply not the right tool for the desired goal. Make sure expectations and goals are aligned with design bias and you'll avoid a number of problems and also see the solution to others.</blockquote>

Verification