Talking about AToW, (Split from the GenCon thread)

[Atlas3060]

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.

Okay from this point I have to ask the following question.
Have you considered using the template characters they provided on the book to give new players a ready made "cookie cutter" person?
Don't get me wrong, the points system is a laser beam compared to the shotgun approach of the life modules.
And even I'm also going to say that maybe newbies should start with templates, intermediates continue with points, and the advanced do the life modules as a recommendation.

It is just the suggested idea of a chart of attributes confining your character would run contrary to the slimmed down attempts AToW all while balancing the "make any type of person you want". Basically I saw AToW as a mix of MW2 and MW3RPG sans those accursed 10 sided dice and wound system.

So with that template question out of the way, do you think the character creation section would have benefited from more of a shuffling around than a rewrite?

What I mean by this is, I'll take a page from the Quick Strike Total Warfare. They have the Green, Veteran, Elite system of introducing people to rules. For this particular discussion, AToW could have started with the character creation chapter with the Templates, then the Points System, then finally Life Modules.

If you read the book in that sequence, do you think it would have eased players into the creation system a little better?

I'm no writer, nor am I even attached to this book, but I am a budding GM.
I'm just curious about how people approach games like this.

[malk2651]

My argument moves more towards the Template -> Module -> Point system.

Templates are great for one shot "come try the game sessions" but don't really endear themselves for continual play.

The Point System is great if you are already familiar with the overall Battletech universe and rpg system.  Which is why I argue that it should be the "Elite" option and not the life modules.

I argue that the Module system should be the middle tier or "I'm ready to make a character for a continual campaign" choice for newer players.

Why do I think that it should be the middle ground but not the prime choice for veteran or elite players?

Because it excels at giving a character Battletech Universe flavor without requiring a new player to have extensive knowledge of universe, factions or game play.  If a newbie wants to try to be a Ghost Bear Elemental the module system does an excellent job of helping a new player create it.  Where the modules fail is the extensive math and number crunching at the end that throws people off.

Another option could be to just simplify the math in the modules or maybe include an "Archetype Attribute" package at the beginning. 

I might be in the minority of believing the points only system should be left to the experienced players who are going for the "make any type of person you want" characters.

[Nodachi]

Chargen takes bout as long for my group as other games do, though in this case there is more number crunching involved. And since we don't play it enough, things slow down due to that. Other than that, combat is just as lovely lethal as 2e was. Though rifle launched grenades fix most problems anyway. But what is needed is more stuff. Heck, a monster manual for battletech would be wonderful in my book.

[Atlas3060]

But what is needed is more stuff. Heck, a monster manual for battletech would be wonderful in my book.

Let's hope the Milestone publications, whenever those come out, help fill out AToW's sphere of content.

[monbvol]

My argument moves more towards the Template -> Module -> Point system.

Templates are great for one shot "come try the game sessions" but don't really endear themselves for continual play.

The Point System is great if you are already familiar with the overall Battletech universe and rpg system.  Which is why I argue that it should be the "Elite" option and not the life modules.

I argue that the Module system should be the middle tier or "I'm ready to make a character for a continual campaign" choice for newer players.

Why do I think that it should be the middle ground but not the prime choice for veteran or elite players?

Because it excels at giving a character Battletech Universe flavor without requiring a new player to have extensive knowledge of universe, factions or game play.  If a newbie wants to try to be a Ghost Bear Elemental the module system does an excellent job of helping a new player create it.  Where the modules fail is the extensive math and number crunching at the end that throws people off.

Another option could be to just simplify the math in the modules or maybe include an "Archetype Attribute" package at the beginning. 

I might be in the minority of believing the points only system should be left to the experienced players who are going for the "make any type of person you want" characters.

See I think Point Buy can be just as easily approached by someone not familiar with the Battletech system as someone who is.  If you're not sure what skills you need to include or what level you need to get your attributes to there are plenty of tables to reference to give ideas.

As far as my own review of AToW there are certain frameworks where I do find shortcomings that make it more difficult than it needs to be to adjudicate certain things that actually come up fairly often but I certainly think complex is absolutely the wrong word to use for life module creation.  I would say daunting is the right word since the math is easy but there is so much of it.  Ultimately the only problem I have with it is that when I try to do it without a spreadsheet I do find I tend to put down skill XP allocations more than once and thus don't always get the correct XP total for skills but not always.  A lot of it comes down to how many life modules you do and how organized you are and less to do with how good with numbers you are but ultimately it is quickly becoming one of my favorite RPG systems since it is so easy to create custom content for and I have put a lot of work into house rules to address some of the more common issues I run into.

My personal record is 15 minutes to create a character with pencil and paper without error for life module method.  5 for point buy also no spreadsheet involved.  Sans equipment buying as that can seriously skew results.

[Pouncer]

I gave my players the option of point build or Life modules, every single one of them chose the modules.  I got not a single complaint from them as they generated relatively fleshed out characters to build more complete backgrounds for to suit the concepts they had.

Each group and each person will like something different, to some the life paths bad, to others brilliant!

I never had much trouble with the 2d6 "contradiction," once I compared it to how the rules worked in BT it made simple sense and I grasped it. 

The place my group had trouble with was the leathality factor, we used some of the optional rules to help but it was still hard when a PC died.

-POUNCER

[Panthros]

Fundamentally, character creation is way too complicated and that is someone who plays RPG's.

Mechwarrior has always been more about story than the dice rolls IMHO.  I have been thinking about modifying the Green Ronin's Fantasy Age/Titansgrave rules to suit my tastes, removing the magic of course. Look at the character sheets, they should be that simple.  Factions for house, mercenary or clan and the planet you come from will drive your character. Your benefits come from your faction you choose.  I know stereotypical but like in D&D 5th, asking your characters to define what drives them can make that character unique.

[GRUD]

Chargen takes bout as long for my group as other games do, though in this case there is more number crunching involved. And since we don't play it enough, things slow down due to that. Other than that, combat is just as lovely lethal as 2e was. Though rifle launched grenades fix most problems anyway. But what is needed is more stuff. Heck, a monster manual for battletech would be wonderful in my book.

But Handbook: House Kurita gave you Pikachu!  ::)  What else do you need?   :D


I'm guessing a Character Generator program (for PCs and Smartphones?) would be VERY Welcome?  Maybe one that is also easilly updated with new lifepaths, or even customized lifepaths?  I haven't played MW since the 2nd Ed. Rules (started with 1st Ed.), so although I've got AToW I haven't played it or really looked through it that much.  I've also got the 3rd Ed. MW, but never did anything more than look through it either.  I've ALWAYS wanted a MW RPG Character Creator though, even back as far as the 1st Ed. rules.  It sounds to ME like CGL might want to look into having such a program made.   ???

[Paul]

It sounds to ME like CGL might want to look into having such a program made.   ???

You know, we never thought of that. :p

Just kidding, of course we did. We've looked at it extensively, even before ATOW was done.
I can only conclude from it's non-existence that it's not economically viable to make one. That's guesswork on my part, those kind of discussions happen without me.

Paul

[William J. Pennington]

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

I'd love to be able to spin up an SR5 character in only twice the time as a ATOW character..and heck, that's WITH Hero Labs help.

[William J. Pennington]

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.

That's because Battletechs system (which began as a quick beer and pretzel game resolution) is counter intuititive to virtually every RPG system ever made. This is not a flaw of the Battletech system, but trying to maintain absolute similarity makes for a less than optimal RPG system.

Heck, I wasn't perfectly happy with moving back to 2d6 as the base dice. It's a compromise to appeal to Battltech boardgame players, which I understand, but its not exactly an optimal RPG choice for my preferences.

As for the skill progression system, ATOW's system matches what RPG's have: a skill level where a higher skill value is better. Battletech's skill system is counter intuitive from the POV of a new player.   I'd love if Battletech worked like the RPG or other games; that would make introducing the system easier. Telling a newbie that Skill level 0 sucks, 1 is base, 2 is good, three is even better, 4 is awesome, 5 is legendary is pretty straight forward.   But "That's the way its always been" is what we are stuck with for better or worse.

An RPG can't be everything to everyone..even among just RPG fans. Add in the  complexities of trying to maintain ties to a boardgames mechanics system makes it even harder.

I like roleplaying in the Battletech Universe, but it has challenges. Having played every edition of the game, both campaigns mechwarrior centered, without mechwarrior, and a mix.

MechWarrior centered: runs the danger of just being another battletech game, just a slower due to RPG rules.
Non-MechWarrior centered: Danger of feeling not being center stage.
Mixed: Characters, of every type, often have nothing to do when its time for the Mech action, or the non mech action.

 I far prefer non-MechWarrior based RPG groups. But if its a MechWarrior group, I try to give each MechWarrior a unique role. The Scout guy, the Leader, The Scrounger, The Brawler,  the ...anything to make the characters distinct and give them their place to shine.  And I really prefer small, independent groups, be they periphery scum or some form of long range independent special forces team that, for one reason or another, has to act on their own, and out of the Mechs.

But given a choice,  I prefer groups of non-Mechwarriors there's so much more to do once you leave the Mechs behind, or of they aren't part of the group in the first place.

Part of the criticism I feel ATOW gets is form people who never really use it as an actual RPG, but as an expansion to the boardgame.

[GRUD]

You know, we never thought of that. :p

Just kidding, of course we did. We've looked at it extensively, even before ATOW was done.
I can only conclude from it's non-existence that it's not economically viable to make one. That's guesswork on my part, those kind of discussions happen without me.

Paul

I'm GUESSING a 1st or 2nd Ed. Character Creator would've been pretty easy to make.  However, once they introduced "Life Paths" with 3rd Ed., that introduced such a level of Complexity to any such program, that it MIGHT be akin to creating a full-blown computer game.   :o  Well, as far as time, effort and programming difficulty is concerned.  I know NOTHING about Programming though, so I'm only Guessing.  As you say, the fact that there isn't even a Fan Made program is Pretty Telling as to how difficult/complex it must be.   O0


And Yes, I was sure someone at CGL HAD thought of such a program once or twice.   :D  I Do remember seeing one for 1st Ed. MW in some magazine (I'm wanting to say Challenge?), but I think it was for the Apple/Apple II or maybe even the TRS-80?  I had either a C-64 or C-128 at the time, and couldn't get it to work, as I had NO idea what changes I needed to make to the program to get it to work on my Commodore.   :-\

[Paul]

As you say, the fact that there isn't even a Fan Made program is Pretty Telling as to how difficult/complex it must be.

Actually, I didn't say that, did I?
And given the complexity of the math involved (none), it really wouldn't be daunting to code. After all, it's just a matter of taking the full list of skills and traits, and incrementing those based on each module taken. Then at the end optimizing it, and pouring it in to a decent layout. Little bit of dependency based on pre-requisites, it's nothing compared to some RPGs.
My coding skills never exceeded Basic, Pascal and HTML (all at most 'beginner' level), but I can almost visualize how to get it done. Poorly, mind you, but whatever prevents the existence of a fan made tool, complexity is not it.

Paul

[monbvol]

*nod*

It is mostly that I don't know good ways to handle all the different decision trees that my spreadsheet isn't fully automated.

Especially since strictly speaking even optimization itself is an optional step.

[William J. Pennington]

My coding skills never exceeded Basic, Pascal and HTML (all at most 'beginner' level), but I can almost visualize how to get it done. Poorly, mind you, but whatever prevents the existence of a fan made tool, complexity is not it.

Paul

Given that you can find a  great character creator for Hero System, or Hero labs which handles SR 4, 5, Pathfinder...yeah, its not complexity, because all of those games are for more complicated when it comes to Character creation.

[Acolyte]

Fundamentally, character creation is way too complicated and that is someone who plays RPG's.

OK, so pick a path, subtract the cost, adjust attribute, traits and skills in the manner it tells you to, rinse, repeat, is too complicated? Trying not to sound dickish (and not pulling it off I suppose) but is this system that complicated? ???

OTOH, kudos to you for finding a system you like better and making it fit. I do that all the time. O0 For ex. I'm running a Fallout type game using AToW.

   - Shane

[malk2651]

OK, so pick a path, subtract the cost, adjust attribute, traits and skills in the manner it tells you to, rinse, repeat, is too complicated? Trying not to sound dickish (and not pulling it off I suppose) but is this system that complicated? ???

OTOH, kudos to you for finding a system you like better and making it fit. I do that all the time. O0 For ex. I'm running a Fallout type game using AToW.

   - Shane

When you need a spreed sheet to do it accurately and in a timely manner, yes it's to complicated.

[Paul]

When you need a spreed sheet to do it accurately and in a timely manner, yes it's to complicated.

Agreed. But several people have stated here and elsewhere that they can do it in an accurate and timely manner using nothing but a piece of paper. So, you have evidence that ATOW isn't too complicated.

But, it's still perceived as too complicated by some. While it's useful to demonstrate they're objectively wrong in their statement, they're subjectively correct. And that's not irrelevant. It's important to identify what elements cause them to feel that way, because there may be ways to address that.

IE, Malk, what are some things you'd want to see added or removed in order for it to improve in your eyes? IE, you've flagged chargen in general terms, but let's try to target some specific items.

Paul

[malk2651]

Agreed. But several people have stated here and elsewhere that they can do it in an accurate and timely manner using nothing but a piece of paper. So, you have evidence that ATOW isn't too complicated.

But, it's still perceived as too complicated by some. While it's useful to demonstrate they're objectively wrong in their statement, they're subjectively correct. And that's not irrelevant. It's important to identify what elements cause them to feel that way, because there may be ways to address that.

IE, Malk, what are some things you'd want to see added or removed in order for it to improve in your eyes? IE, you've flagged chargen in general terms, but let's try to target some specific items.

Paul

I think the question that really needs to be answered is which character creation method is recommended for new players.  Are new players supposed to used the points only method or the modules?

If the Module systems is intended for new players, then the math needs simplified and the attribute allocation stream lined so that you don't have modules constantly adding and subtracting from stats during the creation method.  Break it down to sections that don't need to be revisited during creation such as  Attributes - Traits - Skills - Equipment.  Once you are done with one section you shouldn't have to revisit it once the appropriate stats have been allocated.

If the Points Only system is intended for new players, the instructions need expanded upon and it would be helpful for more sample characters to mimic from.

That said I'm going to nitpick one statement you made. (Not trying to pick a fight here, just trying to clarify my argument)

Agreed. But several people have stated here and elsewhere that they can do it in an accurate and timely manner using nothing but a piece of paper. So, you have evidence that ATOW isn't too complicated.

My argument is based on creating characters with players new to the Battletech universe.  All of the players responding in this manner are experienced players or those very familiar with the Battletech universe.

As with any topic, points of view can be valid from both sides.  I'm sure there are people who can easily knock out a character with the current module system in a timely manner.  My question for the community and why I make my arguments is "Are they the majority?"  If they are then the system doesn't need changed.

[Panthros]

I think the key is to compare character creation to other systems and the complexity becomes very apparent.   I recently sat done with some friends to create characters and my 4 friends gave up.  If people want to be obstinate and say character creation is fine, then work with Lone Wolf Development and get character creation into Hero Lab.  Nobody should need to create or use a calculator or spreadsheet to properly calculate the points spent.  Penetration of the RPG market starts with character creation.  Of course next is supported modules, but that is a separate problem so I don't want to side track the conversation.  It would help if there were sessions at GenCon and I did not see anything.  That is a separate problem. 

[Paul]

I think the question that really needs to be answered is which character creation method is recommended for new players.  Are new players supposed to used the points only method or the modules?

I think that's a great question to ask.

I think Life Modules are intended for new players. They're supposed to be easy (you don't have to do any work, just write stuff down) and they're supposed to give you some canned back story without you knowing anything about the BT universe.

If the Module systems is intended for new players, then the math needs simplified

Agreed.
I'd either remove rebates, or make them intrinsic to the module cost so there's no steps to take as the player.
What are some other ideas to simplify the math? Again, it's hard for me to spot ideas, since I already perceive it as simple. But I acknowledge I'm biased due to immersion.

and the attribute allocation stream lined so that you don't have modules constantly adding and subtracting from stats during the creation method.  Break it down to sections that don't need to be revisited during creation such as  Attributes - Traits - Skills - Equipment.  Once you are done with one section you shouldn't have to revisit it once the appropriate stats have been allocated.

I may be misunderstanding you here. With revisit, do you refer to the optimization step?

The philosophy of all the partial stuff is to do a few things:
- Nudge you in a certain direction
- Do so incrementally, so that you tend to get higher values when you overlap multiple times. This creates some inherency
- Ensure a player can still adjust the course of the ship later if the Modules impose stuff on him he disagrees with

You seem to be suggesting that a Module should add more solid increments, IE, a solid 100 XP every time a trait should be improved, no more, no less. Or -100 for the negatives.
Likewise for skills, just flat chunks of 10, 20, 30, etc, to align with the tables. (Ignoring Fast and Slow learner for a moment)
Am I right?

If the Points Only system is intended for new players, the instructions need expanded upon and it would be helpful for more sample characters to mimic from.

I could see some expanded instructions for PO. I'd be inclined to moving it up in order so you get that prior to modules. I still think modules provide more advantages to new players. If you want an efficient character, you might feel like you have to fully grasp how every Trait and Skill works in gameplay, and how combat works in order for you to achieve that goal. That's too big a burden for a new player, so Modules should be a "safe" way for them to get a valid and competent set of stats to pursue their goal as a player.
But parking it after PO might make that process seem easier to follow.

Sample characters: do you mean more Archetypes, or something else?

I'm sure there are people who can easily knock out a character with the current module system in a timely manner.  My question for the community and why I make my arguments is "Are they the majority?"  If they are then the system doesn't need changed.

Another great question.
I don't have an answer. I would agree that it's at the center of the debate.
I think it's hard to use the forums as a measuring device for that. As you note, it's the place where the invested players go, and much of the quality of the answer relies on how many casual players respond.
Meanwhile, sporadic anecdotes don't move the needle either.

So, I'm not quite sure what to do there to gain an answer. Thoughts?

Paul

[malk2651]

You seem to be suggesting that a Module should add more solid increments, IE, a solid 100 XP every time a trait should be improved, no more, no less. Or -100 for the negatives.
Likewise for skills, just flat chunks of 10, 20, 30, etc, to align with the tables. (Ignoring Fast and Slow learner for a moment)
Am I right?

TL:DR This is the change I would personally like to see happen.

----------------------------------------

I may be misunderstanding you here. With revisit, do you refer to the optimization step?

The philosophy of all the partial stuff is to do a few things:
- Nudge you in a certain direction
- Do so incrementally, so that you tend to get higher values when you overlap multiple times. This creates some inherency
- Ensure a player can still adjust the course of the ship later if the Modules impose stuff on him he disagrees with

Narrowing it down I believe the "Incremental" part is the problem.  The incremental stat math is where I start pulling out a spread sheet.

Keeping within the stated incremental design philosophy, you are correct in saying I would like to see points put into whole skills without an optimization step being particularly necessary since you wouldn't have as many half formed Skills, Traits, etc.  That would probably be the most viable change my argument would take.

If we were to discard that design philosophy I would prefer the modules to be broken down so that they cover a section of character creation. 
For example.  Module 1 could be "True Born MechWarrior" and give you the minimum attributes required to meet all required criteria for a character of that type.  Module 2 would affect traits, Modules 3 & 4 would affects skills and equipment.

Obviously the cons to this approach would be extensive rewrites and errata which are more than likely not viable for the product.

Another great question.
I don't have an answer. I would agree that it's at the center of the debate.
I think it's hard to use the forums as a measuring device for that. As you note, it's the place where the invested players go, and much of the quality of the answer relies on how many casual players respond.
Meanwhile, sporadic anecdotes don't move the needle either.

So, I'm not quite sure what to do there to gain an answer. Thoughts?

The answer to this is for Catalyst to find solutions to their marketing and market research problems.  I'm not going to go into a tangent about their problems with websites/social media/advertising but I will talk about market research.

There are many options for market research Catalyst could take to find out the answers they're looking for about their products.  The easiest would be to add surveys to battleshop purchases.  Make a purchase on battleshop? Send them an email a week later asking them to review their product. I know they've asked people to review their purchases here on the forums, but we're the vocal minority of all Battletech/MechWarrior players out there.

They could put surveys on the main website and advertise them on social media and by e-mail.

Hire paid community managers to get feed back from the people playing their games.

Have a monthly news letter so you can measure link clicks to new products and direct them to webpages where they can fill out quick survey reviews.

It really shouldn't be the job of freelance writers, volunteer moderators and their customers to do this for them.

edit: moved TL:DR to top / spelling

[Paul]

Cool, understood. Thanks for explaining. I definitely think I know where you're coming from.

I don't know if there'll be an avenue to pursue improvements (outta my hands), but I think the changes you suggest would be beneficial.

Thanks for taking the time, I know it can get frustrating rather easily to try to tackle stuff like this.

Paul

[malk2651]

Cool, understood. Thanks for explaining. I definitely think I know where you're coming from.

I don't know if there'll be an avenue to pursue improvements (outta my hands), but I think the changes you suggest would be beneficial.

Thanks for taking the time, I know it can get frustrating rather easily to try to tackle stuff like this.

Paul

I appreciate you trying to understand my point of view.  Thanks for reading.

[William J. Pennington]

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'd kill fast leaner and slow learner as well.  I don't let characters taken them in my game. No one ever wants to take slow learner (except in a one shot where it doesn't matter) and everyone wants to take fast learner (except in a one shot where it doesn't matter).

My suggestion for speedy creation would be something like this:

The rules simply guide them through buying attributes, positive and negative qualities, then skills. (Players may be told that there are certain mandatory skills they may have to take). You simply buy a skill at the final desired level, and pay that cost. No increments, no running totals. No simple/trained skills with changing base numbers or links. Go through, write down your stats, the skills you want, the qualities you want, then balance out the numbers, adding stuff if you are under budget, and taking away if over.


The "Life modules" could become background packages..listed after the creation rules divided into "Birth/Childhood", "Education", "Social Status", "Career"--with simple text descriptions, and a list of common/suggested skills and qualities. But nothing about points. No discounts, no rebates.

There should be, initially a section telling the players that the GM will set the 'level' of the game, but the creation rules assume regular characters as a default.  It may mention that a GM will require certain mandatory skills, and detail more about them.   In a level section (found after creation) the baselines for a campaign are discussed, such as stat and skill limits for starting characters. This would be the place to set how many points a "Green" or novice characters has, how many a regular character has, and more experienced characters, also setting out skill limits as well. Age rules get discussed here, with the GM telling players  how old characters can or cannot be.

Then boom, buy your equipment, character done.

[Acolyte]

Well, in regards to speeding things up, there are a few things that could be done. Mainly that anything that always happens can happen behind the curtain.

So Skill Fields. You always get 30 points towards each skill and always get a rebate of 6. So why not simply have the cost of the Field listed?

Instead of:

Basic Training
Requires Rank Trait, INT 3, WIL 3
 - Career/Soldier
 - Martial Arts
 - MedTech
 - Navigation/Ground
 - Small Arms

You'd have:

Basic Training (120 XP)
Requires Rank Trait, INT 3, WIL 3
 - Career/Soldier (30xp)
 - Martial Arts (30xp)
 - MedTech (30xp)
 - Navigation/Ground (30xp)
 - Small Arms (30xp)

I'd also move the Fields chart to the end of Stage 3 rather than after Stage 4 to save page flipping.

Have the cost of increasing skills listed as simply 20 to open at 0 or 10 times the level you're buying. (12 times and 24 to open with slow learner , 8 times and 16 to open with fast)

Also, everybody always gets 100xp to each Attribute, 10 to Perception, 20 to English, 20 to secondary language, and most Stage 0 costs are 150.

So why not make all Stage 0 cost 150, have everybody start with the above, a faction and 4000XP? If there are no restrictions on Free XP, why have them? Just lower the module cost.


Just some thoughts.

   - Shane

[skiltao]

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.

I would like to run a MechWarrior campaign, and am always looking for tools to that end. What does aToW have systems for that MW2e doesn't?

it's still perceived as too complicated by some. <snip> It's important to identify what elements cause them to feel that way, because there may be ways to address that.

I think at least some issues stem from how the book is organized and presented. Like, if you stack aToW next to MW2e, there probably are three copies of MW2e in the same height and weight occupied by aToW (which invites questions about navigability, breadth, depth and utility); and did you know that the introductory chapter does in fact say every player needs 3d6 to play, and we don't learn otherwise otherwise until three pages into the section on Action Checks?

I find the Modules to be a particular turn-off. Where MW3e lifepaths were easy to read and compare with each other, aToW Modules are so hard to read and and compare (the fifty-ish affiliations especially) that I find myself wishing to see them reformatted as a giant table.

I could see some expanded instructions for PO. I'd be inclined to moving it up in order so you get that prior to modules.

I think the Character Creation "overview" subsection would be most helpful if it were reorganized into a step-by-step skeleton of character creation, with the whole of the "Purchasing Attributes, Traits and Skills" sub-section subsumed into it. (If the sample characters are meant to be the fastest-play option, and meant as guides for "fluffy" skill and trait selection, perhaps move them in front of the Life Modules also.)

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

I don't understand what you mean by that. Could you give an example?

The tables do all the work for you, you just increment as you go through the modules.

Beg pardon; which tables?

[monbvol]

Well, in regards to speeding things up, there are a few things that could be done. Mainly that anything that always happens can happen behind the curtain.

So Skill Fields. You always get 30 points towards each skill and always get a rebate of 6. So why not simply have the cost of the Field listed?

Instead of:

Basic Training
Requires Rank Trait, INT 3, WIL 3
 - Career/Soldier
 - Martial Arts
 - MedTech
 - Navigation/Ground
 - Small Arms

You'd have:

Basic Training (120 XP)
Requires Rank Trait, INT 3, WIL 3
 - Career/Soldier (30xp)
 - Martial Arts (30xp)
 - MedTech (30xp)
 - Navigation/Ground (30xp)
 - Small Arms (30xp)

I'd also move the Fields chart to the end of Stage 3 rather than after Stage 4 to save page flipping.

Have the cost of increasing skills listed as simply 20 to open at 0 or 10 times the level you're buying. (12 times and 24 to open with slow learner , 8 times and 16 to open with fast)

Also, everybody always gets 100xp to each Attribute, 10 to Perception, 20 to English, 20 to secondary language, and most Stage 0 costs are 150.

So why not make all Stage 0 cost 150, have everybody start with the above, a faction and 4000XP? If there are no restrictions on Free XP, why have them? Just lower the module cost.


Just some thoughts.

   - Shane

I don't think I'd list field skills that way because then it could become confusing when doing point buy characters where the player still need the skills listed but how much a player invests and how much the XP you get from rebate can change because it is largely up to the player.

I'd kill fast leaner and slow learner as well.  I don't let characters taken them in my game. No one ever wants to take slow learner (except in a one shot where it doesn't matter) and everyone wants to take fast learner (except in a one shot where it doesn't matter).

My suggestion for speedy creation would be something like this:

The rules simply guide them through buying attributes, positive and negative qualities, then skills. (Players may be told that there are certain mandatory skills they may have to take). You simply buy a skill at the final desired level, and pay that cost. No increments, no running totals. No simple/trained skills with changing base numbers or links. Go through, write down your stats, the skills you want, the qualities you want, then balance out the numbers, adding stuff if you are under budget, and taking away if over.


The "Life modules" could become background packages..listed after the creation rules divided into "Birth/Childhood", "Education", "Social Status", "Career"--with simple text descriptions, and a list of common/suggested skills and qualities. But nothing about points. No discounts, no rebates.

There should be, initially a section telling the players that the GM will set the 'level' of the game, but the creation rules assume regular characters as a default.  It may mention that a GM will require certain mandatory skills, and detail more about them.   In a level section (found after creation) the baselines for a campaign are discussed, such as stat and skill limits for starting characters. This would be the place to set how many points a "Green" or novice characters has, how many a regular character has, and more experienced characters, also setting out skill limits as well. Age rules get discussed here, with the GM telling players  how old characters can or cannot be.

Then boom, buy your equipment, character done.

I have noticed the same thing about Fast and Slow Learner and would say at the very least Fast Learner, Slow Learner, Illiterate, Gremlins, and Tech Empathy need to lose the XP to skill rank modifications and probably cost a bit different as a result.

That interaction I probably could count as complicated as I came up with a pretty hefty xp to skill rank chart because of how all those traits interact can be a bit confusing to figure out and the book does not address very well as it only has the three columns.

[Maelwys]

I don't understand what you mean by that. Could you give an example?

Basically he's saying that instead of giving everything the same target number, and then having a chart saying "Okay, all simple basic skills have a +0 modifier, while a simple advanced has a +1 modifier, and the complex basic skills have a +1 modifier and the complex advanced has a +2," they've already factored it into the target number, saving you from having to reference another chart or add another modifier to the skill during the game.

Atleast that's what I think he's saying.

And I sort of get the point about character generation. Its made easier by having a spreadsheet or something, but I don't really see it as being complex. Involved maybe, but its not like they're asking for square roots or complex math, its simply adding and subtracting. Mind you, its ALOT of adding and subtracting at times, so that might be the issue, but again, I'd call that more involved than complex.

[monbvol]

And I sort of get the point about character generation. Its made easier by having a spreadsheet or something, but I don't really see it as being complex. Involved maybe, but its not like they're asking for square roots or complex math, its simply adding and subtracting. Mind you, its ALOT of adding and subtracting at times, so that might be the issue, but again, I'd call that more involved than complex.

Same here.  It is why I say complicated/complex is the wrong word for the most part.  Beyond that I do understand what people are trying to get at.  Where I think some of the problem does come from is that AToW does have this idea of partial investment where you can have an amount of XP invested in something that allows it to be a certain level and not enough to be the next level and I can't think of any other RPGs that have such a system and this is technically allowed in character creation as optimization is an optional step and I believe has been taken into consideration for the modules to give players a slightly better chance to change a few things they may not agree with.