Combining TW and AToW

[RedCudgel]

Hi guys,

I'm currently looking at starting a Battletech RPG with a group of relative newbies, but would dearly love to still keep the tactical scope of TW/TO etc. I've only got an older version of the RPG rules (FASA), so am going to invest in the new RPG.

My question may sound very naive, as all my make sense when I get the RPG, but I just wondered if anyone has had experience of running a more RPG-style Battletech where players can also take part in TW scenarios by running their character's 'mech?

Any thoughts or ideas would be very much appreciated, as would be any specific eras you think work well for this combination.

Cheers

Red

[Paul]

ATOW's specifically built to do that, and includes rules to convert characters to TW play on p.40. I tend to modify them only slightly in my own campaigns.

[Coldwyn]

The AToW RPG adds a level of complexity to TW/TO that could be challenging.
On the easy side, you can convert pilot/gunnery from TW to AToW quick and easy.

On the complex side, the AToW mechanics are a bit complex and dated by modern standards, meaning you´ve got to calculate in margins and often add percentile modifiers to get final results, which leads to constant use of calculators or calc-apps on smartphones.

Add to this, you must rethink your regular TW planning a bit. A player must buy his "vehicle" (whether mech, BA, or whatever) using character creation points, so it´s even more a loss when that vehicle gets trashed. Additionally, using the standard character creation method (life path), most chars will at most get a medium vehicle.
Ok, sure, being able to buy quirks for that vehicle can give a slight edge, buying special pilot abilities can help, too, but they come at the cost of character built points. This means that the Wasp you can afford could well have a targetting computer and you´re a marksman with lasers, but still, it´s a Wasp.
Keep Pilot Injured/Pilot Killed results in mind. You´ll find the edge trait, something that´s pretty usefull there.

Eras is a bit harder. It depends on the kind of game you want to play. Playing a free-roaming merc campaign, era doesn´t metter because the merc company is the unifying background. That´s easy, but also hinders the scope of the game.
OTOH, take the Jihad. One of the only eras when characters of different affiliations and background can cooperate against a common foe without the usual differences.

[Paul]

On the complex side, the AToW mechanics are a bit complex and dated by modern standards, meaning you´ve got to calculate in margins and often add percentile modifiers to get final results,

?
What percentile modifiers?

Paul

[Coldwyn]

?
What percentile modifiers?

Paul

On top of my head, melee and martial arts.

[Paul]

On top of my head, melee and martial arts.

How so? +1 damage for every +4 MOS, round normally? That requires calculators?

[Coldwyn]

How so? +1 damage for every +4 MOS, round normally? That requires calculators?

Take a look at p.180, Hardcover, the examples of melee damage, i.e. the katana example, shortened: 1M/2 weapon, STR 5, melee roll MoS 4 vs. defense roll MoF 2, ergo 2 plus 2 per rounded strength (note; equipement, new BA errata, cyber) [rounded] times 0,25 ... = 6 total.

[Paul]

Take a look at p.180, Hardcover, the examples of melee damage, i.e. the katana example, shortened: 1M/2 weapon, STR 5, melee roll MoS 4 vs. defense roll MoF 2, ergo 2 plus 2 per rounded strength

Yeah, how isn't it a piece of cake to figure out that STR / 4, round up = 2, if the starting value is 5?

(note; equipement, new BA errata, cyber) [rounded]

I don't know what that part means.

times 0,25

I think you're doing that wrong. You look at each component separately.
Base Damage + STR bonus + MOS/MOF adjustment.
Base Damage is just what the weapon indicates.
STR bonus  = STR/4, round up.
MOS or MOF adjustment is just Margin / 4, round up.

Paul

[Coldwyn]

@Paul:

Let´s be quick before we derail this thread even further:
I like BT because you can have simple rules packages. Weapon does X damage, X missiles hit at X locations, and so on.

When I take a AToW char beyond the sample chars, for example a cybered manei domini, it gets complex, as I have to take a look at his cyber, note if that cyber is use-specific (general vs. specific body part), check whether battlearmor or PA(L) rules could apply at that moment, make some rules decision, and then roll attacker/defender MoS/MoF.
I guess you, too, wouldn´t record the base stats of a character in every permutation, so you´ll have to recal them on the spot, which can be a bit tedious. I mean, honestly, two of the guys I used to game with suggested using gurps as an easier solution ...

[Paul]

Well, I'm rather surprised by your experience; it certainly doesn't match mine...

I'm not sure it was that off-topic though: the OP wanted to know how to convert from RPG to TW, so your observations are then entirely relevant (even if I don't agree. =) )

Paul

[RedCudgel]

Thanks for your responses so far guys,

From your debate, it sounds like its easier to run TW/TO and adapt these characters for AToW than the other way around. I guess it also comes down to the campaign and play particulars - I was thinking perhaps a small mercenary campaign where PCs could also run their own 'mechs, but I agree that this could cause problems when/if they get trashed!

Red

[Paul]

From your debate, it sounds like its easier to run TW/TO and adapt these characters for AToW than the other way around.

At the TW/TO level, you're only tracking 2 skills, with ATOW you track a lot more.

I guess it also comes down to the campaign and play particulars - I was thinking perhaps a small mercenary campaign where PCs could also run their own 'mechs, but I agree that this could cause problems when/if they get trashed!

Only if you don't make that a point of order up front. "Hey guys, just realize that you will die. And possibly not inside your 'Mech. Eitherway, you'll have to respawn."
If you set expectations, the only thing that'll go wrong is when you softball them all the time. ;)
Another important decision: do you let new PCs show up at roughly the level the deceased player was at, or at the starting level as punishment for dying? Either is legit, either can cause friction if you don't manage the issue well.
Same level: players who don't die feel as if the "newbies" get a free ride.
Starting level: can create a chasm of competence later in the campaign.

Whatever course you pick, be consistent, unless it becomes clear it was a horrible mistake. ;)

Paul

[Coldwyn]

Well, I'm rather surprised by your experience; it certainly doesn't match mine...

I'm not sure it was that off-topic though: the OP wanted to know how to convert from RPG to TW, so your observations are then entirely relevant (even if I don't agree. =) )

Paul

I´m not a native english speaker, still I´ll try to make this comprehensible.
BT/TW, as well as some other rpgs, is not using active defense, instead using situational mods, i.e. movement, LoS, etc.
AToW uses comparing results based on situational modifiers, allowing an active defence by the target, which adds an, in my opinion, unneeded layer of complexity.
To stay with catalyst products, compare Shadowrun with AToW. With Shadowrun, you calculate your modifiers, roll your attack, get your results. Then the target tries to soak the damage. Step 1, step2. With AToW, you calculate your modifiers, then roll attacker vs defender, check whether it´s MoS or MoF, compare those two, get results. It´s one step, but with more variables, so more prone to failures or missjudgements if something got overlooked.

Why is the defender involved? I´d wager that someone thought that player characters should have a fighting chance, too, instead of being killed by successfull attacks, but the reverse holds true when fighting multiple attackers.

Thanks for your responses so far guys,

From your debate, it sounds like its easier to run TW/TO and adapt these characters for AToW than the other way around. I guess it also comes down to the campaign and play particulars - I was thinking perhaps a small mercenary campaign where PCs could also run their own 'mechs, but I agree that this could cause problems when/if they get trashed!

Red

AToW offers quite a nice skill selection, which, combined with traits, will get you very good results if you incorporate them right. They also can be used to expand TW/SO/TO gameplay, meaning that the tech skills can be used with salvaging, good strategy checks give commander options, and so on.

Adding to Paul, this kind of gameplay really fosters cooperative gameplay, as no unit is expendable. If you manage to play OpFor without using metaknowledge, then the players will have the chance to excel.

[Paul]

I´m not a native english speaker, still I´ll try to make this comprehensible.

So far you're doing quite well, and I thought the problem was on my end. =)

allowing an active defence by the target, which adds an, in my opinion, unneeded layer of complexity.

Gotcha.
Well, one possible solution is to make the target's skill a negative modifier to your roll, which eliminates the defender's roll, while still making his competence (or lack thereof) a problem.
That'll make highly skilled opponents very difficult to defeat, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Why is the defender involved? I´d wager that someone thought that player characters should have a fighting chance, too, instead of being killed by successfull attacks, but the reverse holds true when fighting multiple attackers.

Correct, the philosophy was that there's an exchange in play, where a defender might perform exceptionally well or exceptionally poorly. It causes a more unpredictable situation.
But your objections to them are not invalid. If my above suggestion provides no relief, my advice would be to make any adjustments necessary to make melee interesting and easy for you and your group again.

Paul

[Coldwyn]

@Paul:

Spontaneously, I´d say: -4 (Bystander), -2 (Minion) 0 (Regular), 2 (Hardened/Elite), 4 (Master). Having your players know what that valeus mean, you could easily say "Those three guys are regular, that other guys is a DEST Master" and really speed up combat, as everyone knows how to interpret his own results.

@RedCudgel:

On another note, we´re using a modified warchest points system for our campaign, whereas we allow points to be spent for "reviving" mechs and characters. We compare nearest pilot values and then place the option to spent that ammount of points from the warchest to have that character or mech survive the battle.

[Paul]

Spontaneously, I´d say: -4 (Bystander), -2 (Minion) 0 (Regular), 2 (Hardened/Elite), 4 (Master). Having your players know what that valeus mean, you could easily say "Those three guys are regular, that other guys is a DEST Master" and really speed up combat, as everyone knows how to interpret his own results.

Not bad! If it helps you any, that simplification looks pretty good to me, and would be easy to use.
So, for a counterattack of a random minion, Martial Arts skill 4, what modifier would you give him and other NPCs when attacking the players?

[Acolyte]

It's funny, I've had no problems at all using the AToW for BT. All I did was switch the skills to the BT rolling system and we were gold. So, take the TN for the skill, subtract (or add if it's negative) any Link Attribute modifiers and then subtract the skill. Bingo, BT style rolling system. Rinse and repeat for all skills.

As to the damage, those things that can be calculated beforehand, are. If your character has a STR of 5, all the melee weapons are +2 damage. This doesn't change until you get above STR of 9, so it's fairly easy for generic NPC's, too.

Just my 2 c-bills.

   - Shane

[Coldwyn]

@Acolyte:

don´t get me wrong, Shane, the core mechanics are rock solid and get results, that not the problem. Reversing the values to fit TW ain´t a problem either.
Let me phrase it this way: Expectations and experience lead me to wanting for a system where I can do any kind of resolution pretty quick without having to resort to using exception-based design.
I agree with you when you´re saying that on an individual character basis, it´s quick to do the numbers and memorize them. OTOH, when you´re running quite different custom-built NSC, the work can get out of hand and that´s slowing down gameplay. AToW has unified mechanics, but. in my opinion, could use some streamlining to faciliate an even more unified gaming experience.

Just on top of my head: Do you know THAC0 tables, for example? Instead of see whether we get MoS or MoF on the Attacker/Defender side and calculate from there, it would be a bit easier to have both sides roll (+ mod) and look up a chart for the results. It´s not like we´re not doing a similar thing with missile tables right now.

Right now, a standard round is taking too much time, at least for me, time that can be spent elsewhere. That´s pretty much evident with traits.

[Afterthought] Thinkking about it some more, I´d say it´s a front loaded design, meaning that 95% of the work is geared towards character creation and only 5% to campaign play. 
@Paul:
I´m working on some NSC templates, that more or less have preconfigured rolls availlable. This´ll still take some time testing.

[Acolyte]

Ahh, I forgot to mention the NPC templates. I have a whole lot of "Thug" and "Expendable" NPC's that I can draw from with a fairly wide range of skill and/or challenge level. These speed up play a lot. As to the MOS/MOF I use a form of shorthand. Subtract the lowest from the highest, and that's your MOS. For the person with the higher MOS to begin with, it's positive, for the other, it's negative. Quite a bit faster that way. I also only have it come into play where actions can reasonably be opposed, ie HTH yes, gunshot no. For a gun you are just a target, hopefully for your sake a moving one. One cannot reasonably dodge a bullet without winning initiative.

On the other side, having the person in melee make the attack on their initiative (or two, if they're simple actions) and having the defender defend. If the attacker's MOS is negative, no hit. Makes things much simpler. Just the way we do things.

Never memorized the THACO 'cause I didn't like the system.

   - Shane

[Coldwyn]

Ahh, I forgot to mention the NPC templates. I have a whole lot of "Thug" and "Expendable" NPC's that I can draw from with a fairly wide range of skill and/or challenge level. These speed up play a lot. As to the MOS/MOF I use a form of shorthand. Subtract the lowest from the highest, and that's your MOS. For the person with the higher MOS to begin with, it's positive, for the other, it's negative. Quite a bit faster that way. I also only have it come into play where actions can reasonably be opposed, ie HTH yes, gunshot no. For a gun you are just a target, hopefully for your sake a moving one. One cannot reasonably dodge a bullet without winning initiative.

On the other side, having the person in melee make the attack on their initiative (or two, if they're simple actions) and having the defender defend. If the attacker's MOS is negative, no hit. Makes things much simpler. Just the way we do things.

Shane, you´ve got me a bit confused.
The stuff that you´re suggesting sounds quite a bit like the way I´m working on simplifying some AToW stuff because the basic solutions/rules can be quite slow and need to be sped up or simplyfied to have a better experience at the table. Why then are you disagreeing with me?

Never memorized the THACO 'cause I didn't like the system.

   - Shane

I´m just using them as an example because they´re pre-formulated outcomes, with simple x and y axis.
To use a simple example, imganine an Attacker vs Defender table, analog to our basic missile allocation table, stat out attack modes by weapons with fixed values (i.e. Burst Fire 10 = +6) and have a quick solution?

[Acolyte]

Shane, you´ve got me a bit confused.
The stuff that you´re suggesting sounds quite a bit like the way I´m working on simplifying some AToW stuff because the basic solutions/rules can be quite slow and need to be sped up or simplyfied to have a better experience at the table. Why then are you disagreeing with me?

Perhaps, then, I am not disagreeing with you? ;) From the basic rules, the only thing I have to check is whether the defender had a higher MOS than the attacker but both succeeded, in which case you have a double hit, other than that, higher MOS wins. Unless they both fail, of course. In the case of the double hit, the attacker has a negative MOS to reduce his damage.

You're not allowing a defence roll for firearms, are you? By the basic rules, you don't.

I´m just using them as an example because they're pre-formulated outcomes, with simple x and y axis.
To use a simple example, imganine an Attacker vs Defender table, analog to our basic missile allocation table, stat out attack modes by weapons with fixed values (i.e. Burst Fire 10 = +6) and have a quick solution?

Sure! If it helps your game and makes it faster and easier then go for it. But again, normally burst fire attacks, as are all ranged attacks, are treated as a simple skill check, no defender involved at all. In the case of a Burst Fire  MOS 10 = +10 damage if you fired 10 or more bullets.

For Melee, one could easily have a table with Attacker MOS/Defender MOS, one on the side one on the top with the results where they meet. Go for -10 (or 10 MOF) to +10 MOS for each and you should cover most situations.

   - Shane

[Acolyte]

@ coldwyn Have you seen the new errata for Melee combat in AToW? Pretty close to what you were saying, basically if the defender wins (higher MOS) they can call either "No Damage, I blocked" or "counterstrike, we both take damage". As a GM, it sounds like you'd limit it to the former for speeds sake. O0

   - Shane