Talking about AToW, (Split from the GenCon thread)

[IronSphinx]

Personally, I would have liked them to have asked if they were going to a revised version of ATOW since, every single person i've ran into "in-person" says it's too complicated especially with character creation.  I don't want to derail this thread about this, but Coleman was asking in the video what right and wrong with Catalyst is doing.  RPG isn't that functional,  heck I'm in group uses Shadow Run 5 rules modified handle Battletech universe.

This!  >:(

[Atlas3060]

Strange, I'm able to create a character with the Life Modules and the Point Only rules.
Is it the characters just aren't legal to the game rules, or the characters aren't up to the expectations of the creator?
The former, wow the only time I had that problem was MW3RPG.
The latter, well that's a different discussion for another time.

[Paul]

Strange, I'm able to create a character with the Life Modules and the Point Only rules.

Yeah, I'm not sure what people are talking about neither when they say ATOW is too complicated. They usually don't cite examples, just what they've heard other people say.
I guess if I made a change, I'd probably make points-only the main method of chargen, with the lifemodules as an optional method.  Beyond that, it's just a matter of small tweaks. You know, the kind we're still making to Total Warfare. It's always possible to improve.

But that ATOW is broken seems to be mostly a self-perpetuating rumor.

Paul

[nckestrel]

I personally would prefer a more "Alpha Strike" RPG.  Not that ATOW is broken, but that it is overkill for me.  I want to add RPG elements to my game, not have a separate game.  It's similar to my opinion of D&D 4th edition.  It was a great game, but more as a dungeon crawl.  Not because D&D4th was broken, but because the dungeon crawl/combat/etc was so involved it got in the way of what I wanted (more story time).  When I do want a tactical dungeon crawl, 4th edition was great.  Somewhat similarily, ATOW is too much RPG for what I want.
So yeah, I've never really tried ATOW.  But it's clearly not targeted at what I'm looking for, so I'm fine with that.

[Atlas3060]

I personally would prefer a more "Alpha Strike" RPG. 

Okay wouldn't just using points value construction be enough for that?
Actually going even further, couldn't you simply use the templates for grunts and bosses for your characters?
It's pretty much the same as using points only, but most of the frame work is there for you.

[Paul]

Okay wouldn't just using points value construction be enough for that?
Actually going even further, couldn't you simply use the templates for grunts and bosses for your characters?
It's pretty much the same as using points only, but most of the frame work is there for you.

Intriguing idea, AS mode for ATOW.
It seems possible, without going full Cosmic Patrol. I think NK's idea is probably more along the lines of simplifying things even more: so only a couple of skills (which effectively combine numerous skills in to 1), and putting an axe to the combat section, so it gets a lot more abstract.  That way, you get the same effect: in Alpha Strike, a single move and single attack are effectively meant to represent several turns at the TW scale.

You'd have to build it as a pure conversion, which narrows the field a little as far as what you can do. You'd want to be able to plug in to normal ATOW support and data; there's only so many systems you can support each publication.

Paul

[Atlas3060]

I'll try to make a separate thread for this when I get back to it.
I'll put it in the RPG section, but I think thanks to the Companion we're close to something like that if we use some imagination.

[YingJanshi]

I personally would prefer a more "Alpha Strike" RPG.  Not that ATOW is broken, but that it is overkill for me.  I want to add RPG elements to my game, not have a separate game.  It's similar to my opinion of D&D 4th edition.  It was a great game, but more as a dungeon crawl.  Not because D&D4th was broken, but because the dungeon crawl/combat/etc was so involved it got in the way of what I wanted (more story time).  When I do want a tactical dungeon crawl, 4th edition was great.  Somewhat similarily, ATOW is too much RPG for what I want.
So yeah, I've never really tried ATOW.  But it's clearly not targeted at what I'm looking for, so I'm fine with that.

You mean something like this: Strike Force RPG? For a fan made system it's pretty good.

[Paul]

You mean something like this: Strike Force RPG? For a fan made system it's pretty good.

Yeah, that guy thought we ripped him off, somehow. I was pretty much unaware of him and his system. Still haven't looked at it.

[Maniac Actual]

Yeah, I'm not sure what people are talking about neither when they say ATOW is too complicated. They usually don't cite examples, just what they've heard other people say.
I guess if I made a change, I'd probably make points-only the main method of chargen, with the lifemodules as an optional method.  Beyond that, it's just a matter of small tweaks. You know, the kind we're still making to Total Warfare. It's always possible to improve.

But that ATOW is broken seems to be mostly a self-perpetuating rumor.

Paul

Specifics?

1)  Character creation via the primary char. creation method (life paths) should not require a spread sheet and several hours.  As it is, it pretty much does, unless you are incredibly good with numbers.

2)  Lack of detail on many things (i.e. a question I asked before - please describe a heroic failure for a vehicle moving in reverse at 35 mph), way to much on others - such as the armor penetration system, etc.

Those are just two that really frustrated me when my group ran a campaign once.  There are more as well - every NPC comes from a template?  I don't have the time to generate EVERY NPC!  Something like a monster manual is badly! needed.

In short, compared to MechWarrior 2E, the game book is 3x as think, takes longer to play, and has far more rules to do the same thing as 2E.

If that isn't the definition of broken, what is?

[Paul]

1)  Character creation via the primary char. creation method (life paths) should not require a spread sheet and several hours.  As it is, it pretty much does, unless you are incredibly good with numbers.

I can slap together a character in about 30-45  using modules and a notepad. Minutes when using point based.

You'll also note I've flagged it as the one thing I'd change up; even then the changes would be minor. Prob just either ditch the rebates, or math them in to the module cost. Make point based comes first, then modules get explained.

Meanwhile, I can burn as much or more time with D&D or SR chargen.

2)  Lack of detail on many things (i.e. a question I asked before - please describe a heroic failure for a vehicle moving in reverse at 35 mph)

I guess I'm not catching your reference here.

way to much on others - such as the armor penetration system, etc.

I agree, it could benefit from some simplification.

There are more as well - every NPC comes from a template?  I don't have the time to generate EVERY NPC!  Something like a monster manual is badly! needed.

...???

You need more, despite the archetypes and templates? And despite the listing of armor kits?
What would such a "monster manual" even look like? Just more pages of archetypes, effectively?
Meanwhile, interesting NPCs is one of the few things we can (and have) added to other books as ATOW content, which avoid the strange rules bloat of prior editions.

In short, compared to MechWarrior 2E, the game book is 3x as think, takes longer to play, and has far more rules to do the same thing as 2E.

If that isn't the definition of broken, what is?

Considering that every statement there is incorrect, no.
MW2 was 224 pages, vs 410.
Once you grasp the rules, combat moves drastically faster.
And it has more rules since MW2 left enormous chunks completely uncovered; we combined the material of 3 books in to 1, saving you quite a bit of money. And covering a lot of ground that never once got print.

Could it be better? Certainly.
But every time someone has something negative to say about ATOW, it's always just the same stuff like yours. Module chargen is too complex, but you never bothered with point based, and apparently we gave you too many rules so you felt overwhelmed. The latter is not entirely unwarranted, since we could've milked out another 2-3 books easy, making the main book smaller and less complete. That's how most companies make their money.
Meanwhile, its size compares OK to other main industry RPGs (including SR), while being substantially less than D&D, which roams about 600 pages for Player+DM.

If all that combines in to "horribly broken", it applies to 99% of the RPGs on the market.

I realize absolutely nothing I type will make you feel any better about anything. Even if I were to agree with everything you said.
And I don't. You're objectively wrong about your facts. BUT, you're subjectively correct about them. Chargen felt like a pain to you. The game mechanics did as well. The book felt too big, etc. There's no debating that experience.

Paul

[Scotty]

My primary complaint for ATOW is that it doesn't use 2d6 and modifying TNs rather than rolls, like literally everything else in the BattleTech product line.  Granularity is cool and all, but the way skills and skill checks are handled is head-scratchingly counter-intuitive if you've ever played anything else branded "BattleTech" on the cover.

[Paul]

My primary complaint for ATOW is that it doesn't use 2d6 and modifying TNs rather than rolls, like literally everything else in the BattleTech product line.  Granularity is cool and all, but the way skills and skill checks are handled is head-scratchingly counter-intuitive if you've ever played anything else branded "BattleTech" on the cover.

It does use 2d6.
The "modifying a roll" thing was a request to make the mechanism more common with how other RPs handle things. As in, negative is bad, positive is good. And it has some implications concerning quality of success and opposed checks.

But if that's your only issue, I guess you're fairly happy with ATOW? Or is that enough to want to be rid of it?

Paul

[Atlas3060]

My primary complaint for ATOW is that it doesn't use 2d6 and modifying TNs rather than rolls, like literally everything else in the BattleTech product line.  Granularity is cool and all, but the way skills and skill checks are handled is head-scratchingly counter-intuitive if you've ever played anything else branded "BattleTech" on the cover.

If you reverse the values, it evens out.
Something that subtracts from a roll would add to a target number modifier.

[Wrangler]

SR5 adaption, just rolls as many dice as you need.  SR5 sourcebook not easy go backforth with, but ATOW troubling.  I can't put into words how many people got turned off by it.   2D6 maybe fundamentals of the tactical game, but its funner having more dies to roll for higher probability.

[Paul]

SR5 adaption, just rolls as many dice as you need.  SR5 sourcebook not easy go backforth with, but ATOW troubling.  I can't put into words how many people got turned off by it.   2D6 maybe fundamentals of the tactical game, but its funner having more dies to roll for higher probability.

That's so subjective, I fail to see how that's a strike against ATOW. Some people don't like to roll a brick of d6s, some do.

[Scotty]

It does use 2d6.
The "modifying a roll" thing was a request to make the mechanism more common with how other RPs handle things. As in, negative is bad, positive is good. And it has some implications concerning quality of success and opposed checks.

But if that's your only issue, I guess you're fairly happy with ATOW? Or is that enough to want to be rid of it?

Paul

It uses 2d6, except when it doesn't and uses 3d6 instead.  Is the idea here to appeal to people who've never heard of BattleTech and want a new RPG, or is the idea to appeal to people who play BattleTech and want an RPG to go with it?  If it's the latter, why on Earth change it?  If it's the former, why on Earth go for that sort of system in the first place?

ATOW has not clicked well with anyone I've attempted to play it with or even heard play it.  If a system carries a bad reputation even among the people who want to play it, there's a problem with the system even if it works fine for your group.

[Paul]

It uses 2d6, except when it doesn't and uses 3d6 instead.

? You've got natural aptitude for everything, everywhere?

Is the idea here to appeal to people who've never heard of BattleTech and want a new RPG, or is the idea to appeal to people who play BattleTech and want an RPG to go with it?  If it's the latter, why on Earth change it?  If it's the former, why on Earth go for that sort of system in the first place?

The former, without being troubling to the latter. That was the intent anyway.
Apparently we did not appreciate how extensively the "existing BT players" don't want to deal with systems that are slightly different.

ATOW has not clicked well with anyone I've attempted to play it with or even heard play it.  If a system carries a bad reputation even among the people who want to play it, there's a problem with the system even if it works fine for your group.

I do not have sufficient magic to cure an undeserved and unwarrented shitty reputation. All I can do is try to clear up misconceptions. I very much doubt CGL will ever make a "5th" edition BT RPG, but that's speculation on my part.
It seems that when it comes to the RPG, MW2 was too broken for many BT players, and not built well enough to work as a stand alone RPG. MW3 tried to fix both, but made both worse, arguably. It had some structural issues on the print side as well. (IE the rules, skills and Path bloat)
ATOW sought to fix the prior complaints, did so, but then still somehow pissed everyone off. Every RPG in existence at the time of production was consulted, and we had a nice hefty set of input from the SR lads as well, so it can't be a lack of skill even if you distrust Herb n me.
Seems like the job is impossible.

Paul

[Paul]

Forgot to add:
Can't win: we've got one post with someone who wants a big pile of d6s, like SR, and another post with someone who thinks 3d6 is 1 too many.

Both are equally valid. Both don't like ATOW.

Yep, seems like the only winning move is to not play/print an RPG.

[Scotty]

Forgot to add:
Can't win: we've got one post with someone who wants a big pile of d6s, like SR, and another post with someone who thinks 3d6 is 1 too many.

Both are equally valid. Both don't like ATOW.

Yep, seems like the only winning move is to not play/print an RPG.

Well, I'm glad to see you're taking this discussion seriously, instead of dismissing complaints you don't agree with out of hand.  That'd just be pointlessly antagonizing.

[Paul]

Well, I'm glad to see you're taking this discussion seriously, instead of dismissing complaints you don't agree with out of hand.  That'd just be pointlessly antagonizing.

You're missing my point: it's impossible to please everyone. I'm not dismissing your complaint, I'm trying to show it's subjective, not objective.

That said, let's move the discussion to another thread, as WT wants.

[Lysenko]

Let me start by saying that I've been gaming 34 years come teh 26th of December. I've played plenty of point buy, crunchy systems; Chamions and GURPS come to mind. ATOW is very complex. It's like it was written by engineers.

Skill Checks are resolved in the same fashion as Attribute Checks, but receive much lower Target Numbers as trained Skills. These Target Numbers vary slightly between Skills, based primarily on their relative levels of complexity.

This. This is insane. Why different target numbers for different scales? Why not just used the CBT system mechanic of 4+ is regular professional skill and stack the mods on top? Why reinvent the wheel?

And I just don't grok the PC generation. So, I have negatives and plus numbered in teh tens to hundreds and I'm trying to reach certain thresholds to get certain target numbers and some things are linked and what am I doing? And things like this should never happen when creating a character:

At the end of character creation, the character may possess Traits that are opposed under standard rules (such as Glass Jaw and Toughness). A character who has two opposing Traits must
cancel the experience between the two Traits, to identify which remains with the character and which does not.

[Atlas3060]

Okay partially my fault for talking about it, but we're splitting the AToW discussion from the GenCon Discussion thread.

[Paul]

Thanks for the split, Atlas!

Let me start by saying that I've been gaming 34 years come teh 26th of December. I've played plenty of point buy, crunchy systems; Chamions and GURPS come to mind. ATOW is very complex. It's like it was written by engineers.

I'm baffled that you've played GURPS, and yet consider ATOW more complex.

This. This is insane. Why different target numbers for different scales?

Because it seemed unnecessarily burdensome to put modifiers for Advanced/Complex, etc in a table, when you could just make that step for the players.

Why not just used the CBT system mechanic of 4+ is regular professional skill and stack the mods on top? Why reinvent the wheel?

Why is it so painful to you?

And I just don't grok the PC generation. So, I have negatives and plus numbered in teh tens to hundreds and I'm trying to reach certain thresholds to get certain target numbers and some things are linked and what am I doing?

Not sure what to tell you. I'm baffled at your bafflement. The tables do all the work for you, you just increment as you go through the modules. Now, I agree we should've just mathed in the rebates for the players: that was a mistake. But leaving that one aside, I'm more than a little bit puzzled at the reaction. Especially when I compare it to the equivalent or far worse complexity needed in other systems to derive skill (or whatever) levels.

And things like this should never happen when creating a character:

Why? Not being snide, but I'd like you to expand a bit on why you feel it's bad, and perhaps on what you would have done instead.

Paul

[Lysenko]

It just seems weird to me that one lifepath would give me glass jaw. And then, another section would give me toughened. So, then I have to balance the negative attribute with the positive attribute and whoever wins the math contest stays. I would rather the lifepaths (with the exception of culture/nationality) not have personal ads/disads in them like that; otherwise one might well end up with a situation where characters taking similar lifepaths are physical or emotional "clones" in a sense.

[malk2651]

I think the thing people hate about the life modules is that it seems it should be easier to use than the point system but it isn't.   If I'm using the life module system and bringing a new player to the group who has never played AToW before, we have to sit there with the rule book and a spread sheet to assign all the crazy groups of points.

Does this allow customization? Sure, but it's still overly complicated.

Ideally you should be able to pick from different stages and generate a character without needing  a spread sheet to figure out where all the points are going and dealing with rebates and flex points. 

Once people get used to the game they can used the points only system to really customize.

In short, the life path system should be the easier choice. Not the straight point system.
------

Oh, I would like to jump on the roll bandwagon of making the TN system jive with the rest of the Battletech line.  My guys are all D&D guys who I dragged into playing AToW with me, even they thought it being reverse from the other products was weird.

But I also understand the decision of why it was done the way it was, so that it would be more inline with other RPGs.

[Lysenko]

What malk said! Thank you for articulating that much better than I did. :)

And to use the GURPS example, in GURPS there are templates...if I want to be a dwarf axe fighter, I buy the axe fighter template, and thr dwarf racial template and then I have a few points left over to customize with. Bang, I'm done. Not so with Lifepaths.

[Acolyte]

Wow, I have absolutely no trouble playing or making characters for AToW. In fact, it's the go to system for any Sci-Fi/Post apocolyptic game that we play. I don't use a spreadsheet, just a single peice of paper and pencil.

There are a few things I'd change but overall it's one of the best systems I've come across.

   - Shane

[Paul]

It just seems weird to me that one lifepath would give me glass jaw. And then, another section would give me toughened. So, then I have to balance the negative attribute with the positive attribute and whoever wins the math contest stays. I would rather the lifepaths (with the exception of culture/nationality) not have personal ads/disads in them like that; otherwise one might well end up with a situation where characters taking similar lifepaths are physical or emotional "clones" in a sense.

Fair enough. I don't yet feel like this is a huge fundamental problem, really seems more like a subjective item. I know I keep using that word, but it's important to try to judge whether a particular observation is objective or subjective. Now, subjective doesn't equal "irrelevant". We're trying to make something fun, which is always fairly subjective.

I think the thing people hate about the life modules is that it seems it should be easier to use than the point system but it isn't.   If I'm using the life module system and bringing a new player to the group who has never played AToW before, we have to sit there with the rule book and a spread sheet to assign all the crazy groups of points.

Does this allow customization? Sure, but it's still overly complicated.

What are some changes you'd make to reduce the complexity you see?

Oh, I would like to jump on the roll bandwagon of making the TN system jive with the rest of the Battletech line.  My guys are all D&D guys who I dragged into playing AToW with me, even they thought it being reverse from the other products was weird.

Which is funny given how THAC0 works.

And to use the GURPS example, in GURPS there are templates...if I want to be a dwarf axe fighter, I buy the axe fighter template, and thr dwarf racial template and then I have a few points left over to customize with. Bang, I'm done. Not so with Lifepaths.

Step 1: take an archetype from the ATOW or ATOW Companion.
Step 2: Have the GM assign more XP to you (optional)
Step 3: Move values around until you have what you want.

Tends to be the most popular way people generate characters in my games. It's very fast, and usually the extra XP are spent on some SPAs.

Wow, I have absolutely no trouble playing or making characters for AToW. In fact, it's the go to system for any Sci-Fi/Post apocolyptic game that we play. I don't use a spreadsheet, just a single peice of paper and pencil.

There are a few things I'd change but overall it's one of the best systems I've come across.

Thanks! While I'd prefer to be super-human, it does get rather depressing to just hear negatives...

Paul

[malk2651]

What are some changes you'd make to reduce the complexity you see?

I'm going to ignore rebates as you've already talked about that.

Some of the main culprits in my eyes are the flex points and partial levels from specific paths.  I would love to be able to avoid complicated math at the end. Trying to assign flex points and then optimizing points for things that paths gave that never really pan out seems to be more of a pain than its worth.

I would like to be able to hand the book to a new player, have them write the paths that they would like down and be able to quickly knock out a character with only a couple of hundreds points left over to customize with.

In the systems defense, that theoretically is what it does now. The problem is that in practice, points seem to go everywhere. You don't come out of the paths with your basics attributes scores you need to meet most archetype requirements consistently and you have a plethora of half bought skills.

I would personally prefer the modules that when purchased, helped me meet the basic requirements of the preferred archetype and with basic skills for that archetype purchased with out the need to optimize extensively.

What about the skill fields?  Sure those help cover the basics.  But by the time you are purchasing them in character creation you have no clue if you will have the points for the required attributes. You won't know that till you have already reached the optimization stage and have a spreadsheet full of numbers.

How about an actually suggestion?  It might be good, it might be bad, I've never made an RPG but I'll throw it out there anyway.

I think it would be great if a new player could write down 4 modules and each of those modules would have an Alpha Numeric code which combined with the other modules chosen to direct you to a chart with full level attributes, traits and skills for that particular combination.  All of those combinations would leave 1000 or less points for further customization.

The downside to this is more cookie cutter characters.  The plus side to it is ease of entry into the game with a basic thematic character that can be built upon with out need of a spread sheet or a lengthy character creation session.

If we want to have pure customization we already have the points only approach. My anecdotal opinion would be that is how more advanced players generate their characters anyway.

P.S.  My only gripes are with the character creation system.  The actual game play has worked fine for us so far with out any major issues. It is not by any means a horrible RPG system.