Talking about AToW, (Split from the GenCon thread)

[Dulahan]

I’m very much in the ‘it is too complicated’ camp.  It took hours for my group of 4 players to make characters.  And we’re all vets of dozens of systems.  Chargen just has way too many little numbers and fiddly bits spread out over a lot of space.  I’ve just gotten a new character for my game too, and I’m terrified of the CG process with him, since it’s been almost a year since we last did it.

I’d love an actual ‘app’ where I could step by step choose each portion of the lifepath and have it keep track.  So far I’ve only found a spreadsheet that was, frankly, more confusing than just longhanding.

Heck, I’ve heard it said that it’s actually easier to make characters in 3rd Ed and then convert than it is to just make them in ATOW, I don’t know the truth of that since I don’t own 3e, but still.

[Atlas3060]

Heck, I’ve heard it said that it’s actually easier to make characters in 3rd Ed and then convert than it is to just make them in ATOW, I don’t know the truth of that since I don’t own 3e, but still.

I've tried putting together unites from 3rd edition.
It is more convoluted at times.
Well points only version was a bit quicker. However with so many redundant traits and skills in that edition, AToW actually does seem faster.
At least to me, but my experience to RPGs started with the Lite GURPs printout and MW3RPG.

[skiltao]

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.

The problem with that view, though, is that the +1, +2 look completely unnecessary. What kinds of feats can a character achieve at TN+0, TN+1, TN+2, TN+3, TN+4, TN+5? If such a scale is actually printed somewhere, you can just slide the TNs a up step or two; if no such scale exists, then the modifiers are meaningless because it's all arbitrary to begin with. The distinction between "simple" and "complex" skills isn't meaningful either--can a Small Arm be field-stripped during combat with a single simple action?

Extra little complications like those, and the Simple/Advanced/Tiered distinction, make the game harder to grasp without seeming to add anything tangible to actual play.

[monbvol]

The problem with that view, though, is that the +1, +2 look completely unnecessary. What kinds of feats can a character achieve at TN+0, TN+1, TN+2, TN+3, TN+4, TN+5? If such a scale is actually printed somewhere, you can just slide the TNs a up step or two; if no such scale exists, then the modifiers are meaningless because it's all arbitrary to begin with. The distinction between "simple" and "complex" skills isn't meaningful either--can a Small Arm be field-stripped during combat with a single simple action?

Extra little complications like those, and the Simple/Advanced/Tiered distinction, make the game harder to grasp without seeming to add anything tangible to actual play.

To illustrate how some of what you are talking about is purely the realm of GM adjudication and probably always will be no matter the system or the skill type I'll ask a couple questions:

Is it reasonable for someone to be able to field strip a Small Arm in roughly 2.5 seconds?

Is it reasonable that all Small Arms can be field stripped in the same amount of time?

Every system I've come across there is some idea of how it is possible to have the same skill take a different number of successes to complete or different amounts of time.

AToW's skill system uses consistent TNs with modifiers to the roll for the most part but it is pretty clear about how/when to modify the TN itself instead of the roll and which TN to use even if the time taken can vary so I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to address for the rest of your statement.

[skiltao]

My point is to examine the question "why different target numbers for basic/advanced and simple/complex skills?" What I'm saying is that I don't see any upside to varying the base TNs (any positive effects are better achieved via other means), nor for marking skills as basic/advanced and simple/complex (marking them this way is either meaningless or wrong).

[EDIT: removed text where I was just repeating myself]

[monbvol]

That makes a bit more sense and about the only thing that I can counter that with is the idea of Simple|Complex\Basic|Advanced is that some tasks are inherently harder to perform than others even with training.

Like for instance most people can pick up a gun and be reasonably able to hit a human sized target at 30 meters with fairly minimal training but being able to seal and patch a damaged Mech's armor plating takes inherently more training and I would say is inherently harder to do even with said training.

As far as sliding TNs I can go to my bookshelf and find three different RPG system core books that use such an idea quite extensively.  So while I agree with Catalyst's idea of being more in-line with other RPGs by making positive modifiers to the roll desirable and negative modifiers to the roll undesirable, it isn't an impossible or meaningless thing to suggest.

[Paul]

That makes a bit more sense and about the only thing that I can counter that with is the idea of Simple|Complex\Basic|Advanced is that some tasks are inherently harder to perform than others even with training.

Yep! It also has a couple of implications with regards to Training, and the extent to which you really want to do certain tasks in ideal circumstances.

Paul

[skiltao]

That makes a bit more sense and about the only thing that I can counter that with is the idea of Simple|Complex\Basic|Advanced is that some tasks are inherently harder to perform than others even with training.

That is why the modifiers for each task are uniquely tailored to each skill--and because those modifiers are uniquely tailored to each skill, there's no reason for the base TNs to vary.

As far as sliding TNs I can go to my bookshelf and find three different RPG system core books that use such an idea quite extensively.  So while I agree with Catalyst's idea of being more in-line with other RPGs by making positive modifiers to the roll desirable and negative modifiers to the roll undesirable, it isn't an impossible or meaningless thing to suggest.

When you say "sliding TNs," are you referring to how aToW adds the skill modifier onto the roll instead of adding it onto the TN? Because I haven't commented on that at all, and it is completely unrelated to my comments thus far.

It also has a couple of implications with regards to Training, and the extent to which you really want to do certain tasks in ideal circumstances.

Could you elaborate?

[monbvol]

I guess to me I'm just used to the idea that if certain modifiers always apply then it is worth skipping a few steps and just calculating out the modifiers in advance and the Simple|Complex\Basic|Advanced skill classification that aToW uses is just CGL's way of doing that for us in advance.

[Acolyte]

Agreed. I tend to take the skill level and subtract it from the TN and record that on the sheet for just this reason. I do the same for link attribute modifiers.

In general, math outside of game time is better than math in game, so any calculations that can be done outside game play are prefigured out in my group.

   - Shane

[guardiandashi]

in my case I will say that I personally don't find chargen THAT bad with a few exceptions and most of those items would IMO be best handled through layout changes.

the biggest changes I would make are:
1 pull the rules out of the explanations. this is not intended as a major criticism but more for clarification of my issue.

the 800 base char points thing is essentially buried in a block of text, same with the derived and base target numbers stuff.
there is a note that clan players get a 1 point field adjustment to every core skill EXCEPT piloting and gunnery when I would argue that those are the core skills they would most likely actually get bonuses for.

the field skills and the school /module packages IMO should be together not separated by 20 pages of skill and advantage/disadvantage descriptions

things like that.

I guess I feel that the biggest thing I would do is reorganize the char creation chapter(s) to simplify it tremendously.
something like:

char creation:
stage 0.0 all chars start off with core module attributes.
stage 0.1 nationality
stage 0.2 childhood
stage x.x early education
stage y.y advanced education
stage z.z real life

then after you have gone through the table explanations in each table there is a reference jump to page x for full explanations of nations. IE it describes the "fluff" between steiner and davion vs Kurita etc.
there is also a jump to the full skill descriptions beyond "piloting" unit type
in the full skill description section it describes the skills and what they are typically used for.
and you have a jump to advantages/disadvantages.

in addition I would have more "kits" and typical gear packages for chars and I might even throw in some "core gear" that is either free or essentially so.

like for a MechWarrior, having them have things like a faction standard uniform set, basic weapon, combat gear etc. as their starting stuff.  if they want to upgrade from say a slugthrower pistol to a rifle or a laser weapon then they have to pay for it.

and a tech should at least have the basic tools needed to do their job etc.

don't get me wrong I love having a wide range of gear options, but having more standard and or typical gear sets listed would make sense to me. especially if you throw in things like suggestions for what the standard ammo load should be etc.

[Maelwys]

there is a note that clan players get a 1 point field adjustment to every core skill EXCEPT piloting and gunnery when I would argue that those are the core skills they would most likely actually get bonuses for.

What now?

[guardiandashi]

it was mentioned in one ask threads, basically the reasoning was a 1 point bonus to piloting and gunnery would make clan warriors have too much advantage in direct combat was the justification. as I remember it.

[Maelwys]

Hmm, are you sure you aren't thinking of when converting from ATOW to TW, rather than in ATOW itself? I don't see anything that suggests the Phenotype bonus doesn't apply to gunnery and piloting, except when converting to the boardgame.

[guardiandashi]

Hmm, are you sure you aren't thinking of when converting from ATOW to TW, rather than in ATOW itself? I don't see anything that suggests the Phenotype bonus doesn't apply to gunnery and piloting, except when converting to the boardgame.

here is the thread (old I know but hey) where it came up.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/roleplaying/skills-and-attribute-interactions/msg100729/#msg100729

[Maelwys]

Yeah, but that was specifically talking about converting to Total Warfare, not when simply playing ATOW.

[Paul]

Yeah, but that was specifically talking about converting to Total Warfare, not when simply playing ATOW.

Yep, exactly.

[StCptMara]

Fun question: What ever happened to the Mission/Living Campaign that was gooing to be done for AToW?
If CGL people do not think there is a problem with the system, then..I will gladly jump into the Demo Team
for AToW next year at GenCon..except, i have yet to see one listed(Not saying there isn't one, mind you..
I just have not seen it listed)

[Paul]

What ever happened to the Mission/Living Campaign that was gooing to be done for AToW?

Never got it off the ground. Maybe there's been recent efforts, my visibility is not absolute.

If CGL people do not think there is a problem with the system,

I think tweaks would be beneficial. I think that's an opinion shared by CGL, but beyond that, I wouldn't say that the tweaks I'd support should be seen as evidence of what CGL wants done. Put another way, even if I'm not convinced of something, doesn't mean it's not eligible for change.

I will gladly jump into the Demo Team for AToW next year at GenCon..except, i have yet to see one listed

Seen what listed? Living campaign events? I don't think you can see any events at all for GC2016 right now.
My advice: join up and see what you can do to help make it happen.

[solmanian]

1. Xp should be given the "AS treatment" by shaving a couple of zeroes. You'll get 50 "competency" points instead of 5,000 Xp; that should really trim the math.

Another reason to do that:
Attributes and traits both work in 100xp increments, and than you stumble head first into the skill Xp table and try to figure out your skill levels. Modules should simply hand out +1s to this trait/attribute/skill (or skill field).

2. I'm not sure how many will agree with me (I'm pretty sure you won't, Paul):
"Point only" isn't the solution, it's the problem. It encourages MinMaxing, which is followed by "broken" charecters.

Life modules are probably my favorite part, but more importantly it forces the player to make characters that "make sense". First you get the money ,then you get the power, then you get the woman, as they say.

Here are a couple of examples I encountered on this forum, from complaining GMs:
A. The player sunk his points into owning a planet, and than simply solves his problems by throwing stupendous money on it. Got in fight? Better call the company of mercs he has on retainer.
B. Both players have built an elite level Surgeon/Mechwarriors. Which are teenagers.

3. Eliminate co-dependency. A character is built from three things:
Skills - this are the software. They are literally what the character is skilled at (duh); what he knows to do, and how good is he at doing it.
Traits - this are the hardware. The more permanent and material things: money, power, gear, family, etc.
Attributes - this are the bundles of cables attached to the side, because some engineer thought computers should run on "electricity".

You shouldn't need to look up all those three things for a skills check.
Linked attributes are annoying; especially since skill level is far more important. Attributes only "good" reason to exist, is to represent the character physical and mental limitation. So they should do that and just that; MAYBE include a rule that skill level can't surpass the associated attribute level. But that's it.
If there's a character that gives a bonus to certain skills, eliminate it; the player is probably better off dumping the xp into the actual skill.
Traits need some rebalancing/rescaling. Heavy battlemech's vehicle TP, is the same as the property TP to own a full battlemech company and supporting staff... Leveling traits like reputation is too easy, compared to the jump in scale; for a a medium battlemech TP, you can own a castle, or be as universally famous as Alexander Kerensky...

[Acolyte]

Here are a couple of examples I encountered on this forum, from complaining GMs:
A. The player sunk his points into owning a planet, and than simply solves his problems by throwing stupendous money on it. Got in fight? Better call the company of mercs he has on retainer.
B. Both players have built an elite level Surgeon/Mechwarriors. Which are teenagers.

The GM's in question should not have allowed such characters if they didn't want them. Simple and not limited to AToW. Min Maxing happens in all game systems that allow flexability and is not a reason to nerf all characters or dumb down the system. It's a reason for GM's to be required to play the game and part of that is limiting chargen to reasonable characters.

   - Shane

[Paul]

The GM's in question should not have allowed such characters if they didn't want them. Simple and not limited to AToW. Min Maxing happens in all game systems that allow flexability and is not a reason to nerf all characters or dumb down the system. It's a reason for GM's to be required to play the game and part of that is limiting chargen to reasonable characters.

Well said, completely agreed.
When working on the rules, we spent no effort trying to make it all abuse-proof. It's futile, and usually creates a lot of weird overhead to fight abuse, or to try to balance matters that are either very subjective, or only over- or under-powered based on the situation/campaign.
It'd also require enormous amounts of testing to catch it all.
While still not being successful at avoiding any possible abuse: players are creative.

What we ended up with is (theoretically) so opaque, that most any abuse will be obvious, or easy to correct. We emphasize many times that the ultimate power and responsibility lies with the GM, and that we encourage them to abuse, ignore or alter any rules we put down to suit their own campaign. It should be impossible for a player to pin the GM in an environment he doesn't want his campaign to be in.

Well, to the extent you can foresee stuff. That's another problem; unlike TW or other rigid rule systems, it's not always easy to predict outcomes and balance issues. So it also doesn't make sense to create a system that tries to act like a 100% simulation of reality. At some point, the GM will have to make it up as he goes, and maybe correct things later if the unforeseen occurs. Just how things go.

[skiltao]

Might be useful to start the chargen chapter off with specific things the GM should watch out for.

I guess to me I'm just used to the idea that if certain modifiers always apply then it is worth skipping a few steps and just calculating out the modifiers in advance and the Simple|Complex\Basic|Advanced skill classification that aToW uses is just CGL's way of doing that for us in advance.

I know, I agree. My point is that there is also a second way to calculate that stuff out in advance, and that of the two ways, Catalyst chose the that's more complicated in play.

[Maniac Actual]

The GM's in question should not have allowed such characters if they didn't want them. Simple and not limited to AToW. Min Maxing happens in all game systems that allow flexability and is not a reason to nerf all characters or dumb down the system. It's a reason for GM's to be required to play the game and part of that is limiting chargen to reasonable characters.

   - Shane

It must be nice to live someplace where you have enough players that you can do that.  Most games I've been around, when you tell someone how to build (or not build) their character, they are at best upset.  Often times, I have seen them leave over it.  Living in an area where I don't have the luxury of turning players away, doing so only punishes myself.

Further, why should you penalize a player for understanding the system and utilizing it's rules to the fullest?  Some people really like doing that - should we tell them they can't enjoy their hobby?

The trick of a good RPG rules set is one that allows the min-maxer to do so without overshadowing the people who prefer deep role playing.  Telling people how to play a game just turns them away.  I know it did me - that's why I won't touch WOTC RPG after 4E ever again.

[Maelwys]

Really? I always thought setting limits on character creation was the GM's job. Atleast in some regards. How else do you make games work? Setting limits on factions allowed and eras for ATOW seems, well, necessary.

"I'm looking to run a game set in the 3040's revolving around ComStar Acolytes that have just recently gotten out of training and have been assigned to a HPG station in the Magistracy. I want them somewhat newbish, so only one skill at +5 please."

If you get a guy that wants to bring in a Clan Widowmaker WarShip Captain do you just kind of shrug and smile and say "Okay! ?

Admittedly, that's a bit extreme, but I can't think of one system where the GM doesn't set some limits on character generation, whether its races allowed "No Drow please," or books used "uh yeah. We're not going to use the Japan Worldbook," or optional rules that are allowed/not allowed. Or even extra benefits to chargen. "Since we're starting at level 3, you can consider yourself to have rolled your max on your HP for level 2 instead of rolling normally. Oh and take an extra trait."

Admittedly, ATOW can be potentially abusive since you can probably raise a skill from not having it to 10 just with your optimization points, but the idea of the GM not having some say over chargen is a bizarre one to me atleast.

[Maniac Actual]

Setting limits on characters is not the same thing as setting limits on the campaign.

For example, my group just finished a long-running pathfinder campaign last weekend, and I will be taking over the GM reigns for a while, and run a Star Wars D6 campaign.  I told them it will be a stock Spec Ops group campaign, but beyond that, they could make whatever they want.  If the group fails, it fails - they were warned.

Or, put another way, they know it's not a Clone Wars campaign centered on Jedi.  OTOH, why should I set any limits beyond that?  Let them have fun, and if they don't make a good group of PC's that can get along and work together in the next two weeks, that's not MY fault, is it?

[monbvol]

*nod*

This is something that does need to be handled at the GM/local table level not the rules level.

Now don't get me wrong I would change how many traits work but most of that is to reduce math once the game is being played with a side of hopefully making some traits worth taking or not take as the case may be.

[Acolyte]

It must be nice to live someplace where you have enough players that you can do that.  Most games I've been around, when you tell someone how to build (or not build) their character, they are at best upset.  Often times, I have seen them leave over it.  Living in an area where I don't have the luxury of turning players away, doing so only punishes myself.

The GM is a player too and they have as much right to have fun as any of the others. If the GM is not having fun then the game become work, so why should they run it? The trick is to work with the group to give expectations before chargen even starts. If you don't mind minmaxers in your group - and I've run many high powered games that were quite fun - then there's no reason not to let them max out. If they'd make you life harder then don't allow it. For one thing min maxed characters tend to be specialised. They have little ability outside that specialty and so the parts of the game that are outside tend to be boring/annoying to the player.

Further, why should you penalize a player for understanding the system and utilizing it's rules to the fullest?  Some people really like doing that - should we tell them they can't enjoy their hobby?

When they ruin the enjoyment of the rest of the group, you're damn right I don't let them. If that's the only way they enjoy the game, my group just got smaller. Most times, this is not the case.

The trick of a good RPG rules set is one that allows the min-maxer to do so without overshadowing the people who prefer deep role playing.  Telling people how to play a game just turns them away.  I know it did me - that's why I won't touch WOTC RPG after 4E ever again.

Well, IMO the trick of a good rules system is to be able to make whatever character you want. Some people want nothing but Clan UberMunchkin and their group has fun doing that. I don't, my group doesn't and we don't allow it, but the rules do and that's a strength.

   - Shane

[Maniac Actual]

I repeat, Acolyte - it must be nice to have enough players that you can pick and chose who you play with.  If I were to do that with my RPG group, I would lose players.  No, scratch that - more players.  I like the four I play with, and even then it's hard to keep us together with working different shifts, days, etc.

Or put another way, if I turn one of them away, I punish myself by making my group smaller.  I like playing, and I like having four players.  I don't like NOT playing.  Turning players away - ANY players, in my area - means I don't play. 

What's the fun in that?

[monbvol]

It still seems the wrong approach to force a rules level solution to a local problem.

Have you talked with your players to express your concerns about the kinds of characters that they play?

Are they really that adamant that they'd be willing to walk away themselves if you did impose some sort of limitations?

After all if there is another group for them to play with then there is potential for you to find a replacement and if the gaming scene is really that dreadful in your area then it might be true that they don't get to play anymore either and that can be a powerful incentive to get them to change their ways.