Desperately need a new edition of MWRPG: AToW is a weak link.

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

So, because you don't like it, we need a 5th ed?

  As a longtime GM (since the 1970s) I've seen far better organized game rules for huge games -I played Squad Leader.
  I'm running my third campaign using ATOW and I still have to spend time going over the characters' spread sheets to make sure they did the math correctly. I use a 4 gig collection of out of print BT books in pdf format on my notebook, downloaded from a torrent site in order to look up information not included in ATOW and to avoid needing a handtruck to haul those books around, like one of our other GMs does (he has every BT publication, every novel and an almost complete collection of Battle Technology magazines).

  ATOW includes minutiae like battery life but not 'Mech component weights -My players don't care about the life of their night scopes but are interested in filling their dropship to capacity without me having to make something up (I assigned each actuator 1% of a 'Mech's weight, btw, just to be simple) because that's what the players wanted. 

[Acolyte]

The organization could use some work, I agree. One glaring example (I think I've brought up before) is moving the Fields chart to the end of stage 3 - where you're using them.

Thing is, I can's seem to recall things like actuator weights ever mentioned at all, in any source. If anything, they should be in Interstellar Ops, not AToW. The IntOps Companion (that has the force construction rules) should really be where they are. After all, it has the C-Bill cost for the tiny components used in maintenance and the weight of those. 10 C-bill per ton of 'Mech weighing 1 kg per c-bill per month, IIRC.

If any book is going to go into the minutiae of a mercenary force's maintenance I'd expect it to be that one.

1% sounds reasonable, though.

   - Shane

[monbvol]

I can't argue that AToW is perfect and does include everything it probably should but at $32.75-$49.99 USD(for a physical copy) and 410 pages(counting the cover) something is going to get left out and since every campaign is going to deal with what sort of gear an individual character is carrying but not a small time merc unit that has to worry about cramming every little bit they can into a dropship I think AToW chose about as wisely as it could without making the book bigger and more expensive.

[Nodachi]

My group's experience with ATOW has been positive. But then my main GM declared that this was the mechwarrior rpg he'd been wanting for years and I don't blame him. We've done enough personal combat to realize that while mech weapon ranges are restricted for ease of space, personal weapons are not as restricted, much more realistic. And hint, hint, downloadable maps would be nice for ATOW. Also, that there is no such thing as enough grenades for your rifle mounted grenade launcher.

[Atlas3060]

I look at it like this, the idea of a Battletech campaign for some players differ depending on tables and taste.

One one hand, of many, the idea of running a Mech company (beans and bullets included) is what makes their experience.
What matters is the focus of the Warriors, every other occupation be sidelined.

Another way to look at a campaign is focusing on the individuals, possibly even in a Mechless adventure, and explore the world(s) crafted by GM and players.

Now looking at Battletech's history the former was done constantly.
Then around MW3RPG, some of the products tried to transition into the latter.
Mainly because there wasn't much to use with the existing materials.

Each of the newer versions kept adding more.
Because the title itself was getting more.
More factions, more story, more tastes into non Mech related things, and eventually more ways to play.
All because we wanted more.

Now where does that leave AToW?
Does Battletech need yet another version of an RPG? In my opinion no, because more will be added.
It is the nature of the beast.

Part of the problem is a conflict of expectation between TPTB and the users.
Example: Yes in earlier editions, Dropship and Jumpship calculations/jump prices were mentioned in books.
They were in numerous books, I can't remember if the values shifted at all, but they were in numerous books.
However some players remember key books, because they used those all the time.

Now where would this be in this new rebranding? My bet would be the Campaign Companion (whenever it comes out).
Because TPTB decided that all those spread out sourcebooks need to be wrangled into one big tome.
Why not AToW? Because now that rule doesn't fit with what they want to focus in that book.

RPG rules for the actual characters are for this book.
Campaign stuff can be looked at with the Companion, (with abstract detail) the Chaos Campaign book called Total Chaos, or the beans and bullets that is Strat Ops.

Does that mean AToW is perfect?
Oh dear dice no, but it is filling in other desires now that earlier editions could not.
Could we trim things? Yes, as much as I love that system they could have.
However every book I see could use a trim here and there.
Is it the weak link of the product line? No, not in my opinion.
Well not unless we're willing, as players, to admit something:

RPGs have always been weak in the Battletech stable of products.
Not individual books, but rather the concept of having an RPG in the Battletech lineup.
No amount of revisions will ever fix that. So no, we don't desperately need a new edition.
Not unless we're willing to focus Battletech away from Total Warfare (and Alpha Strike) level Mech play.
If we did that, then it wouldn't really be Battletech, right?

What I want to see is a revised "How the Rulebooks work" Primer.
Take into consideration the Chaos Campaign stuff, the stuff that came well after when Strat Ops was the latest hotness.
That wouldn't completely solve everything, but give people a decent roadmap on what to expect with what product.

[skiltao]

What I want to see is a revised "How the Rulebooks work" Primer.
Take into consideration the Chaos Campaign stuff, the stuff that came well after when Strat Ops was the latest hotness.
That wouldn't completely solve everything, but give people a decent roadmap on what to expect with what product.

1- A document like that shouldn't even be necessary. It's a band-aid. Granted, a Time of War was a tough book to write, and for all the trouble the authors had putting it together, I think the decisions they made were reasonable at the time. But the book has been down and settled for years now - surely enough time has passed that we can start talking about ways it can be improved?

2- A Time of War was originally envisioned as a self-contained point of entry for the BattleTech Universe. I don't think keeping it reliant on other books forever is a productive direction to take. Now, if the Campaign Companion works as a self-contained replacement for what people wanted out of A Time War, then maybe everybody walks away happy.

[Arthinas]

There's no way that a single RPG core book could ever cover every single possible campaign in significant detail. Something would have to get cut out, and it's better that that be stuff that's only really relevant to a specific subset of possible RPG campaigns, rather than details that could very easily crop up in all sorts of campaigns.

Say what you will about the necessity of a lot of the granularity in the equipment rules, but sacrificing a bunch of stuff that's currently in the ATOW core for the sake of including, say, a chapter on running a merc company, would end up negatively impacting the campaigns run by people like me that actually aren't interested in that sort of gameplay. It'd be more helpful for a greater number of players for Catalyst to put out small sourcebooks that cover the specifics of different kinds of campaigns (mercs, spies, Clanners, explorers, traders, etc.) than for them to make a core rulebook that focuses heavily on one of those.

Sourcebooks have been the nature of the RPG industry for decades, and I don't see things changing anytime soon.

[Atlas3060]

But the book has been down and settled for years now - surely enough time has passed that we can start talking about ways it can be improved?

I never stated that we couldn't. I was only challenging with my opinion the assumption we need a new edition desperately.
There's a difference between, "Tweak this" and "Why didn't they use (other game) engine?!"
Fix a car's windshield, not revamp the whole bodywork.
Either way this is all coming from a fellow fan, nothing more.

Now, if the Campaign Companion works as a self-contained replacement for what people wanted out of A Time War, then maybe everybody walks away happy.

Based on what the Table of Contents says in this Battleblog:
http://bg.battletech.com/news/battleblog/interstellar-operations-cometh/

I'm holding out hopes for it. Heavens know that CGL has plenty of rules for force creation.
From simple Chaos Campaign stuff to the nitty gritty they let us open test.
It would be nice to have it under one cover.

[doulos05]

2- A Time of War was originally envisioned as a self-contained point of entry for the BattleTech Universe. I don't think keeping it reliant on other books forever is a productive direction to take. Now, if the Campaign Companion works as a self-contained replacement for what people wanted out of A Time War, then maybe everybody walks away happy.

To argue the counter point, it's a point of entry. A point, not the whole country. You wouldn't go to Paris, walk past the immigration counter and go, "I'm in Paris! Now I'll just camp out here in the airport for the week and then catch my flight back home."

I mean, D&D has 3 books as it's point of entry (only 1 of which is needed by the players), why do we expect BT to only have 1? Especially since, once more, only the GM needs the additional books in the series.

[Thorvidar]

One thing as a GM of a AToW I sometimes dread running it. The reason is because I need to do math every single time I fire a weapon. So let us run down what happens....

 It hits or doesnt. If it doesn't ignore, if it does add up the MoS. Next the issue is to figure out the damage , using the location hit (which is another roll, and another step) then calculate it.

In most games, I need one maybe 2 dice, Roll and add it up...Bang done. Maybe the damage is subtracted from their armor before taken from the persons life.

What I am trying to get out is that Combat takes forever. Then you add in Mech combat and the abstract rules there and the lack of rules for the Various mechs in regards to the AToW rules, not Total Warfare or CBT. So you might as well just keep it as a CBT campaign, but then your spending your whole time running a CBT when you should be RPG.

I think a Gun should do X damage, Period.... Subtract for the armor of the target...Etc... Which would make it very deadly as a shotgun could still one shot someone, and if you have a MoS that is higher then 5 then perhaps a crit hit on the head...Etc...

Not saying that I do not most of the system, I just hate the combat encounter system they have written up, which is a shame as most of my players would play it if it was quicker like Shadowrun's system. Oddly enough both games are made by the same company, originally and now with CGL taken up their flag. So I fail to see how we can't a unversal CGL system...

[Acolyte]

Hit locations are optional rules.

   - Shane

[doulos05]

Not saying that I do not most of the system, I just hate the combat encounter system they have written up, which is a shame as most of my players would play it if it was quicker like Shadowrun's system. Oddly enough both games are made by the same company, originally and now with CGL taken up their flag. So I fail to see how we can't a unversal CGL system...

Thing is, it's not as easy as just having a universal system. Roleplaying systems have a flavor to them. If that flavor doesn't match the universe, then the game feels weird to a number of players. Like putting ketchup on your rice. I have no experience with Shadowrun, so I don't know if it's system complements the BT universe's flavor. But I know that I'd never play Battletech D20 because class leveling doesn't fit BT. I also wouldn't play an old-school Traveller based BT game because the glacier pace of character progression doesn't fit BT for me. Does anyone who knows both systems care to comment on how much Shadowrun can be made to "feel" like Battletech?

[Thorvidar]

I put ketchup on my rice.....   O0

seriously I do....But I wasn't talking about Roll 20. I was saying that combat system is too bulky to be fun, at least to me. So I feel that they need to do something about that aspect of the game, I know from watching Shadowrun players that the game goes a lot faster in combat then AtoW does.

[Acolyte]

It doesn't. You're looking at more experienced players who know the system. In AToW you roll to hit, figure the MOS and add damage if it's high (needs to be at least 4 for guns). Then see if the armor subtracts anything (it usually doesn't) and apply damage. That's it.

Adding in optional rules like hit locations will slow any game down. You could add it into D&D. It would slow things down. If the game is too slow for you, take out the optional rules - I'll do this as conflicts get larger.

   - Shane

[PurpleDragon]

What Acolyte said. 
 
I actually add hit locations to my games that don't have them.  I think it is more fun to see the effects of not being able to use your sword arm and incur that negative penalty because now you are using your off hand to attack.  My players have always seemed to enjoy it. 
 
I really think it is up to the GM.  It really boils down to is it role playing or is it numbers crunching that is getting to you? 

[Acolyte]

I actually add hit locations to my games that don't have them.

 O0 Me too!

   - Shane

[doulos05]

I put ketchup on my rice.....   O0

seriously I do....But I wasn't talking about Roll 20. I was saying that combat system is too bulky to be fun, at least to me. So I feel that they need to do something about that aspect of the game, I know from watching Shadowrun players that the game goes a lot faster in combat then AtoW does.

I wasn't making a point about Roll 20, I was making a point about the flavor of RPG systems. I used Roll 20 and LBB Traveller as examples to prove my point about flavoring. I have no doubt there's at least one person in the world who would feel that Roll 20 perfectly emulates the BT universe, but I'm speaking in broader strokes. Broadly speaking, is Shadowrun a good emulator for the BT universe?

[PurpleDragon]

I wasn't making a point about Roll 20, I was making a point about the flavor of RPG systems. I used Roll 20 and LBB Traveller as examples to prove my point about flavoring. I have no doubt there's at least one person in the world who would feel that Roll 20 perfectly emulates the BT universe, but I'm speaking in broader strokes. Broadly speaking, is Shadowrun a good emulator for the BT universe?

It uses some of the same game mechanics, but is set more for a science fantasy than a science fiction realm.   You know: Orcs and shotguns; Street Samurai that are tweeked out with cybernetics; net runners (imagine NEO from Matrix, just not the saviour of man); Trolls for bodyguards; and I created a nifty little shifter mage that was a bald eagle.  He could cast his spells all day long and never even get winded.  Was pretty effective, too, until he ran up against a fire elemental. 
By the way, if you ever encounter a dragon in Shadowrun and your GM knows how to run the game, game over man. 

[Acolyte]

Not particularly, but you could do it. Trouble would be the interface between the RPG and the Total Warfare, but still not too hard to do. How familiar are you with the Shadowrun system? If it's your go to system, it'll be doable but if Shadowrun is a new system I'd pick something else that's more familiar to you and your group.

   - Shane

[guardiandashi]

I wasn't making a point about Roll 20, I was making a point about the flavor of RPG systems. I used Roll 20 and LBB Traveller as examples to prove my point about flavoring. I have no doubt there's at least one person in the world who would feel that Roll 20 perfectly emulates the BT universe, but I'm speaking in broader strokes. Broadly speaking, is Shadowrun a good emulator for the BT universe?

it also depends on the edition of shadowrun and a number of other issues.

I am going to use another example as I personally am not that familiar with traveler.

consider the D6 edition of star wars by west end games vs the D20 and "saga" edition versions by wizards of the coast.

same universe and the games to me feel RADICALLY different.

now personally I much prefer the WEG version partially because I played it years before the d20 version....  but frankly the D6 version is essentially a level less system because while your character DOES get better as you gain experience every character can grow in different ways from the same "template" wheras to me the D20 level based system feels kludged together (but its still MUCH better than the older TSR versions) and it just doesn't seem to fit "high tech" environments because to me the flaws in the system become frankly glaringly obvious.

[Mohammed As`Zaman Bey]

So I fail to see how we can't a unversal CGL system...

  What's ironic is the fact that the old Shadowrun DMZ and Battletroops, both tactical level infantry and vehicle rules for minis, were virtually the same systems, using action points for maneuvers and initiative. Our group combined the Battletroops rules with Solaris VII to have RPG-scale infantry vs vehicles vs Battlemechs battles.

[IronSphinx]

I really think it is up to the GM.  It really boils down to is it role playing or is it numbers crunching that is getting to you?

I won't speak for him, but for me, it's all the number crunching and table lookups that detracts from the roleplaying. I favor rules-lite systems that put the focus more on player/character interaction than on rolling dice. If something slows down the game (like how the combat system in AToW slows the game to a crawl--and I've had similar problems with ShadowRun 4e when I ran SR:Missions), then I'd rather get rid of it in favor of something that keeps the math and table lookups to a minimum. I don't want my players sitting at the table getting bored while they wait for me to bang out numbers on a calculator as I'm trying to manage multiple NPCs and villains. Putting together worksheets to keep everything organized does help, but only to a point. With Battletech, everyone is running either one or multiple units, so it's "relatively" easy to keep the game flowing at a pretty steady pace since the workload is "relatively" evenly distributed. But with AToW, during combat, each player runs one character whereas the GM manages multiple while also juggling combat interaction with the players. I've never seen the two systems as a fair comparison because the distribution of work is skewed against the GM in AToW. Unless you're a math-whiz with a good memory for tables, the game is going to drag the instant you enter combat. :(

CGL creating a new edition of AToW is financially unfeasible in my opinion. I don't think that they'll ever invest the money on a new ruleset for a hardcover print book that (I'm assuming) sells far less than Total War or Alpha Strike line of books.

Personally, what I'd like to see is an e-Pub with a stripped down version of the AToW rules containing a simple conversion for MechWarrior P/G skills so that whenever you need to do Vehicle or 'Mech-scale combat, you can skip over to Alpha Strike for something quick and easy. For those who want the granularity and complexity that AToW currently has, more power to them. I want something rules-lite and scaled to play fast. Get a scenario done in three hours, four hours tops. Probably the main reason why I prefer Alpha Strike over Total War rules, but that's another discussion in itself.

[worktroll]

Personally, what I'd like to see is an e-Pub with a stripped down version of the AToW rules containing a simple conversion for MechWarrior P/G skills so that whenever you need to do Vehicle or 'Mech-scale combat, you can skip over to Alpha Strike for something quick and easy.

Out of interest, how close are the AToW Quick-Start Rules to what you want? I'm not an RPG expert, but the jump from them to the newly-available Alpha Strike QSR might not be that much.

W.

[IronSphinx]

Out of interest, how close are the AToW Quick-Start Rules to what you want? I'm not an RPG expert, but the jump from them to the newly-available Alpha Strike QSR might not be that much.

W.

Y'know, that was actually my initial plan since the campaign I wanted to run had no 'Mechs involved. I tracked down and bought all the Free RPG Day AToW QSR rulebooks I could find. Unfortunately, as I reviewed them from year to year, I discovered that the rules as written in the booklets are, ah, putting it politely, not written or organized as well as they could have been. A month ago, as per request from one of TPTB, I wrote and sent them a long post detailing out what was wrong with how the AToW Free RPG Day book was written and why I found it unusable as an entry point for new players. I'll PM you a copy of the message if you like, but I doubt that it'd be productive to repost it publically--mainly because the more I wrote, the more snark seeped into the message due to my frustration.

[monbvol]

I'll second that perhaps using the optional hit location rules in AToW are not ideal for quick combat resolution and perhaps you shouldn't use them.

I'll also assume to minimize lookups you've copied the relevant stats of the weapons and armor in use for the firefight to a note piece of paper in advance and done as much as you can in advance to have as much of the calculations completed in advance as you can.

Perhaps using more burst fire weapons may be advisable as well as the math becomes simple addition/subtraction in that case.

[PurpleDragon]

I won't speak for PD, but for me, it's all the number crunching and table lookups that detracts from the roleplaying. I favor rules-lite systems that put the focus more on player/character interaction than on rolling dice. If something slows down the game (like how the combat system in AToW slows the game to a crawl--and I've had similar problems with ShadowRun 4e when I ran SR:Missions), then I'd rather get rid of it in favor of something that keeps the math and table lookups to a minimum. I don't want my players sitting at the table getting bored while they wait for me to bang out numbers on a calculator as I'm trying to manage multiple NPCs and villains. Putting together worksheets to keep everything organized does help, but only to a point. With Battletech, everyone is running either one or multiple units, so it's "relatively" easy to keep the game flowing at a pretty steady pace since the workload is "relatively" evenly distributed. But with AToW, during combat, each player runs one character whereas the GM manages multiple while also juggling combat interaction with the players. I've never seen the two systems as a fair comparison because the distribution of work is skewed against the GM in AToW. Unless you're a math-whiz with a good memory for tables, the game is going to drag the instant you enter combat. :(

CGL creating a new edition of AToW is financially unfeasible in my opinion. I don't think that they'll ever invest the money on a new ruleset for a hardcover print book that (I'm assuming) sells far less than Total War or Alpha Strike line of books.

Personally, what I'd like to see is an e-Pub with a stripped down version of the AToW rules containing a simple conversion for MechWarrior P/G skills so that whenever you need to do Vehicle or 'Mech-scale combat, you can skip over to Alpha Strike for something quick and easy. For those who want the granularity and complexity that AToW currently has, more power to them. I want something rules-lite and scaled to play fast. Get a scenario done in three hours, four hours tops. Probably the main reason why I prefer Alpha Strike over Total War rules, but that's another discussion in itself.

What?  You don't have your players running their NPCs under their control in RPG?   I mean, it sounds like you are trying to run everything that is not the PCs.  I treat AToW, as all Mechwarrior RPG games, the same as I do Battletech.  You, the player, control the things that are under your character's command.  If you, the player, are not in command of something and you are facing a platoon of enemy infantry, I've done something wrong or I intend to either a) capture your character; or, b) kill your character, unless if there are enough hiding spots for your character to escape. In which case, I intended this gaming session to be all about your character getting away.  If you are running a company of infantry and have something like a company of friendlies and they are battling and the PCs got caught up in it, don't try to play out the battle.  Just take care of what the PCs are affected by.  Then make the battle go as according to how the PCs are doing.   This is where Handwavium is a good thing.  If the PCs sent a "commando" character NPC in to do something like sabotage something or rescue some prisoners, don't play that out either.  It happens or not as according to the direction you want your story to go.  Players actions should be taken into account.  However, if PCs are not present, or are not able to directly effect the outcome, don't play it out. 
 
If you get a rules lawyer in your game that likes to throw the "that's not how it's handled in the book" statement at you every time you try to circumvent playing something out, hand them the book and tell them to prepare to run a game.  I have shut up/lost more rules lawyers that way.   ;D 
 
Once I again, I think some people are getting confused as to what's role play and what's number crunching. 

[IronSphinx]

What?  You don't have your players running their NPCs under their control in RPG?

Interesting concept. In over thirty years of playing RPGs, this is the first time I've ever heard of having players run NPCs.

I mean, it sounds like you are trying to run everything that is not the PCs.

Yeah, that's the Game Master's job.  ???

I treat AToW, as all Mechwarrior RPG games, the same as I do Battletech.  You, the player, control the things that are under your character's command.  If you, the player, are not in command of something and you are facing a platoon of enemy infantry, I've done something wrong or I intend to either a) capture your character; or, b) kill your character, unless if there are enough hiding spots for your character to escape. In which case, I intended this gaming session to be all about your character getting away.  If you are running a company of infantry and have something like a company of friendlies and they are battling and the PCs got caught up in it, don't try to play out the battle.  Just take care of what the PCs are affected by.  Then make the battle go as according to how the PCs are doing.

Yeah that's a misinterpretation of the situation. When I ran ShadowRun: Missions, I had people coming out of the woodwork as soon as they found out that someone in the area was running SR:M. Within two months, I was shocked to have twelve people showing up at my game unannounced and had to scale both the number and the quality of crunchies in order to meet the challenge that the players presented. Fortunately, I was quickly able to convince one of my fellow Agents to split the group with me so we were each only saddled with six players. But even then, since I had the six experienced, higher level players, I still had to scale both the number and the quality of crunchies in order to meet the challenge--and there were rules in SR:M to accomplish this. However, it came down to either throw numbers at them or a fewer number of higher skilled opponents or some reasonable mixture of both. Even a reasonable mixture of both meant I was running four to eight opponents. And that's something that you cannot hand off to players.

This is where Handwavium is a good thing.  If the PCs sent a "commando" character NPC in to do something like sabotage something or rescue some prisoners, don't play that out either.  It happens or not as according to the direction you want your story to go.  Players actions should be taken into account.  However, if PCs are not present, or are not able to directly effect the outcome, don't play it out. 

I don't. Unless it's integral to the plot--and if it is, then there needs to be a player character involved.

[PurpleDragon]

Yeah, that's the Game Master's job.  ???

Therein lies the problem.  It's not a job.   

[IronSphinx]

Therein lies the problem.  It's not a job.

I'm a Catalyst Agent. It IS a job. Now when it becomes a chore, that's when I need to look into doing something else.  :)

[skiltao]

There's no way that a single RPG core book could ever cover every single possible campaign in significant detail. Something would have to get cut out, and it's better that that be stuff that's only really relevant to a specific subset of possible RPG campaigns, rather than details that could very easily crop up in all sorts of campaigns.

Travel times and costs are going to be relevant in all sorts of campaigns. Random events tables for major political events, for major planetary events, the size and composition of the planet's garrison, likely security around a given merchant or facility, vehicle and ship repairs, uses for your Computer skill... Mercs, Clanners, explorers and traders aren't all that different, and its not like you have to cover their day-to-day expenses in the same detail that aToW covers an individual character's expenses.

Sourcebooks have been the nature of the RPG industry for decades, and I don't see things changing anytime soon.

I agree. I think that everything new in The Core Rulebook line should have been put in a sourcebook first, so that they'd then have more time to put the corebook together and have more experience with each individual item.

I never stated that we couldn't. I was only challenging with my opinion the assumption we need a new edition desperately.
There's a difference between, "Tweak this" and "Why didn't they use (other game) engine?!"
Fix a car's windshield, not revamp the whole bodywork.

I think you have misunderstood "new edition." Rather than throw out the engine, the idea is that there are just so many editing and content tweaks needed as to warrant a new edition.

Although you never state it outright, you seem to be assuming that a new edition of the RPG shouldn't duplicate rule systems found in other Core Rulebooks. But why not? Why not make a book which contains everything you need for BattleTech's default campaign mode?

Either way this is all coming from a fellow fan, nothing more.

Never thought otherwise.  O0

Based on what the Table of Contents says in this Battleblog:
http://bg.battletech.com/news/battleblog/interstellar-operations-cometh/

I'm holding out hopes for it. Heavens know that CGL has plenty of rules for force creation.
From simple Chaos Campaign stuff to the nitty gritty they let us open test.
It would be nice to have it under one cover.

Maybe. But to function as a substitute for the RPG, I suspect it would also need:
-repair rules
-abridged unit generation for RPG folks who don't want to deal with everything
-a middle ground campaign tracking somewhere between "beans and bullets" and Chaos System
-a battle resolution system for RPG people who don't want to bother with the boardgame
-political and planetary events of a non-military (or at least non-battle) nature

I mean, D&D has 3 books as it's point of entry (only 1 of which is needed by the players), why do we expect BT to only have 1? Especially since, once more, only the GM needs the additional books in the series.

First, D&D's player book already has the default play mode all by itself: hack stuff up (NPCs of the PC classes), loot stuff, buy stuff, use skills. BT's Core RPG book doesn't have BT's default play mode, doesn't have prices or rules for that default's most important equipment, and doesn't have guides for using many or most skills.

Second, if Catalyst thought that BT's RPG market would sustain 3 separate books, I rather suspect that's what Catalyst would have tried to print. While general fans (by which I mean fans buying all things BattleTech rather than those fans specifically interested in an RPG) might be coaxed into buying products that are exclusively RPG content (no history, no plot, just RPG stuff), that niche seems to be occupied by the other Core Rulebooks.