Author Topic: On reviving the Fan Council  (Read 2032 times)

Iron Mongoose

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1472
  • Don't you know, you're all my very best friends
On reviving the Fan Council
« on: 18 May 2017, 14:31:09 »
On reviving the Fan Council

There has been a lot of discussion over the last few days over both the history and future of the celebrated and bemoaned institution of the Fan Council, which once ran on this boards and provided a wonderful opportunity for role playing the gaming for the fans of the game.  It was proposed that a thread should be started to discuss weather these games might enjoy a revival.  This is no a simple question, and I think it can be broken down into several smaller questions:

1) Is the Fan Council viable?
2) If so, under what conditions?
3) If so, how can rules be found or made? 
4) If so, what setting might be suitable?

One could probably do more or fewer points, but it seemed a good break down.

The first is pretty simple.  I think there will be people out there who would argue that the FC is conceptually unsound.  The idea of gathering together a large and diverse group for a long running game just isn’t really feasible.  I don’t agree.  I think the fact that versions of the game ran for years proves that such a game can have a type of stability.  But, I do think that the other conditions must be factors in maintaining that stability.

As for the second question, the biggest factor to me is where the game is to be conduction and how it is to be supported.  The most successful games were hosted right here on the official boards and received a limited amount of support from the boards and rumor has it from those involved with the game (I know the road ran the other way, in that many FC alums went on to work with/for the official end of the company).  I think shunting the game off to an alternative site would doom the game, because it would never have enough visibility to attract the sort of player base needed.  Now, that said, many who are in charge of this site have their own experiences with the game, and one can’t predict weather such support might or might not be forth coming. 

As to the third point, I foresee the greatest struggle.  I’d once hoped that a product like Interstellar Operations might have the sort of rules that would permit something like the FC using canon rules which, even if they were imperfect, would at least be likely to be agreeable to everyone.   However, I’ve never heard anyone say anything about them being used in that application, and I don’t own the product myself (no FGCs to be a part of lately) so I can’t evaluate that.  If there are no suitable canon rules… it has to call the viability of things into question.  That’s no criticism of any of the various GMs from over the many years who did their best to make rules, but there never was one that didn’t attract some controversy, or be found to have unforeseen flaws, or that failed at the (probably impossible) task of achieving balance between the various factions with their wild differences in size and technology and tactical and strategic specializations. 

Lastly is the question of setting.  If a space could be made for the game, players could be attracted, rules found and agreed on, then it would be important to find a setting that reflected both the need to keep and attract players, and the reality of playing on the official boards and what to me would be a sort of moral obligation to try and enhance the game in some subtle way.  To that end, I’d advocate using the very newest products as a starting point, so the 3145.  There are, mind you, key down sides to that.  The setting is explicitly out of balance, so it would be hell for many players of factions that haven’t been winning so much lately, and we also know that the setting is set up in anticipation of some serious turmoil to come with new releases that are even now in the pipeline.  But, the FGC’s very genesis was in working with and on new releases and pushing into unknown spaces.

I’ll also concede that the longest running (and perhaps must successful) FGC started in 3063, not 67 which was then current.  To emulate that, 3085 to me has the look of having better balance, stability, and so on, and would thus be a setting into which the players would be able to supply the drama, rather than having to step into a setting with drama already preset.  The worry would be if the players chose (rationally) to be conservative and not do anything foolish (as I was wont to do) then the game could be boring, while in a 3145 game it would probably prove impossible not to have a lot of excitement right from the outset, because things are so unstable and in such flux.

Well, those are my thoughts, and mine alone.  Here is, I suppose, the opportunity for any and all to say if they think such a thing should or could be done, or if it should or could not be. 
"For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century..."

JadeHellbringer

  • Глупость должна быть болезненной
  • Administrator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16888
  • I Am Jade Falcon, And So Can You
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #1 on: 18 May 2017, 14:33:55 »
Following the most recent iteration, the decision was made that any future versions of this needed to be done elsewhere, and not on the official forums. Suffice to say, that wasn't a fun conclusion to reach, but was one that needed to happen for a number of reasons.

I wholeheartedly hope that a new one can come around- particularly one based in the post-Jihad era, because there's no shortage of interesting things going on in there. But it's not an option here at this point.
"There's a difference between the soldier and his fight,
But the warrior knows the true meaning of his life."
+Larry and his Flask, 'Blood Drunk'+

"You know, basically war is just, like, a bunch of people playing pranks on each other, but at the end they all die."

+Crow T. Robot+

Stinger

  • Freelance Artist
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1224
  • Artist, Writer, 3D Modeler Extraordinaire
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #2 on: 18 May 2017, 15:11:36 »
Following the most recent iteration, the decision was made that any future versions of this needed to be done elsewhere, and not on the official forums.

If you are going to go anywhere, I highly recommend www.mordel.net.  A small but still active site that could use an influx of new blood.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8457
  • I think I've seen that somewhere before...
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #3 on: 18 May 2017, 15:19:44 »
I understand the administration's decision on the matter.  Still as much as it might complicate matters there is still some validity in the idea of hashing things out here since these forums are more likely to get the correct attention and despite how down on the Fan Councils I may have come across as being I do so dearly want to make them work.

Point 1 are the Fan Councils viable with what really should be 1a Under what conditions?

Yes if we keep the scope contained and the rules simple enough.  For me this means absolutely all the book keeping/accounting should not take more than an hour per week for even the GMs.  Time should be spent playing the game, not filing out spreadsheets.  This may require a non-canon setting to pull off, or at the very least a very self contained canon setting and that is going to be difficult to get enough people to agree on.

Point 2 rules.  Either from scratch or using Interstellar Operations Inner Sphere at War might be a good starting point if we keep things small and self contained enough.  Combat is the big question.  I'm still trying to decide at what point MegaMek is a deal breaker for me versus being a valid tool but makes this really just a MekHQ campaign instead.

Point 3 setting.  As mentioned earlier this could be the biggest sticking point and the most difficult to decide upon and is probably the most fundamental thing to be decided upon as everything else branches off it.

Iron Mongoose

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1472
  • Don't you know, you're all my very best friends
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #4 on: 18 May 2017, 16:24:43 »
Following the most recent iteration, the decision was made that any future versions of this needed to be done elsewhere, and not on the official forums. Suffice to say, that wasn't a fun conclusion to reach, but was one that needed to happen for a number of reasons.

I wholeheartedly hope that a new one can come around- particularly one based in the post-Jihad era, because there's no shortage of interesting things going on in there. But it's not an option here at this point.

I can't say I'm particularly surprised, nore even that I disagree. Feelings did at times run high...

What is the position on planning and recruitment here?
"For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century..."

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6769
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #5 on: 18 May 2017, 17:06:44 »
Following the most recent iteration, the decision was made that any future versions of this needed to be done elsewhere, and not on the official forums. Suffice to say, that wasn't a fun conclusion to reach, but was one that needed to happen for a number of reasons.
I get that there's something I'm not aware of here, so can I get the Cliff Notes?

Giovanni Blasini

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3446
  • Niops Assoc.- Sponsored by Interstellar Expeditons
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #6 on: 18 May 2017, 18:44:11 »
I understand the administration's decision on the matter.  Still as much as it might complicate matters there is still some validity in the idea of hashing things out here since these forums are more likely to get the correct attention and despite how down on the Fan Councils I may have come across as being I do so dearly want to make them work.

Point 1 are the Fan Councils viable with what really should be 1a Under what conditions?

Yes if we keep the scope contained and the rules simple enough.  For me this means absolutely all the book keeping/accounting should not take more than an hour per week for even the GMs.  Time should be spent playing the game, not filing out spreadsheets.  This may require a non-canon setting to pull off, or at the very least a very self contained canon setting and that is going to be difficult to get enough people to agree on.

Point 2 rules.  Either from scratch or using Interstellar Operations Inner Sphere at War might be a good starting point if we keep things small and self contained enough.  Combat is the big question.  I'm still trying to decide at what point MegaMek is a deal breaker for me versus being a valid tool but makes this really just a MekHQ campaign instead.

Point 3 setting.  As mentioned earlier this could be the biggest sticking point and the most difficult to decide upon and is probably the most fundamental thing to be decided upon as everything else branches off it.

I wholeheartedly advocate using the Inner Sphere at War rules in Interstellar Operations, since they're a common set of rules published by Catalyst, which removes the need for us to develop the rules, and gives everyone a clear outlet to go to for rules questions.  The ISaW rules were made for a strategic game, and have scalability.  They may not be perfect, since nothing is, but they seem ideal for a new FGC.

Using these rules, the next question becomes what era and what location/factions are best supported under these common rules at this time?  That will determine setting and scope as well.
“Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.”
― Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man

Frogfoot

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 186
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #7 on: 18 May 2017, 19:18:05 »
I think one thing it'd be good to decide on and make clear for all players is what kind of 'tone' you would all want the whole thing to be played in. IIRC there was drama over some meta shenanigans in the last one, with factions making alliances that would be extremely unlikely on in-universe ideological grounds, but the players allied anyway for in-game strategic reasons or even just because they were buddies with each other. I believe some of it was done under the table and wasn't found out for some time. I'm not making any judgements on that other than it's a good idea for all the players to be singing from the same hymn sheet.

So I guess what it boils down to is:
- should the lore in any way determine what players can do?
- if so, how much?
- what oversight method would you use for it?


In a MW4 league I played in, the way they settled on was that any alliances needed the players involved to produce several pieces of written RP for it, and that bizarre alliances (like the Steel Viper-WoB alliance two new units tried to pull) would just be vetoed. Resources could only be traded by allied factions, and similarly free passage through owned space was only possible to allied factions. This was all coded into the league's automation though, so you might want something much more flexible for a FGC running on IS@War.

And might I just add that I for one welcome our new Clan Camel overlords.

SteveRestless

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4606
  • Clan Wolf Rho Galaxy: The Altered Beasts
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #8 on: 18 May 2017, 19:18:12 »
I'm one of those people who believes the entire thing to be conceptually unsound.

If someone were going to attempt it, I would take measures to prevent the point buy systems from being abused. BV, BV2 and the resource point systems that have been used have all been hideously exploitable and in no way shape or form wind up resembling the way the fiction depicts the universe.

if you had a gun to my head and were forcing me to run a FGC, I would gather a group of sub-game-masters, and make each faction headed by a GM. Technological advancement and improvements would be something the GMs decide together, not something decided by raw exploitable mathematics.

At the end of the day, the game works better as a plotless pick-up-game or as a non competitive asymmetrical game, with gamemaster-and-players. BT just isn't rigorously balanced enough to work well as a purely cutthroat competitive system.
Want to Track your own unit? Try the LUCK system | NonCanon Units Index!

<Articus> theres coyotes outside <Articus> i can hear them baying <Steve_Restless>  oh shit it's the homeclans <Steve_Restless>  my milkshakes! *Steve_Restless leaps out the window <Articus> His milkshakes bring all the Clans to the yard <Articus> he could teach you, but you'll have to Batchall | <Articus> keep it up mister, and your next shipment of Inferno IV will be ConfettIV

Giovanni Blasini

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3446
  • Niops Assoc.- Sponsored by Interstellar Expeditons
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #9 on: 18 May 2017, 19:36:37 »
I'm one of those people who believes the entire thing to be conceptually unsound.

If someone were going to attempt it, I would take measures to prevent the point buy systems from being abused. BV, BV2 and the resource point systems that have been used have all been hideously exploitable and in no way shape or form wind up resembling the way the fiction depicts the universe.

if you had a gun to my head and were forcing me to run a FGC, I would gather a group of sub-game-masters, and make each faction headed by a GM. Technological advancement and improvements would be something the GMs decide together, not something decided by raw exploitable mathematics.

At the end of the day, the game works better as a plotless pick-up-game or as a non competitive asymmetrical game, with gamemaster-and-players. BT just isn't rigorously balanced enough to work well as a purely cutthroat competitive system.

That...doesn't strike me as a horrible idea.
“Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.”
― Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man

worktroll

  • Oldest and fatherless
  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 18861
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #10 on: 18 May 2017, 19:46:02 »
It's worth mentioning that the very first "Fan Grand Council" was literally just a talking shop - an opportunity for people to role-play arguments between Khans, saKhans, and Loremasters. There may have been some Trials as a consequence, but hot air was the much enjoyed primary output.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8457
  • I think I've seen that somewhere before...
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #11 on: 18 May 2017, 19:55:52 »
I wholeheartedly advocate using the Inner Sphere at War rules in Interstellar Operations, since they're a common set of rules published by Catalyst, which removes the need for us to develop the rules, and gives everyone a clear outlet to go to for rules questions.  The ISaW rules were made for a strategic game, and have scalability.  They may not be perfect, since nothing is, but they seem ideal for a new FGC.

Using these rules, the next question becomes what era and what location/factions are best supported under these common rules at this time?  That will determine setting and scope as well.

I kind of wish more of my recommendations for simplifying the rules had made it into the final version but I'll agree that they would be workable, might need a bit of shoring up and I do like the idea of using something official.

I'm one of those people who believes the entire thing to be conceptually unsound.

If someone were going to attempt it, I would take measures to prevent the point buy systems from being abused. BV, BV2 and the resource point systems that have been used have all been hideously exploitable and in no way shape or form wind up resembling the way the fiction depicts the universe.

if you had a gun to my head and were forcing me to run a FGC, I would gather a group of sub-game-masters, and make each faction headed by a GM. Technological advancement and improvements would be something the GMs decide together, not something decided by raw exploitable mathematics.

At the end of the day, the game works better as a plotless pick-up-game or as a non competitive asymmetrical game, with gamemaster-and-players. BT just isn't rigorously balanced enough to work well as a purely cutthroat competitive system.

*nod*

I'm not opposed to that either but yeah the demands for detail often make me think it should be a Hearts of Iron mod or something instead of a pen and paper/web forum venture.

It's worth mentioning that the very first "Fan Grand Council" was literally just a talking shop - an opportunity for people to role-play arguments between Khans, saKhans, and Loremasters. There may have been some Trials as a consequence, but hot air was the much enjoyed primary output.

And that certainly could be done again.

Baldur Mekorig

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 701
  • Join the Brotherhood, our mechs are cuter!
    • My Facebook
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #12 on: 18 May 2017, 19:59:48 »
A brutally honest and scathing critic SteveRestless, i also like the idea.

Also support Gio`s proposal of using the IP rules. I may sound like a broken record, but i propose the 3000`s like a good time to set the game. 3085 (inmediatly after the Jihad) would be good too.
Ad perpetuam gloriam lucis
furor ira tenax
contra iniuriam et ruinam
rabies ira tenax

Arkansas Warrior

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7614
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #13 on: 18 May 2017, 21:09:21 »
I'm one of those people who believes the entire thing to be conceptually unsound.

If someone were going to attempt it, I would take measures to prevent the point buy systems from being abused. BV, BV2 and the resource point systems that have been used have all been hideously exploitable and in no way shape or form wind up resembling the way the fiction depicts the universe.

if you had a gun to my head and were forcing me to run a FGC, I would gather a group of sub-game-masters, and make each faction headed by a GM. Technological advancement and improvements would be something the GMs decide together, not something decided by raw exploitable mathematics.

At the end of the day, the game works better as a plotless pick-up-game or as a non competitive asymmetrical game, with gamemaster-and-players. BT just isn't rigorously balanced enough to work well as a purely cutthroat competitive system.
There's some merit in that.  Certainly in 3063 I think some factions were at a relative disadvantage due to having Faction Heads who wanted to play closer to canon-realistic, while others were more wide-open.


I would say, though, that BT was never supposed to be balanced.  If the FS decides they're going to go whole-hog and blitzkrieg the Taurians or Outworlds, those factions are going down, period.  Players know that going in, and if you pick Niops you're probably planning from the outset to use diplomacy to stay alive, since you aren't out-producing anyone.  That's a lot of what makes this interesting; the factions have wildly differing starting positions, goals, etc.  It's not as if everyone's just trying to achieve the same goal.
Sunrise is Coming.

All Hail First Prince Melissa Davion, cowerer of Dainmar Liao, Creator of the Model Army, Rescuer of Robinson, Patron Saint of the Regimental Combat Team!  May her light ever guide the sons of the Suns, May our daughters ever endeavour to emulate her!

SteveRestless

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4606
  • Clan Wolf Rho Galaxy: The Altered Beasts
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #14 on: 18 May 2017, 21:44:27 »
I would say, though, that BT was never supposed to be balanced.

Agree completely. Which is why I feel it works better when not all factions are staffed with live human players. One of the problems I saw in the FGCs were people who took it personal when their faction suffered, or when another thrived.

I'd actually go so far as to say that it's not really possible to competitively balance Battletech. at least not without turning it into a minmaxed nightmare with no variety. BV as a metric works well as a measuring stick when the intent is to try and make the fight as close to even as possible. When you start using it to try and get an advantage, and you totally can, it breaks fast. It's like a yardstick, you can measure fine with it, but if you attack someone with it, you can easily snap it over their head.

At the very least, if one can, it behooves a resurrection of the concept to make sure that players going into a disadvantaged faction are aware and acknowledge the disadvantage.

Me, I'd probably break from canon entirely for a game like this. spec out a game with factions that are roughly equal at the onset, free of canon biases.
Want to Track your own unit? Try the LUCK system | NonCanon Units Index!

<Articus> theres coyotes outside <Articus> i can hear them baying <Steve_Restless>  oh shit it's the homeclans <Steve_Restless>  my milkshakes! *Steve_Restless leaps out the window <Articus> His milkshakes bring all the Clans to the yard <Articus> he could teach you, but you'll have to Batchall | <Articus> keep it up mister, and your next shipment of Inferno IV will be ConfettIV

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8457
  • I think I've seen that somewhere before...
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #15 on: 19 May 2017, 14:21:20 »
Agree completely. Which is why I feel it works better when not all factions are staffed with live human players. One of the problems I saw in the FGCs were people who took it personal when their faction suffered, or when another thrived.

I'd actually go so far as to say that it's not really possible to competitively balance Battletech. at least not without turning it into a minmaxed nightmare with no variety. BV as a metric works well as a measuring stick when the intent is to try and make the fight as close to even as possible. When you start using it to try and get an advantage, and you totally can, it breaks fast. It's like a yardstick, you can measure fine with it, but if you attack someone with it, you can easily snap it over their head.

At the very least, if one can, it behooves a resurrection of the concept to make sure that players going into a disadvantaged faction are aware and acknowledge the disadvantage.

Me, I'd probably break from canon entirely for a game like this. spec out a game with factions that are roughly equal at the onset, free of canon biases.

Yeah I've noticed that once you start having tech disparities, weight disparities, and/ore number disparities BV does break down as a balancing mechanic.

I am also in complete agreement that this should break from canon completely.  Doing so also has the added benefit of making sure the ISaW rules actually work or not by doing that for if things are not a on an even keel it can hide certain faults easier.

Iron Mongoose

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1472
  • Don't you know, you're all my very best friends
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #16 on: 19 May 2017, 14:29:19 »
I guess the question that we should ask is: What is the FGC? (FC?  I know it was Fan Grand Council initially, because as Worktroll reminds us it started with the Clans, but when it became a grander game it sometimes dropped the G and sometimes not).

Is it foremost a strategic game, where each faction attempts to use a mixture of diplomacy and military force to dominate the others and enrich itself?

Or is it a role play venue, where the main point is to interact and explore chosen characters and factions?

Is it a speculative venture, a chance to test questions of "what if" that surround the universe?

Or is it meant to be more of a canon simulation, where the "true natures" of established characters are to be explored?

Most of the commentators here are old FGC hands, with experience going back a decade or more.  I for my part have had positive experiences all around, and I respect everyone and their view.  Yet, the fact that there is yet disagreement about the fundamental nature of the game hints that perhaps Steve is more right than I was, that no group of players will ever be able to settle down with the same set of core principles to make something like this work.  Yes, we have had games survive for years, but I suppose there is a difference between thriving and simply lurching from one crisis to the next.   

For my money, I liked seeing the FGC explore some strange new worlds.  Now, to be sure, many of them did bother me quite a bit at the time.  Why did Clan Coyote defect to the Inner Sphere side (I don't know if I never learned, or just forgot)?  Why did the Terran Super-faction have such a foothold in the Marian Hegemony? (probably because they knew I was out for their blood and they needed protection).  Why did the FWL agree to a dynastic marrage alliance with Clan Mongoose (because we're just that sexy)?  But, each propelled the game down a new and mostly interesting course, and forcing the players to deal with what came of things.  Having the Fire Mandrills in the Inner Sphere, for example, probably seemed pretty silly to many, but I think that it made the game more interesting. 

Now, is balance possible?  Yes and no.  I do agree that there will never be a setting in which there aren't strong factions and week factions.  Being a small faction will always be an uphill battle for survival.  A big faction will always be an 800lb gorilla.  But, I do think that there are ways to set up rules that don't favor some factions or some units or something else in a way that is uneven.  Speaking about BV touches on a part of this, because some very funny things were able to come to pass as a result of some of that.  That said, as for rules, since as I mentioned I don't have a copy of the canon rules that have been recommended, I won't say more.

As for canon vs non-canon setting, I would sooner see any new FGC start in a canon setting, and find it's own path from there.  A non-canon setting would require creating a non-canon setting, which I think would cause as much dispute as just using the admittedly unbalanced canon setting.
"For my military knowledge, though I'm plucky and adventury,
Has only been brought down to the beginning of the century..."

Arkansas Warrior

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7614
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #17 on: 19 May 2017, 14:52:37 »
I'm with IM, more or less.  I see the FGC as a chance to roleplay what-ifs, directions canon didn't go.  I'm okay with massaging canon (you basically have to, unless you want some people feeling they "have to" play their characters in the way they were played in canon), but I'd prefer a canon (or at least semi-canon) starting point.
Sunrise is Coming.

All Hail First Prince Melissa Davion, cowerer of Dainmar Liao, Creator of the Model Army, Rescuer of Robinson, Patron Saint of the Regimental Combat Team!  May her light ever guide the sons of the Suns, May our daughters ever endeavour to emulate her!

Baldur Mekorig

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 701
  • Join the Brotherhood, our mechs are cuter!
    • My Facebook
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #18 on: 19 May 2017, 15:02:38 »
I am not against going against canon (IS invading Clan space in the 50´s for example), but there is "what if" as the result of a long and well worked background and roleplaying, and the "what if" of we do it because LOL it is funny to create the Confederated Suns in 3025 on Turn2!.

Agree on starting canon, but any mayor change should be backed by a good RP and a minimun of rationality with the faction background.
Ad perpetuam gloriam lucis
furor ira tenax
contra iniuriam et ruinam
rabies ira tenax

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8457
  • I think I've seen that somewhere before...
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #19 on: 19 May 2017, 16:31:28 »
In trying to reconcile Iron Mongoose's question is where I am a bit conflicted.

If all people want is the role play aspect I see no reason why we couldn't revive that right now.

For those who want more of the economic and combat micromanagement, well that is where I am with Steve Restless and think we need a non-canon setting.  Mostly so we can avoid recriminations and so we can keep everything at a small enough and self contained enough scale that even ISaW's rules wouldn't get too daunting for someone to manage with what computerized aides people on these forums have been able to come up with in the past.

So where does that leave me for which I want?  I have to admit it is the second option I want to see work but I do have my reservations about it.

ANS Kamas P81

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8058
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #20 on: 19 May 2017, 16:44:43 »
One thing to point out is that the player turnover in '63 was pretty high.  It went on for a good long while, but it also went through a lot of players; having a dedicated core group is going to be key.

I like the idea of a master GM with sub-GMs heading each faction - but relying on input from their faction members, perhaps having internal votes to decide what to do in broad terms and let the GM handle the details as the actual faction head.  Let the players control colonels and generals, give us chances to go gonzo on the battlefield, and also encourage RP that way.

Timeframe wise, you'd want a well documented jumping off point, with at least some initial "ontological inertia" guiding the decisions made by the GMs.  Don't just suddenly kick off a whole invasion, but let a raid or two go on and start to deviate that way, and let things grow slowly outward.  I'd think placements would be best in the 3025 or 3085 era, since that's a very well documented timeframe and has a lot of good starting points.  A second 60-year jump, 3145, also has a ton of documentation but it's wildly uneven - then again, if the results of battles turn differently everything after the start date changes.

I personally think it could be done.  I don't know so much about the rule sets; perhaps between Alpha Strike's lance organization format and some of the FGC rules, it could work.  I think the biggest thing comes down to having a stable core leadership of the game, and not having that game leadership running a (let alone the most powerful) faction.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8457
  • I think I've seen that somewhere before...
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #21 on: 19 May 2017, 17:11:10 »
The main problem with any of the official settings so far is that they all require tracking of well over 1,000 data points for a great house and that is even simplifying what you need to track vs ISaW.

That is simply not workable with the current available assets at our disposal.

Arkansas Warrior

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7614
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #22 on: 19 May 2017, 17:39:00 »
It doesn't have to be Sphere-wide.  Now, we do risk limiting the player base with fewer factions, but we can also greatly simplify the scale.  Say, a Homeworlds game set in 3020 (or post-Reaving, even) or, as I mentioned in the other thread, a 3085-era game focusing on the shattered FWL and environs.  Any of those options would drastically shrink the amount of data to be tracked even compared to a 3025 whole-IS setting.
Sunrise is Coming.

All Hail First Prince Melissa Davion, cowerer of Dainmar Liao, Creator of the Model Army, Rescuer of Robinson, Patron Saint of the Regimental Combat Team!  May her light ever guide the sons of the Suns, May our daughters ever endeavour to emulate her!

The Eagle

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1655
  • Home of the Free
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #23 on: 19 May 2017, 17:45:20 »
To answer the lingering questions, my personal preference is for a game that begins in a canon setting, though scale doesn't matter for me.  I think one of the prior-floated ideas of a Clan-only game starting with Klondike would be magnificent, and the scale would be fairly small to boot.  An idea I had was the Chaos March small powers; the GMs could dictate what the Houses actually do, while the players run the little breakaway nations that had small militia armies backed by mercenary MechWarriors.



RIP Dan Schulz, 09 November 2009.  May the Albatross ever fly high.

AlphaMirage

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #24 on: 19 May 2017, 19:47:14 »
A Klondike game would be awesome, very small scale and we would get to use all the prototype stuff.

Skyth

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 883
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #25 on: 19 May 2017, 19:58:12 »
I remember taking part in the original FGC and the follow up trialing after it ended.  Wasn't that organized and there wasn't any force tracking.  It was just a way to organize some pick up games with some 'stakes' behind it. 

Personally, I don't feel the need for an 'official' Fan Council and wouldn't play in it (No time and not that interested in the premise of strategic winners or losers).  Plus even the one I was playing in there were people getting upset.  There's someone on this board now that I look askew at due to an incident that happened there still, even though it was over a decade ago. 

This sort of thing is best done with your friends where you can agree on what you are doing and what you are trying to get out of it.  Any 'official' one with random people is going to have issues due to playstyle or goals.

For what it's worth, there was a campaign system published in an old Dragon Magazine (Late 9x or early 10x issue's I think) over two issues.  One had the successor states, the other was just a generic mercenary campaign where each player owned certain generic planets (Resource, factory, etc) and a jump map was set up based on the players involved.  No one started with a strategic advantage there due to choosing the 'right' faction.  Granted, this was pre clan invasion time frame too ;)

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8457
  • I think I've seen that somewhere before...
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #26 on: 19 May 2017, 23:08:02 »
All this is doing though is highlighting one of the problems of the Fan Councils, too many people want too many different things.

For instance I have nothing against the FWL but I also have zero interest in it either.  Clans have frankly gotten boring for me too.

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6742
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #27 on: 20 May 2017, 00:39:24 »
if your mainly looking for a multiplayer campaign, perhaps use the republic after the blackout.. the players can take the reigns of the various 'pirate factions', small scale merc units, rebellions, security forces, and other such groups. perhaps also the pro-republic Knights and their 'retinues', since they fill a similar role.

this leaves the gamemasters in charge of the republic forces proper, helps keep the sizes of the forces smaller (making record keeping easier), and hopefully puts tensions a bit less intense out of game.

for the RP angle, you could have the player pledging to the existing pirate factions (Swordsworn, steelwolves, Bannsons raiders, etc) or with GM permission, create one that does not exist, or only exists as a name. (presumably for example, there were pro-Capcon factions prior to the capellan invasion. and we have WoB aligned groups named but not detailed in the Era Report: Dark Age supplement.) then they can have discussions and such over the larger goals of their faction and such.

the main thing would be to establish a system by which the players can do things like insurgencies and other such "out of scope" events for standard battletech games, and have them play a factor into how the events of the game go.
« Last Edit: 20 May 2017, 00:40:57 by glitterboy2098 »

Giovanni Blasini

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3446
  • Niops Assoc.- Sponsored by Interstellar Expeditons
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #28 on: 20 May 2017, 00:46:54 »
Ooh, that sounds fun.
“Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it.”
― Terry Pratchett, Reaper Man

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6742
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: On reviving the Fan Council
« Reply #29 on: 20 May 2017, 01:19:16 »
you could use the warchest system or other such campaign system for much of the record keeping, since units would probably not get above a battalion or so size (~30-40 combat units.) a couple lances of mechs, and a bunch of vehicles and infantry, most likely.

ideally things would start out liek the clix games.. with lots of basic infantry, lower tech mechs (even armed industrials) in the early stages**, and then as the game progresses forces can use resources/points obtained to obtain better gear.

** subject to player choice of course.. i suspect it would start off with players getting a certain amount of BV or warchest points, or whatever to build their initial forces. want to focus on a more grassroots force? industrials, infantry, and basic vehicles. rogue military unit? smaller number of higher quality mechs, vehicles, and BA. etc.

 

Register