Author Topic: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop  (Read 12211 times)

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« on: 08 February 2017, 21:47:04 »
Does anyone else have issues with the way that ATOW integrates with Battletech?
We integrated our characters pretty heavily at the beginning but as time went on and scaled it back more and more.  Couple of the major problems were that:

#1 Edge - Can only be used to modify a skill roll, so you can make an enemy miss but you can't make an enemy reroll the location that decapitates your mech.

#2 PC Fraility in General - Even when we boosted the effects of edge, when a PC took damage from a head hit or falling they were prone to going unconscious or even dying in 3 hits at most. Never made sense that the the PCs, aka the Heroes, were more frail than the average tabletop Mechwarrior.  Maybe the intent is that you swap out all the guys for ATOW NPCs but that's a bit of a pain.

In the end our ATOW got scaled way back and we used tons of modified rules.  Out of mech combat was also reduced or eliminated due to the extreme lethality.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #1 on: 08 February 2017, 23:19:36 »
Hmm re-reading the rules on page 42 I'm honestly not sure why you shouldn't be able to spend an Edge point to force a hit location roll to be re-rolled but the wording does seem to support that interpretation.

Something I don't think most people would mind if it got house ruled.

As far as head hits if that's hits to the character's actual head then yeah I see even a shot or two being a problem.  If you mean the head of a mech getting hit, well I'd have to take a few guesses at what it actually the problem there.

Out of mech combat is intended to be very hazardous where cover and good armor are very important to survival.  Still there are some rules for increased survivability in aToW and the Companion.  Still though a review of the kind of modifiers being applied might be beneficial.

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #2 on: 09 February 2017, 02:51:59 »
I'm talking about damage to a battlemech's head

If an LB-X pellet, hits the head of an Atlas. The pilot, in Battletech, needs a 3+ to stay conscious.

If you're a Mechwarrior from ATOW, take the default one from page 94 you've got BOD 5 and WIL 4

Damage from head hits is 1B/3, basic cooling vest is 1/2/0/1

So assuming it hits the vest, it's reduced to 2 damage and takes the health down from 10 to 8 with 2 wounds inflicted.

Con Roll is a 7, -1 for 25% damage, so the character needs an 8+ to stay conscious. Good luck
And remember Con isn't a skill roll, so no edge again.

Why the huge disparity?  Even if you manage to stay conscious, you just got a +1 to all actions which means you're now a 5/6 pilot and you're useless for the rest of the game. Unless you got a Medipack, then you remain a 4/5. But if you used a medipack then you just took a strength 2 drug, which means after the battle if you're that basic Mechwarrior you need to take that 4 BOD and 5 WIL and subtract it from 18 to 9, and then add the drug strength to 11 for the base number you need to avoid getting addicted. Which you can reduce with med skills, but if you're treating yourself you'll go to what maybe a 9 or an 8?

Needless to say we house ruled a lot of this stuff. But it is strange that they brought in the 2d6 system to the RPG to make it work better with the boardgame and then created a system where a PC Mechwarrior couldn't take a scratch in battle without becoming an immobile target.

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4878
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #3 on: 09 February 2017, 04:02:49 »
More interestingly, most of this is avoided if you invest in the MW Combat suit, which as far as I can tell, is going to reduce the damage you take to 0 per hit, something that doesn't happen in the boardgame until you invest in something like pain shunts and/or dermal armor.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #4 on: 09 February 2017, 16:53:08 »
Edge can be burned on an attribute check.  It is right there in the first line on page 43.

Other options:

Option 1:  Use the reduced lethality rules in aToW itself that state the damage becomes fatigue instead of wounds since it was reduced by armor.

Option 2: Could just fudge it to use the better armor of the standard neurohelmet which is 4/4/3/2.

Option 3: The aforementioned better kit.  Another alternative is a Tanker's Smock.  It counts as a cooling vest and is 3/5/5/3 and isn't as expensive or as rare.

Option 4: Some combination of the above.

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #5 on: 09 February 2017, 21:22:26 »
Consciousness Check isn't an attribute check.

The drug addiction check would be.

Options aside, the fact that the base character is significantly worse than its board game equivalent is perplexing at best.  One would think that would be an appropriate baseline to start from.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #6 on: 10 February 2017, 00:06:55 »
Well that depends on which option you use because keep in mind in aToW the damage or check does not become progressively worse/harder to avoid for getting hit in the head.

Option 1 means you don't need to make consciousness checks for a long time.  Heck depending on character actions it may be possible for them to not have to make any consciousness checks until the Head location is destroyed.  Further depending on actions of the character they may not even have to take fatigue modifiers.  I'd consider that a massive increase in durability.

Option 2 means that no damage is even taken and thus again no modifiers or consciousness checks ever.  I'd also consider that a massive increase in durability.

Option 3 again means no damage again.  So again the head could be destroyed before the Mechwarrior even takes any pilot damage or accrue and injury/fatigue modifiers.  Again something I'd call a massive improvement in durability versus the tabletop counterpart.  This option doesn't even make use of any optional rules.

An example of option 3's tanker smock:

A hit to the head inflicts 1B/3 to the mechwarrior.  If it goes to the torso and thus the example tanker's smock we see it has a ballistic rating of 5.  5 is greater than 1 and thus reduces the 3 BD by 4 points.  This negates all the damage and because it was not greater than 5 damage the smock is not degraded.

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4878
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #7 on: 10 February 2017, 02:27:39 »
I think he gets all that, he's just rather surprised at the fact that there seems to be such a discrepancy between the two systems with the basic idea of a MW, not necessarily "How can I get to this point."

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #8 on: 10 February 2017, 10:48:39 »
It does seem to be a question of point of view/philosophy.

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #9 on: 10 February 2017, 12:56:40 »
Thanks for the help and work arounds monbvol, though I have to tell you that most of your ideas don't work.

If for example you use lethality reduction and equip a MW character with a tankers smock or combat suit, then it doesn't prevent them from falling unconscious. Tankers protects against head hits and Combat suit does okay as well, but for falling damage, that is- damage to the mechwarrior when the mech falls, it's deals 1M/3 damage which will deal 1 or 2 fatigue damage depending on the armour.

This is the not fatigue like running or exerting yourself, but fatigue damage and the same as a subduing attack, and will mean a consciousness roll where there's no base injury modifier but you still have a 7+ to remain conscious. So even with the best armour, as soon as you trip on a piece of rubble there are very good odds you're taking a nap.

The neurohelmet is, a cheat, and though it protects against falling and heat hits, an ammo explosion will still deal 8 Subduing damage and put most character unconsious. This is of course less likely but at this point you're using house rules anyway so . . .

Our group had a house rule where the Conscious roll of 7 remained, but you'd subtract the character's BOD score and then add the wound score. So if you had a 5 BOD character who took two wounds, you'd need a 4+ to remain conscious. (7-5+2=4). It worked fairly well though still left even tough characters on the wrong side when compared to NPCs.


I  hope if a new edition of the RPG ever comes out they take these sorts of ideas into consideration.  Our group would like to integrate it with the base game but we've all but abandoned it at this point.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #10 on: 10 February 2017, 13:16:02 »
Actually the reduced lethality rules 192 don't say that the damage becomes subduing.  It only says fatigue.  Subduing is a special damage type so I'd expect it to be mentioned if the intention was to have this damage be considered subduing instead of just regular fatigue.

And there is the option of layered personal armor if that's still not good enough.

Then traits like pain resistance and toughness can help quite a bit too.

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #11 on: 10 February 2017, 13:24:10 »
It specifically says Fatigue damage, and has a parenthetical note expressing that it's treated as much.  That normally means subduing, because that's the only type of attack that inflicts fatigue damage. So my money is on it being a subduing attack and that the writer simply failed to express it concisely.  The rules in ATOW are not very clear in many cases. We could always ask on the errata forum.

Either way yeah, there are theoretically work arounds but,
A - Layered armour goes against the fiction which always portrays Mechwarriors in their skivvies, or a pair of shorts, and nothing else
B - There should be a middle ground between invulnerable and highly susceptible, the only way to do that is to adjust the consciousness roll base from 7+ to something much lower.
« Last Edit: 10 February 2017, 13:31:38 by UrQuanKzinti »

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #12 on: 10 February 2017, 15:00:12 »
In a RPG sometimes a GM or group does just have to fudge things or make decisions of what works for their group.

As far as the whole cooling vest and skivvies thing that is something I have no issue just saying is a propaganda/recruitment piece more than what the actual typical mechwarrior wears.

But yeah I don't think I disagree with you that to more accurately reflect Battletech as a whole the TN should have a lower base for consciousness.  So don't mind me if I start to ramble out some thought experimentation on the matter.

Injury modifier can never exceed -4(-5 is a dead character).  Fatigue depends on Will attribute and is a bit trickier thanks to the combination of how easy it is to recover and that once you get past a certain point you just pass out anyway.  Elemental Phenotype is a max of 10 so without passing out the maximum is -9.  So plus 2 for Will of 10.  Pain Resistance offers ignoring -1 injury modifier.  Medkit gives another +1.  So a total of -9 to the roll with a base TN of 7.

Here my initial thought was making it 3 like the first pilot hit in tabletop might make it too low but doing the math and adding in other considerations I'm not so sure it would be too low now.

DarthPJB

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #13 on: 12 February 2017, 00:29:00 »
I'm talking about damage to a battlemech's head

If an LB-X pellet, hits the head of an Atlas. The pilot, in Battletech, needs a 3+ to stay conscious.

If you're a Mechwarrior from ATOW, take the default one from page 94 [/snip]

Con Roll is a 7, -1 for 25% damage, so the character needs an 8+ to stay conscious. Good luck
And remember Con isn't a skill roll, so no edge again.

Why the huge disparity?

Perhaps I wholey misunderstand this conversation, but I'd like to summerise my understanding just to be certain.
"Why does my human being being shot in the head fall unconcious
meanwhile my human being inside the cockpit of a 100ton Mech not fall unconcious".

If my reading above is correct, surely the reason is evident?
The phsyical shock of being in a cockpit hit by an LBX-10 is no doubt like being in a car crash.
The phsyical shock of having even a bolt-action rifle round hit your helmet is potentially leathal.

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #14 on: 12 February 2017, 01:13:02 »
Perhaps I wholey misunderstand this conversation, but I'd like to summerise my understanding just to be certain.
"Why does my human being being shot in the head fall unconcious
meanwhile my human being inside the cockpit of a 100ton Mech not fall unconcious".

If my reading above is correct, surely the reason is evident?
The phsyical shock of being in a cockpit hit by an LBX-10 is no doubt like being in a car crash.
The phsyical shock of having even a bolt-action rifle round hit your helmet is potentially leathal.

No, the summary of my conversation is "Why does my Mechwarrior PC not behave in the same way as a Mechwarriors in the Battletech board game."

We brought Player Characters into our boardgame campaign to represent the players, with normal Battlemech pilots as their subordinates, and despite the PCs supposed to be "heroes", they were in fact much weaker than their boardgame counterparts.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #15 on: 12 February 2017, 13:23:36 »
*nod*

To a certain extent the system is predicated around the idea you should prevent your character from getting to that point in the first place and there are certainly some options that can help with that.

Still I do tend to agree once a PC does get to that point a TN of 7 does seem too high.  At first I was a little bothered with the thought that 3 might be too low for anything but worst case scenarios but digging into some real life incidents I don't think I'm actually that bothered by the idea that PCs can suffer some pretty severe injury without a huge risk of falling unconscious.

RunandFindOut

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1331
  • Master of the LolCat Horde
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #16 on: 12 February 2017, 16:50:29 »
Truth is the whole getting knocked unconscious thing is more a trope than reality.  It's actually very rare for injury to cause unconsciousness, even horrible and inevitably fatal injuries usually leave the dying conscious.  Screaming and moaning and calling for help.
One does not just walk into Detroit

She ignored the dragon, and Freddy Mercury who arrived to battle it with the Power of Rock.

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #17 on: 13 February 2017, 03:20:42 »
Maybe someone should make a game where instead of a con check, you just have a shock check or whatever state a character would succumb into when they're unable to do anything further.  Injured, conscious but helpless, or maybe the number of actions degraded to a point where they're nearly helpless.

John Maclean would have a very high threshold.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #18 on: 13 February 2017, 11:51:06 »
Well you certainly can start using some of the existing frameworks for that.  The injury and fatigue modifiers making things more difficult, hit location effects, and other status effects like bleeding all would seem to provide at the very least a starting point.

ZombieAcePilot

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #19 on: 18 February 2017, 07:01:34 »
TLDR: Change falling damage to 1M/2 and use Total Warfare's difficulties for pilots passing out (if they don't have +1 to their WIL linked bonus, bump their difficulties up or down to match the change).

aToW tells us to use 6's for the unknown stats of people on the tactical scale. So our theoretical pilot has 12 Wounds he can take before he is D.E.D. Dead. Falling inflicts 1m/3 against pilots. If our pilot is in his cooling vest, He gains no protections (as the 1m AP cancels out the 1 armor the cooling vest gives in melee). Thus our boy dies on his fourth fall. Thats 2 hits less than our mechwarrior in TW. Our aToW mechwarrior does fair better against mech head shots, only taking 2 damage (as the cooling vest has a ballistic BAR of 2). Thus he could survive 6 headshots (if his mech could take 6 headshots without having it's head blown off with him in it).

Now, there is one big hitch in this whole thing: the damage numbers for falling are off. If you look at the standard falling damage rules you will see you take damage equal to 0.2 x meters falls. Mechs fall 1 hex when they go down. 1 hex is six meters tall. Thus we plug in the numbers and get 1.2 damage (which rounds up to 2). The AP of the fall is equal to 0.1 x meters fallen, an so equals 0.6 (rounds up to 1). Our final value is 1M/2. With this damage code we take 2 wounds per fall and will die in 6 falls (where we take damage, as you can still make a pilot roll to avoid taking damage). Now that we are dying in equal fashion to TW mechwarrior, lets look at passing out.

As I previously mentioned, TW characters have a 6 in all their attributes. This means they get +1 for linked attributes. Since we are taking 2 damage, our wound modifier will be -1. So far we are at a wash, but remember that we are wearing a helmet and strapped in, not falling like a rag doll onto concrete. We can at least say conditions are good (we're sitting on a command couch which must have some level of padding). That gains us a +1, meaning we are now in the positive. I'd take it a step further though and say that since we haven't fallen yet and we have specific gear which is meant to keep us safe in a crash (safety harness/crash webbing and a helmet) we have it very easy. Thus we net another +3 for a total of +4 to our roll to not knock out. We need to roll a 3, which is identical to what Total Warfare pilots have to make on their first roll.

The next time we fall and take damage we have taken 4 damage. This is above 25%, but below 50%, so we now have a -2 for our wound penalty. Given the nature of falling hard repeatedly, out gear will be less effective and we will be more vulnerable. Thus our difficulty will drop to merely easy. Final calculations are thusly +1 (linked attribute) -2 (Wound penalty) +1 (Good conditions) +1 (easy) = +1. We need to roll a 6 or better, which is one higher than our TW compatriot.

Damaging fall #3 brings us up to 6 wounds taken. As this is 50% of our total wounds, there is no increase in penalty. Our easy check becomes average though, meaning we're going to lose 1 to our total. Our modifier is +0 and we need to roll a 7. This is equal to the third roll from the TW pilot.

Damaging fall #4 sees our wounds taken rise to 8. Now above half, but less than 75%, our wound penalty rises to -3. Further, we slide another down the scale from average to difficult. Thats another 1 off our modifier. We end with a -2 modifier and need to roll a 9 or higher. We're actually doing better than out TW pilot, he needs a 10 this roll.

Damaging fall #5. Our wounds are at 10. We have breached 75% and thus are up to a -4 wound penalty. The difficulty has become very difficult and goes from -1 to -3. Adding up our total looks grim. Our pilot has +1 (linked attribute) + 1 (good conditions) -4 (wound penalties) -3 (Very difficult) = -5 modifier, we need a 12! This is worse than our TW pilot who need an 11.

Damaging fall #6, both pilots die.

Using this model our numbers are within 1 of the Total Warfare numbers for every roll. It is easier once and more difficult twice. Do remember though, that aToW characters have edge that TW pilots don't, so this isn't as big of a factor as you might think. What it does illustrate though, is that you could use the TW difficulties with almost no appreciable difference to the outcomes. The only adjustment needed would be to account for lower or higher linked attribute modifiers.

You could also just asses the difficulty once. Rather than going from +3 to -3 on the difficulty, you could choose to use a +0 every time instead. Players would thus need 6's to stay conscious (including the wound penalty) on the first roll. Thats a 72% chance to make your roll. Roll 2 & 3 would have a 58% chance of success. Roll 4 would have a 42% chance of success. Roll 5 would have a 28% chance of success.

Using TW's numbers, you'd have 92% on roll 1, 83% on 2, 58% on 3, 17% on 4, & 8% on 5.

Using my AtoW method we need 92% on 1, 72% on 2, 58% on 3, 28% on 4, & 3% on 5.

Looking at how the three ways to do it play out, I'd say your best bet is to stick with TW's numbers. With them and my modified fall damage you should have pilots who can take a few hits, but pass out before they flatline. Pilots who want to push the limit can leverage their edge to do so.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #20 on: 18 February 2017, 12:06:05 »
Slight correction there.  Attributes do not provide modifiers until 7, not 6.

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #21 on: 19 February 2017, 16:09:46 »
I think the condition modifiers only apply to skill/attribute checks, not consciousness checks.  But I do appreciate the huge amount of time you obviously invested into that study.

Though I must say that ATOW seems flawed in that regard from the outset. Why is consciousness a straight check for everyone? Why did they not make it a function of both BOD and WIL power? Though with double attribute checks being at a 18-BOD/WIL that would make con checks even worse :P

I dunno, overall I think I prefer 3rd edition. ATOW is very lethal.

ZombieAcePilot

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #22 on: 19 February 2017, 20:07:49 »
I think the condition modifiers only apply to skill/attribute checks, not consciousness checks.  But I do appreciate the huge amount of time you obviously invested into that study.

Though I must say that ATOW seems flawed in that regard from the outset. Why is consciousness a straight check for everyone? Why did they not make it a function of both BOD and WIL power? Though with double attribute checks being at a 18-BOD/WIL that would make con checks even worse :P

I dunno, overall I think I prefer 3rd edition. ATOW is very lethal.

Yeah, I'm trying to find a way to like the game, but it seems like catalyst forgot to play test the thing (very catalyst). I honestly don't know what to make of attributes. You obviously don't want negative linked modifiers, but positive mods are such a huge investment! Some of the stats are useful for other derived stats (damage, wounds, movement, fatigue, etc), but on the whole I feel like the don't do much until you have to make an attribute check. I'm not sure how often those are supposed to come up, but unless you have a 5+ you will have less than a 50% chance of success before modifiers. The there are the consciousness checks that make no sense! Most people who get shot or stabbed don't immediately faint 50% of the time. I think if I run the game I'm going to have to restructure those checks wholesale.

I like the concept of aToW in that it integrates with the other BT products, but the actual rules need revision. Some changes to certain rules and the amount of starting points for characters could see it become much more viable. I'm just disappointed at catalyst (again) for dropping the ball.

RunandFindOut

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1331
  • Master of the LolCat Horde
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #23 on: 19 February 2017, 22:51:39 »
I'll admit that I don't generally play aToW, I bought the pdfs to mine for things to use in other rpg systems.  Last time I was in a campaign that was mixed rpg/tabletop we used cyberpunk2020 to represent personal scale and when the action switched to mechanized combat we switched to straight tabletop play.
One does not just walk into Detroit

She ignored the dragon, and Freddy Mercury who arrived to battle it with the Power of Rock.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #24 on: 19 February 2017, 23:22:28 »
As a beta tester of aToW I will take some responsibility for not identifying a lot of issues that aToW has and doing more to fix them before it became a finalized product.

Well it is an interesting question about what value you should get to for attributes.  Dexterity, Reflexes, and Intelligence all link to so many skills that getting a +1 link modifier on even one of those stats can give you a lot of skill rolls that are now much more likely to succeed.

Strength's usefulness depends on how detail oriented you want your RPG.  Yeah it adds extra damage if you punch someone or stab them with a knife but it's real main usefulness is something that it lets the character carry more stuff but quite often I find that is something that doesn't always get taken into consideration.

Body and Will translate directly into durability.

That leaves Charisma and Edge.  Honestly those two do seem to have the least value in being worth investing in.

Consciousness does really seem to need a lower starting TN I admit.

I do like aToW's basic concepts though, especially in contrast to MW3ED's wildly imbalanced character creation system, but will admit most of the problems I have with it are in providing enough support for adjudicating a fair number of things.

ZombieAcePilot

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #25 on: 20 February 2017, 00:05:00 »
Strength's usefulness depends on how detail oriented you want your RPG.  Yeah it adds extra damage if you punch someone or stab them with a knife but it's real main usefulness is something that it lets the character carry more stuff but quite often I find that is something that doesn't always get taken into consideration.

Using encumbrance rules is a must. While they may be a pain, they are a major balancing factor in many games.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #26 on: 20 February 2017, 10:50:11 »
While personally I agree there are gaming groups don't like getting bogged down in those kinds of details or like a more cinematic gaming experience and don't really pay attention to such things.

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #27 on: 20 February 2017, 13:12:27 »
As a beta tester of aToW I will take some responsibility for not identifying a lot of issues that aToW has and doing more to fix them before it became a finalized product.

Well it is an interesting question about what value you should get to for attributes.  Dexterity, Reflexes, and Intelligence all link to so many skills that getting a +1 link modifier on even one of those stats can give you a lot of skill rolls that are now much more likely to succeed.

Strength's usefulness depends on how detail oriented you want your RPG.  Yeah it adds extra damage if you punch someone or stab them with a knife but it's real main usefulness is something that it lets the character carry more stuff but quite often I find that is something that doesn't always get taken into consideration.

Body and Will translate directly into durability.

That leaves Charisma and Edge.  Honestly those two do seem to have the least value in being worth investing in.

IMO Edge provides its own self-evident incentive for investment (more EDG = more rerolls).  I haven't looked closely at the chart of what skills link to what attribute, but it seems that there is a fair number of social type skills linked to CHA.  As always, certain skills/traits are more or less useful to play depending on the nature of the game.  But Leadership is a pretty combat-relevant skill (initiative bonus) and Training is a skill that is relevant no matter what kind of campaign you're playing (wanna spend XP on skills? better have a trainer around..).  Besides, CHA has another meta factor going in its favor: a lot of people like to play characters that are pretty and/or facemen.

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #28 on: 20 February 2017, 13:29:48 »
If a rule is ignored by players I would say that has more to do with the rule than it does the group that rejects it.

Rather than require players to add up the weight of their gear, rules could for example simply impose limits on what characters can carry. Maybe a character can carry two weapons, one of which can be a rifle.

Maybe gear has strength requirements, with easy to calculate penalties for it. Use a weapon that's too heavy? Accuracy penalty. Wear armor that's too heavy? Speed & Melee penalty. Maybe melee weapons have a DEX requirement, etcetera.

Those sorts of rule provide tangible, cinematic effects without the need to add up the weight of potentially 10-20 different items like batteries for your micro-communicator.


monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #29 on: 20 February 2017, 19:27:21 »
IMO Edge provides its own self-evident incentive for investment (more EDG = more rerolls).  I haven't looked closely at the chart of what skills link to what attribute, but it seems that there is a fair number of social type skills linked to CHA.  As always, certain skills/traits are more or less useful to play depending on the nature of the game.  But Leadership is a pretty combat-relevant skill (initiative bonus) and Training is a skill that is relevant no matter what kind of campaign you're playing (wanna spend XP on skills? better have a trainer around..).  Besides, CHA has another meta factor going in its favor: a lot of people like to play characters that are pretty and/or facemen.

Charisma's main problem is that you can get bonuses to it without having to raise it high enough to get Link Attribute Bonus thanks to Attractive and Gregarious, which leads into my next point.  Charisma has nothing to do with the actual physical appearance of a character(unless your group wants it to).  I've known plenty of people that would not win a beauty contest but had the gift of gab and plenty of pretty people who I'd have trouble spending extended periods of time with.

Edge's problem is if you're really using enough to have more than 2-3 points, well I'm not sure I'd want to be part of such a campaign and would seriously question my dice and the GM's dice.

If a rule is ignored by players I would say that has more to do with the rule than it does the group that rejects it.

Rather than require players to add up the weight of their gear, rules could for example simply impose limits on what characters can carry. Maybe a character can carry two weapons, one of which can be a rifle.

Maybe gear has strength requirements, with easy to calculate penalties for it. Use a weapon that's too heavy? Accuracy penalty. Wear armor that's too heavy? Speed & Melee penalty. Maybe melee weapons have a DEX requirement, etcetera.

Those sorts of rule provide tangible, cinematic effects without the need to add up the weight of potentially 10-20 different items like batteries for your micro-communicator.

Personally I don't mind having to add up the weight of my gear because I am organized enough to keep track of any changes after having determined the weight of my initial gear, so system's like aToW and D&D 3.5/Pathfinder's approach don't actually bother me at all.

I have seen some interesting solutions along the lines of what you suggest and I certainly don't begrudge people if they want to take a less detailed approach, thus my taking a hopefully more philosophical tone/approach in my post on the matter.

All in all there will likely never be a perfect solution.
« Last Edit: 20 February 2017, 19:38:03 by monbvol »

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #30 on: 20 February 2017, 19:51:44 »
Charisma's main problem is that you can get bonuses to it without having to raise it high enough to get Link Attribute Bonus thanks to Attractive and Gregarious, which leads into my next point.  Charisma has nothing to do with the actual physical appearance of a character(unless your group wants it to).  I've known plenty of people that would not win a beauty contest but had the gift of gab and plenty of pretty people who I'd have trouble spending extended periods of time with.

Edge's problem is if you're really using enough to have more than 2-3 points, well I'm not sure I'd want to be part of such a campaign and would seriously question my dice and the GM's dice.

It's a fair point.  Up until right now I hadn't noticed that Gregarious gives a +1 to skills, but Fit only gives its bonus to BOD and STR checks rather than BOD and STR-linked skills.  From a balance point of view, perhaps they both should work the same way just with different attribs (and potentially linked skills).  Still, for a mere 100xp Patient is by far the best of the lot.  It's +1 to basically every non-combat skill, and even a few in-combat skills still qualify too.  Why take anything else?

Re: Lethality:  I'm still wrapping my mind around what was given upthread.  My gut says something is off, but I can't imagine what.  It could just end up being that it's the rules themselves, as implied.  But I haven't yet had a chance to pore over the rules to see if there's an alternate explanation.  As for mechwarriors suffering damage in the cockpit not lining up with TW/Boardgame.... I don't think it ever was intended to.  And I'm aware of the selling point of ATOW being "compatable" with TW/Boardgame.  Rather than try to bend over backwards to reconcile TW/Boardgame's personal damage system, they just flat ignored it in ATOW.  It's not a bug, it's a "feature".

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #31 on: 20 February 2017, 20:08:39 »
*nod*

As I've said the main intention seems to be keeping your character from getting to that point in the first place but in looking into the rules as written for when a character does inevitably get to that point anyway the base target number does seem too high and looking at some of the other things that can happen I think there are some decent frame works to make use of that lowering the TN could be a very viable solution just by itself.

Probably won't exactly mesh up but I do find myself not bothered by aToW having a few differences.

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #32 on: 20 February 2017, 21:54:42 »
As for mechwarriors suffering damage in the cockpit not lining up with TW/Boardgame.... I don't think it ever was intended to.  And I'm aware of the selling point of ATOW being "compatable" with TW/Boardgame.  Rather than try to bend over backwards to reconcile TW/Boardgame's personal damage system, they just flat ignored it in ATOW.  It's not a bug, it's a "feature".

I don't presume to know what was in the mind of the designers, nor to justify their choices, I simply read the sales pitch and observe the shortcomings of the system. "Compatible" isn't an obscure or esoteric word, its meaning is defined and well understood to have certain implications which the game fails to uphold.


Personally I don't mind having to add up the weight of my gear because I am organized enough to keep track of any changes after having determined the weight of my initial gear, so system's like aToW and D&D 3.5/Pathfinder's approach don't actually bother me at all.

Yeah but even Pathfinder is simplified compared to ATOW.  Items are in full pound increments with the rare 1/2 lb weight. Smaller items don't even have a weight. Whereas ATOW lists everything, even if it's only a couple hundred grams. It's very fiddly

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #33 on: 20 February 2017, 22:11:24 »
Fair enough.

ZombieAcePilot

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #34 on: 21 February 2017, 08:14:49 »
Charisma's main problem is that you can get bonuses to it without having to raise it high enough to get Link Attribute Bonus thanks to Attractive and Gregarious, which leads into my next point.  Charisma has nothing to do with the actual physical appearance of a character(unless your group wants it to).  I've known plenty of people that would not win a beauty contest but had the gift of gab and plenty of pretty people who I'd have trouble spending extended periods of time with.

Edge's problem is if you're really using enough to have more than 2-3 points, well I'm not sure I'd want to be part of such a campaign and would seriously question my dice and the GM's dice.

Personally I don't mind having to add up the weight of my gear because I am organized enough to keep track of any changes after having determined the weight of my initial gear, so system's like aToW and D&D 3.5/Pathfinder's approach don't actually bother me at all.

Fit affects your fatigue generation, which I'd argue is actually its main benefit. Fit halves fatigue from non combat sources (any fatigue not generated by damage done to you) and rounds down (unlike what the chart says). This means you can now sprint for 0 fatigue or make melee attacks while encumbered without fatigue. It also means you  can outpace slower soldiers by keeping up higher rates of movement for longer. A 5 Body soldier with fit can run for 25 minutes expending 1 fatigue every five minutes and arrive with no fatigue penalties. One without fit gains 3 fatigue per five minutes, and is already suffering penalties only ten minutes in. By 15 in he is on the verge of passing out. Assuming he doesn't want to get that winded, he slows down to rest after ten minutes. Meanwhile fit guy could put over 200 yards on him in that minute. In an escape and evade scenario, that could be a huge difference.

Encumbrance forces you to think and play realistically. I'd challenge anyone who builds a dexterity rogue in pathfinder to play from level 1 with encumbrance. Dumping strength seems like a good decision till you figure out you can't carry any weight, climbs, swim, etc. The only reason why that kind of nonsense proliferates is that people rarely are forced to play from level 1, use encumbrance, and magic items circumvent the issue. In a game like aToW, there isn't really any skipping ahead to get to magic items that don't exist, so it is straight up a matter of using encumbrance. Is your soldier strong enough to drag a downed buddy out of the line of fire? How much ordinance can you carry without being unduly slowed down? Traits like fit might allow you to take the pack full of explosives despite it encumbering you because you can use your running as efficiently as others walk!

To my count, 9 skills list Charisma as their linked stat. 22 for dexterity. 30 for intelligence. So the bonus effects half to 1/3 of the skills as some other stats. That said, the entire skill list is seldom relevant to most characters. Some traits are definitely powerhouses in their niches though. Attractive, gregarious, and patient all are probably better than they should be.

My main issue with edge is lack of guidelines on its restoration. Having to spend 20 xp per reroll or bonus is way too steep a cost, meaning this has to refresh via GM to be worth squat. Plus, you basically need 2+points, as going down to 0 requires you to pay XP, meaning that it might as well be counted as one lower in most cases.

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #35 on: 21 February 2017, 13:06:30 »
Fit affects your fatigue generation, which I'd argue is actually its main benefit. Fit halves fatigue from non combat sources (any fatigue not generated by damage done to you) and rounds down (unlike what the chart says). This means you can now sprint for 0 fatigue or make melee attacks while encumbered without fatigue. It also means you  can outpace slower soldiers by keeping up higher rates of movement for longer. A 5 Body soldier with fit can run for 25 minutes expending 1 fatigue every five minutes and arrive with no fatigue penalties. One without fit gains 3 fatigue per five minutes, and is already suffering penalties only ten minutes in. By 15 in he is on the verge of passing out. Assuming he doesn't want to get that winded, he slows down to rest after ten minutes. Meanwhile fit guy could put over 200 yards on him in that minute. In an escape and evade scenario, that could be a huge difference.

Is Fit that useful when fatigue can be so easily recovered? A character can recover Fatigue = BOD every 5 seconds if they're resting.
This means that technically, if you're integrating with tabletop a Mechwarrior who suffered an Ammo Explosion and didn't pass out can take one turn in Battletech resting (10 seconds, or 2 ATOW turns) and recover 10 Fatigue if they're a BOD 5 warrior, and since Ammo Explosions do 8 Fatigue, it would be wiped out with no ill effect. 


monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #36 on: 21 February 2017, 13:20:01 »
Fit is a bit situational but if you find your character in a situation where they can't even take those 5 seconds it does become a lot more useful.  Still I'm not sure it shouldn't be eliminated and the bonus from Toughness be slightly tweaked.

As far as realism and encumbrance again this is a taste thing and I don't begrudge anyone for wanting a more cinematic approach or a more detailed/realistic approach.  Either way it is something if anyone wants to discuss further would seem better served by having it's own thread.

ZombieAcePilot

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #37 on: 22 February 2017, 03:18:24 »
Is Fit that useful when fatigue can be so easily recovered? A character can recover Fatigue = BOD every 5 seconds if they're resting.
This means that technically, if you're integrating with tabletop a Mechwarrior who suffered an Ammo Explosion and didn't pass out can take one turn in Battletech resting (10 seconds, or 2 ATOW turns) and recover 10 Fatigue if they're a BOD 5 warrior, and since Ammo Explosions do 8 Fatigue, it would be wiped out with no ill effect.

That only works in combat and requires your whole turn. I don't worry as much about a mechwarrior when it comes to fatigue as I do the ground pounders, although, that might not be the case if a cockpit that is oven hot. I'm also fairly certain that you can't recover fatigue if you are still taking continuous damage, as that mechwarrior might be from the heat. Without CASE in place, most mechs are toast if a good sized ammo bin is hit, so you have other problems to contend with.

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #38 on: 22 February 2017, 11:30:50 »
Any character with the tough trait loses 1/4 of the incoming damage ; anyone with the Fit trait recovers fatigue faster ;  anyone with the enhanced immune system mutation trait heals 2 X faster . Depending on how the head is hit or blown off is how likely it is that the character gets hurt or killed and Edge can force a location re-roll from what I understand . This reduces the likelyhood of character death but not eliminates it . If the incoming damage is from any source that is slower than radar IE ballistic or missile weapon not energy ; You can say the computer in the auto eject has subroutines to activate on a statistically certain incoming kill shot to the head .  The computer can make a speed of light yes or no determination if it is programmed in . With these provision which can only happen to table top if you are playing AToW and you are installing a more sophisticated auto eject system , character life is better secured . Depending of level of Play you may have access to medical packs that stabilizes the character and cures 1 or 2 points of AToW scale damage . In the Star League Era it may be possible to grow a new clone body and have a backup of your mind in an AI computer ; The high tech is there though that application seems to be never mentioned . 
« Last Edit: 22 February 2017, 11:40:18 by Col Toda »

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #39 on: 22 February 2017, 14:56:08 »
Edge does not affect location rolls in ATOW
It can only affect Action Checks or Attribute Checks, for either your character or an enemy directly affecting your player.  So if an enemy hits you with a SMG in ATOW, you can make him miss, but once you take the hit if you're using location rolls you can't change the fact he hit your unprotected head instead of your ballistic-plate vest.
« Last Edit: 23 February 2017, 13:11:21 by UrQuanKzinti »

Tslammer

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 184
  • 2D10 Heretic
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #40 on: 10 March 2017, 11:22:29 »
Our ATOW group has had to make some changes.

Damage scale We matched the five step damage scale of the Mech head hits with out of mech like in MW2 condition monitors.
Essentially giving everyone more health so an errant sneeze did not wipe out half the team. essentially bod x5.

We are also using damage locations arms can take 1.3 x Bod, Legs 1.6 torso bod x4 and head is your bod rating.

The average character can still only take 3-4 hits before they are out of the fight. Which to us seemed a little more action heroish than the base game and it tracked with the out of mech combat we have played for the last 20+ years. Its usually one of two ways that removes you from combat you fail a condition monitor check or you take to much damage to an important location. An arm getting hit twice usually the end of its combat use.

EDGE
We allow edge to modify any roll you make. Be it a gunnery to hit, a failed PSR, failed Crit roll. We also allow you to use it for moving damage taken to your mech. Don't want a head hit ok. Need to keep that leg sure.

We also allow a point of EDGE recovery on lucky rolls. AKA a pair of ones or a pair of 10's. Yes Nancy we are 2D10 Heretics. We also allow characters to recover a point of edge per month of transit or down time.

Lastly we allow characters to spend XP to buy back EDGE at the END phase of any turn using the standard 20XP per point rule.  Everyone (should) keep a few points aside for such occasions but they do not.

Yes PC's still do die. In the last four years of game play we have seen three characters die in their mechs and three die in out of mech actions. One eaten by wolves, another a point blank execution when everything failed and they got caught. Another on the mean streets of Galatea.

If you get hit you mark off a dot for each point of damage taken. The top damage blocks are for Lethal or Bruise damage the bottom dot is for Fatigue damage. It helps keep track after the fight to determine recovery time.

« Last Edit: 10 March 2017, 11:28:10 by Tslammer »

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #41 on: 11 March 2017, 01:42:43 »
Cool Tslammer, thanks for sharing!

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4878
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #42 on: 11 March 2017, 02:39:21 »
So with all this discussion about frailty and taking damage and what not, are people thinking about spending more on attributes to increase the likelihood that the character will survive, such as putting 6 in body, since that seems to be the "Default" for when you don't have exact attributes, or do you feel its better to put points in skills and traits in order to personalize the character more?

Tslammer

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 184
  • 2D10 Heretic
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #43 on: 13 March 2017, 09:43:10 »
In our game attributes are important. Anyone who averages 4's across their stats is not going to survive long term.
We redid the Link bonus and have a defensive system I mentioned in the Steve Erkl vs. Bruce Lee thread.

We also give our players more starting XP 5500 to compensate a little for the fact that attributes matter a lot more.

We also cap starting character skill at +4. Unless the player has a good back story which we may allow a non in mech skill to come in a little higher.

Attribute       Link
1                    -3
2                    -2
3                    -1
4-5                  0
6-7                 +1
8-9                 +2
10                  +3

« Last Edit: 13 March 2017, 10:19:34 by Tslammer »

PurpleDragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1667
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #44 on: 13 March 2017, 10:04:36 »
In our game attributes are important. Anyone who averages 4's across their stats is not going to survive long term.
We redid the Link bonus and have a defensive system I mentioned in the Steve Erkel vs. Bruce Lee thread.

We also give our players more starting XP 5500 to compensate a little for the fact that attributes matter a lot more.

We also cap starting character skill at +4. Unless the player has a good back story which we may allow a non in mech skill to come in a little higher.

Attribute       Link
1                    -3
2                    -2
3                    -1
4-5                  0
6-7                 +1
8-9                 +2
10                  +3

Right up until AToW came out we did this very exact same thing.  Makes me wonder who you are and where you live...    ::)

However, with each new release of any edition wherein the rules have been modified greatly, I believe it is better to start with scratch and try the system as is.  Having said that, I have found a few things I'd like to change up in AToW but do not really want to go back to the 2d10 system unless if battletech as a whole did so.  Assuming that without exceptional attribute or a Clan phenotype, the attribute range is 1-6, how would you modify the numbers you have above to reflect? 

I do still use the 3rd ed lifepaths for character creation; I just had to come up with some modifications for xfering points over. 
« Last Edit: 13 March 2017, 10:07:05 by PurpleDragon »
give a man a fire, keep him warm for a night. 
Set him on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life!

The secret to winning the land/air battle is that you must always remain rigidly flexible.

I like tabletop more anyway, computer games are for nerds!  -  Knallogfall

Tslammer

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 184
  • 2D10 Heretic
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #45 on: 13 March 2017, 10:21:04 »
We are in Seattle. I have also shared with you detailed information on our 2D10 system before via PM

Before ATOW we had a similar system that was not as fine tuned for MW3. Based loosely off the MW3 Solaris rules.

We did away with clan field aptitude and made them fast learners for their field skills.

Most PC's are in the 6-8 range for core attributes. We do have one player who has only one 6 and gets buy just fine with his +1 link for Gunnery and Piloting.
In our game DEX and INT are your core defensive stats and of course Dex/Rfx are your core gunnery and piloting stats. Over time players buy up stats.

Most of our players dump stat Edge and CHA.
« Last Edit: 13 March 2017, 10:30:53 by Tslammer »

Karimancer

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 106
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #46 on: 19 March 2017, 17:02:59 »
I actually like games where it's relatively easy to kill the PCs. Makes the players plan and think things out a little more. And it really cuts down on the number of rash, reckless actions players can sometimes be prone too.
« Last Edit: 19 March 2017, 17:06:10 by Karimancer »

Tslammer

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 184
  • 2D10 Heretic
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #47 on: 04 May 2017, 12:08:03 »
Even with our changes its really easy to kill or maim PC's. Besides the few that have died at least two have replacement limbs.

Stallion12

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 169
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #48 on: 13 July 2017, 02:15:49 »
How do you transfer the concious rules with atow.? Do you guys use the bt chart but count the damage received from atow towards it?

Stallion12

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 169
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #49 on: 13 July 2017, 23:41:40 »
I'm kinda confused on how atow characters are more likely to fail their unconcious rolls.

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #50 on: 17 August 2017, 10:10:10 »
Most mech warriors only have 3 edge , so by all means have them re roll location it after all represents LUCK .

Jackmc

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2681
    • How I pay the bills
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #51 on: 17 September 2017, 19:32:39 »
Why did they not make it a function of both BOD and WIL power?

Because in LoC from head trauma, willpower is not a factor, it's purely a matter of physiology.  For lack of a better analogy, the brain has to reboot and until it's booted back up to a point that ego is initialized, willpower is not present.

Yeah, I'm trying to find a way to like the game, but it seems like catalyst forgot to play test the thing (very catalyst). I honestly don't know what to make of attributes.

Per a conversation with the original designer early-on, the Prime Development Directive was to use game mechanics that had never been used before, even if there was a quantifiably better mechanic for accomplishing something.  To the extent that mechanically, the game is just a mess rather than a hot mess, we must thank the writer who was brought in to finish the book (Paul?, IIRC).  That's not a criticism of him, it's actually a compliment given the constraints placed upon him. 

-Jackmc


-Jackmc


Paul

  • dies a lot at the Solaris Melee Challenge!
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 15570
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #52 on: 26 September 2017, 19:30:36 »
Not sure I'd use those exact words, but yes, a lot of constraints were placed at day 0. Some made sense, some were unhelpful. Probably one of the very worst decisions, wasn't a decision at all:
To keep the MW3 weapon data because it was reprinted in Tech Manual, and we weren't about to contradict another core book. Basically a problem that was unfixable by the time we started to work on ATOW, since the only feasible solution was if TM was printed with all-new-ATOW stats, which'd require simultaneous development. Didn't happen that way, so sometimes you're stuck with legacy.

Subsequent to that, some design decisions were made by the lead dev (and line dev at the time, Herb) about what the game ought to be, subsequent to him spending an ungodly amount of time reading through pretty much every RPG in the market at the time (and a few that weren't anymore).
The high lethality was one such decision. I've grown to like it, and we added the reduced lethality rules in to cover the concern.

Then, a few actual mistakes were made during development. It's gonna happen. IE, we should've made point based the default chargen, and made Modules optional. We probably also could've made BAR easier. I honestly think that's about it, when it comes to major failures.

After that, we got a decent chunk of playtest data. Some things were incorporated, others were not.

What does that leave? Tweaks, in my view. Something not stated as clearly as it should? OK, sorry. Maybe next time.


Consciousness TW vs ATOW: yep, noted prior to playtest, after the mechanism was finalized for ATOW. The decision was to not change it. Something to keep in mind:
The Standard TW MechWarrior would have BOD 6 and WIL 6. And no Edge.
(The archetypes are for PCs, not TW NPCs; yes I wanted that stated clearly, no we didn't do that.)
Subduing attacks: p. 175: needs a 'D' in the damage code. Only applies to ammo explosions and heat. Not normal head hits or falling.
I can't quite recall the convo I had with Herb about setting the damage values on p.217; they were specifically set with the standard cooling vest and neuro helmet in mind, but that should create different outcomes than what we're seeing. It's been 8 years, I don't recall.


Also, I was there for the start of ATOW, and Herb was there till the finish.

Paul
The solution is just ignore Paul.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37295
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #53 on: 26 September 2017, 19:58:57 »
*snip*
To keep the MW3 weapon data because it was reprinted in Tech Manual...
*snip*
That explains SO much...

Paul

  • dies a lot at the Solaris Melee Challenge!
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 15570
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #54 on: 26 September 2017, 21:09:01 »
That explains SO much...

Yeah, that cascaded through a lot of it.

Paul
The solution is just ignore Paul.

Stallion12

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 169
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #55 on: 06 November 2017, 15:24:04 »
Is the cockit damage on the chart only if the cockpit critical happens? Or is it any mech head hit?

Paul

  • dies a lot at the Solaris Melee Challenge!
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 15570
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #56 on: 06 November 2017, 18:48:15 »
Is the cockit damage on the chart only if the cockpit critical happens? Or is it any mech head hit?

Any head hit.
The solution is just ignore Paul.

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5852
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #57 on: 10 November 2017, 12:39:58 »
Truth is the whole getting knocked unconscious thing is more a trope than reality.  It's actually very rare for injury to cause unconsciousness, even horrible and inevitably fatal injuries usually leave the dying conscious.  Screaming and moaning and calling for help.

When it comes to pilot damage and the board game, I've come to look at 'Consciousness' as a chosen by-word for stunned or incapacitated. The different levels of recovery are based on the extent and severity.

A failed 'Dashboard check' during a fall could be the warrior smacking his helmet on something, and the faceplate impacting on his nose, forcing it to bleed. Nose hits leave eyes watering at the very least and can be hard to work around when you can't wipe them. Neurohelmlets are certainly fully encased keeping you from using your hands to wipe away your tears. So, you're left for a few seconds blinking them away, and there's really not a whole lot you'd want to try that wouldn't damage your Mech with impared vision in the middle of combat. Thus the inactivity of a barn.

There's also the fact that your limbs are out where they can flail around, and if you're not ready, they'll smack against something, leaving you out a leg or arm until you can get past the pain to use it again. There's a reason they warn against bracing against the dash or steering wheel in a car crash. The impact can break your arms. You're falling 3 or 4 stories when a Mech drops.

Cockpit impacts from weapons can generate huge impact waves in the air inside the cockpit. You're essentially inside a bell when it's rung. This can inflict damage on the ears, especially the inner ear, which is important for balance.

There's also the potential for Star Trek-like system damage with computer circuitry frying, or spalling effects. 

Too much of any of that, or all of that, and after a while, you're 'out of it' for longer and longer periods, having to work past pain or other physical failings before you can act again.

RPGs try to go into this kind of detail to help tell a better narrative, or fill in the blanks that the more nebulous board game leaves open to the imagination.

I, too, wish they chose a better buzz word, like 'stun'.

It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8392
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #58 on: 15 November 2017, 14:04:44 »
As for mechwarriors suffering damage in the cockpit not lining up with TW/Boardgame.... I don't think it ever was intended to.  And I'm aware of the selling point of ATOW being "compatable" with TW/Boardgame.  Rather than try to bend over backwards to reconcile TW/Boardgame's personal damage system, they just flat ignored it in ATOW.  It's not a bug, it's a "feature".
Actually for a BOD(?) 6 MechWarrior the two system line up perfectly, 6 hits will result in the MechWarrior falling unconscious. Where is doesn't work to well is tank crews, they where armor and things those crew stunned and crew killed hits don't work.

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #59 on: 28 December 2017, 04:20:18 »
My current character has 6 BD with Fit and Tough so I am a little ahead of the crowd. My character has the advanced immune mutation so he heals twice as fast . I presume that the average pilot combat cockpit comes with combat drugs autoinjectors to mesh with the miniture game.

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #60 on: 27 February 2018, 06:23:42 »
As for tank crew killed . Just say extraordinarly tough individuals are too injured , unconsous and or pinned by dislodged controls . That search and rescue / salvage crews would get to the vehicle to pull out bodies and the occasional critically injured individual . As most IS tend to have a BD of 3 most would be dead.

BiggRigg42

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 375
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #61 on: 08 March 2018, 15:39:13 »
Without reading all of the above, here is my opinion on the topic: use the reduced lethality rules in the AToW Companion. They allow the DM to multiply the PC's health or fatigue by (I think) up to a multiple of 4. 

True, you still have to worry about consciousness checks; however, in my play testing, it has not been a problem. I allow a PC to become conscious again if a fellow PC makes a successful med-tech skill roll.