Register Register

Author Topic: MechWarrior: Destiny  (Read 68990 times)

SteelShrike

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #960 on: 10 February 2020, 16:31:05 »
You're right. I've been lurking here for years and seen enough that I shouldn't be surprised.  ;D

I'll just reiterate that I, for one, am looking forward to introducing my friend circle to the BattleTech universe through Destiny. I'm eager to see how the final product turns out with all the feedback that's been given.

Carry on.  ;D

ActionButler

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3853
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #961 on: 10 February 2020, 17:00:30 »
Well we're all about unproductive discussion here at the official Battletech forums.  ;D

I believe that's in the charter, in fact.
Experimental Technical Readout: The School
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56420.0

Bedwyr

  • A Sticky Wicket
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7957
  • RIP. Again. And again. And again.
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #962 on: 10 February 2020, 17:24:43 »
I believe that's in the charter, in fact.

"You didn't see that when you came in Lieutenant? It's there bright as day."

<NCOs quickly drink coffee as fast as they can>
Alas poor Photobucket. I knew him Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

victor_shaw

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 756
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #963 on: 11 February 2020, 17:58:59 »
The fiction is expendable...rules are paramount.

But the fiction serves a purpose in that it presents the universe to new players. Thats important.

My feelings on this have always been that just telling one note stories about the BTU or any setting does little to nothing to truly present the universe to a new player.
As they are presented I would rather see game play examples (GM,Player 1, Player 2) that tell a story through the game itself rather then random stories the only show a glimpse of the universe. This helps a new player with both the game and BTU presentation, where the stories only do the latter and don't always do that well.

What doesn't serve a purpose  are about 50 pages of tactical rules, conversion systems, etc of a variant AGoAC ruleset that isn't needed. Also of limited value are about 20 pages of a Lifepath chargen system that is unfit for purpose.

There is 60 or 70 pages that can be removed to add a vehicle combat system, a bestiary, more information on the universe, more NPC rules, a better GM section.  etc. Slightly more if systems are streamlined and the layout issues addressed but 60-70 pages would certainly allow for a lot of the gaps in AToW to be fleshed out and filled.

The fiction is expendable, but given the amount of space wasted by the discussed problems, there probably wouldn't be any need to do so.

As to the fixes...the core issue here is that you appear happy with AToW being an adjunct to AGoAC, as a way to add numbers to the pilot whereas I think AToW should be a game in its own right, that it should be its own thing. That it should be an RPG.

I still see no reason why, if the game has gotten to the point where the Tactical Rules need to be invoked, you cannot just use the tabletop game instead. AToW even recommends the use of Total Warfare and the board game...the tactical rules are a needless third variation that fills the same role and adds absolutely nothing to the game. The game nevertheless lacks fully fleshed out vehicle rules, a decent bestiary, and more.

I acknowledge you feel differently, and that you aren't likely to be alone, but the game doesn't need three sets of rules for the same job.

While I agree with you that a lot of this was not necessary (tactical rules, conversion systems), I think the lifepaths are a key to a good RPG.
Now let me clarify that by saying I am not a fan of the lifepaths as presented, but especially to new players, they help to give them an idea of what a character from that area/school/profession would be like in the BTU. I would liked them to be more like 2nd editions profession/school* packages. (* from the first few Field Manuals)

victor_shaw

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 756
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #964 on: 11 February 2020, 18:17:13 »
Well we're all about unproductive discussion here at the official Battletech forums.  ;D

And this is the same attitude that cause me to take a brake from all CGL forums and games in the first place.
Why is discussing the RPGs an "unproductive discussion".
It give the appearance that CGL knows what is best and the fans have to live with it because our opinions don't matter.
I would like to think this is untrue, but it comes up way to often on official CGL forums to think otherwise.

SteelShrike

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #965 on: 11 February 2020, 18:43:21 »
I think because a lot of it comes down to people repeating the same points over and over again that boils down to a subjective matter of opinion.

Maybe I'm wrong, but there are people who seem to be trying to convince others that Destiny should just be abandoned and that people are wrong for liking it based solely on the fact that they personally like Total Warfare and ATOW better. Maybe I frequent different gaming circles, but I know there are definitely people who like the rules lite, narrative RPG experience too.

Now, I will agree that maybe supporting three different systems (TW, Destiny, Alpha Strike) is too much. But that's why I hope Alpha Strike can maybe evolve into a Destiny/AS hybrid like some people have already experimented with.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10706
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #966 on: 11 February 2020, 19:27:06 »
I for one know it is mostly for subjective reasons that I don't like Destiny but I'll never call for it to be abandoned.

The worst I'll say about it is it really needs another beta release with some of the feedback provided incorporated before it goes live for us to provide more feedback on and that it isn't for me.  Which is fine.  Not every product is going to be for every fan.

I am much more of a fan of the more structured approach of one GM for a campaign and have some other quibles about the Cue system that makes me not like it very much but that doesn't mean I think people are wrong for liking the pass the GM/Cue system.

Part of that is because as others have pointed out not everyone is a good GM.  I do it the next most commonly in my gaming group after Liam's Ghost but I still consider myself kind of lack luster at it with a few gems of campaigns that were great fun for everyone.

All that said as far as AToW, or any future RPG is concerned, I'll defend the fiction as part of the setting specific RPG as being a good idea to include because Battletech's 35+ years of lore is already a barrier to entry that would be made worse by not including at least a little something in the RPG.

Now could more examples be a good idea?  Absolutely.

The life modules I do take the point that reworking a couple traits and a few numbers and dividing the numbers by 10 wouldn't be a bad start to making character creation more accessible.  Point buy could also stand to have the same treatment.  Rebate I wouldn't miss if that concept went away too.

Talen5000

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 758
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #967 on: 11 February 2020, 19:41:57 »
My feelings on this have always been that just telling one note stories about the BTU or any setting does little to nothing to truly present the universe to a new player.

To be honest, I think the fiction does serve a purpose...but what worked better to set the universe (IMO) were the little sidebars and technical reports that were found in the Rules of Warfare book.

That and a jazzed up history. Part of the problem is that the rule book is somewhat bland. Average. Unexciting.


Quote
While I agree with you that a lot of this was not necessary (tactical rules, conversion systems), I think the lifepaths are a key to a good RPG.
Now let me clarify that by saying I am not a fan of the lifepaths as presented, but especially to new players, they help to give them an idea of what a character from that area/school/profession would be like in the BTU. I would liked them to be more like 2nd editions profession/school* packages. (* from the first few Field Manuals)

Yes...part of the issue with the LifePath system in AToW is that they just aren't written very well. There are issues with the layout and the presentation which makes the system far more complex and difficult to understand than it needs to be.

Another is the lack of focus. The game is trying to be everything..and in so doing, it succeeds at nothing. It  simply has some good ideas, some good ideas implemented badly and some and ideas..

Of course...it is very easy to criticise. I'm very good at that part ;)

As for the LifePath system...LPs can work. And they can be fun. And I see the value in the way they can provide fleshed out characters.

But ultimately, any chargen system can work to provide fleshed out characters...so long as they are handled and written well. A character can be fleshed out with a paragraph of text just as well as a chapter of Lifepaths.

What Lifepaths do is write a characters backstory for them. They provide a ready made framework. There are other systems which take a different approach... SRuns 20 question approach for example. Or asking the player to choose a primary hobby and say, 1 area of "expertise" per INT point.

I also cannot see any new RPG being expanded so any system that replaces the current LifePath system must fit within the book. And LifePaths, by their nature, take up a large amount of space. The BT system with its need to accommodate  different eras and realms won't be much better.

Yes, there is a huge amount that should be cut out from the book. A large amount that should never have been added in the first place. But so much was also left  out....just take a quick look at the Companion.for some ideas of stuff that would be better placed in the main rulebook.

A revised LifePath system and Tactical Rules would be best placed as a downloadable PDF file. Optional rules that aren't a core part of the game.

Now...if there was enough space once the gaps in the core rules had been filled in, then it might be worthwhile to consider adding any revised LifePath system. But I don't think such space would exist, and so...given a choice...I would support a Points based system instead. Not because it is better, but because it can do the same job in a fraction of the time and page count, and even if it isn't quite as much fun it won't be as intimidating.
« Last Edit: 11 February 2020, 20:07:32 by Talen5000 »
"So let me get this straight. You want to fly on a magic carpet to see the King of the Potato People and plead with him for your freedom, and you're telling me you're completely sane?" -- Uncle Arnie

Talen5000

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 758
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #968 on: 11 February 2020, 19:57:12 »
Maybe I'm wrong, but there are people who seem to be trying to convince others that Destiny should just be abandoned and that people are wrong for liking it based solely on the fact that they personally like Total Warfare and ATOW better. Maybe I frequent different gaming circles, but I know there are definitely people who like the rules lite, narrative RPG experience too.

Do I think Destiny should be abandoned?

Yes.

Part of that is because I don't like the system
Part of it is because I think Destiny is, in some way, too simple, too rules lite.
Part of it is because I saw the Destiny Beta and think it is making many of the same mistakes previous RPGs in the BTU have made.
Part if it is because I think MW2 is a far better rules lite version

And a big chunk is because fragmenting an already small player base and increasing the maintenance costs of an RPG, with each RPG section in future books having to supply stats for two systems, is not a good idea.

Its a concept that can only have value if CGL are convinced that it would be a gateway product, one which would inrease the popularity of BT as a. RPG setting.

I hope it will...but I don't expect it to.

So yes...I think Destiny is a step in the wrong direction but hopefully, time will prove me wrong.  I hope it'll be a huge success. But I still think I a huge waste of time, money and effort.

But am I going to call for it to be abandoned?
No...at least, not directly. I think it a mistake but CGL want it so I'm not going to waste energy over it. I'll even buy it...I simply won't run it.

I would prefer a streamlined version of AToW, one with simplified rules mechanics. What I think of as simple?

GM: That's a difficult task...roll 6 or under on 1D20 (30% or under)

or

GM: That's a very easy task...roll 19 or under on 1D20 (95% chance of success)

or

GM: That's going to be a Legendary result if you succeed...roll a Double Zero on 2D10 (1% chance of success)

In other words, let your actions and the environment determine the difficulty which then sets an appropriate range of values within which the GM can set a suitable target rather than worry about modifiers. Modifiers, of course, have their place

GM: That's a difficult task...roll 6 or under on 1D20 or 2D10 (30% or under)
Player: I'm gonna use burst fire
GM: That makes things a it easier...roll 9 or under on 1D20 or 2D10 (45% or under)

That, to me, is the core of a streamlined system. Of course, it has its own set of drawbacks so it isn't perfect and yes, I am simplifying things, but the essence is to minimise the work and calculations during the game and get the player to use his actions to boost his chances of success or make meaningful tradeoffs.

But an improved AToW with streamlined mechanics and combat, removal of the Tactical rules in favour of Integration which transfers your player skills into the board game and uses existing stats and TROs and Record Sheets, an improved chargen system and a rulebook that uses the space freed up to include critters, NPCs, a better and enhanced GM section, enhanced and streamlined combat rules that revamps AP/AV/BAR, vehicular rules and so on....a lot of stuff that the core rulebook is missing but which made it into the Companion -  that's what I would like. I ain't gonna get it but it's what I'd like. A lot of that is stuff the game needs regardless. And yet Destiny is also missing quite a bit here as well. Well, the Beta is - the finished version may include some of it.
« Last Edit: 12 February 2020, 07:08:47 by Talen5000 »
"So let me get this straight. You want to fly on a magic carpet to see the King of the Potato People and plead with him for your freedom, and you're telling me you're completely sane?" -- Uncle Arnie

Bedwyr

  • A Sticky Wicket
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7957
  • RIP. Again. And again. And again.
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #969 on: 11 February 2020, 20:07:03 »
Talen, could I get you to edit your previous post to remove all that white space?

edit: thanks.
« Last Edit: 11 February 2020, 20:48:11 by Bedwyr »
Alas poor Photobucket. I knew him Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16629
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #970 on: 11 February 2020, 20:26:53 »
*snip*
What Lifepaths do is write a characters backstory for them. They provide a ready made framework.
*snip*
Well, that's at least two things we agree on.  Since a lot of players come to the RPG from the tabletop, this is pretty important.  Anything that increases a tabletop player's engagement with the universe is an unalloyed good...

Apocal

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 410
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #971 on: 11 February 2020, 20:31:04 »
And this is the same attitude that cause me to take a brake from all CGL forums and games in the first place.
Why is discussing the RPGs an "unproductive discussion".
It give the appearance that CGL knows what is best and the fans have to live with it because our opinions don't matter.
I would like to think this is untrue, but it comes up way to often on official CGL forums to think otherwise.

They said earlier that only feedback through the Kickstarter survey form would be considered.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16629
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #972 on: 11 February 2020, 20:35:53 »
I, for one at least, copied all my concerns here to formal inputs to the KS...

SteelShrike

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 26
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #973 on: 11 February 2020, 22:28:05 »
The worst I'll say about it is it really needs another beta release with some of the feedback provided incorporated before it goes live for us to provide more feedback on and that it isn't for me.

I'll definitely second this. It'd be REALLY nice to proofread the changes a second time before it releases, especially with how extensive the feedback sounded.

I am much more of a fan of the more structured approach of one GM for a campaign and have some other quibles about the Cue system that makes me not like it very much but that doesn't mean I think people are wrong for liking the pass the GM/Cue system.

I don't think anything's stopping you from running the game as a single GM system, is there? In fact, I'm pretty sure one of the optional rules near the back is exactly for that. The cue system can just be used as an inspiration for players to motivate their actions and remain in character. I definitely intend to run my campaign as a more or less traditional GM/referee to keep things from getting too crazy. Especially since my players will likely be relying on me to present the universe to them with them being new to it all. But I like the idea of motivating other players to narrate their characters' actions themselves too and really take ownership of their side of the story.


ActionButler

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3853
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #974 on: 11 February 2020, 23:30:46 »
And this is the same attitude that cause me to take a brake from all CGL forums and games in the first place.
Why is discussing the RPGs an "unproductive discussion".
It give the appearance that CGL knows what is best and the fans have to live with it because our opinions don't matter.
I would like to think this is untrue, but it comes up way to often on official CGL forums to think otherwise.

Let’s clear this up.

Nobody was characterizing the discussion of the RPGs as unproductive.  In fact, this has been one of the more interesting discussions in recent memory, in my opinion.  I’ve quite enjoyed hearing thoughts from the pro-AToW crowd. 

The only thing about this thread that even approaches unproductive is the tendency for people to wind up in circular arguments that don’t go anywhere.
Experimental Technical Readout: The School
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56420.0

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10706
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #975 on: 11 February 2020, 23:33:50 »
I'll definitely second this. It'd be REALLY nice to proofread the changes a second time before it releases, especially with how extensive the feedback sounded.

I don't think anything's stopping you from running the game as a single GM system, is there? In fact, I'm pretty sure one of the optional rules near the back is exactly for that. The cue system can just be used as an inspiration for players to motivate their actions and remain in character. I definitely intend to run my campaign as a more or less traditional GM/referee to keep things from getting too crazy. Especially since my players will likely be relying on me to present the universe to them with them being new to it all. But I like the idea of motivating other players to narrate their characters' actions themselves too and really take ownership of their side of the story.

That's where some of my other quibles about the Cue system come in.  I don't know if I'll ever be able to put into words satisfactorily what I don't like about it in particular beyond it isn't a system that grabs me and thus I don't like.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16629
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #976 on: 12 February 2020, 05:45:28 »
It's an agency problem, really.  In "normal" games, the players cede some agency to the GM.  Under the cue system, they cede agency to other players.  That's a very different relationship.

Asgo

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 383
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #977 on: 12 February 2020, 08:01:10 »
..The only thing about this thread that even approaches unproductive is the tendency for people to wind up in circular arguments that don’t go anywhere.
well, that has nothing to do with Battletech or RPGs, that's just the internet. ;)

as for productive, the discussion is interesting and as an exchange of opinions productive and enlightening.
not necessarily productive in terms of convincing others of each others position - too subjective for that - and that's the cause of the circularity.
productive as in having an impact on products (future or current), doubtful, most positions are too global, with too far reaching consequences,  and there are enough opposing positions on various issues that no one really can draw a definite conclusion from it about player feedback.

Personally, a lot of the issues and design decisions going into Destiny can be explained by limited resources and the consequences of that.
And as long as that doesn't change, I wouldn't expect the 'perfect' RPG in a huge universe.

victor_shaw

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 756
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #978 on: 12 February 2020, 18:05:37 »
They said earlier that only feedback through the Kickstarter survey form would be considered.

The thing is that I am not trying to provide feedback for MechWarrior: Destiny. (That ship had sailed)
I have already voiced my dislike of the system when I was part of the kickstarter. (it was one of many reasons I withdrew my support)
This train of thought and descussion is more focused on what we would rather see in a BT RPG then MechWarrior: Destiny.

Let’s clear this up.

Nobody was characterizing the discussion of the RPGs as unproductive.  In fact, this has been one of the more interesting discussions in recent memory, in my opinion.  I’ve quite enjoyed hearing thoughts from the pro-AToW crowd. 

The only thing about this thread that even approaches unproductive is the tendency for people to wind up in circular arguments that don’t go anywhere.

Sorry if I miss understood the comment.
It just happened to come into the the conversation at a point that I assumed you where talking about the conversation.
Add to this the attack that are continuing to be thrown by 6th supporting players/mods at players that don't like the new 6th edition of Shadowrun over on the other "official" forum and I have gotten a bit overreactive to mod comments like this

I think because a lot of it comes down to people repeating the same points over and over again that boils down to a subjective matter of opinion.

Maybe I'm wrong, but there are people who seem to be trying to convince others that Destiny should just be abandoned and that people are wrong for liking it based solely on the fact that they personally like Total Warfare and ATOW better. Maybe I frequent different gaming circles, but I know there are definitely people who like the rules lite, narrative RPG experience too.

Now, I will agree that maybe supporting three different systems (TW, Destiny, Alpha Strike) is too much. But that's why I hope Alpha Strike can maybe evolve into a Destiny/AS hybrid like some people have already experimented with.
as a whole and not the back an forth about certain rules.


First, I would like to clarify that I don't care if CGL wants to provide Destiny as a alternative to a more rule heavy RPG (AToW, A 5th edition, etc.)like they did with Shadowrun: Anarchy, but I am against them make it the core RPG for the BTU. And the argument wast never about them supporting TW, Destiny, Alpha Strike at the same time as this is a given, the issues is with them supporting two RPGs at the same time.

Now my issues with Destiny are three fold.
1. I am a firm believer in the concept that an RPG system should be created for a setting and you should not try to force a setting into an and RPG system.
2. Destiny strikes me as your typical follow the latest trends RPG. My main issues with this is that these trends tend to be "flash in the pan" types of things that in my experiences as a GM, Player, RPG store manager tend to fade quickly and bring the wrong type of players into a game. Not saying bad players, just players that are not truly looking for the type of gaming experience that the universe offers. I other games that I have seen this trough to the end, these new players start demanding changes to not only the rule of the core systems, but go as far as to start wanting the company to rewrite the game to their taste and life views.
3. This one kind of feeds into #1. I find Destiny to be an easy cash grab, they took a system that they already had on the self (that from what I can tell was not doing well) crammed a mech system that's full of holes into it and called it good. Now just to be clear the art department did do a wonderful job.
 
« Last Edit: 12 February 2020, 18:20:39 by victor_shaw »

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9148
  • All your tulips belong to us.
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #979 on: 12 February 2020, 21:53:25 »
That’s not what the thread subject says.
Master Unit List - List of all canon units, faction availabilities, Alpha Strike unit cards, Battle Values
Combat Manual Lite series - Steiner, Liao, Marik, Calderon, Invading Clans, Comstar. Also Record Sheets for the CM: Kurita and CM: Mercs unique pilots.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10706
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #980 on: 12 February 2020, 22:07:23 »
Well Ray did ask us to provide feedback for the future of AToW a bit ago and I did push for the mods to make the appropriate thread split to avoid this very situation but I guess it still isn't a good enough idea yet.

Citation here:
The developers of ATOW unfortunately came to a similar conclusion soon after it was released, but never had a chance to put out a revised version.

If you’ve got other thoughts, may as well spill ‘em now.
« Last Edit: 12 February 2020, 22:10:09 by monbvol »

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10706
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #981 on: 12 February 2020, 23:10:08 »
Like I said I had hoped for a thread split because you're not wrong.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9148
  • All your tulips belong to us.
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #982 on: 12 February 2020, 23:37:47 »
And I asked for my comment to be deleted. I’m not being helpful.   My apologies.

I do think MW:Destiny has some great potential, especially in making mech combat faster, fun, and still feel like BattleTech.  It does have some big holes to fix in that mech combat.

AToW’s system I find daunting to pick up or to even suggest to my regular RPG group. I wouldn’t lose everybody, but a majority, just from the system itself.  That certainly does not mean ATOW is bad, I’d lose the majority of the group suggesting BT TW as well, and most of us here agree that’s a great game :).

The mentions of MW2 I find interesting because it’s been so long since I’ve looked it at, I barely recall any of it. 
Master Unit List - List of all canon units, faction availabilities, Alpha Strike unit cards, Battle Values
Combat Manual Lite series - Steiner, Liao, Marik, Calderon, Invading Clans, Comstar. Also Record Sheets for the CM: Kurita and CM: Mercs unique pilots.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10706
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #983 on: 12 February 2020, 23:55:04 »
No worries.

There is certainly a lot going on here and a lot of it is good if muddled discussion.

victor_shaw

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 756
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #984 on: 13 February 2020, 04:56:34 »
I do think MW:Destiny has some great potential, especially in making mech combat faster, fun, and still feel like BattleTech.  It does have some big holes to fix in that mech combat.

I have to say that I don't disagree with you on the great potential of the mech combat system provided in MW:Destiny.
But I see it more as an add-on/fix to Alpha Strike that will create more of a separation between it and Battleforce.
The issues for most RPG gaming groups in my experience has been you either use TW (which is very time consuming for a RPG group) or you use Alpha Strike which is gear to much to quick results for large combats and is in general just Battleforce with minis, so lacks the flavor of Battletech as it is designed to as I said before handle regiment level combat. The uses of the reduced armor and structure diagrams and the general rule of Alpha Strike would provide the feel of the TW without the time constraints and make for a excellent mid range game just right for the RPG.

AToW’s system I find daunting to pick up or to even suggest to my regular RPG group. I wouldn’t lose everybody, but a majority, just from the system itself.  That certainly does not mean ATOW is bad, I’d lose the majority of the group suggesting BT TW as well, and most of us here agree that’s a great game :).

You will get no arguments about this from me. At it's core AToW is a well made game system, but it is hampered by a god offal character creation engine, poorly organized layout, and way to much wasted space.

The mentions of MW2 I find interesting because it’s been so long since I’ve looked it at, I barely recall any of it.

Last truly good version IMHO. I feel it was cut off in its prime and not given the love it needed to reach its true potential. With the additions that where being added in the Field Manuals and a few rule revision and changes I think the game could have become the greatest of the BTU RPGs IMHO.

wolfspider

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 688
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #985 on: 13 February 2020, 17:22:23 »
I have to say that I don't disagree with you on the great potential of the mech combat system provided in MW:Destiny.
But I see it more as an add-on/fix to Alpha Strike that will create more of a separation between it and Battleforce.
The issues for most RPG gaming groups in my experience has been you either use TW (which is very time consuming for a RPG group) or you use Alpha Strike which is gear to much to quick results for large combats and is in general just Battleforce with minis, so lacks the flavor of Battletech as it is designed to as I said before handle regiment level combat. The uses of the reduced armor and structure diagrams and the general rule of Alpha Strike would provide the feel of the TW without the time constraints and make for a excellent mid range game just right for the RPG.
This is what our group did, we converted the rules to use AS ranges and movement and we can complete a RPG session with a mech battle in a night as opposed to having to divide the TW combat into more then one session. I can send anyone that is interested a copy of our cheat sheet.
I may have a low amount of posts but I have a PHD in Battletech and mechs older then most people on this board!

Panthros

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 135
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #986 on: 13 February 2020, 22:44:47 »

Last truly good version IMHO. I feel it was cut off in its prime and not given the love it needed to reach its true potential. With the additions that where being added in the Field Manuals and a few rule revision and changes I think the game could have become the greatest of the BTU RPGs IMHO.

I 100% agree from my point of view. Since Mechwarrior Destiny has not launched there is still potential to bring up how Mechwarrior 2nd edition could be incorporated or least for people to understand why I and others would use that as a litmus test for new players.  I would love, prefer Catalyst use MW2 as an RPG lite and they still want to support ATOW, great.  Perhaps there is a way to bridge the two, a basic and advanced ;)  All I know I have tried for years with many different RPG groups to introduce ATOW with no luck.  Character creation is too complicated and I am not sure Mechwarrior Destiny solves this.  It irks me even more with new mech rules.  We have enough already.  I show and demonstrate creating a character with Mechwarrior 2nd edtion and watch people do it on their own in an hour or less.  We use Mechwarrior 2nd edition when out of a mech.  Total Warfare when in the mech.  It is even easier when you run virtually with MekHQ.  I encourage if you have not picked up Mechwarrior 2nd lately, give it a look.  Give to a friend and have them create a character. See for yourself.  I want new people attracted to Battletech and I would love for the RPG to be that gateway.  The original Game of Thrones!  You don't ever have to get into a mech, there is so much the world has to offer.  Which means I agree with the fiction staying in.  It does not have to be new fiction but it should be fiction that best demonstrates the world.  Destiny can be a gateway if the proper focus is put on it.
« Last Edit: 13 February 2020, 22:49:16 by Panthros »

Dahmin_Toran

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 156
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #987 on: 19 February 2020, 08:15:32 »
This is what our group did, we converted the rules to use AS ranges and movement and we can complete a RPG session with a mech battle in a night as opposed to having to divide the TW combat into more then one session. I can send anyone that is interested a copy of our cheat sheet.

I would like a copy.

Dahmin_Toran

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 156
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #988 on: 19 February 2020, 08:27:11 »
I've played Battletech for over 20 years, but I am primarily a GM/RPGer. As far as the core system, I think it is pretty good. You can easily determine results on the table, I really like the Opposed die roll system rather than fixed Target Numbers. Makes things a bit more dynamic and prevents me as the DM prevents me from looking up a bunch of tables.

As far as Lifepaths, I wish they would have been bulked up a bit. Maybe use the ATOW Lifepaths, just boil them down to Skill bonuses and Traits. But there could be some balancing issues there.

I likes where they where going with the Mech/Vehicle, but I am starting to agree with Talon5000 they could be a bit unnecessary. I was basically plan to use the Destiny Dice Roll resolution, which I really like, to see if I hit, and then use either TW for hit location/damage (as well as movement) or Alpha Strike with the Variable Damage rules. Use that extra space for more Lifepaths and creatures.

As a traditional GM, I would probably stick to the more traditional GM/Party structure, but I don't mind the Cue rules added as optional rules. As a GM, I already give my players a lot of agency anyways.

Dahmin_Toran

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 156
Re: MechWarrior: Destiny
« Reply #989 on: 19 February 2020, 08:50:16 »
And there is one thing (I think) that Destiny attempts to do that I wish they would continue...come up with a mapless, abstract method of Mech/Vehicle combat. That should be the only type of vehicular combat introduced in the RPG, and I think 3rd Edition and Destiny are the only RPGs that attempted it.

 

Register