Author Topic: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait  (Read 8875 times)

StuartYee

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1381
  • "Now, let's add a couple of happy Death Commandos"
'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« on: 30 May 2014, 14:29:55 »
Regarding the Vehicle Trait, would you say this is only relevant during the initial character creation process, or throughout  a campaign?

For example:
During character creation, character Bob allocates 400 XP granting him 4 TP in the Vehicle Trait so that he can either own a Light 'Mech, or be assigned a medium Mech. Bob decides he wants to own a light mech and rolls to randomly determine which one.

Later in the campaign, he salvages medium mech.

As the GM, what do you do?

A) Ignore the vehicle trait for the rest of the campaign
B) "Bump up" the Vehicle Trait by 200 XP, so the trait matches
C) Wait until Bob "earns" enough XP before he can use the 'mech
"I can't save his life, it's too embarrassing!" - Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC SSC

Khymerion

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2500
    • The Iron Hack
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #1 on: 30 May 2014, 15:00:56 »
Honestly...   Ignore the trait after creation.

Once the mechanics of creation are mercifully done and out of the way, RP and events should really not have to be accounted for.   It would not exactly be fair to... say...  a dispossessed pilot getting his hands on a good mech, a player modifying his mech after game start, or acquiring land and a title through RP.   Good RP or a well played scene should not be penalized with having to pay XP that could otherwise be spent on actually improving the character to stay advancing with the party.   Those points could easily be considered wasted/dead XP.

That and never refund the XP spent on a personally owned and customized mech if it gets slagged.   It is points just to get an advantage at game start, nothing more.
"Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology."  - Larry Niven... far too appropriate at times here.

...but sometimes making sure you turn their ace into red paste is more important than friends.

Do not offend the chair leg of truth.  It is wise and terrible.

The GM is only right for as long as the facts back him up.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #2 on: 31 May 2014, 17:54:13 »
I suppose it depends on what kind of campaign you are running but honestly this is why for my AU/House Rules I've started considering Vehicle should be a supply priority rating rather then any sort of "you get this weight class of unit for this trait level" nonsense and tried to build my AU RATs accordingly(which I really need to get back to redoing).  If you don't get something through salvage and HQ has something to send you the higher this trait the better/rarer the mech you get.

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #3 on: 02 June 2014, 11:21:59 »
"You can be a good fencer or you can actually have a sword. You only have the points for one. Choose wisely."

Yeah. There's a reason I'm no longer really a fan of games that work like that. ;)

In other words, if I was running a campaign using AToW in some kind of bizarre alternate universe where that might actually happen, I'd probably simply ditch the Vehicle trait altogether. The characters could have what the players and I agreed made sense for them when the campaign opened, and after that events would largely be allowed to play out naturally.

hive_angel

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1218
  • A, B, C, D, E, F, Guy ...
    • Send Three Squads To Help
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #4 on: 02 June 2014, 12:20:14 »
I actually ignore the trait altogether for my player. Since he is employed by a major house he was assigned a mech. The player wanted a heavy mech so it was determined by a random role on the assignment tables from these forums. No ownership means he can't take it with him when his service ends or modify it without permission.
Follow my blog for Battletech battle reports!

http://ststh.blogspot.com

Search for "Battle Report"

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #5 on: 02 June 2014, 12:36:39 »
That does bring up another thing I've been pondering about Vehicle and that being if it really should be a stand alone trait.

It is virtually impossible for someone to have a mech without being affiliated with some sort of organization.  Mercenary, Pirate, Criminal, or Military doesn't matter.

hive_angel

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1218
  • A, B, C, D, E, F, Guy ...
    • Send Three Squads To Help
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #6 on: 02 June 2014, 13:33:18 »
It also takes a lot of spare XP to obtain the battlemech at the heavy level and a lot of xp to obtain the mechwarrior rank.
Follow my blog for Battletech battle reports!

http://ststh.blogspot.com

Search for "Battle Report"

DelevanGuardsCO

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 117
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #7 on: 03 June 2014, 01:06:22 »
The arguments presented here make a lot of sense. In another thread someone said in their games Light Mech was a 0 XP trait and the difference was paid from there. In the 3025 era individuals owned their mech's, it's how the Mechwarrior elite came to be. Military supply of the mech's showed up before the clan invasion, so when you're playing might determine what you want to do as far as traits go. The mech type might be determined by affiliation too. You're more likely to end up in an Assault if you're a Lyran than if you're a Cappellan for instance.

In our longest running campaign (MW2 now ATOW) I have a character that commands a household guard unit so I have him owning his mech, but not all members of the unit do.
"Away to Nahoni, to marsh and to mud
  before I yield to the Regents I'll shed my life's blood"

Jimmyray73

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 839
  • I will not be toyed with!
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #8 on: 03 June 2014, 23:53:31 »
I use the trait during character generation to determine what the character starts the first session with. After that whatever happens, happens. Luck (good or bad), salvage, money, personal choices (good or bad), behavior (good or bad), or any number of things can have an effect (good or bad - starting to see a theme here?) on what (if any) mech the character drives.
Endo has forgotten more about dispensing pain than you or I will ever know...

StuartYee

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1381
  • "Now, let's add a couple of happy Death Commandos"
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #9 on: 04 June 2014, 17:47:05 »
Thanks for your input, people!

My take away that the Vehicle Trait, Custom Vehicle Trait and the like can sort of be categorized as a "Character Creation" trait.

IMHO, the next "edition" of ATOW should separate "character creation" traits from "ongoing" traits (like Compulsion, Gregarious, etc.)

To me, a "Character Creation Trait" is a one-time XP allocation during creation to determine what your character starts out with.
"I can't save his life, it's too embarrassing!" - Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC SSC

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #10 on: 05 June 2014, 01:18:57 »
Thanks for your input, people!

My take away that the Vehicle Trait, Custom Vehicle Trait and the like can sort of be categorized as a "Character Creation" trait.

IMHO, the next "edition" of ATOW should separate "character creation" traits from "ongoing" traits (like Compulsion, Gregarious, etc.)

To me, a "Character Creation Trait" is a one-time XP allocation during creation to determine what your character starts out with.

I'd actually go one step further and say "don't charge XP for them at all". If these traits have to have a point cost, let that come from a separate pool altogether.

I mean, you wouldn't ask a D&D player to spend attribute points or feat slots on their character's starting wealth either, now would you? ;)

Bulldog79

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #11 on: 05 June 2014, 05:35:12 »
I'm more then happy with as wrote.... however as all things, your mileage my vary......

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2417
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #12 on: 05 June 2014, 08:47:21 »
If these traits have to have a point cost, let that come from a separate pool altogether.
Gee, and what exactly did ATOW drop from MW3 in this regard again?  ;)

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #13 on: 05 June 2014, 08:57:55 »
Gee, and what exactly did ATOW drop from MW3 in this regard again?  ;)

Having never so much as gotten a glance at MW3 in my life...I actually have no idea. ;)

Khymerion

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2500
    • The Iron Hack
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #14 on: 05 June 2014, 09:00:31 »
I'd actually go one step further and say "don't charge XP for them at all". If these traits have to have a point cost, let that come from a separate pool altogether.

I mean, you wouldn't ask a D&D player to spend attribute points or feat slots on their character's starting wealth either, now would you? ;)

There is actually a trait though you can spend (if using pathfinder's advanced handbok) that can increase your starting wealth... which can give a pretty big leg up at 1st lvl.   Since you only get 2 traits (without spending a feat), that is also like spending points towards getting a mech.
"Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology."  - Larry Niven... far too appropriate at times here.

...but sometimes making sure you turn their ace into red paste is more important than friends.

Do not offend the chair leg of truth.  It is wise and terrible.

The GM is only right for as long as the facts back him up.

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #15 on: 05 June 2014, 09:29:14 »
There is actually a trait though you can spend (if using pathfinder's advanced handbok) that can increase your starting wealth... which can give a pretty big leg up at 1st lvl.   Since you only get 2 traits (without spending a feat), that is also like spending points towards getting a mech.

Not being familiar with Pathfinder -- 3.x is the one edition of D&D I don't see myself getting talked into playing again, which kind of carries over --, that may well be. It's still an approach I no longer agree with; points and other character generation ressources are in a fairly real way already just a means (thoughtfully provided by a game's designers) for the players to bribe the GM into letting them play the characters they actually want, so the least one can do is make them actually worth something. And if the whim of the GM or the dice can just casually take the player's investment away again with no refunds ("gee, sorry that the 'Mech you sunk all those points in at chargen got blown up three sessions in, but hey, that's life"), then as far as I'm concerned that's not really the case.

That could, of course, be addressed by having the invested points buy whatever they bought a measure of "plot immunity", or by returning them if that thing is lost, and there are certainly games out there that do exactly that. I'm just personally a bit tired of doing even more accounting just to be in line with some far-off designer's notion of when I -- or my players, respectively -- will have "earned" my/their fun, so I'd prefer to just cut out the middleman and not charge permanent points for "temporary" assets at all.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #16 on: 05 June 2014, 10:18:15 »
D&D is a bad example because the only regulation system it has for what a character can start with is Gold Pieces and Weapon Proficiency and only the later can be improved upon before play starts.

The premise of Battletech certainly indicates to me that Mechs should not be free and that there is an associated prestige to having one and that it is sufficiently impossible to have one without also being associated with some sort of military/mercenary, criminal, or corporate entity.  Because of what I see whenever someone in my AToW group generates a vehicle pilot I absolutely do not mind that there is an opportunity cost to attributes, skills, traits, and special abilities but the way it works now isn't anything other then an XP sink.

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #17 on: 05 June 2014, 10:53:34 »
The "premise" of BattleTech fiction does essentially boil down to "anyone who is a main character and needs a 'Mech can get and pilot one". Hmmm...I wonder who the main characters in a BattleTech RPG campaign could possibly be... ;)

Khymerion

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2500
    • The Iron Hack
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #18 on: 05 June 2014, 11:17:30 »
The "premise" of BattleTech fiction does essentially boil down to "anyone who is a main character and needs a 'Mech can get and pilot one". Hmmm...I wonder who the main characters in a BattleTech RPG campaign could possibly be... ;)

They are just poor sods who get their rides shot out from underneath them and are forced to actually work for their next machine.

Then again, if the players are like most other players I have met...  they sure as hell have stashed away a few choice spares they have picked up along the way from salvage...  through hook or by crook if they have to...  that they have not paid a single XP point for.   So when I know my silly players have started to stash a 'reserve cache' of equipment then I am going to lay waste to their current gear...  I don't care if it is their ancestral family mech, a customized super unit they have worked on for years, or what ever excuse they have for that nice mech they started with...  it is merely a piece of gear that is no special from the government issued unit they are with.

Heroes and main characters get to be those things by going through adversity... not through coddling or plot shields.
"Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology."  - Larry Niven... far too appropriate at times here.

...but sometimes making sure you turn their ace into red paste is more important than friends.

Do not offend the chair leg of truth.  It is wise and terrible.

The GM is only right for as long as the facts back him up.

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #19 on: 05 June 2014, 11:38:29 »
Heroes and main characters get to be those things by going through adversity... not through coddling or plot shields.

Damn straight they do get there through plot shields, at least as far as fiction is concerned. It's not like anyone but the author decides what happens to them in the first place there, after all. The trick is merely to keep the shields suitably invisible that the audience can easily pretend they don't exist.

All those nifty NPCs in the canon setting, especially the great and powerful ones? Ultimately got where they are through writer "coddling" and fiat themselves. So I for one see no particular reason to single out player characters for deliberate worse treatment.

Khymerion

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2500
    • The Iron Hack
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #20 on: 05 June 2014, 11:53:03 »
Damn straight they do get there through plot shields, at least as far as fiction is concerned. It's not like anyone but the author decides what happens to them in the first place there, after all. The trick is merely to keep the shields suitably invisible that the audience can easily pretend they don't exist.

All those nifty NPCs in the canon setting, especially the great and powerful ones? Ultimately got where they are through writer "coddling" and fiat themselves. So I for one see no particular reason to single out player characters for deliberate worse treatment.

That is the difference between characters controlled by players at the mercy of a GM who is merely setting the universe against them, for one reason or another...   and a vehicle for an author to write their whimsical voyage of creativity.

You expect a character of a novel to survive to the end of the story, perhaps to become the star of other books...  to be some herculean star.

Then again, I am more akin to enjoying the novels where the 'heroes' tend to be beheaded or worse through the story... for example.   That is the hell that I enjoy unleashing on players.   If they survive, it is because their wits and luck... and perhaps a bit of manipulation on my part as GM to further the story...  but machines die, people turn into pulp.   If you shield players from some actual real threat, from actual loss...  you are just catering to their delusions and thus make their struggles ultimately not worth the time spent on them.

Sure, if it is all just a bit of wish fulfillment or empowerment fantasy... if that is all that is wanted... sure.  Go ahead, give them another free customized mech after they lose their current one because they happened to spend some points on it at the beginning of the game.   Otherwise...  break their limbs, making them bleed, make them gnash their teeth because they are forced to earn everything and that it has an actual value.   After that, you will have players who will proudly tell their stories of having gone through adversity... through hell and back...

There was no magic mech fairy to drop off another mech for them... no long lost god father who feels pity and grants them a new one...  no shiny new mech falling off the back of the turnip truck when they are feeling a bit down because they just happened to accidentally play the big game of giant robots and tanks firing at each other and luck decided to not be on their side that day and instead of walking away the big damn hero...  they are the ones looking at the smoking ruins.

And then they need to put their brains back into gear and actually figure out how to get back up into a cockpit... one way or another...  pull themselves up and get it.   Don't give it to them because they paid points.   Make them bleed for that new mech they want.
« Last Edit: 05 June 2014, 11:54:41 by Khymerion »
"Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology."  - Larry Niven... far too appropriate at times here.

...but sometimes making sure you turn their ace into red paste is more important than friends.

Do not offend the chair leg of truth.  It is wise and terrible.

The GM is only right for as long as the facts back him up.

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #21 on: 05 June 2014, 11:58:17 »
Well, different playstyles for different folks. I can respect that and be glad we're unlikely to ever find ourselves at the same table; the two aren't mutually exclusive. ;)

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2417
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #22 on: 05 June 2014, 12:45:58 »
Having never so much as gotten a glance at MW3 in my life...I actually have no idea. ;)
MW3 in character creation gave you a separate "character points" pool from which you bought attributes and traits. This was an identical number for every character (55 points). Dependent on your rolls certain drawbacks received in the life path had to be (or rather could be) mitigated using points from this pool, which created a wider variation of character point use. Unlike ATOW you could not basically trade back and forth between that attribute/trait pool and the skill pool during character creation.

The interesting part in regard to this thread are the conversion rules from MW3 to ATOW. As part of the conversion. you would repurpose the character points spent originally on your SOC attribute (which no longer exists in ATOW). This repurposing means you could spend an equivalent number towards certain traits, one of which is the vehicle trait.
I've had one case where a player looking at the conversion possibilities for his MW3-generated dropship captain asked me how much he could earn if he leased that dropship - a vehicle 10 trait - that he could now suddenly own (by using part of his repurposed SOC points towards raising the vehicle trait to 12) back to the unit so they could operate like before.

StuartYee

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1381
  • "Now, let's add a couple of happy Death Commandos"
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #23 on: 06 June 2014, 16:25:45 »
I'd actually go one step further and say "don't charge XP for them at all". If these traits have to have a point cost, let that come from a separate pool altogether.

I mean, you wouldn't ask a D&D player to spend attribute points or feat slots on their character's starting wealth either, now would you? ;)

That analogy isn't necessarily cogent. Given a D&D character more beginning wealth for weapons and armor isn't a literal game-changer  the way equipping an ATOW character with a 'mech is. "Buying" additional starting wealth for a D&D character isn't really fair because the amount of orcs he or she can slay doesn't increase that much with added equipment. A dispossessed Mechwarrior can hold his own with small arms against maybe a squad of troops at best, whereas that same mechwarrior would have less of a challenge dispatching a whole platoon even in a light mech - the increase in firepower is exponential, therefore the xp cost is fair.

Insofar as this thread is concerned, it seems we all agree that such traits and xp costs are effectively ignored after character creation.
"I can't save his life, it's too embarrassing!" - Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC SSC

Acolyte

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1475
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #24 on: 06 June 2014, 16:51:33 »
Well, the companion has some options for the vehicle trait, the most interesting being that it also give qualifications for that size 'mech. What I don't like is that it's a new penalty for not having rather than an advantage for having the vehicle trait.

It all come down to the basic rules for GMing: If it's not an advantage, it's not a positive trait - give the points back. If it's not a disadvantage, it's not a negative trait - take the points back.

For example if a group of players are going to form their own Merc Company with just them, the Vehicle trait with owned 'Mechs is an advantage in the short term at least, but the points they put into Rank no longer apply. Each character has gone through (rpresumably) millitary training and probably even tours of duty, each time earning points towards Rank. After mustering out, however, they can no longer order reg troops around or requisition parts or any of the other advantages that rank gives. Either give the points back or convert them to - say - Connections or some such.

   - Shane

erk! OK, the above only applies until the end of character creation!
« Last Edit: 06 June 2014, 20:08:47 by Acolyte »
It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion
It is by the coffee that my thoughts acquire speed
My teeth acquire stains
The stains become a warning
It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion.

Khymerion

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2500
    • The Iron Hack
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #25 on: 06 June 2014, 17:42:17 »
Well, the companion has some options for the vehicle trait, the most interesting being that it also give qualifications for that size 'mech. What I don't like is that it's a new penalty for not having rather than an advantage for having the vehicle trait.

It all come down to the basic rules for GMing: If it's not an advantage, it's not a positive trait - give the points back. If it's not a disadvantage, it's not a negative trait - take the points back.

For example if a group of players are going to form their own Merc Company with just them, the Vehicle trait with owned 'Mechs is an advantage in the short term at least, but the points they put into Rank no longer apply. Each character has gone through (rpresumably) millitary training and probably even tours of duty, each time earning points towards Rank. After mustering out, however, they can no longer order reg troops around or requisition parts or any of the other advantages that rank gives. Either give the points back or convert them to - say - Connections or some such.

   - Shane

The thing there is...  that rank is always going to be there.   Even after mustering out or retiring, a character is going to always be known for having that rank.   There is almost a certain...  I can't pick the right term for it...  but an air about them.   If someone is a retired colonel, they will always be that and it will have an effect amongst those both in and out of the service if they know of the character or that character decides to put his foot down.   It comes with a modicum of respect.

You can see it in certain environments...  I know I have seen it happen.   The room may be filled with a bunch of retired folk and thus are all on the same level now as civilians but damn it, the room sure came to a halt quick when the old captain put his foot down and brought order to the chaos of the event that was happening.   Perhaps that is just my own experience but I think people who know better just have a level of respect for someone who has earned their rank.

So while it is not an advantage being currently used in the case of a retired military character, the fact that they may be called back up (it has happened numerous times in history) means that the advantage is there.   They shouldn't get an immediate return on those points.  They should have connections but they are informal connections, not the proper connections that the advantage provides.   Connections usually means useful allies, not the kind that you might have as acquaintances or people you knew in the service.

Now, as for the mech situation...  the fact that a player once owned a mech means they have a record with that mech.   If they paid points for it, it might mean that if the player plays their cards right... they can try to get something to make up for it.   After all, if you were someone in charge of the logistics and supply of the army, you would trust someone who lost a heavy mech in combat, who had a history of driving them effectively, who was loyal and trustworthy, and didn't lose their mech through gross negligence with a new one if they put in the proper requisition forms and went through all the proper steps of getting it through the national government.   Would they own it like their old mech and have it customized like their old mech?  Hell no.   Sorry, those points went bye bye but if they are actually proper soldiers and not merc scum, there are ways around even my previously stated cut throat bloody attitude.

And yes, if they are a merc and not part of a major outfit...  no luck or mercy.   They want to be lone wolves out for cold hard cash... kill them like the honorless dogs they want to be.

Same thing goes for if they had a customized mech or vehicle.  It means they have experience with keeping modified equipment running so that way they have a bit more pull in getting modifications if they go through the proper hoops to do so.

But no... don't give them points back.   Trust me...  if you give them points to be spent as they want, you will see wild swings in a character's abilities.   Had a GM recently do this in a different game that uses point by skills and abilities and that sudden freeing up of a significant portion of XP suddenly through the game's balance and party capabilities right out the window because once the game is started, players will know the focus of the game and giving them a huge chunk to spend (and the points for a customized mech is just that) will allow them to further specialize into the focus of the campaign and further unbalance things.   

Trust me, if I knew I could take a custom heavy mech early game and if I lost it, I was going to get those XP back...  I would game the HELL out of the system in a heart beat.  And I know a good corps of players who would do the same thing.   Same thing goes for getting a new mech to replace the one they lost because they had the advantage, I would abuse that to no degree, not being nearly as conservative as I would otherwise be.   If I knew I would get another mech as long as I didn't sell it off, lose it in a poker game, or just be stupid... I would be the most fool hardy, risk taking bastard this side of creation.   Why be safe?  It isn't like what I have is of value to me... I am just going to get another one eventually.

That is why I am a huge advocate for not giving any points back.   If they thought that a skill or advantage would be good and they were not skilled enough players to utilize that advantage or skill, that is their fault.  The blame is entirely on their shoulders.   If luck of the dice removes an advantage, that is luck.   Help them out some as a GM, even a cut throat bastard of a GM like myself has to keep the story going somehow, but make them at least work for getting it back... don't be a monty hall gm and give it to them without some work.

But never give XP back.   

The party dynamic past the first few adventures will have grown around the strengths and weaknesses within a group.  Refunded XP disrupts that party balance by allowing players who get them to backfill those weaknesses or further advance their strengths... either putting them further above the norm and overshadowing the game or making everyone equally bland and level...  both of which is not fun.

You also don't make players pay for advantages they earn through game play.   If a player actually earns through play land and a title... you don't make them pay hundreds of XP for it.   That puts him in an XP debt that actually penalizes a player for good play.   If a dispossessed mechwarrior steals a prototype mech or rebuilds a salvaged one through play, you don't make them pay for it either because that also puts them XP debt where they are not advancing like everyone else.

Trust me... it is no fun to watch a player sit knowing that their XP for the next two to five sessions is being pre-spent to pay for an award they earned.   I have seen GMs do that.  It does not sit well with them and that bad attitude will be like a poison which will infect the rest of the group... not immediately but it always does.
"Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology."  - Larry Niven... far too appropriate at times here.

...but sometimes making sure you turn their ace into red paste is more important than friends.

Do not offend the chair leg of truth.  It is wise and terrible.

The GM is only right for as long as the facts back him up.

Acolyte

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1475
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #26 on: 06 June 2014, 19:54:14 »
Ah, you misunderstood my not so clear post! :-[

I was talking about at the very end of character creation, the Optimization Phase. The traits that don't make sense get borked. After the character has been created, no points beyond the normal XP do they get.

As to that certain something that high ranked individuals have, that's a prime example of the Leadership skill that these folks have in abundance. They can make people do things without the Rank to back them up. Characters would, of course, retain this skill.

   - Shane
It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion
It is by the coffee that my thoughts acquire speed
My teeth acquire stains
The stains become a warning
It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion.

Khymerion

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2500
    • The Iron Hack
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #27 on: 06 June 2014, 20:02:26 »
Ah, you misunderstood my not so clear post! :-[

I was talking about at the very end of character creation, the Optimization Phase. The traits that don't make sense get borked. After the character has been created, no points beyond the normal XP do they get.

As to that certain something that high ranked individuals have, that's a prime example of the Leadership skill that these folks have in abundance. They can make people do things without the Rank to back them up. Characters would, of course, retain this skill.

   - Shane

Okay... thanks for the correction!
"Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology."  - Larry Niven... far too appropriate at times here.

...but sometimes making sure you turn their ace into red paste is more important than friends.

Do not offend the chair leg of truth.  It is wise and terrible.

The GM is only right for as long as the facts back him up.

Acolyte

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1475
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #28 on: 06 June 2014, 20:12:50 »
Okay... thanks for the correction!

No problem! I very much agree with not giving back points during campaign or, for example, giving a bunch of XP 'cause someone just lost an arm. Yes it's a negative trait, but you don't get better at skills by losing an arm.

Thank you for pointing a serious lack in my first post. :)

   - Shane
It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion
It is by the coffee that my thoughts acquire speed
My teeth acquire stains
The stains become a warning
It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Re: 'Mech usage and the Vehicle Trait
« Reply #29 on: 07 June 2014, 00:01:29 »
In the case of players wanting to be Mercenaries I'd say that Rank trait would still very much apply as Mercenary units may be less formal about rank structures but they do tend to have them, especially if they are formed by former line military folks who have been in combat.

 

Register